Calvin Lamar v. Peyton A. Langford III (Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court: CV-08-900101) Affirmed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/29/11 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100416 C a l v i n Lamar v. Peyton A. Langford I I I Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-900101) BRYAN, J u d g e . AFFIRMED. See R u l e Cable, NO OPINION. 53(a)(1) I n c . v. Davis, a n d ( a ) ( 2 ) ( F ) , A l a . R. App. P.; G a l a x y 58 So. 3d 93, 99 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ; Reynolds v. C o l o n i a l Bank, 874 So. 2 d 497, 503 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; Clemons v . 2100416 State, 29 So. ArvinMeritor, App. 3d 181, 185 ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . v. H a n d l e y , 12 So. 3d 669, 693 2009); and (Ala. Civ. 2007). This court, c a s e was t r a n s f e r r e d to this court b y t h e supreme p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The appellant's "motion for a default judgment" i s denied. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s specially. 2 2100416 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. Although I concur t o a f f i r m the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, I w r i t e t o a d d r e s s my c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e remand order previously e n t e r e d by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t in a r e l a t e d a p p e a l and i t s r a m i f i c a t i o n s on t h e outcome o f C a l v i n Lamar's a p p e a l s . See Lamar v. L a n g f o r d (No. 1090252, J u l y 22, 2010). In 2008, Langford I I I , Lamar filed a complaint properties. Langford the boundary l i n e filed an s e e k i n g damages b a s e d on Lamar's Langford a s s e r t e d had between t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s . answer alleged between and a On "postjudgment" revised. A. July the boundary l i n e motions The t r i a l Lamar t o have at court issue, by filed set aside or c o u r t amended t h e j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 7, 2009, b u t i t s t i l l d i d n o t a d j u d i c a t e t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m . nevertheless f i l e d line filed and L a n g f o r d b o t h the judgment fence boundary On June 17, 2009, t h e t r i a l 16, 2009, two counterclaim t h a t judgment d i d not address the c o u n t e r c l a i m Langford. their removal of a formed the p r o p e r e n t e r e d a judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g but Peyton r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the Autauga C i r c u i t Court enter a judgment e s t a b l i s h i n g that against Lamar a n o t i c e o f appeal of the judgment t o our 3 2100416 supreme c o u r t on November Upon preliminary 9, 2009. review, that Langford's counterclaim t h e supreme court remained unadjudicated, supreme c o u r t remanded t h e a c t i o n t o t h e t r i a l remand o r d e r the discovered court. and t h e In i t s ("the remand o r d e r " ) , i s s u e d on J u l y 22, 2010, supreme c o u r t s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " I f you [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t ] e l e c t t o e n t e r t h e R u l e 5 4 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] o r d e r , o r any o t h e r f i n a l judgment, a supplemental r e c o r d reflecting s u c h a c t i o n s h o u l d be p r e p a r e d and f o r w a r d e d t o [ t ] h i s C o u r t w i t h i n f o u r t e e n (14) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e shown on t h i s remand o r d e r . The j u d g m e n t w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d f i n a l as o f t h e d a t e t h e new o r d e r i s entered. " F a i l u r e t o r e s p o n d w i t h i n f o u r t e e n (14) d a y s w i l l r e s u l t i n d i s m i s s a l o f t h e a p p e a l as b e i n g f r o m a non-final order." On remand, the t r i a l judgment i n f a v o r Langford submitted the on A u g u s t 11, 2010, e n t e r e d of Langford $1,116.75. to court, on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m , awarding The t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k then prepared supreme a court supplemental c o n t a i n i n g t h e new j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t 30, 2 0 1 0 . a and record 1 T h e remand o r d e r a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d be t r a n s m i t t e d , and, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , t h a t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t be e n t e r e d , no l a t e r t h a n A u g u s t 5, 2010 -- i . e . , t h e 1 4 t h day f o l l o w i n g t h e d a t e o f t h e remand o r d e r , J u l y 22, 2010. However, n e i t h e r p a r t y a s s e r t e d t h e u n t i m e l i n e s s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n s , and i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e supreme c o u r t 1 4 2100416 O r d i n a r i l y , a l i t i g a n t aggrieved by a f i n a l j u d g m e n t 30 d a y s i n w h i c h t o f i l e w i t h t h e t r i a l m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o c o r r e c t any judgment. See court a postjudgment alleged errors contained R u l e 59, A l a . R. has C i v . P. i n the However, b e c a u s e the l a n g u a g e o f t h e remand o r d e r i n t h e p r e s e n t case r e q u i r e d the trial on the court to submit the supreme c o u r t w i t h i n 14 opportunity to f i