Dee Levon Haynes v. Linda Lee Haynes

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 formal 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 , 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 2101036 Dee Lavon Haynes v. Linda Lee Haynes Appeal from Cullman C i r c u i t (DR-07-730.01) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Dee judgment L a v o n Haynes entered ("the f o r m e r husband") a p p e a l s on June 22, 2 0 1 1 , b y t h e C u l l m a n Court i n a postdivorce proceeding from a Circuit f i n d i n g t h e former husband i n c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t b a s e d upon h i s n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g h i m f r o m L i n d a L e e Haynes ("the former w i f e " ) . Because t h e former w i f e d i d n o t p r o p e r l y 2101036 i n v o k e the t r i a l c o u r t ' s contempt j u r i s d i c t i o n , appeal as b e i n g The was we d i s m i s s the from a v o i d judgment. r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t a judgment d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n J a n u a r y 2010. Although a copy of t h a t judgment does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d , t h e p a r t i e s ' f i l i n g s r e v e a l t h a t t h a t judgment c o n t a i n e d former husband to provide medical w i f e and t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e was p r o v i s i o n s r e q u i r i n g the insurance f o r the former t o r e c e i v e t h e f i r s t $40,000 of net proceeds from a j u d i c i a l l y ordered s a l e of the former m a r i t a l home. I n A u g u s t 2010, the former w i f e , a c t i n g pro se, sent l e t t e r t o the t r i a l c o u r t a v e r r i n g t h a t the former husband failed to comply requirement, appointed with t h a t he had the failed and by that property. a m o r t g a g e on to cooperate w i t h the t h a t he h a d d e f a u l t e d on a n o t e The trial he should hearing, court at which entered that, although the property not a be found both in contempt. p a r t i e s appeared court secured issued judgment on November 30, the former husband had to be foreclosed 2 After pro the he had a trial determining a l l o w e d the mortgage upon, an hearing holding se, 2010, court- the former o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o show c a u s e a t a why had medical-insurance-provision r e a l - e s t a t e a g e n t t h a t had b e e n m a r k e t i n g marital property, a not done on so 2101036 contemptuously; the trial c o u r t awarded the former wife $40,000 money j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d , b u t that c o u r t o t h e r w i s e d e n i e d a l l r e l i e f s o u g h t by t h e f o r m e r The a wife. f o r m e r w i f e s e n t a l e t t e r on December 9, 2010, r e q u e s t i n g that the trial c o u r t amend i t s judgment to set a payment d e a d l i n e as t o t h e $40,000 j u d g m e n t ; t h e t r i a l court entered o r d e r s on December 13, 2010, the 2010, and December 14, denying r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f and s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e m i g h t wish t o seek judgment. No t h e a d v i c e o f c o u n s e l as appeal November 30, 2010, was taken by to c o l l e c t i o n either her from party of the judgment. On M a r c h 22, 2011, t h e f o r m e r w i f e s e n t a n o t h e r l e t t e r the trial to satisfy c o u r t , a v e r r i n g t h a t the former husband had the o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y $40,000 u n d e r to failed t h e November 30, 2010, j u d g m e n t and " r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e [ d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t ] again be amended to award [the former wife] half (or $40,000.00) o f [ t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s ] r e t i r e m e n t [ b e n e f i t s ] from" h i s former employer wife admitted i n her divorce proceeding). (a f o r m o f r e l i e f t h a t , t h e letter, The had not been sought former in the r e c o r d does n o t , however, indicate t h a t , a t o r b e f o r e t h e t i m e t h a t she r e q u e s t e d t h a t judgment m o d i f i c a t i o n i n the t r i a l applicable docket fee c o u r t , t h e former w i f e had p a i d the or filed 3 a verified statement of 2101036 substantial hardship that would authorize w i t h o u t payment o f t h a t f e e . As t h i s Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 558-59 her to proceed c o u r t s t a t e d i n Vann v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008): " S e c t i o n 12-19-70, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t 'a c o n s o l i d a t e d c i v i l f i l i n g fee, known as a d o c k e t f e e , [ s h a l l be] c o l l e c t e d ... a t t h e t i m e a c o m p l a i n t i s filed i n c i r c u i t court or i n d i s t r i c t court,' a l t h o u g h t h a t payment 'may be w a i v e d i n i t i a l l y a n d t a x e d as c o s t s a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e c a s e ' i f '[a] v e r i f i e d statement of s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p ' i s f i l e d and i s a p p r o v e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . In