Lisa Antoine v. Oxmoor Preservation/One, LLC; the Johnson Realty Company, Inc.; and Hager Company, Inc. (Appeal from Bessemer Circuit Court: CV-09-1259)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/20/2012 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, 2012 2100839 & 2110139 L i s a Antoine v. Oxmoor Preservation/One, LLC; the Johnson R e a l t y Company, Inc.; and Hager Company, Inc. Appeals from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-09-1259) THOMAS, J u d g e . L i s a A n t o i n e and h e r husband, R o n a l d Glenn, p u r c h a s e d L o t 35 i n t h e H i g h l a n d Manor a t Oxmoor L a n d i n g s u b d i v i s i o n " ) i n November 2007. Antoine s u b d i v i s i o n ("the and Glenn built a 2100839 a n d 2110139 house on L o t 35. After they built t h e house, Antoine and Glenn began e x p e r i e n c i n g problems w i t h f l o o d i n g i n t h e i r yard caused by t h e o v e r f l o w o f water f r o m n e i g h b o r i n g l o t s and w i t h an i n f l u x o f mud a n d s e d i m e n t t h a t o v e r f l o w e d f r o m n e i g h b o r i n g Lot 40. Oxmoor P r e s e r v a t i o n / O n e , of 36, 37, 38, and 39 Lots L L C ("Oxmoor"), i s t h e owner ("the Oxmoor lots") i n Oxmoor Landing. Johnson R e a l t y Company, I n c . ( " J o h n s o n " ) , was t h e developer o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a n d , a t one t i m e , owned L o t 4 0 . Hager Company, I n c . ("HCI"), was t h e e n g i n e e r i n g company u s e d by Johnson i n designing the subdivision. Antoine other and G l e n n s u e d Oxmoor, J o h n s o n , d e f e n d a n t s who were l a t e r alleging trespass to property, dismissed injury a n d HCI, among from to real the action, p r o p e r t y , and nuisance. Oxmoor c o u n t e r c l a i m e d , a s s e r t i n g a t r e s p a s s and a negligence claim against Antoine and G l e n n , allegation that portion of their resulted Antoine and l o t when trial they had built elevated h e r house, i n an o b s t r u c t i o n o f t h e n a t u r a l f l o w w a t e r s f r o m t h e Oxmoor l o t s . the Glenn based court entered f i n d i n g against Antoine After a t r i a l a detailed 2 the rear which had of surface i n December 2010, judgment a n d G l e n n on t h e i r upon i t s i n March 2011, claims f o r r e l i e f 2100839 and and 2110139 i n f a v o r o f Oxmoor on i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m s . judgment reads, The March 2011 in part: " 1 . [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ' s ] c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f a r e d e n i e d as t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e y have f a i l e d t o meet t h e i r b u r d e n t o r e a s o n a b l y s a t i s f y t h e C o u r t o f the t r u t h f u l n e s s of t h e i r c l a i m s . "2. Judgment i s e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f ... Oxmoor ... and HCI ... on t h e i r C o u n t e r c l a i m s and against [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] i n t h e amount o f $35,000.00 compensatory damages.[ ] 1 "3. [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] a r e p e r m a n e n t l y e n j o i n e d from o b s t r u c t i n g the f r e e f l o w o f s u r f a c e waters d r a i n i n g f r o m Oxmoor's u p p e r l a n d , b e i n g L o t s 36, 37, 38 and 39, o v e r [ t h e i r ] l a n d , b e i n g L o t 35, t o Oxmoor's l o w e r l a n d , b e i n g L o t 34, a l l s u c h l o t s b e i n g p a r t o f H i g h l a n d Manor a t Oxmoor L a n d i n g P h a s e One, S e c t o r One, Map Book 216, Page 13, i n t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, Bessemer Division. "4. [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] a r e o r d e r e d t o a b a t e the o b s t r u c t i o n f r o m s u c h d r a i n way b y c o n s t r u c t i n g and p e r m a n e n t l y m a i n t a i n i n g a d r a i n way (whether d i t c h o r o t h e r f a c i l i t y ) on L o t 35 a l o n g an a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r s e , and o f a s u f f i c i e n t s i z e and s t r u c t u r e , t o d r a i n a l l s u r f a c e w a t e r s t h a t may reasonably be e x p e c t e d t o d r a i n f r o m Oxmoor's u p p e r l a n d , and t o c o n d u c t them t h r o u g h L o t 35 t o L o t 34. Such w o r k s h a l l be p e r f o r m e d a c c o r d i n g t o s o u n d e n g i n e e r [ i n g ] p r i n c i p l e s and a t [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ' s ] e x p e n s e . "5. [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] and [Oxmoor and H C I ] a r e t o , within thirty days after this Order is We n o t e t h a t HCI a s s e r t e d no c o u n t e r c l a i m s against A n t o i n e and G l e n n . However, no p a r t y c h a l l e n g e s t h i s a s p e c t o f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. 1 3 2100839 and 2110139 n o n - a p p e a l a b l e t o a h i g h C o u r t , meet t o g e t h e r and [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] [ a r e ] t o s h a r e t h e i r p l a n s on how t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e mandates o f P a r a g r a p h 4 above r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e d r a i n way. S h o u l d [Oxmoor and H C I ] have o b j e c t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e same, the i s s u e o f how t h e d r a i n way i s t o be c o n s t r u c t e d s h a l l be s u b m i t t e d t o b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n b y a n e u t r a l t o be m u t u a l l y a g r e e d upon b y t h e p a r t i e s , and i f t h e r e be no a g r e e m e n t , s e l e c t i o n o f t h e arbitrator by the Court. The costs of such a r b i t r a t i o n s h a l l be b o r n e b y [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] . [Oxmoor and H C I ] s h a l l i n f o r m [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] i n w r i t i n g t h e d a t e t h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r t h i s O r d e r t o be non-appealable which i s g e n e r a l l y , but not always, the 4 3 r d d a y a f t e r t h e d a t e t h i s O r d e r i s e n t e r e d i f t h e r e a r e no p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n s f i l e d ; o r t h e 4 3 r d day a f t e r t h e d a t e any p o s t - t r i a l motions are denied. "6. The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e d r a i n way s h a l l be c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n f o u r months a f t e r t h e day t h e p a r t i e s meet and a g r e e on [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ' s ] p l a n o f a c t i o n i n a c c o r d w i t h p a r a g r a p h 5 above o r w i t h i n f o u r months a f t e r t h e a r b i t r a t o r i s s u e s h i s d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g how t h e d r a i n way i s t o be c o n s t r u c t e d . "7. S h o u l d [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] f a i l t o c o n s t r u c t t h e d r a i n way p u r s u a n t t h i s o r d e r w i t h i n t h e above s t a t e d p a r a m e t e r s and t i m e f r a m e , [Oxmoor and H C I ] s h a l l be a u t h o r i z e d t o e n t e r upon [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ' s ] p r o p e r t y and c o n s t r u c t t h e d r a i n way i n s u c h a way as t h e y deem t o be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h sound e n g i n e e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s . "8. S h o u l d [Oxmoor and H C I ] be r e q u i r e d t o b u i l d t h e d r a i n way t h e y s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o