Joel L. Summers v. Cayce L. Summers

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/07/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2091175 J o e l L. Summers v. Cayce L. Summers Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (DR-07-576.01) PITTMAN, Joel judgment 60(b), Court Judge. L. Summers ("the f o r m e r of the Lauderdale Circuit A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n husband") Court forrelief d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m C a y c e L. Summers appeals denying from ("the f o r m e r from a h i s Rule a judgment wife"). 2091175 The former husband and t h e former w i f e were d i v o r c e d i n December 2008. judgment, Before the t r i a l i t conducted a trial court issued d u r i n g which i t s divorce both parties p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e . One o f t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s w i t n e s s e s ("the witness") husband testified that i n exchange testimony, he had had f o r drugs. the former sex with Countering the former the witness's husband p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e indicating t h a t t h e w i t n e s s had been p a i d t o t e s t i f y f a l s e l y a g a i n s t him. The former husband filed a motion to strike the witness's t e s t i m o n y , w h i c h was s u p p o r t e d b y a document t h a t , t h e f o r m e r husband a l l e g e d , witness, was a c o n t r a d i c t o r y but the t r i a l husband's motion. The court trial sworn s t a t e m e n t d i d not rule court entered on a of the the former judgment of d i v o r c e i n w h i c h i t awarded t h e former w i f e p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l custody of the p a r t i e s ' minor marital property. After motion, which witness had g i v e n p e r j u r e d was p a r t l y son and d i v i d e d t h e former based husband's the p a r t i e s ' postjudgment on h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y , was denied, and t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t . See Summers v. Summers, 58 So. 3 d 184 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . I n A p r i l 2010, we i s s u e d our opinion i n Summers i n which, 2 among other things, we 2091175 a f f i r m e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n h o l d i n g t h a t the testimony was admissible. 58 So. 3d at husband's subsequent a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s was o v e r r u l e d , and t h e r e a f t e r denied While witness the was witness his petition by our former The court for former rehearing f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i was supreme c o u r t . husband's appeal i n d i c t e d on p e r j u r y c h a r g e s ; pleaded 187. witness's guilty to having was pending, the i n M a r c h 2010, the committed first-degree p e r j u r y w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g d u r i n g the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e t r i a l . May in 2010, before this Summers, t h e court rendered a d e c i s i o n on f o r m e r h u s b a n d s o u g h t and t h i s c o u r t t o f i l e a R u l e 60(b) In rehearing obtained leave motion i n the t r i a l c o u r t ; of the former husband then f i l e d a R u l e 60(b) motion a s s e r t i n g that the witness's p l e a of g u i l t y to having committed f i r s t - d e g r e e perjury trial during evidence parties' pertinent court had said, should husband the issued the divorce judgment i n December 2008 t h a t , be considered requested S e p t e m b e r 2010, to divorce that the by the a hearing trial court 3 be trial held the constituted that former court. on the The trial husband former h i s motion. summarily denied the new In former 2091175 husband's motion. appealed to t h i s The former husband thereafter timely court. On a p p e a l , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s Rule 60(b) m o t i o n . He contends that the w i t n e s s ' s p e r j u r e d testimony "played a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the trial court's parties' decision to award physical of the m i n o r [ c h i l d ] t o t h e f o r m e r w i f e and i n i t s s e e m i n g l y disproportionate property division," evidence fact, custody tending to had been show false that the warranted and, thus, that the new witness's testimony, i n setting aside the divorce judgment. I n h i s b r i e f , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d r e l i e s h e a v i l y on v. G u n t e r , which we 911 held So. that 2d 704, the 710-11 trial ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t had erred p a r t y ' s R u l e 5 9, A l a . R. C i v . P., p o s t j u d g m e n t Gunter 2005), i n i n denying a motion without h o l d i n g a r e q u e s t e d h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n . A l t h o u g h i t i s t r u e that the movant i n Gunter asserted the e x i s t e n c e of newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o show t h a t t h e movant's o p p o n e n t had given trial, perjured testimony during the previous divorce t h e h u s b a n d i n G u n t e r h a d f i l e d a R u l e 59 m o t i o n ; decision i n Gunter was premised 4 on the express language our of 2091175 R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h requires a t r i a l court to h o l d a h e a r i n g on a R u l e 59 m o t i o n i f t h e movant h a s r e q u e s t e d such a h e a r i n g . There i s no s i m i l a r procedural requirement t h a t a h e a r i n g be h e l d on a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , e v e n i f one i s r e q u e s t e d b y t h e movant; i n d e e d , no s u c h h e a r i n g n e e d be h e l d if t h e motion i s clearly without W a l d r o n v . F i k e s , 378 So. 2d 1138, substance and frivolous. 