C.B. v. D.P.B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/24/2011 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 2100406 C.B. v. D.P.B. Appeal from Tuscaloosa J u v e n i l e Court (CS-91-5309.02) MOORE, J u d g e . C.B. ("the f a t h e r " ) Tuscaloosa J u v e n i l e Court i n i t i a t e d b y D.P.B. ordered the father appeals from a judgment of the ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) i n an a c t i o n ("the m o t h e r " ) t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o pay unpaid medical expenses and 2100406 postminority attorney's educational fees to the support f o r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d mother. We dismiss the and father's appeal. On S e p t e m b e r 17, 2009, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t h e j u v e n i l e court requesting postminority educational support f o r the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d ; that his failure t h e f a t h e r be h e l d t o pay m e d i c a l , i n contempt f o r d e n t a l , and o p t i c a l e x p e n s e s f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d ; and t h a t t h e f a t h e r be o r d e r e d t o p a y t h e mother's a t t o r n e y ' s fees. The f a t h e r f i l e d m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n on O c t o b e r 19, 2009. the j u v e n i l e court entered an o r d e r h a d r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t i n r e g a r d for the father's orthodontic to failure to an answer t o t h e On S e p t e m b e r 9, s t a t i n g that the p a r t i e s to the i s s u e pay past-due o f contempt medical e x p e n s e s and o r d e r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o p a y t h e mother within pursuant to that 60 days of the date of and $2,174.75 the hearing agreement. On S e p t e m b e r 20, 2010, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a motion to s e t a s i d e t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 9, 2010, o r d e r , that 2010, asserting t h e p a r t i e s h a d n o t r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g p a s t - d u e m e d i c a l and o r t h o d o n t i c expenses. The m o t h e r the filed a r e s p o n s e t o t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 21, 2010. 2 2100406 On December 29, 2010, judgment s e t t i n g aside juvenile court $4,612.75 also for his the j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s S e p t e m b e r 9, ordered portion the of father the to child's final order. 2010, a The pay the unpaid mother medical expenses, a l t h o u g h i t d e c l i n e d t o f i n d the f a t h e r i n contempt of court for his failure t o pay those medical expenses. j u v e n i l e c o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d the f a t h e r to "provide for 50% of t u i t i o n , room and for the undergraduate c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n with certain limitations, owed the mother board, fees, and $1,658.67 and his pay book expenses" of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d , i t determined that as and The portion of the father postminority e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d by t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d d u r i n g the fall the 2010 semester. f a t h e r t o pay On 2011. The F e b r u a r y 1, Before appeal, the j u v e n i l e court ordered $1,000 t o w a r d t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y ' s January motion; that Finally, 21, motion 2011, was the father purportedly filed a denied on fees. postjudgment January f a t h e r f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal to t h i s c o u r t on 2011. addressing the issues raised by the father we must f i r s t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r ' s n o t i c e a p p e a l was 24, timely filed. 3 on of 2100406 " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are o f s u c h s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may t a k e n o t i c e o f them ex mero motu. 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 ) ; Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 'The t i m e l y f i l i n g o f [ a ] n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t . ' Rudd v. Rudd, 467 So. 2d 964, 965 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a l s o P a r k e r v. P a r k e r , 946 So. 2d 480, 485 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ('an u n t i m e l y f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e s u l t s i n a lack of a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n , w h i c h c a n n o t be waived')." Kennedy v. M e r r i m a n , 963 So. 2d 86, 87-88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). "Actions concerning c h i l d support are g e n e r a l l y by t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e . " ex r e l . M.S.M., 34 So. 3d 1276, 1278 I n M.C. court v. L . J . H . , 868 So. 2d 465 governed H.J.T. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. State 2009). ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , held: " [ T h e ] R u l e 6 0 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] m o t i o n s were f i l e d i n t h e f a m i l y c o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y and d o c k e t e d w i t h a 'CS' number, w h i c h i n d i c a t e s a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t c h i l d - s u p p o r t m a t t e r . ... S t a t e ex r e l . P r o v i t t v. C o l e m a n , 821 So. 2d 1015, 1019 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s g o v e r n e d by t h e R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e i n s t e a d o f t h e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . C.D.W. v. S t a t e ex r e l . J.O.S., 852 So. 2d 159 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; R.H. v. J.H., 778 So. 2d 839 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . " 868 So. 2d a t 467. 4 this 2100406 Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., requires p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s i n a j u v e n i l e a c t i o n be days after the entry of p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was a judgment. filed on entered, Because J a n u a r y 21, t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n was the time f o r f i l i n g C o u n t y Dep't o f App. 2005). a notice Human Res., 937 days of the the [timely filed] d e n i a l of a State 4(a)(1), ex was the r e l . M.S.M., 34 Ala. R. App. P. j u v e n i l e court's untimely notice of filed. appeal was of the App. therefore, We, T.G. 524 v. toll Etowah (Ala. of the Civ. judgment postjudgment motion." So. 3d The at 1279. father See also his filed appeal not appellate shall timely notice the be dismissed to Rule of appeal i f the invoke the Rule 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . father's or entry father's filed court." dismiss the be H.J.T. more t h a n 14 d a y s a f t e r t h e judgment; t h u s , "An jurisdiction P. judgment and d i d n o t 523, date of e n t r y a p p e a l on F e b r u a r y 1, 2011, of 2d more t h a n 2010, See 14 father's "A n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n a j u v e n i l e a c t i o n must f i l e d w i t h i n 14 v. So. the 2011, untimely of appeal. all filed within 14 d a y s a f t e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s December 29, was that R. appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 5 Bryan, and Thomas, JJ.,

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.