reimbursement f r o m [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] f o r a l l c o s t s r e l a t e d t o the same. S h o u l d [ A n t o i n e and G l e n n ] f a i l t o t i m e l y r e i m b u r s e [Oxmoor and HCI] f o r such expenses, [Oxmoor and H C I ] s h a l l h a v e a c c e s s t o a l l l e g a l means a v a i l a b l e t o a j u d g m e n t c r e d i t o r i n c l u d i n g b u t not l i m i t e d t o the e n t r y o f a monetary judgment 4 2100839 a n d 2110139 against [Antoine and contempt proceedings; appropriate l i e n . "9. C o s t s o f t h i s and G l e n n ] . G l e n n ] ; garnishment and t h e f i l i n g of action are taxed against [Antoine "10. Any r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f be deemed d e n i e d . " Both Antoine motions directed attached several evidence at t r i a l and to and any not granted herein Oxmoor the documents and March that HCI 2011 filed postjudgment judgment. had n o t been shall 2 Antoine introduced as t o h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ; Oxmoor a n d H C I s u c c e s s f u l l y moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s t r i k e t h o s e documents. A f t e r b o t h p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s were d e n i e d , A n t o i n e a n d G l e n n appealed to t h i s c o u r t . 2100839 3 The a p p e a l was a s s i g n e d c a s e number ("the n u i s a n c e a p p e a l " ) . A n t o i n e p u r p o r t e d t o s e e k p o s t j u d g m e n t r e v i e w on G l e n n ' s b e h a l f , as w e l l as on h e r own b e h a l f ; h o w e v e r , o n l y A n t o i n e signed the postjudgment motion. B e c a u s e A n t o i n e i s n o t an a t t o r n e y , she was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o r e p r e s e n t G l e n n ' s i n t e r e s t s i n c o u r t o r t o f i l e t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on h i s b e h a l f . B e a s l e y v. P o o l e , 63 So. 2d 647, 649-50 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . Oxmoor a n d H C I moved t o s t r i k e A n t o i n e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n s o f a r as A n t o i n e p u r p o r t e d t o a c t on G l e n n ' s b e h a l f , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y s t r u c k t h e m o t i o n i n s o f a r as i t was f i l e d on G l e n n ' s b e h a l f . 2 Oxmoor and H C I f i l e d since withdrawn. 3 a cross-appeal, 5 which they have 2100839 a n d 2110139 In July 2011, w h i l e the nuisance appeal was pending, A n t o i n e and Glenn sought l e a v e f r o m t h i s c o u r t t o f i l e 60(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n judgment. directed t o t h e M a r c h 2011 We g r a n t e d A n t o i n e a n d G l e n n l e a v e , a n d t h e y a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i n the t r i a l a Rule filed c o u r t on J u l y 14, 2 0 1 1 . We stayed the nuisance appeal pending the r e s o l u t i o n o f the Rule 60(b) action. On S e p t e m b e r 15, 2 0 1 1 , A n t o i n e f i l e d trial court a suggestion of death r e g a r d i n g Glenn. court denied the Rule Antoine 2011 appealed judgment 60(b) 60(b) m o t i o n t h a t judgment. was a s s i g n e d c a s e appeal"). 5 Upon on O c t o b e r 4 i nthe The t r i a l 21, 2011, and The a p p e a l o f t h e O c t o b e r number the request 2110139 of ("the R u l e the parties, we c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e n u i s a n c e a p p e a l and t h e R u l e 60(b) a p p e a l . Antoine l a t e r f i l e d a suggestion of death i n t h i s court in the nuisance appeal. B a s e d on s t a t e m e n t s made i n t h e h e a r i n g on t h e R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n , i t a p p e a r s t h a t no e s t a t e was o p e n e d f o r G l e n n . Because, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e statements made a t t h e R u l e 60(b) h e a r i n g , L o t 35 was owned j o i n t l y w i t h a r i g h t o f s u r v i v o r s h i p , A n t o i n e i s now t h e s o l e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y and thus i s t h e o n l y a p p e l l a n t i n t h e n u i s a n c e appeal. 4 Johnson f a i l e d t o appear o r p a r t i c i p a t e a t t r i a l . also f a i l e d to f i l e a b r i e f with t h i s court. 5 6 I t has 2100839 and 2110139 The The testimony leveled Lot had 35 at trial to b u i l d her redistributed dirt other areas of the h e r own Nuisance Appeal general established h o u s e and f r o m one lot. She Karl testified had t h a t , i n d o i n g so, she p o r t i o n of the l o t to f i l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had served c o n t r a c t o r when she b u i l t t h e h o u s e . in as She also must e n s u r e t h a t t h e w a t e r does n o t must n o t Antoine u n d e r s t o o d t h a t when b u i l d i n g a h o u s e one s a i d t h a t she one that obstruct Hager, a that, subdivisions. as He d r a i n i n t o t h e h o u s e and a natural drain land surveyor a land s a i d t h a t he way. and surveyor, had that the he president had of designed walked the HCI, several property that became t h e s u b d i v i s i o n and t h a t he had n e v e r n o t i c e d a w e t l a n d or swamp a r e a on the property. He noted that had seen no s i g n s o f s t a n d i n g w a t e r , o f w a t e r marks on t r e e s , o r o f damage to trees t h a t w o u l d have b e e n c a u s e d by standing water. He s t a t e d t h a t t h e t r e e s i n t h e a r e a were n o t t r e e s t h a t commonly i n h a b i t swampy o r w e t l a n d a r e a s , n o t i n g t h a t most o f t h e i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n were o a k s and h i c k o r i e s ; he a l s o commented t h a t he had not o b s e r v e d any "marshy" p l a n t s , l i k e 7 trees cattails. 2100839 a n d 2110139 According t o Hager, the ground was firm and i t "perked," i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s o i l was p e r m e a b l e . D u r i n g H a g e r ' s t e s t i m o n y , he d i s c u s s e d s e v e r a l maps. He s t a t e d t h a t a map made b y J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e area around incorrect. the lots i n question Hager a l s o testified o t h e r maps, i n c l u d i n g t h e U n i t e d United States Geological area i n question Hager comprised that, wetlands was b a s e d on h i s r e v i e w , S t a t e s Q u a d r a n g l e Map a n d t h e S u r v e y map, h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e was n o t a w e t l a n d . explained that a portion o f L o t 35 s e r v e d as a n a t u r a l d r a i n way f o r u p p e r l o t s i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n , i n c l u d i n g Lots 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, a n d 36. He testified: " W e l l , i t was a p p a r e n t t o me, e s p e c i a l l y when y o u s t a n d on l o t 34, w h i c h i s l o w e r t h a n t h e l o w e s t p o i n t I c o u l d f i n d on l o t 38, d o w n h i l l i s f r o m 38 t h r o u g h 35 t o 34, a n d i t ' s i n d i s p u t a b l e . I t c a n be v e r i f i e d b y me o r a n y b o d y . A n d when y o u s t a n d on 34 and t h e n l o o k b a c k up t o w a r d s 38, y o u a r e g o i n g t o see a hump t h a t h a s b e e n c r e a t e d i n Ms. A n t o i n e ' s backyard. Nice p r e t t y grass sod, but i t ' s d e f i n i t e l y b e e n r a i s e d 24 i n c h e s p l u s . " Hager also explained Ayers, a geotechnical measured that the elevation he h a d b e e n engineer hired on L o t 35 present b y Oxmoor a n d dug t e s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r