K.M.G. v. B.A.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/10/2011 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, 2010-2011 2100060 K.M.G. v. B.A. Appeal from Baldwin J u v e n i l e Court (JU-08-348.01) MOORE, Judge. K.M.G. a p p e a l s f r o m a S e p t e m b e r 29, 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r , i n w h i c h the Baldwin J u v e n i l e Court vacate ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) p u r p o r t e d t o i t s p r e v i o u s o r d e r s a n d j u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d on a n d a f t e r 2100060 June 10, 2 0 1 0 , a n d t o s e t t h e m a t t e r dismiss f o r a new t r i a l . We the appeal. Background On April 22, 2008, K.M.G. filed j u v e n i l e court seeking a determination a petition with the as t o the p a t e r n i t y o f " t h e c h i l d , " whom K.M.G. i d e n t i f i e d as K.T.A., a n d an a w a r d o f custody o f t h e c h i l d t o K.M.G. date o f b i r t h B.A. K.M.G. i d e n t i f i e d t h e child's as A u g u s t 5, 2007, a n d he a l l e g e d t h a t he a n d ("the m o t h e r " ) had never married but that they had engaged i n a s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p around t h e presumed date o f the child's conception. K.M.G. further alleged mother had g i v e n b i r t h t o the c h i l d i n B a l d w i n she h a d s i n c e moved w i t h t h e c h i l d The that the County but that to California. m o t h e r was s e r v e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n , a n d h e r attorney appeared f o r the s o l e purpose o f q u a s h i n g s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s . Additionally, t h e mother, a c t i n g p r o se, notified 1 the court t h a t h e r s o n h a d b e e n b o r n i n Canada, a n d s h e s o u g h t t o have the a c t i o n p r o c e e d i n a c o u r t t h a t p r o p e r l y had j u r i s d i c t i o n , w h i c h , she a s s e r t e d , was a C a n a d i a n c o u r t . On J u l y 1, 2009, T h a t a t t o r n e y n o t i f i e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h a t he h a d been r e t a i n e d t o r e p r e s e n t the mother o n l y as t o t h e i s s u e o f service of process. 1 2 2100060 the j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g , appear. As a r e s u l t , a t w h i c h t h e mother d i d n o t the juvenile court entered a default j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t K.M.G. was t h e n a t u r a l a n d l e g a l father of t h e c h i l d and awarding him custody o f t h e c h i l d . On J u l y from 15, 2009, t h e mother t h e J u l y 6, 2009, judgment; t h i s a p p e a l c a s e no. 2080972. through Vacate counsel, Court's court's filed been b o r n other court of appeal assigned that A l s o on J u l y 15, 2009, t h e m o t h e r , i n the j u v e n i l e court J u l y 6, 2009, j u d g m e n t . was a l e g a l a notice O r d e r , " w h i c h was a d d r e s s e d the mother s u b m i t t e d she filed a "Motion t o to the juvenile I n support of that motion, a child-custody a f f i d a v i t a t t e s t i n g that resident of C a l i f o r n i a ; that i n Canada w h i l e t h e c h i l d had t h e m o t h e r was m a r r i e d t o someone t h a n K.M.G.; t h a t c e r t a i n s t a t e m e n t s made b y K.M.G. i n an a f f i d a v i t filed with the j u v e n i l e court were f a l s e ; and t h a t , i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , K.M.G. h a d i d e n t i f i e d t h e c h i l d b y an incorrect also name a n d an i n c o r r e c t d a t e o f b i r t h . submitted certificate The m o t h e r what s h e a s s e r t e d was a c o p y o f h e r m a r r i a g e to establish that s h e a n d , T.P.S., who was T h e m o t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s name i s B.T.S.-A. t h a t h i s d a t e o f b i r t h i s J u l y 2 1 , 2007. 2 and 2 3 2100060 deceased by the time o f t h a t f i l i n g , 23, 2006, i n t h e Dominican R e p u b l i c . case-action-summary sheet scheduled h a d b e e n m a r r i e d on June a hearing The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s i n d i c a t e s that the j u v e n i l e court on t h e m o t h e r ' s motion f o r January 7, 2010. On October 1, 2009, dismiss her pending appeal date, this t h e mother moved this i n c a s e no. 2080972. c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e mother's pending On J a n u a r y 7, 2 0 1 0 , a f t e r a hearing, court to On t h a t same appeal. the j u v e n i l e court e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g K.M.G.'s p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n b a s e d on K.M.G.'s l a c k o f s t a n d i n g ; t h u s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t the mother's motion t o vacate January vacate In t h e J u l y 6, 2009, j u d g m e n t . 