Cedric Taylor v. Robin B. Taylor

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/4/11 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 , Alabama 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2100455 Cedric Taylor v. Robin B. T a y l o r Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-99-292.02) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Cedric Taylor appeals J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court proceeding. whether The o n l y the t r i a l from a judgment ("the t r i a l issue court court") entered i na postdivorce r a i s e d by C e d r i c erred by f a i l i n g by t h e on a p p e a l i s t o approve h i s 2100455 proposed statement of 1 0 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P. the We evidence made pursuant to Rule conclude that the sole issue r a i s e d i n C e d r i c ' s a p p e a l i s moot and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s t h e r e f o r e due On November t o be 10, affirmed. 2010, Judge Ralph Ferguson entered a j u d g m e n t r u l i n g on a l l p e n d i n g r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d by t h e p a r t i e s in c a s e no. DR-99-292.02. The judgment s t a t e d t h a t R o b i n T a y l o r had a p p e a r e d a t t r i a l p r o s e , t h a t C e d r i c h a d B. appeared a t t r i a l w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y , and t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was b a s e d on l e g a l e v i d e n c e and o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y . C e d r i c f i l e d a t i m e l y postjudgment motion c o u r t ' s judgment. challenging various of Judge F e r g u s o n d e n i e d C e d r i c ' s motion a f t e r conducting a hearing, notice parts o f a p p e a l on F e b r u a r y 9, and C e d r i c 2011. the trial postjudgment filed a timely Sometime a f t e r F e r g u s o n r u l e d on C e d r i c ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , Judge Judge Ferguson retired. On F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, C e d r i c f i l e d a motion to c e r t i f y a p r o p o s e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 10(d) the that trial court. motion Antonio, had Texas. Cedric's been m a i l e d motion indicated that to Robin a t an with a copy address in of San C e d r i c attached h i s proposed statement of the 2 2100455 evidence to h i s motion. P a l m e r , who retired, of F e b r u a r y 25, 2011, had been a s s i g n e d the case a f t e r Judge Judge Julie Ferguson e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g C e d r i c ' s m o t i o n b e c a u s e she had not been the t r i a l was On j u d g e who h e a r d t h e c a s e and, t h u s , i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r her t o approve C e d r i c ' s proposed statement the evidence. On M a r c h 3 1 , 2011, C e d r i c f i l e d , requesting that this court certify in this his court, a motion attached proposed s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 ( g ) , A l a . R. P. (providing the procedure a p p e a l ) , and t o d i r e c t f o r supplementing the record On A p r i l 1, 2011, a t t o r n e y f i l e d a n o t i c e of appearance i n t h i s Robin. On the same day, Cedric's motion, a l l e g i n g of C e d r i c ' s motion on the t r i a l court to i n c l u d e h i s proposed statement of the evidence i n the r e c o r d . of App. Robin filed c o u r t on b e h a l f an objection t h a t R o b i n had n o t r e c e i v e d to c e r t i f y the proposed an to notice statement of the e v i d e n c e and t h a t she h a d b e e n d e n i e d h e r r i g h t to object to Cedric's of the evidence. On the address 2011, proposed this applicability App. 2006), court statement asked parties o f Q u i c k v. B u r t o n , 960 by briefs. After 3 both So. to 2d 678 parties April 26, the (Ala. Civ. complied, this 2100455 court issued an trial court with o r d e r on May 11, 2011, that subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n reinvested the f o r 21 d a y s to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r R o b i n h a d b e e n p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h and had been g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b j e c t t o C e d r i c ' s p r o p o s e d R u l e 10(d) statement review of the of case the e v i d e n c e . On file, the trial June 1, 2011, after c o u r t e n t e r e d an a order f i n d i n g t h a t R o b i n had not been p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h C e d r i c ' s motion t o c e r t i f y the proposed statement of the evidence. trial c o u r t ordered the c l e r k of the t r i a l The court to resend a c o p y o f a l l p l e a d i n g s f i l e d on o r a f t e r F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, to R o b i n a t t h e same a d d r e s s i n San A n t o n i o t h a t C e d r i c ' s i n i t i a l F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, m o t i o n t o c e r t i f y t h e p r o p o s e d s t a t e m e n t o f the e v i d e n c e had been s e n t . Robin The trial to respond to C e d r i c ' s motion court further to c e r t i f y the ordered proposed s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e w i t h i n 20 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e order. On June 23, 2011, C e d r i c f i l e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n t o c e r t i f y a proposed statement of the evidence pursuant t o Rule 10(d). C e d r i c a l l e g e d t h a t R o b i n had n o t responded statement of the evidence w i t h i n to h i s proposed t h e t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by the t r i a l c o u r t . Thus, C e d r i c a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c e r t i f y t h e 4 2100455 proposed The trial 2011. statement of the evidence a t t a c h e d t o h i s motion. c o u r t s e t C e d r i c ' s