L o t 35 h a d b e e n e l e v a t e d 8 when Jason and HCI, holes to by t h e a d d i t i o n o f 2100839 a n d 2110139 dirt or other fill material. that, According a t one p o i n t t o Hager, the t e s t holes revealed on L o t 35, a t l e a s t 32 inches o f t o p s o i l a n d o t h e r d i r t h a d b e e n added t o t h e l o t t o make i t l e v e l ; he n o t e d t h a t t h e t e s t h o l e s h a d i n c l u d e d some c o n s t r u c t i o n d e b r i s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , a t one t i m e , at which surface the construction level elevation higher debris o f t h e L o t 35. the natural water would d r a i n . was the natural H a g e r a l s o n o t e d t h a t h i s own t e s t i n g had r e v e a l e d than appeared the l e v e l that portions low p o i n t o f L o t 35 were on L o t 35 where surface B a s e d on t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , H a g e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t L o t 35 h a d b e e n e l e v a t e d b y u s e o f d i r t o r o t h e r f i l l a n d t h a t , as a r e s u l t , t h e n a t u r a l d r a i n way h a d b e e n w h i c h c a u s e d t h e p o n d i n g on t h e Oxmoor In trial her b r i e f court's on a p p e a l , March Antoine 2011 j u d g m e n t p u r p o s e s o f a p p e a l f o r two r e a s o n s . failure to specifically judgment prevents all mention obstructed, lots. questions i s a final whether the judgment f o r She f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e Johnson t h a t judgment from b e i n g i n t h e March 2011 f i n a l because not t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t a l l t h e p a r t i e s have b e e n adjudicated. See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; C a m p b e l l v. T a y l o r , 76 So. 3d 258, 261 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ("An o r d e r t h a t r e s o l v e s 9 claims 2100839 a n d 2110139 a g a i n s t fewer than a l l the defendants i s not a f i n a l that i s capable of supporting proper certification We d i s a g r e e . an a p p e a l i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a of f i n a l i t y pursuant t o Rule 54(b)."). The M a r c h 2011 j u d g m e n t s t a t e s t h a t "[Antoine and G l e n n ' s ] c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f a r e d e n i e d . " by the t r i a l court does not l i m i t Oxmoor a n d H C I ; t h e j u d g m e n t Glenn's claims f o r r e l i e f without The l a n g u a g e u s e d t h e March d i s p o s i n g o f A n t o i n e and Glenn's c l a i m s against judgment 2011 j u d g m e n t t o only those refers limitation. claims t o A n t o i n e and Thus, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e M a r c h 2011 j u d g m e n t i s n o t f i n a l b e c a u s e i t fails to Johnson. dispose of Antoine and Glenn's claims against 6 Antoine a l s o notes that paragraph 5 o f the t r i a l court's judgment c l e a r l y e n v i s i o n s c o n t i n u e d p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f h e r argument t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o address the c l a i m s a g a i n s t Johnson prevents t h e M a r c h 2011 j u d g m e n t f r o m b e i n g f i n a l , A n t o i n e makes a o n e p a r a g r a p h argument t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t e n t e r i n g a judgment a g a i n s t Johnson f o r i t s f a i l u r e t o appear or defend at t r i a l . A n t o i n e c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s a r g u m e n t , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s i t . R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P.; W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 ( A l a . 2008) ("Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s i n briefs contain discussions of facts and r e l e v a n t legal a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , the arguments a r e w a i v e d . " ) . 6 10 2100839 and 2110139 t y p e o f d r a i n way judgment. As terminative A n t o i n e and Antoine points decision by a which demonstrates there all matters cognizance Cotton Co., judgment that 331 has 2d However, need not d e c i d e competent jurisdiction litigants Jewell Jackson open i s s u e s i t is well of judgment i s a between the 623, A n t o i n e argues, i t i s not "[a] f i n a l the been a c o m p l e t e a d j u d i c a t i o n court." So. leaves out, court i n controversy of Glenn were t o b u i l d under 625 v. ( A l a . 1976) . t o be a final, settled decided at within the & Whitsitt Because a of later the time, terminative decision. that a judgment in equity a l l d e t a i l s of the m a t t e r s between the p a r t i e s t o be a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ; i n s t e a d , t h e j u d g m e n t i s f i n a l i f " ' i t a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s and the e q u i t i e s . ' " M c C u l l o c h v. R o b e r t s , So. 2d 425, 426 (1973) 287, 293, 142 So. M c C u l l o c h , the by the other 426 matters.'" (quoting the 514, 519 cause 225 (1932)). As of f i n a l i t y remains McCulloch, Carter, A l a . 303, ( q u o t i n g C a r t e r v. M i t c h e l l , determination fact that 290 290 Ala. 11 at 305, 225 276 Ala. explained in " ' i s not c o n t r o l l e d in fieri A l a . a t 305, 293, settles 142 So. i n respect to 276 at at So. 519). 2d As 2100839 and 2110139 f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d i n S e x t o n v. S e x t o n , 280 A l a . 479, So. 2d 531, 533 482, 195 (1967): " E q u i t y d e c r e e s may be p a r t l y f i n a l and p a r t l y interlocutory. A decree which ascertains and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s and s e t t l e s t h e e q u i t i e s i s a f i n a l decree, although i t provides f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s under the d i r e c t i o n of the c o u r t i n o r d e r t o make t h e f i n a l d e c r e e e f f e c t i v e , s u c h decree i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y and remains w i t h i n the c o n t r o l o f t h e c o u r t b e c a u s e as t o s u c h d e c r e e and f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e u n d e r the cause remains i n fieri." This rule survived the adoption of the Rules Heflin, 295 Ala. merger of C i v i l 286, 290, of law and Procedure. 328 So. 2d equity and M i l e s v. Bank o f 281, 284-85 ( a p p l y i n g the r u l e s e t out i n M c C u l l o c h t o determine judgment special i n which master the trial court the ordered (1976) that a to a in fact, a reference f o r c e r t a i n d e t e r m i n a t i o n s was, f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t an a p p e a l and d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f R u l e 53, A l a . R. C i v . P., and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m e r g e r o f l a w and e q u i t y d i d n o t p r e v e n t a p p l i c a t i o n o f long-recognized despite that equity judgments leaving other matters f o r l a t e r The before rule M a r c h 2011 the trespass trial judgment d e t e r m i n e d court: o n t o L o t 35, d i d Oxmoor and be final determination). t h e i s s u e s t h a t were HCI d i d a nuisance e x i s t , 12 may the cause who water to created i t , 2100839 a n d 2110139 a r e damages due, and who s h o u l d a b a t e t h e n u i s a n c e . The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Oxmoor a n d HCI were n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r causing water t o trespass determined that Antoine obstructing the flow o n t o L o t 35. The t r i a l and Glenn had c r e a t e d of