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , K.M.G. t i m e l y moved to alter, t h a t judgment o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , that motion, he granted challenged On amend, o r f o r a new t r i a l . the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the c e r t i f i c a t e s u b m i t t e d b y t h e m o t h e r as p r o o f o f h e r m a r r i a g e . On May 12, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d order denying K.M.G.'s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . K.M.G. f i l e d a subsequent alter, amend, alternatively, or vacate a new t r i a l . postjudgment t h e May On May 27, 2 0 1 0 , motion, 12, t o enter a seeking t o 2010, o r d e r or, On June 10, 2 0 1 0 , t h e j u v e n i l e 4 2100060 court conducted motion a hearing and, a c c o r d i n g purported on K.M.G.'s s e c o n d postjudgment t o the case-action-summary sheet, t o g r a n t t h a t motion because t h e mother had f a i l e d to appear a t t h e h e a r i n g . On J u n e 24, 2010, on K.M.G.'s m o t i o n , t h e j u v e n i l e ordered the p a r t i e s t o submit t o p a t e r n i t y t e s t i n g . 29, 2010, K.M.G. moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o o r d e r court On J u n e the mother to submit t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g ; the j u v e n i l e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t m o t i o n on A u g u s t 11, 2010. 13, The j u v e n i l e c o u r t , on A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r e d t h a t t h e c h i l d n o t be removed f r o m B a l d w i n County pending f u r t h e r order of the court; that order also i n d i c a t e d t h a t p a t e r n i t y t e s t i n g was s c h e d u l e d f o r S e p t e m b e r 3, 2 0 1 0 . On A u g u s t 31, 2010, t h e mother f i l e d a "Motion t o V a c a t e C o u r t ' s O r d e r , " a s s e r t i n g t h a t she was no l o n g e r i n Alabama, t h a t s h e h a d b e e n unaware t h a t t h e l i t i g a t i o n h a d c o n t i n u e d , and that she c o u l d significant hardship n o t keep the c h i l d on h e r f a m i l y . i n Alabama without On S e p t e m b e r 10, 2010, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s s u e d a w r i t o f a r r e s t f o r t h e mother f o r her failure to present the c h i l d paternity testing. 5 f o r the court-ordered 2100060 On S e p t e m b e r 24, 2010, K.M.G. moved t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o h o l d t h e mother i n contempt and t o compel p a t e r n i t y t e s t i n g . On S e p t e m b e r 29, 2010, with t h e mother, certificate. summary motion 2010, new seeking According sheet, copy the child's to the juvenile court's t h e mother's t o vacate the j u v e n i l e court granted f o r November 2 3 , On O c t o b e r 13, 2010, court; juvenile of represented, 31, entered 2010, by the on S e p t e m b e r 29, t h a t motion and scheduled a 2010. K.M.G. f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o he i n d i c a t e d court's birth case-action- August a l l orders c o u r t on a n d a f t e r J u n e 10, 2 0 1 0 ; trial this a i t construed as a motion juvenile K.M.G. a t t e m p t e d t o engage i n d i s c o v e r y that September had granted he was a p p e a l i n g 29, 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r , t h e mother's from t h e which, August K.M.G. 31, 2010, postjudgment motion. Analysis On is questions not limited conclusions of subject-matter by t h e p a r t i e s ' o f t h e lower court. jurisdiction, this court arguments or by the l e g a l Rather, "'jurisdictional m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e a n d do s o e v e n e x mero motu.'" 6 S i n g l e t o n v . Graham, 2100060 716 So. 2d 224, 225 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( q u o t i n g W a l l a c e v . Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , quoting i n turn Nunn v. Baker, 1987)). "'"[S]ubject-matter mero motu."'" Civ. a n d may e v e n be r a i s e d b y a c o u r t ex M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1050 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n C . J . L . v . M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ) . appeal "[W]e a r e o b l i g a t e d t o d i s m i s s an i f , f o r a n y r e a s o n , [ s u b j e c t - m a t t e r ] j u r i s d i c t i o n does not e x i s t . " Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human R e s . , 999 So. 2d 895 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . In the mother's a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r 6, j u r i s d i c t i o n may be r a i s e d a t App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g S.B.U. v . D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452, 455 (Ala. 891, 2009, standing judgment July 2009, motion, be v a c a t e d the c h i l d ' s b e c a u s e K.M.G. paternity. Drive, See S t a t e 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 7 July lacked Thus, t h e t h e J u l y 6, 2009, j u d g m e n t were a d d r e s s e d t o t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r juvenile court. t h e mother things, that the j u v e n i l e court's should to challenge 15, mother's arguments i n h e r motion t o v a c a t e the (Ala. j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t be w a i v e d ; a court's lack of subject-matter any t i m e b y a n y p a r t y 518 So. 2d 7 1 1 , 712 v. P r o p e r t y ( A l a . 