Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Alvin Roberson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/25/2012 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 , 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, 2011-2012 2100938 Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l Relations v. Alvin Roberson Appeal from Monroe C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-103) PITTMAN, Judge. Alvin an adverse R o b e r s o n a p p e a l e d t o t h e Monroe d e c i s i o n b y t h e Alabama Circuit Department Relations ( " t h e D e p a r t m e n t " ) on h i s c l a i m benefits. F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l , Court from of Industrial f o r unemployment the c i r c u i t court entered 2100938 a judgment Roberson the i n favor filed Department November 18, of the Department on October a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n o n N o v e m b e r 9, responded 2010, the m o t i o n f o r F e b r u a r y 16, postjudgment to that circuit 2011 filed his favor of the Department). motion court one set a On challenging F e b r u a r y 28, 2010. 2010, and week l a t e r . On hearing ( t h e 99th day a f t e r motion 29, on the Roberson had judgment in the 2011, the circuit c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o g r a n t Roberson's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and t o enter a appealed new judgment to this court i n favor on A p r i l of 8, Roberson. The Department 2011. " R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t r e m a i n s p e n d i n g f o r 90 d a y s i s deemed d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , and t h e t r i a l court loses j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on t h a t m o t i o n . S e e , e . g . , E x p a r t e D a v i d s o n , 782 S o . 2 d 2 3 7 , 241 (Ala. 2000). '"There a r e o n l y two m e t h o d s l i s t e d i n R u l e 5 9 . 1 f o r e x t e n d i n g t h e 9 0 - d a y p e r i o d : (1) t h e e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o f a l l p a r t i e s t o an e x t e n s i o n o f the 90-day p e r i o d , [and] (2) the grant of an e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " ' D a v i d s o n , 782 S o . 2 d a t 241 ( q u o t i n g F a r m e r v . J a c k s o n , 553 So. 2d 550, 552 (Ala. 1989)). Neither of those methods t o e x t e n d time were i n v o k e d i n t h i s c a s e . Moreover, ' " t h e o p e r a t i o n o f R u l e 59.1 makes no d i s t i n c t i o n b a s e d upon whether t h e f a i l u r e t o r u l e a p p e a r s t o be ' i n a d v e r t e n t [ o r ] d e l i b e r a t e . ' " ' Ex p a r t e C h a m b l e e , 899 S o . 2 d 2 4 4 , 247 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e J o h n s o n L a n d C o . , 561 S o . 2 d 5 0 6 , 508 ( A l a . 1990), quoting in turn Howard v. M c M i l l i a n , 480 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 1 , 1252 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985))." 2 2100938 Smith v. In hearing Smith, 4 So. to present date f o r Roberson's had Rule a 59.1, the ( A l a . C i v . App. circuit postjudgment 90-day p e r i o d . A l a . R. C i v . P., held. Id. in his on C o r r e c t i o n a l Med. was motion setting d i d not February a 7, toll pursuant 2011, before court's February motion a Roberson's o p e r a t i o n of law, Thus, the c i r c u i t favor court's 2008) . In f a c t , order p u r p o r t i n g to g r a n t Roberson's judgment App. case, 1181 a l r e a d y been d e n i e d by t h e h e a r i n g was 2011, 1178, the the running of the motion 3d 28, and t o e n t e r nullity. So. S e r v s . , I n c . , 980 See Hurth v. 2d 429, 431 (Ala. Civ. appeal was not filed on which 2 0 07). Because within 42 the days Department's of Roberson's motion Rule February i t s appeal 59.1, notice was 7, denied by 2011, P. the o p e r a t i o n of i s u n t i m e l y and R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. A p p . of m u s t be appeal motion shall by be to dismissed. See motion law, from the date of denial as p r o v i d e d f o r i n R u l e 3 is of the Alabama then the time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e computed o p e r a t i o n of law p u r s u a n t ("If [ a ] post-judgment d e e m e d d e n i e d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 59.1 Rules of C i v i l Procedure, date of of such 59.1."). 2100938 The c i r c u i t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o v a c a t e i t s F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, order. A P P E A L D I S M I S S E D WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, Bryan, P.J., and concur. 4 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.