surface water across Oxmoor was due damages f o r t h e n u i s a n c e , court also a nuisance L o t 35, by that and t h a t A n t o i n e and G l e n n s h o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b u i l d i n g a d r a i n way t o d r a i n the surface waters across L o t 35. Under t h e March judgment, t h e o n l y i s s u e l e f t f o r f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n exact the p l a n f o r t h e d r a i n way t o a b a t e t h e n u i s a n c e , trial court desired the p a r t i e s t o determine 2011 i s the a matter or, i f a g r e e m e n t was n o t p o s s i b l e , an a r b i t r a t o r t o d e c i d e . Thus, we conclude judgment capable that t h e March of supporting an 2011 j u d g m e n t i s a final appeal. We t u r n now t o A n t o i n e ' s arguments r e g a r d i n g o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 2011 j u d g m e n t . trial court surface-water her damages used an rights, incorrect legal the merits She a r g u e s t h a t t h e to evaluate t h a t i t e r r e d when i t f a i l e d t o award f o r nuisance, that standard i t erred when i t failed to a w a r d h e r damages f o r c o n t i n u i n g t r e s p a s s , a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t o r d e r e d h e r t o "make c o r r e c t i o n s " t o h e r 13 2100839 and property 2110139 and to allow water to flow f u r t h e r complains t h a t the t r i a l over her property. She c o u r t e r r e d by o r d e r i n g the p a r t i e s to a t t e n d b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n to determine the proper manner i n w h i c h t o b u i l d t h e d r a i n way. argues t h a t the t r i a l Finally, she c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on her postjudgment motion. Because i t i s the e a s i e s t of her arguments w i t h which t o dispense, we first c o u r t e r r e d by motion. Antoine motion. Our failure address Antoine's failing argument t h a t the to hold a hearing on h e r postjudgment d i d not request a h e a r i n g i n her postjudgment a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t to request a hearing G r e e n e v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376, v. 2d 1150, Strickland, Thus, t h e t r i a l We the law now So. 381 1152 Civ. P. ( A l a . 1989); F r e d e r i c k ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t c o m m i t t e d no e r r o r i n f a i l i n g on A n t o i n e ' s 1980) . to hold a postjudgment motion. turn to Antoine's s u b s t a n t i v e argument a p p l i c a b l e to surface-water t h a t the t r i a l to 386 the i n a postjudgment motion waives t h e r i g h t t o s u c h a h e a r i n g u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( g ) , A l a . R. hearing trial court improperly determine that Antoine had rights. a p p l i e d the o b s t r u c t e d the 14 concerning Antoine "civil argues law f l o w of rule" surface 2100839 a n d 2110139 w a t e r a n d t o t h u s c o n c l u d e t h a t s h e owed damages t o Oxmoor a n d t h a t she s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o c o n s t r u c t a d r a i n way t o d r a i n the s u r f a c e water. Under t h e " c i v i l l a w r u l e , " w h i c h g o v e r n s s u r f a c e w a t e r s on p r o p e r t y subservient i n rural areas, "land i s l e g a l l y t o t h e n a t u r a l flowage o f s u r f a c e water and t h e l o w e r l a n d o w n e r may n o t d i s r u p t t h e f l o w o f [ s u r f a c e ] w a t e r t o the upper Beatty, owner's detriment." City of Mountain 292 A l a . 398, 404, 295 So. 2d However, i n u r b a n o r d e v e l o p e d a r e a s , Brook 388, 392 v. (1974). t h e "common l a w r u l e , " a l s o known a s t h e "common enemy r u l e , " g o v e r n s t h e t r e a t m e n t of s u r f a c e water by p r o p e r t y owners. 295 So. 2d a t 392. water i s regarded Under B e a t t y , 292 A l a . a t 404, t h e "common l a w r u l e , " as a common enemy, a n d e v e r y the right, as a g e n e r a l rule, t o take for t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h i s own p r o p e r t y . " Oxmoor a n d HCI a r g u e t h a t A n t o i n e argument that the t r i a l court landowner has any measures necessary Id. has p r e s e n t e d applied "surface the legal the i n c o r r e c t rule r e g a r d i n g s u r f a c e water t o o l a t e because she d i d n o t r a i s e i t u n t i l she f i l e d the principle h e r R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . Oxmoor a n d HCI r e l y on of law p e r m i t t i n g , but not r e q u i r i n g , a court to consider a l e g a l argument r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t 15 trial time 2100839 a n d 2110139 in a postjudgment Aronov, 621 Acceptance, 1988). So. or Rule 60(b) m o t i o n . 2d 267 263, I n c . v. B l a l o c k , Thus, t h e y a r g u e , discretion i n failing ( A l a . 1993); Green Tree 525 So. 2d 1366, 1369 the t r i a l to See Diamond v . (Ala. c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s entertain Antoine's new legal argument. In fact, however, based on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d s i n t h e b o t h a c t i o n s , A n t o i n e n e v e r once made t h e a r g u m e n t t o t h e trial court "civil that t h e "common law r u l e " applied to this regarding case. 7 law r u l e " surface as opposed water should Instead, Antoine argued to the have been i n her Rule 60(b) m o t i o n t h a t , b e c a u s e h e r p r o p e r t y l i e s i n a s u b d i v i s i o n , the dispute governed cannot the surface water subdivision regulations. consider appeal. 1088 by regarding an a r g u m e n t a s s e r t e d An should have appellate f o r the f i r s t been court t i m e on S h i v e r v . B u t l e r C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 797 So. 2d 1086, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) raised at the t r i a l ("Even i f a p a r t i c u l a r issue i s l e v e l , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may r e v i e w t h a t Oxmoor a n d HCI, i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e t o A n t o i n e ' s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n , d i d d i s c u s s , i n g e n e r a l t e r m s , t h e "common l a w r u l e " and t h e " c i v i l l a w r u l e " r e g a r d i n g s u r f a c e w a t e r . The h e a r i n g on t h e R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n c o n t a i n s no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r u l e s governing surface water. 7 16 2100839 a n d 2110139 issue only on t h e t h e o r y on w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t was r e n d e r e d . " ) . assert her l e g a l i t was t r i e d a n d on w h i c h Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t A n t o i n e cannot now argument that should have a p p l i e d t h e "common l a w r u l e " the t r i a l regarding court surface w a t e r t o t h e d i s p u t e b e t w e e n h e r a n d Oxmoor a n d HCI. Antoine next determining continuing the argues that she was trespass that the trial not e n t i t l e d erred t o damages caused by t h e water Oxmoor l o t s e x t e n d i n g t o t h e b a c k court in f o r the f r o m t h e p o n d i n g on o f L o t 35. As Oxmoor and HCI p o i n t o u t , A n t o i n e ' s argument f a i l s b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l court determined that her a c t i o n s , and n o t t h e a c t i o n s of Oxmoor and HCI, c r e a t e d t h e p o n d i n g on t h e Oxmoor l o t s a n d t h e b a c k o f L o t 35. defendant." (Ala. Oxmoor " T r e s p a s s r e q u i r e s an i n t e n t i o n a l R u s s e l l Corp. 2001). That o r HCI v. S u l l i v a n , i s , Antoine "intentionally was ' t h i n g ' t o e n t e r " upon L o t 35. 