1999) j u r i s d i c t i o n of a t 2018 R a i n b o w ("When a party 2100060 without court s t a n d i n g p u r p o r t s t o commence an a c q u i r e s no C a s e y v. C a s e y , n.1 action, the subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ) . [Ms. 2090371, M a r c h 4, 2011] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) trial See also 3d , So. ( t r e a t i n g the husband's motion as h a v i n g b e e n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., r a t h e r t h a n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., b e c a u s e , i n that motion, the husband alleged that the trial court's j u d g m e n t was v o i d on d u e - p r o c e s s g r o u n d s ) ; and C u r r y v. C u r r y , 962 So. 2d 261, 263 motion seeking according title). 15, ( A l a . C i v . App. relief from to i t s substance Because 2009, a motion, we judgment and of the grounds 2007) not (recognizing that a must be construed i t s descriptive name o r a s s e r t e d i n the mother's construe that p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. motion C i v . P., as one July filed r a t h e r t h a n as a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 55 o r R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . In P. 3 i t s January 7, 2010, judgment, the juvenile court g r a n t e d t h e m o t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n and v a c a t e d t h e J u l y 6, A m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i s n o t s u b j e c t t o d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R.L. v. J.E.R. , [Ms. 2100050, M a r c h 25, 2011] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( c i t i n g R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P.; and Ex p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018, 1021 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . 3 8 2100060 2009, judgment, challenge finding that K.M.G. t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n i t y because lacked standing to t h e mother h a d been m a r r i e d t o a n o t h e r man a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h . Ala. Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 7 - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) See (presumption o f p a t e r n i t y a r i s e s when a man a n d t h e m o t h e r o f t h e c h i l d aremarried to each o t h e r a t t h e time o f t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h ) . See a l s o S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , trial the c o u r t cannot plaintiff lacks supra (recognizing that a acquire subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n when standing). On J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2010, K.M.G. t i m e l y filed a postjudgment m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e J a n u a r y 7, 2 0 1 0 , judgment; however, motion within Juvenile the juvenile t h e time Procedure. court d i d not rule allowed See R u l e by t h e Alabama 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. on t h a t Rules of J u v . P. ("A p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s deemed d e n i e d i f n o t r u l e d on w i t h i n 14 days of filing."). postjudgment Thus, K.M.G.'s Civ. 2 1 , 2010, m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d as o f F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 1 0 , and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n date. January o f t h e m a t t e r on t h a t S e e , e . g . , S.D.C. v . N.L., 864 So. 2 d 1089, 1091 (Ala. App. 2002) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t l o s e s a l l jurisdiction t o a c t on a p a r t y ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t 9 motion after 2100060 t h a t m o t i o n i s deemed d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w a n d t h a t a n y action taken by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t after that time is a jurisdiction, that court nullity). After the j u v e n i l e court lost c o u l d have a c t e d f u r t h e r on t h e p a t e r n i t y a n d c u s t o d y issues b a s e d o n l y on a p r o p e r l y f i l e d R u l e 60 m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u d g m e n t o r on t h e f i l i n g o f a new a c t i o n . invoke type the j u r i s d i c t i o n of action. mistakenly acted o f the j u v e n i l e court through Instead, as i f t h e o r i g i n a l motion. either t h e p a r t i e s and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a c t i o n remained b a s e d on t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s u n t i m e l y postjudgment K.M.G. d i d n o t Because pending