m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g on J u l y On June 28, 2011, this court entered an 6, order r e i n v e s t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n t h r o u g h J u l y 27, 2011, to " s e t t l e court e n t e r e d an Cedric's motion the record." order to that certify On July required 7, 2011, Robin to h i s proposed e v i d e n c e on o r b e f o r e J u l y 25, 2011. the trial respond statement of On J u l y 24, 2011, to the Robin f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o C e d r i c ' s m o t i o n t o c e r t i f y t h e p r o p o s e d statement of the evidence. properly served with R o b i n s t a t e d t h a t she h a d n o t b e e n Cedric's Rule 10(d) motions and that C e d r i c ' s proposed statement of the evidence c o n t a i n e d e r r o r s , m i s s t a t e m e n t s , and o m i s s i o n s t h a t were c r i t i c a l t o t h e a p p e a l o f t h e j u d g m e n t . R o b i n f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t Judge P a l m e r could not approve the proposed statement of the e v i d e n c e because was not the t r i a l and that judge t h a t had h e a r d the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a b l e t o change o r add to the r e c o r d b e c a u s e he h a d f a i l e d t o h i r e a c o u r t r e p o r t e r . Cedric filed a Cedric she brief s h o u l d n o t be with the trial court on a d d r e s s i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d by R o b i n . the trial July On 26, J u l y 26, 2011, 2011, c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d e n y i n g C e d r i c ' s m o t i o n t o 5 2100455 c e r t i f y h i s proposed statement of the evidence. 2011, this schedule entered f o r Cedric's The his court entirety appeal a t t e m p t s t o have a R u l e from the t r i a l reasons, order brief fails appealed trial court i s related to appeal c o u r t , o r t h i s c o u r t , s h o u l d have a p p r o v e d have statement of the evidence, i s s u e s f o r our review. 1309, 1311 n.4 judgment. He a r g u e s t h a t , f o r v a r i o u s any p a r t T h u s , e v e n i f we should briefing c o u r t a f t e r he f i l e d a n o t i c e o f to challenge from. court's on a p p e a l proposed statement of the evidence. Cedric the 27, 10(d) statement of the evidence c o u r t ' s judgment. the t r i a l setting of the t r i a l of Cedric's approved by t h e t r i a l his an On J u l y However, on o f t h e judgment t h a t were t o c o n c l u d e approved appeal, h i s proposed C e d r i c has p r e s e n t e d he that the Rule 10(d) no s u b s t a n t i v e See G r e e n v. Wedowee Hosp., 584 So. 2d ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ("[A] p a r t y ' s failure t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n b r i e f t o an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s t a n t a m o u n t t o a w a i v e r of that issue on appeal and ... an appellate court will consider only those i s s u e s t h a t have b e e n p r o p e r l y d e l i n e a t e d and t h e r e c o r d f o r e r r o r s t h a t have n o t b e e n will not search r a i s e d before In his the a p p e l l a t e brief, Cedric court."). states 6 that " i f there is no 2100455 statement of the evidence t h e r e i s n o t h i n g [ f o r t h i s c o u r t ] t o review." Cedric's b r i e f , a t p. 22. However, a more a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w i s t h a t i f t h e r e i s no t r a n s c r i p t of the o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g and no s t a t e m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o Rule 10(d), " t h i s the trial court c o u r t must assume t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e was sufficient to G r i m e s v. G r i m e s , 601 So. 2d 1053, support 1054 ( c i t i n g Brown v. Brown, 513 So. 2d 617 However, t h e a b s e n c e o f a t r a n s c r i p t of the evidence court ( A l a . C i v . App. I n W i l l i a m s v. ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. o r a R u l e 10(d) does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y to review. i t s judgment." 1992) 1987)). statement leave nothing for t h i s Hobson, 5 So. 3d 630, 633 2 0 0 8 ) , we a d d r e s s e d t h e l e g a l a r g u m e n t s o f an a p p e l l a n t i n an a p p e a l i n w h i c h t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t i n c l u d e transcript of the ore tenus statement of the evidence. We proceedings when the transcript issues presented for a Rule 10(d) stated "that '[a]n appellant i s not r e q u i r e d to i n c l u d e the t r i a l appeal or transcript i s not review,' i n t h e r e c o r d on necessary such as when to decide the 574 C e d r i c has So. 2d 39, 41 f a i l e d to raise ( A l a . C i v . App. a single 7 1990)). the question p r e s e n t e d ' i s one o f l a w , n o t f a c t . ' " I d . ( q u o t i n g D o u g l a s s Allen, a v. Because argument i n h i s b r i e f on 2100455 appeal as t o why any p a r t of the trial court's judgment was made i n e r r o r , we cannot c o n c l u s i v e l y determine t h a t a Rule 10(d) of statement r e s o l u t i o n of h i s the evidence there judgment i n h i s b r i e f i s no necessary to the appeal. Without a substantive challenge court's was reason f o r t h i s on t o any p a r t o f t h e appeal from t h a t trial judgment, c o u r t to determine the p r o p r i e t y of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to approve C e d r i c ' s proposed Rule 10(d) the statement of the evidence. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t s i n g l e argument r a i s e d i n C e d r i c ' s thus, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due appeal i s moot, t o be and, affirmed. AFFIRMED. Pittman, J., concurs. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g s . 8

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.