2d 933, 934 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . 790 So. 2d 940, 945 required cause[d] some the t r i a l t o prove that 'substance' or Born v. Exxon Because a c t by t h e C o r p . , 388 So. court determined t h a t A n t o i n e ' s a c t i o n s had caused the ponding, i t n e c e s s a r i l y determined caused that the water neither Oxmoor t o encroach n o r HCI on L o t 35. 17 had intentionally Accordingly, the 2100839 and 2110139 trial d i d not for court e r r by trespass. further failing ponding. her t o award A n t o i n e damages 8 Antoine failing t o award her Antoine's trespass argues the damages f o r t h e trial court erred n u i s a n c e c a u s e d by by the n u i s a n c e argument s u f f e r s t h e same f a t e as argument. supreme c o u r t has that Regarding nuisance actions, our explained: "Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-120, has been liberally i n t e r p r e t e d to e f f e c t i t s b r o a d l y s t a t e d purpose ( p r o v i d i n g a remedy f o r ' a n y t h i n g t h a t w o r k s h u r t , inconvenience o r damage t o a n o t h e r ' ) . See M c C r a n e y v. C i t y o f L e e d s , 239 A l a . 143, 194 So. 151 (1940); and B a l d w i n v. M c C l e n d o n , 292 A l a . 43, 288 So. 2d 761 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . We a l s o a g r e e t h a t ' a n y t h i n g ' ( i . e . , a n u i s a n c e , p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e ) may c o n s i s t o f c o n d u c t t h a t i s i n t e n t i o n a l , u n i n t e n t i o n a l , or n e g l i g e n t . I n d e e d , i t may e v e n c o n s i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e c o n d u c t e d i n an o t h e r w i s e l a w f u l and c a r e f u l manner, as w e l l as c o n d u c t t h a t c o m b i n e s w i t h t h e c u l p a b l e act of another, so long as i t works hurt, inconvenience, o r damage t o t h e c o m p l a i n i n g party. R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s § 821B (1979). See, a l s o , A l a b a m a Power Co. v. S t r i n g f e l l o w , 228 A l a . 422, 153 So. 629 (1934). At Antoine damages 5-210. a cause consider 988 So. 8 t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f h e r argument on h e r t r e s p a s s c l a i m , s t a t e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n not awarding her f o r i n j u r y t o r e a l p r o p e r t y u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 6¬ A n t o i n e makes no argument c o n c e r n i n g t h e e l e m e n t s o f o f a c t i o n u n d e r § 6-5-210, and we t h e r e f o r e do n o t h e r " a r g u m e n t " f u r t h e r . R u l e 28; W h i t e Sands G r o u p , 2d a t 1058. 18 2100839 a n d 2110139 " T h i s does n o t mean, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s not r e q u i r e d t o prove against the defendant the elements o f l e g a l d u t y and c a u s a l r e l a t i o n between the conduct o r a c t i v i t y c o m p l a i n e d o f and t h e h u r t , i n c o n v e n i e n c e , o r damage s u e d f o r . T h a t w h i c h w o r k s hurt t o another, t o s a t i s f y the s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f a n u i s a n c e , must c o m p o r t w i t h t h e c l a s s i c a l t o r t c o n c e p t s o f d u t y and c a u s a t i o n . See L a u d e r d a l e C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n v. A l e x a n d e r , 269 A l a . 79, 110 So. 2d 911 (1959) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f n u i s a n c e i s d e c l a r a t o r y o f t h e common l a w a n d does n o t s u p e r s e d e t h e common l a w as t o t h e o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s constituting a n u i s a n c e u n d e r t h e common l a w ) . Thus, we must l o o k to the p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f each case t o determine whether the party charged with creating and m a i n t a i n i n g a n u i s a n c e has engaged i n a c o u r s e o f conduct, o r has p e r m i t t e d to exist a s e t of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h a t , i n i t s n a t u r a l and f o r e s e e a b l e consequences, proximately caused the hurt, i n c o n v e n i e n c e , o r damage c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t . " T i p l e r v . M c K e n z i e Tank L i n e s , 547 So. 2d 438, 440-41 ( A l a . 1989) trial (emphasis Antoine's The court determined that a c t i o n s c a u s e d t h e p o n d i n g on t h e Oxmoor l o t s a n d , necessarily, responsible err added). concluded that f o r the ponding. in failing Oxmoor and HCI Thus, t h e t r i a l t o a w a r d damages t o A n t o i n e were court not d i d not on h e r n u i s a n c e claim. Antoine's argument t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g h e r t o "make c o r r e c t i o n s " t o h e r p r o p e r t y a n d i n r e q u i r i n g h e r to allow water t o flow over her p r o p e r t y 19 i s based, i n l a r g e 2100839 a n d 2110139 part, on A n t o i n e ' s opposed to the argument "civil applies to the present that law r u l e " case. t h e "common l a w r u l e " governing surface c o u r t ' s judgment d r a i n way on h e r p r o p e r t y however, reverse ordering that Antoine construct a b a s e d on t h a t argument. Antoine, makes an a d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t i n s u p p o r t o f r e v e r s a l of t h e t r i a l her water B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t argument on a p p e a l , we c a n n o t the t r i a l as court's order t h a t she c o n s t r u c t a d r a i n way on property. A n t o i n e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t , even i f she c a u s e d t h e p o n d i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d o n l y award damages a n d was n o t p e r m i t t e d to award Oxmoor a n d HCI i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . She r e l i e s on K i n g v. Adams, 349 So. 2d 611, 615 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment o r d e r i n g an u p p e r l a n d o w n e r t o r e c o n s t r u c t and m a i n t a i n ponds on h i s p r o p e r t y t o prevent d r a i n a g e o f water onto the lower landowner's property. This requiring c o u r t b a s e d i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t an i n j u n c t i o n t h e u p p e r l a n d o w n e r t o r e s t o r e t h e s t a t u s quo was n o t l e g a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e i n K i n g on t h e r i g h t o f t h e " u p p e r l a n d o w n e r to ... i n t e r f e r e w i t h the flow of s u r f a c e water f o r the purpose of improving h i s or her property." 20 King, 349 So. 2d a t 615. As 2100839 and 2110139 n o t e d above, the way existed on trial Antoine's l o w e r l a n d o w n e r , and her l o t , so cannot King agree injunction court concluded that property, that she had is factually that King requiring that i . e . , that a l t e r e d the inapposite. stands for the the flow has affirmed of to allow property. 889 the flow of D e k l e v. Vann, 279 (1966). We therefore for surface Finally, court erred we by surface A l a . 