g r a n t i n g o f K.M.G.'s the j u v e n i l e court had l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t K.M.G.'s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a l l o r d e r s and judgments e n t e r e d a f t e r January 528, 7, 2010, by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t are void. 532 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) court without jurisdiction See J.B. 2010, o r d e r ; however, order, judgment w i l l n o t s u p p o r t v . A.B., 888 So. 2 d i sa nullity."). was f i l e d that action ("An o r d e r e n t e r e d b y a t r i a l K.M.G.'s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l 29, i n this an a p p e a l , must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d a p p e a l 10 from t h e September i s void. "A void a n d 'an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t from such a v o i d judgment.'" 2100060 Colburn v. C o l b u r n , 14 So. 3d 176, 179 ( q u o t i n g Vann v. Cook, 2008)). Accordingly, instructions and 989 So. 2d 556, 559 we dismiss to the j u v e n i l e this APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Bryan, without appeal, albeit with a l l orders 7, 2010. INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , J . , concurs ( A l a . C i v . App. court that i t vacate judgments e n t e r e d a f t e r January Thompson, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) J . , concur. i n the judgment of d i s m i s s a l o n l y , writing. Thomas, J . , concurs i n the judgment o f d i s m i s s a l , d i s s e n t s from the r a t i o n a l e , with 11 writing. but 2100060 Thomas, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e j u d g m e n t d i s s e n t i n g from the r a t i o n a l e . I concur in the judgment of of d i s m i s s a l , but dismissal, r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t f r o m t h e r a t i o n a l e o f t h e main I would hold that the mother's July 15, 2009, but I opinion. postjudgment m o t i o n was a m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. Accordingly, I w o u l d h o l d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s J a n u a r y 7, 2010, purportedly order motion was void juvenile court's its for lack judgment jurisdiction judgment i n f a v o r o f K.M.G., t h e m o t h e r motion o f t h e d e f a u l t judgment, P., R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P.; 4 a l l the of entered filed i t s default a postjudgment t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t vacate i t s d e f a u l t A postjudgment timely f i l e d . that are v o i d . p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) must be entry and postjudgment f o l l o w i n g the e n t r y a f t e r the j u v e n i l e court motion, requesting judgment. of the mother's o r d e r s and j u d g m e n t s J u l y 6, 2009, Nine days granting filed filed in a juvenile within 14 d a y s court of the see R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . thus, the mother's motion was The j u v e n i l e c o u r t t h e n h a d 14 d a y s t o r u l e on T h e m o t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on t h e same day t h a t she f i l e d h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . When a p a r t y f i l e s a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l and a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on t h e same day, t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s deemed t o be h e l d i n a b e y a n c e 4 12 2100060 the mother's motion. See Rule 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. Juv. P. The j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n w i t h i n the 14-day was time limitation; deemed d e n i e d by the therefore, the mother's motion t h e o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on J u l y 29, 2009, and j u v e n i l e c o u r t l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e m o t i o n . See R u l e 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. Consequently, because P.; Rule 1(B), the j u v e n i l e Ala. court lacked R. Juv. P. jurisdiction o v e r t h e m o t h e r a f t e r J u l y 29, 2009, i t s o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g grant the mother's motion, along e n t e r e d o r d e r and j u d g m e n t , was v. COLSA C o r p . , (Ala. [Ms. void. 1091797, A p r i l 2011) ("[W]hen a t r i a l jurisdiction where with i t has none, disagree with mother's motion Civ. P., m o t i o n . subsequently See C i t y o f 8, 2011] Huntsville So. court purports to every e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o i s v o i d ab I every order and 3d , exercise judgment initio."). the main o p i n i o n ' s c o n c l u s i o n s h o u l d be to c o n s i d e r e d a Rule that the 60(b), A l a . R. A t i m e l y f i l e d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n c a n n o t be c o n v e r t e d i n t o a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n i n o r d e r to a v o i d the time l i m i t a t i o n s d u r i n g the pendency of the 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. App. P. o f R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. postjudgment 13 motion. Juv. See P. Rule 2100060 See Ex p a r t e Johnson, Rule motion 60(b) 715 So. 2d 783, 785-86 to set aside a ( A l a . 