l e any judgment e n t e r e d d a y s , Lamar had remand t o only a very limited postjudgment motion. Lamar, i n f a c t , f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n r e g a r d i n g August 11, 2010, S e p t e m b e r 9, 2010, to judgment, accepted the but he did not do w e l l a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t had b e e n t h e supreme c o u r t . only 2 until submitted By t h a t t i m e , t h e supreme c o u r t had supplemental t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal so to t h i s record court. on See appeal, the but not had § 12-2-7(6), A l a . c h o s e t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s i t , d e s p i t e t h e u n t i m e l y e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t on remand and t h e u n t i m e l y t r a n s f e r o f t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d . L a m a r a l s o f i l e d a R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n to c o r r e c t e n t r i e s i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s case-action-summary sheet. On a p p e a l , Lamar makes no a r g u m e n t as t o any a l l e g e d e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n r e g a r d t o t h a t m o t i o n , so I do n o t a d d r e s s i t . See G a l a x y C a b l e , I n c . v. D a v i s , 58 So. 3d 93, 99 ( A l a . 2010) ( " F a i l u r e by an a p p e l l a n t t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n [ h i s ] b r i e f w a i v e s t h a t i s s u e and p r e c l u d e s i t f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n on a p p e a l . " ) . 2 5 2100416 Code 1975. T h i s c o u r t w o u l d have h e l d t h e a p p e a l i n a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f Lamar's p o s t j u d g m e n t motion had postjudgment m o t i o n been court jurisdiction of the appeal. However, b e c a u s e filed before this Rule 4(a)(5), had A l a . R. t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was that taken App. P. not f i l e d until a f t e r the s u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d had been s u b m i t t e d , t h i s court proceeded to decide the appeal, a f f i r m i n g the t r i a l judgment w i t h o u t an opinion. See Lamar v. 2090191, October 2010), So. 3d 2010) 1, Langford (No. (Ala. Civ. App. (table). The trial court s u b s e q u e n t l y p u r p o r t e d t o deny p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as moot b a s e d on t h i s c o u r t ' s of the p r i o r denial of consider appeal. his this jurisdiction his court's Lamar now postjudgment appeal disposition appeals from the p u r p o r t e d motion. because Lamar's the We cannot, trial over the postjudgment motion. p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on September however, court When Lamar 9, 2010, this lacked filed court, by v i r t u e o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s remand o r d e r i n the prior appeal and the transfer of that appeal, held e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n , thereby d e p r i v i n g the trial court of j u r i s d i c t i o n . See R e y n o l d s v. C o l o n i a l 6 Bank, 2100416 874 So. 2d 497, 503 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . decided in the appellate regained B e c a u s e t h e c a s e was jurisdiction. The e n d r e s u l t courts, of t h i s the procedural trial finally court never quagmire i s t h a t the s u b s t a n c e o f t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n Lamar f i l e d on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2010, h a s n e v e r b e e n c o n s i d e r e d o r any a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . by e i t h e r t h e t r i a l That r e s u l t court c o u l d have b e e n a v o i d e d i f Lamar h a d f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t a y e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e remand order with o u r supreme postjudgment Jackson, (Ala. See, so that e.g., he Jones could pursue h i s Express, [Ms. 1070066, S e p t e m b e r 24, 2010] 2010) sought motion. court I n c . v. So. 3d , (on remand f r o m t h e supreme c o u r t , t h e a p p e l l a n t to stay the pending appeal so t h a t could address the pending postjudgment the t r i a l motion, which had not b e e n a d d r e s s e d i n t h e supreme c o u r t ' s remand o r d e r ) . However, Lamar, a c t i n g p r o s e , d i d n o t s e e k a s t a y , and, as a the trial procedural order. court and this court were court bound to follow c o u r s e s e t i n m o t i o n by t h e supreme c o u r t ' s See Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 727 So. 2d 792, 794 result, the remand ( A l a . 1998) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 ( A l a . 1983), q u o t i n g i n t u r n 5 Am. J u r . 2d A p p e a l and E r r o r § 991 7 2100416 (1962)) comply ("'"It i s the duty of the t r i a l strictly with t h e mandate of c o u r t , on remand, t o the appellate court "'"). To a v o i d what I p e r c e i v e supreme court, and t h i s similar language, court t o modify account f o r postjudgment t o be an i n j u s t i c e , to the extent i t s standard practice. I urge the i t utilizes remand order to U n t i l such m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e made, h o p e f u l l y t h i s w r i t i n g w i l l a l e r t t h e members o f t h e Bar t o the p o t e n t i a l p i t f a l l s t h a t accompany s u c h 8 orders.

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.