153, affirm the the of addition, we In an water surface that be In f a c t , our supreme the on their property water 158, trial across 182 So. court's to in their 2d 885, judgment across her water. consider ordering Antoine's the a r b i t r a t i o n i f Oxmoor and HCI concerning was topography i n s o f a r as i t o r d e r s A n t o i n e t o c r e a t e a d r a i n way property drain a judgment r e q u i r i n g l o w e r landowners remove a p o r t i o n o f a w a l l c o n s t r u c t e d order she proposition r e s t o r e d i s n e v e r a p e r m i s s i b l e remedy. court a natural argument t h a t binding would not agree to her proposal of to trial attend construction parties the the drain way. " ' " [ A ] r b i t r a t i o n i s a m a t t e r o f c o n t r a c t and a p a r t y c a n n o t be r e q u i r e d t o s u b m i t t o a r b i t r a t i o n any d i s p u t e w h i c h he has a g r e e d so t o s u b m i t . " ' " C e n t r a l R e s e r v e L i f e I n s . Co. 21 v. not Fox, 2100839 a n d 2110139 869 So. 2d 1124, 1127 ( A l a . 2003) v. Communications Workers of America, 475 643, Warrior & G u l f N a v i g a t i o n Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ) . r e q u i r i n g Antoine erred Steelworkers U.S. quoting court United AT&T T e c h s . , I n c . (1986), contract i n turn (quoting to arbitrate 648 of America exists. i n r e q u i r i n g the p a r t i e s t o submit The v. No trial to binding arbitration. However, as Oxmoor a n d HCI p o i n t o u t , u n d e r R u l e 53, A l a . R. C i v . P., the t r i a l court i s permitted i s s u e s t o a s p e c i a l m a s t e r when t h o s e complicated See other certain issues are p a r t i c u l a r l y exceptional circumstances exist. Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s . Bd., 54 So. 3d 886, 892-93 (Ala. a o r when to refer 2010) ( s t a t i n g t h a t " t h o s e jury a r e t o be finding of 'some matters referred to a exceptional t o be t r i e d special master condition' without only upon requiring such r e f e r r a l , u n l e s s a c l a i m r e q u i r e s an a c c o u n t i n g o r a d i f f i c u l t computation o f damages"). Because i t i s apparent that the t r i a l c o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t i t w i l l n o t be a b l e t o d i s c e r n w h e t h e r any g i v e n p l a n sound e n g i n e e r i n g which i t was f o r the ordered principles ordered, we d r a i n way w o u l d meet or would serve conclude 22 that the purpose f o r the t r i a l court's 2100839 a n d 2110139 r e f e r r a l t o b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n was i n t e n d e d t o s e r v e t h e same p u r p o s e as a r e f e r e n c e t o a s p e c i a l m a s t e r , who w o u l d p o s s e s s the a b i l i t y to discern the f e a s i b i l i t y a l s o be a b l e d r a i n way. insofar remand o f p r o p o s e d p l a n s and to a i d the p a r t i e s i n designing appropriate A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as i t r e f e r s t h e p a r t i e s t o b i n d i n g t h e cause judgment an to to the t r i a l refer the court parties to a r b i t r a t i o n and f o r i t t o amend i t s a special master in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 53. The As noted directed 60(b)(1), judgment. above, t o t h e March R u l e 60(b) A p p e a l Antoine filed 2011 j u d g m e n t . a Rule 60(b) She r e l i e s ( 2 ) , (3) a n d (6) i n h e r m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f R u l e 60(b) r e a d s , motion on from t h e i n pertinent part: "On m o t i o n a n d upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , t h e c o u r t may r e l i e v e a party or a party's legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , o r proceeding f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: (1) m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t ; (2) n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h b y due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( b ) ; (3) f r a u d ( w h e t h e r heretofore denominated i n t r i n s i c or e x t r i n s i c ) , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y ; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) t h e j u d g m e n t has b e e n s a t i s f i e d , r e l e a s e d , o r d i s c h a r g e d , o r a p r i o r j u d g m e n t upon w h i c h i t i s b a s e d h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r 23 Rule 2100839 a n d 2110139 e q u i t a b l e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n ; o r (6) any o t h e r r e a s o n justifying r e l i e f from t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e judgment." In her motion, Antoine argued that discovered evidence and t h a t h e r f a i l u r e evidence was at trial excusable neglect. to mistake, subdivision t h a t Oxmoor's l o t s lots had to present newly certain inadvertence, Antoine presented evidence price paid for certain prove due she sold or regarding the after trial had not d e p r e c i a t e d i n v a l u e . to She a l s o p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e , w h i c h she h a d a l s o s u b m i t t e d w i t h h e r postjudgment motion, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the ponding surrounding t h e Oxmoor phenomenon. Antoine committed lots also was historic alleged i n the area and n o t a t h a t Oxmoor recent a n d HCI h a d i n t r i n s i c a n d e x t r i n s i c f r a u d when t h e y c l a i m e d t h a t a n a t u r a l d r a i n way e x i s t e d t h r o u g h L o t 35 when t h e c e r t i f i e d s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t d i d n o t denote a d r a i n a g e easement o r n a t u r a l drain way. She further challenged the topographic a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e b y Oxmoor a n d HCI b e c a u s e , they were either not p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d maps she a l l e g e d , or had f a i l e d to contain allegedly required information. A n t o i n e l a t e r supplemented that the t r i a l court r e l i e d h e r R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , on t h e i n c o r r e c t 24 arguing law i n t h a t i t 2100839 a n d 2110139 considered instead D e k l e v . Vann, 284 A l a . 142, 223 So. 2d 30 of the subdivision Antoine, should subdivision. and that surface-water that, according rights within to the She a l s o a r g u e d t h a t L o t 35 was t h e u p p e r l o t Oxmoor supporting lower govern regulations (1969), and the t r i a l l o t and t h a t HCI had court's failed conclusion to adduce that evidence L o t 35 was t h e she h a d r a i s e d i t s e l e v a t i o n . Further, A n t o i n e a r g u e d t h a t h e r e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e t r e e s i n t h e area are, This i n fact, evidence, t r e e s t h a t t y p i c a l l y grow i n swampy she h i s t o r i c a l l y a swamp. contended, Finally, p o n d i n g was m o s t l y c o n t a i n e d be responsible proved that the areas. area was she a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e t o t h e Oxmoor l o t s , Oxmoor f o r c o r r e c t i n g the condition should of i t s l o t s a l l e v i a t e t h e n u i s a n c e and t h e t r e s p a s s t o h e r p r o p e r t y to caused by t h e e n c r o a c h m e n t o f t h e w a t e r o n t o t h e b a c k p a r t o f L o t 35. Our is r e v i e w o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , i n most limited. consider We r e v i e w o n l y t h e r u l i n g that on t h e m o t i o n , a n d we o n l y whether the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n granting or denying the motion. 634 circumstances, Murphy v . G o l d e n P o u l t r y Co., So. 2d 1027, 1029 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . our review of the t r i a l court's 25 denial Antoine argues of her motion 2100839 a n d 2110139 s h o u l d be de novo. law brought She r e l i e s on t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t i s s u e s o f before a t r i a l c o u r t i n a Rule 60(b) motion a r e r e v i e w e d u n d e r a de novo s t a n d a r d , a n d she c i t e s i n s u p p o r t o f h e r argument N a t i o n w i d e Mutual 34 So. 3d 1238, 1241-42 ( A l a . 