1998)("A judgment cannot be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a R u l e 59 m o t i o n s o as t o a v o i d t h e o p e r a t i o n of Rule 59.1."). 60(b). The m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n d i d not mention Rule The m o t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " v a c a t e " i t s judgment, language t h a t i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a motion f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) . See R.J.G. v . S.S.W., 42 So. 3d 747, 753 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a m o t i o n s t y l e d as a motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e was, i n s u b s t a n c e , a R u l e 55(c) motion t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t judgment). " P e r m i t t i n g a m o t i o n f i l e d u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) t o be s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n s t r u e d as a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) m o t i o n f o r the p u r p o s e o f a v o i d i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f R u l e 59.1 ( w h i c h was d e s i g n e d t o remedy t h e i n e q u i t i e s a r i s i n g from the f a i l u r e o f the t r i a l c o u r t t o d i s p o s e o f postjudgment motions f o r unduly long p e r i o d s ) , would run afoul of the intent of the Rules by s u b s t a n t i a l l y n u l l i f y i n g R u l e 59.1 a n d r e n d e r i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 59 u n c e r t a i n . " Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , 715 So. 2d a t 786. by o u r supreme c o u r t i n Ex p a r t e The same l o g i c Johnson to a applied postjudgment m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d s u b j e c t to t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s i n R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., a p p l i e s equally i n this case t o the mother's postjudgment motion, w h i c h was f i l e d a c c o r d i n g t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d 14 2100060 i s s u b j e c t t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s o f R u l e 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. Accordingly, jurisdiction I would hold that the juvenile d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e j u v e n i l e 2009, remains juvenile i n effect, Therefore, c o u r t on J u l y 6, and a l l t h e o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t a f t e r t h a t d a t e a r e n u l l a n d v o i d . See C i t y o f Huntsville, So. 3 d a t Furthermore, postjudgment i f this motion . court as a Rule reason why K.M.G.'s J a n u a r y should not receive motion, lost over the mother's postjudgment motion b e f o r e t h e d a t e on w h i c h i t p u r p o r t e d t o g r a n t t h e m o t i o n . the court K.M.G. similar alleged i s to treat 60(b) motion, t h e mother's then I s e e no 21, 2010, postjudgment treatment. that In h i s t h e mother motion postjudgment had submitted f r a u d u l e n t documents t o t h e c o u r t t o s u p p o r t h e r c l a i m that she h a d b e e n m a r r i e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h . The mother's had p u r p o r t e d m a r r i a g e i s key t o t h e argument t h a t she asserted Fraud i s a ground 60(b)(3). alter, i n her previously f o rr e l i e f filed that postjudgment i s available under Rule A l t h o u g h K.M.G. s t y l e d h i s m o t i o n a s a m o t i o n t o amend, o r v a c a t e -- l a n g u a g e t h a t R u l e 59 motion. i s consistent with as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n n o t e s , a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s 15 2100060 construed a c c o r d i n g to i t s substance, not i t s t i t l e . v. C u r r y , 962 So. 2d 261, 263 ( A l a . C i v . App. See C u r r y 2007). If this c o u r t t r e a t s t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h was within the t h a t sought P., t i m e a l l o w e d by relief available Rule 1 ( B ) , A l a . R. Juv. P., u n d e r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. filed and Civ. as a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o a v o i d t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s o f R u l e 1 ( B ) , t h e n K.M.G.'s p o s t j u d g m e n t w h i c h was motion, f i l e d w i t h i n t h e t i m e a l l o w e d by R u l e 1(B) and w h i c h a s s e r t e d a ground t h a t i s c o g n i z a b l e under Rule 60(b), s h o u l d also be treated as a Rule 60(b) l i m i t a t i o n s of Rule 1(B). 16 motion to avoid the time

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.