1139 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979) . "'" The o n l y i s s u e we c o n s i d e r on an a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) motion i s whether, by denying the motion, the t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " ' Ex p a r t e P h i l l i p s , 900 So. 2d 412, 418 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g Wood v. Wade, 853 So. 2d 909, 912 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . T h e r e f o r e , an a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n '"'does n o t p r e s e n t f o r r e v i e w t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e judgment t h a t t h e movant s e e k s t o s e t a s i d e , b u t p r e s e n t s f o r r e v i e w o n l y t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e order from which t h e appeal i s taken.'"' P h i l l i p s , 900 So. 2d a t 419 ( q u o t i n g Wood v . Wade, 853 So. 2d a t 913, q u o t i n g i n t u r n , S a t t e r f i e l d v . W i n s t o n , I n d u s . , I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61, 63 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Thus [ i n a d d r e s s i n g t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e u s ] we must d e t e r m i n e o n l y w h e t h e r t h e trial court acted outside the l i m i t s of i t s discretion i n d e n y i n g t h e husband's R u l e 60(b) motion." Kovakas v. Kovakas, In Kovakas, 60(b) motion allegations mother 12 So. 3d 693, 701 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . we a d d r e s s e d a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a R u l e t h a t t h e f a t h e r i n t h a t c a s e h a d f i l e d b a s e d on that, during had not d i s c l o s e d the parties' divorce trial, t o t h e c o u r t an a l l e g e d 5 the romantic 2091175 relationship man; the t h a t she father was sought having Rule judgment a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y m o t h e r . We 60(b) sufficient F i r s t , we ground judgment" because, adulterous to bar the e r r e d i n not to even set aside i f the the parties' a l l e g a t i o n s of the an award of custody father's So. argument holding a hearing on to the 60(b) court divorce mother's 3d a t 702. that the who Second, with trial had motion, h i s R u l e 60(b) court we W a l d r o n , 378 So. Kovakas, 2d a t 1139) . We 12 So. concluded f a t h e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s d i d not warrant H e r e , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 60(b) evidence a hearing ' c l e a r l y i s without [ i s ] m e r e l y an a t t e m p t t o b u r d e n t h e c o u r t contentions.'" -- i . e . , evidence 6 of the not party t h a t , " [ e ] v e n when a h e a r i n g i s r e q u e s t e d , s u b s t a n c e and new the t h a t the motion f a i l e d to s t a t e n e e d n o t be h e l d i f t h e m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f the divorce s t a t e d t h a t "the t r i a l c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y . " K o v a k a s , 12 frivolous the from married r e l a t i o n s h i p were p r o v e n , " a c t s o f a d u l t e r y do [necessarily] concluded relief a of the p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d to c o u l d p r o p e r l y have c o n c l u d e d respect time w i t h a f f i r m e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the Rule m o t i o n f o r two r e a s o n s : any at the 3d at 702 with (quoting t h a t the nature of relief. m o t i o n was b a s e d on witness's perjury 2091175 c o n v i c t i o n -- i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the witness had given perjured testimony d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e t r i a l . We h a v e h e l d t h a t evidence that over cannot entered So. comes i n t o support a existence motion 1245 ( A l a . C i v . App. a m o t i o n was proper, evidentiary basis which the the child and of property was witness's the evidence indicating witness's testimony evidence was that the court allocated trial sole basis that f o r the the However, court have parties' there is believed the trial witness's no the testimony, court's decision to 3d the the than the witness's f o r m e r h u s b a n d has court believed testimony. conclusively that testimony that i t rendered a d e c i s i o n unfavorable f o r m e r h u s b a n d b a s e d on trial not have b a s e d demonstrated and only could a m p l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may conclusion, 900 d e c i s i o n i n Summers, 58 So. d e c i s i o n on e v i d e n c e o t h e r In judgment o r t o o k i t i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t a l l , much r u l e i n t h e manner i t d i d . Our its a is I n c . v. P i t t s , trial testimony. establishing the from trial 2 0 0 4 ) . F u r t h e r , even i f s u c h upon custody a t 189, relief the the former husband a s s e r t s t h a t the awarded alone, for after a f t e r t h a t t r i a l . Wal-Mart S t o r e s , 2d 1240, less only that testimony 7 so that the witness's relief to the would 2091175 have been mandated under R u l e have c o n c l u d e d indicating that, despite that the parties' divorce supported by trial. Therefore, former other Rule The trial existence testimony was of was court presented perjured, motion the sufficiently at the court p r o p e r l y concluded 60(b) could some e v i d e n c e nonetheless evidence the t r i a l husband's the witness's judgment the 60(b). failed to divorce that the state a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s t o s e t a s i d e the d i v o r c e judgment; moreover, k n o w i n g t h a t t h e m o t i o n c i t e d new witness had had been evidence, evidence i n d i c a t i n g that c o m m i t t e d p e r j u r y and rendered the t r i a l based on t h a t the other divorce independent judgment grounds c o u r t c o u l d have p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n was the and that a f r i v o l o u s attempt to burden t h e c o u r t and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , a h e a r i n g w o u l d be u n n e c e s s a r y . For the f o r e g o i n g reasons, trial we a f f i r m the d e c i s i o n of the court. AFFIRMED. B r y a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P.J., without and Moore, writings. 8 J., concur in the result,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.