2009). Although Fire I n s u r a n c e Co. v. A u s t i n , i n A u s t i n o u r supreme court d i d u t i l i z e novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w when r e v i e w i n g t h e d e n i a l a de of a Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) motion a r g u i n g t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g judgment had been satisfied reads i n p a r t b y payments made Austin f a r too broadly. b y t h e movant, The t r i a l Antoine court's review of whether a judgment has been s a t i s f i e d i n p a r t , much l i k e t h e i s s u e whether a judgment i s v o i d i n a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) m o t i o n , i s purely legal. required "'a Nothing i n the issue discretionary appraisal addressed or weighing [ t r i a l ] court of the f a c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r case.'" So. 3d a t 1242 ( q u o t i n g I n r e M a r r i a g e 334, case, i n Austin by t h e A u s t i n , 34 of Barnes, 251 Mont. 336, 825 P.2d 2 0 1 , 203 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ) . However, i n t h e p r e s e n t t h e arguments whether she inadvertence, discovered failed i n Antoine's to present or excusable evidence to Rule 60(b) motion evidence due n e g l e c t ; whether present; 26 whether to concern mistake, she h a s certain newly maps in 2100839 and 2110139 e v i d e n c e were p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d ; committed natural fraud drain by way presenting crossed and w h e t h e r Oxmoor and evidence Lot 35. indicating Those HCI that issues, a unlike d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r payments p a r t i a l l y satisfied a do n o t p r e s e n t p u r e q u e s t i o n s o f l a w . In a d d i t i o n , although Antoine argued i n her motion t h a t the t r i a l judgment, court a p p l i e d the wrong l a w , an argument t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i s a p p r e h e n d e d law or m i s a p p l i e d i t to the f a c t s ground under for relief Rule the i s n o t e n c o m p a s s e d i n any 60(b). City of Birmingham v. C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d , 396 So. 2d 692, 695-96 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; Rhodes v. F u l m e r , 12 So. 3d 1239, charge[] that the c i r c u i t judgment ... either 1244 ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t made an e r r o r i s the type of c o n t e n t i o n i n a t i m e l y R u l e 59(e) from the judgment."). motion 2009) ("[A] of law i n i t s t h a t must be raised or i n a t i m e l y appeal A c c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l review the trial c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f A n t o i n e ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n u n d e r t h e a b u s e o f - d i s c r e t i o n standard. Antoine available argues first that at the time of t r i a l judgment but was mistake, inadvertence, "any or w i t h i n [not] p r e s e n t e d a t or excusable 27 evidence that which 30 d a y s time neglect," after was due which, was the to she 2100839 a n d 2110139 contends, cites entitles her to r e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(1). She no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of a pro se l i t i g a n t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l may f o r m a b a s i s for relief from a judgment under R u l e Antoine appeared p r o se a t t r i a l present evidence that trial does not give was rise judgment, and t h e t r i a l denying Antoine's 60(b) ( 1 ) . (Ala. 60(b). The f a c t and t h e r e f o r e available that failed to t o her a t the time of to a basis for relief from t h e c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n motion insofar as i t was based on Rule See Ex p a r t e B r a n s o n Mach., L L C , 78 So. 3d 950, 955 2011) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t a p r o se l i t i g a n t h a d f a i l e d to f i l e a l e t t e r intended t o s e r v e as an answer was n o t a 60(b) (1)) ; Ex p a r t e Spriggs 879 So. 2d 587, 591-92 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (holding basis Enters., that entry for relief failure of under Rule o f p r o se l i t i g a n t judgment discovery requests that she to apprise had the court previously was n o t a s u f f i c i e n t before responded to b a s i s f o r r e l i e f under R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) when p r o s e l i t i g a n t h a d n o t a p p r i s e d the court o f t h a t f a c t when o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l responses to discovery a discovery o r when t h e t r i a l sanction). 28 moved t o c o m p e l court dismissed t h e a c t i o n as 2100839 a n d 2110139 According t o A n t o i n e , s h e was also entitled f r o m t h e M a r c h 2011 j u d g m e n t on t h e b a s i s o f n e w l y evidence. to relief discovered She p r e s e n t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e t o t h e t r i a l court i n support of her r i g h t to relief from t h e March j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 60(b) ( 2 ) : t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t , neighboring property sold i n January 2011 deeds t o 2011 a n d June 2011, a document e n t i t l e d t h e " T r e e S t a n d D e s c r i p t i o n f o r Swamp A r e a Report" ("the T r e e R e p o r t " ) c r e a t e d on M a r c h 30, 2011, a n d t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Tax A s s e s s o r P a r c e l V i e w e r f o r Oxmoor ("the Parcel Viewer") created after tornadoes struck the area i n A p r i l 2 0 1 1 . A n t o i n e a d m i t s t h a t she m e n t i o n e d t h e s u b d i v i s i o n plat i n h e r t e s t i m o n y , a n d she p r e s e n t s no a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e plat, which c l e a r l y existed a t the time of t r i a l , have b e e n p r e s e n t e d as e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l . rel. to could not Moody v . S t a t e ex Payne, 344 So. 2d 160, 163 ( A l a . 1977) ( " [ F ] o r a l i t i g a n t obtain a new trial on the ground o f newly discovered e v i d e n c e , i t must a p p e a r t h a t h i s r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e b e f o r e trial w o u l d n o t have r e v e a l e d t h i s e v i d e n c e w h i c h he f a i l e d t o discover."). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e deeds, t h e Tree R e p o r t , and t h e P a r c e l V i e w e r a d m i t t e d l y came i n t o e x i s t e n c e a f t e r t h e t r i a l , and they are therefore "new" 29 and not "newly discovered" 2100839 a n d 2110139 e v i d e n c e ; as s u c h , t h e y do n o t e n t i t l e A n t o i n e t o r e l i e f Rule 60(b)(2). Rule Moody, 344 So. 2d a t 163 60(b)(2) relief f o r evidence existence after the t r i a l procedure would allow a l ltrials trial has simply properly denied j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d such life. a 'Newly Antoine's motion The t r i a l court for relief from o f newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence. A n t o i n e next argues have d e t e r m i n e d into i n e x i s t e n c e a t the time o f w h i c h t h e movant was u n a w a r e . " ) . therefore come because perpetual d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e ' means e v i d e n c e of ("There c a n be no which i s over under that the s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t , was n o t n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , which we f a i l s to i n d i c a t e t h a t a d r a i n a g e e a s e m e n t o r n a t u r a l d r a i n way e x i s t s on L o t 35. She c o n t e n d s that the subdivision p l a t i srequired by l a w t o n o t e d r a i n a g e e a s e m e n t s a n d "any p o r t i o n o f t h e l a n d of t h e p r o p o s e d s u b d i v i s i o n ... s u b j e c t t o i n u n d a t i o n b y s t o r m sewers or overflow or ponding of According to Antoine, the f a i l u r e contain the conclusion presented allegedly that Oxmoor testimony and e v i d e n c e storm water." of the subdivision p l a t to required a n d HCI local notations committed that supports the f r a u d when they a natural drain way e x i s t e d on L o t 35 b e f o r e A n t o i n e l e v e l e d t h e l o t t o b u i l d h e r 30 2100839 a n d 2110139 house. Even i f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y t h e d r a i n way on A n t o i n e ' s denied Antoine trial court property, the t r i a l court properly r e l i e f f r o m t h e M a r c h 2011 j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e was f r e e t o d e c l i n e t o r e l y on t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t b e c a u s e t h e p l a t was n o t n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . Harbor, note LLC v. U n i t e d Bank, 53 So. 3d 82, 94 Bon ( A l a . 2010) (stating that t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n d e c l i n i n g to consider a m o t i o n b a s e d on a l l e g e d n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e when t r i a l court c o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was n o t n e w l y discovered the a n d t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d ) . subdivision plat support her fraudulent argument testimony Accordingly, that Antoine Oxmoor and e v i d e n c e the t r i a l denying Antoine's this as e v i d e n c e , and Without had n o t h i n g HCI concerning had to presented t h e d r a i n way. c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i n s o f a r as i t was b a s e d on ground. F i n a l l y , Antoine topographic failed maps t o comply a r g u e d i n h e r R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n t h a t t h e entered evidence i n several respects P r a c t i c e f o r Surveying standards"). into by with Oxmoor a n d HCI the Standards of i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a ("the s u r v e y i n g B a s e d on t h i s allegation, 31 Antoine argues that 2100839 and 2110139 Oxmoor and HCI t h a t she presented f r a u d u l e n t evidence to the c o u r t i s thus e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f under Rule and 60(b)(3). "One who c o n t e n d s t h a t an a d v e r s e p a r t y has obtained a v e r d i c t through fraud, misrepresentation, o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t ( R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) ) must p r o v e by ' c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e (1) t h a t t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y e n g a g e d i n f r a u d o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t and (2) t h a t t h i s misconduct p r e v e n t e d the moving p a r t y from f u l l y and f a i r l y p r e s e n t i n g h i s case. [Citation omitted.] The r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e s e two i s s u e s i s w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n , and on r e v i e w , our o n l y i n q u i r y i s whether the t r i a l c o u r t abused its discretion.'" P a c i f i c o v. J a c k s o n , Montgomery v. H a l l , 562 592 So. F.2d 2d 174, 278, 179 279 P a c i f i c o c o u r t r e l i e d on t h e r e a s o n i n g ( A l a . 1990) (5th C i r . 1979)). The for requiring clear and c o n v i n c i n g evidence i n such s i t u a t i o n s expressed S t a t e s Supreme (quoting by t h e United Court: "'That the m i s c h i e f of r e t r y i n g every case i n w h i c h the judgment or d e c r e e r e n d e r e d on false testimony, given by perjured witnesses, or on c o n t r a c t s o r documents whose g e n u i n e n e s s o r v a l i d i t y was i n i s s u e , and w h i c h a r e a f t e r w a r d s a s c e r t a i n e d t o be f o r g e d o r f r a u d u l e n t , w o u l d be g r e a t e r , by r e a s o n o f t h e e n d l e s s n a t u r e o f t h e s t r i f e , t h a n any compensation arising from doing justice in i n d i v i d u a l cases.'" U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T h r o c k m o r t o n , 98 U.S. also Pacifico, 562 So. 2d a t 179. 32 61, 68-69 (1878); see 2100839 a n d 2110139 Assuming topographic violate the under Rule or 60(b)(3) trial maps e n t e r e d court discretion fraud the surveying into abused 60(b)(3). whether such Pacifico, c o u r t must have c o n c l u d e d , to the maps we a r e n o t c o n v i n c e d that i n denying The t r i a l misconduct" i s warranted. 9 apply and t h a t those i t s discretion i n determining other standards evidence the surveying standards, trial relief that Antoine c o u r t i s g i v e n much a party that h a s "engaged i n relief under 562 So. 2d a t 179. a n d we c a n n o t Rule The disagree, that A n t o i n e d i d n o t c l e a r l y a n d c o n v i n c i n g l y p r o v e t h a t Oxmoor a n d HCI "engaged i n f r a u d o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t " t o p o g r a p h i c maps i n t o e v i d e n c e . the trial motion court erred by i n t r o d u c i n g t h e Thus, we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t i n denying Antoine's i n s o f a r as i t was b a s e d on t h i s Rule 60(b)(3) ground. We q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t o p o g r a p h i c maps c r e a t e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s G e o l o g i c a l Survey o r another f e d e r a l agency w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o meet t h e s u r v e y i n g s t a n d a r d s u s e d i n A l a b a m a f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , b o u n d a r y - l i n e surveys. B e c a u s e i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r us t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e s u r v e y i n g s t a n d a r d s a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e t o p o g r a p h i c maps i n e v i d e n c e i n o r d e r t o r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e on a p p e a l , we w i l l s i m p l y assume t h a t t h e y a r e a p p l i c a b l e f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s opinion. 9 33 2100839 a n d 2110139 Conclusion We have determined that the t r i a l court erred in r e f e r r i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n i n t h e M a r c h 2011 judgment, and, t h e r e f o r e , that judgment i s reversed and t h e c a u s e i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t amend the March 2011 j u d g m e n t m a s t e r u n d e r R u l e 53. to r e f e r the p a r t i e s to a s p e c i a l In a l l other judgment i s affirmed. Antoine's R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i s a l s o 2100839 -- AFFIRMED respects, The O c t o b e r IN PART; t h e M a r c h 2011 2011 j u d g m e n t denying affirmed. REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2110139 -- AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , concur. Bryan, J . ,concurs i n the r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g . 34 AND

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.