t u r n , § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f i e s t h a t a f i l i n g f e e o f $248 i s t o be c o l l e c t e d ' f o r cases filed i n the domestic r e l a t i o n s docket of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s e e k i n g t o m o d i f y o r e n f o r c e an e x i s t i n g domestic r e l a t i o n s court order' ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [ i n V a n n ] ) . The payment o f a filing fee or the filing of a court-approved verified statement of substantial hardship i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e commencement o f an action. See De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d R e s . , 470 So. 2d 1218, 1222 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a l s o F a r m e r v. F a r m e r , 842 So. 2d 679, 681 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ('The f a i l u r e t o p a y t h e f i l i n g or docketing fee i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l defect.')." The trial court, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the former wife's e i t h e r t o pay t h e a p p l i c a b l e docket f e e or t o f i l e a s t a t e m e n t o f s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p , i s s u e d an o r d e r failure verified directing the f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o show c a u s e a t a J u n e 20, 2011, h e a r i n g why he s h o u l d n o t be h e l d a c t i n g pro se, then filed i n contempt; a letter 4 the former i n which husband, he a c c u s e d t h e 2101036 former w i f e o f having proceeding at testified, a mental d i s o r d e r . which both the t r i a l parties A f t e r an o r e t e n u s appeared pro court, a c t i n g through a t r i a l se and j u d g e who h a d assumed o f f i c e j u s t b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g , e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on June 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h a t , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , found t h e former h u s b a n d i n c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t on b o t h o f t h e g r o u n d s the former wife's pursuant t o which that August 2010 letter and stated i n set conditions t h e former husband c o u l d purge himself of contempt. The former husband, a p p e a r i n g f r o m t h e J u n e 22, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t . through counsel, appealed Among t h e g r o u n d s of error a s s e r t e d b y t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l the t r i a l court lacked subject-matter 1 j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a c t on t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s M a r c h 22, 2 0 1 1 , m o d i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t the former w i f e had f a i l e d t o pay a docket f e e . the former husband that the record i s that does because We a g r e e with n o t show t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e made s u c h a payment. F u r t h e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e former statement hardship excused wife that filed no would, h e r payment The former w i f e appellate brief. 1 verified i f approved of that by t h e t r i a l fee at has n o t f a v o r e d 5 of substantial court, the outset this court have of her with an 2101036 modification request. was not first defect he presented raises jurisdiction, by any Although 2 as to the t r i a l to the "'may court's in this subject-matter support an appeal, that jurisdiction appeal, attempted appeal and an the subject-matter So. 2d 451, 989 453 i s entered by So. 2d a t from such a v o i d judgment. 558 App. judgment under a court i s a b s o l u t e l y v o i d and appellate court time (Ala. Civ. A j u d g m e n t , s u c h as t h e June 22, 2 011, review form, be r a i s e d a t any n o t be w a i v e d . ' " ( q u o t i n g C . J . L . v. M.W.B., 868 at trial c o u r t i n any as we n o t e d i n Vann, "'may p a r t y ' " and 2003)). the former husband's argument must lacking will not dismiss an Vann, 989 So. 2d 559. As the appeal was former husband's appeal dismissed in this i n Vann, case, i n s t r u c t e d t o v a c a t e i t s June 22, 2011, pleadings filed seeks enforce to November 30, i n the 2010, or trial court modify the and we the t r i a l judgment. i n which the divorce j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be dismiss Any court i s further former judgment the wife or accompanied e i t h e r the by I n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s M a r c h 22, 2011, filing was, i n f o r m and i n substance, a request for m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , we n e c e s s a r i l y r e j e c t the former husband's a l t e r n a t i v e argument t h a t the letter can be viewed as an impermissible successive p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e s 59 o r 60 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e s e e k i n g c h a n g e s t o t h e November 30, 2010, j u d g m e n t on t h e w i f e ' s A u g u s t 2010 c o n t e m p t c l a i m s . 2 6 2101036 the requisite filing fee or by a verified s u b s t a n t i a l hardship that, i f accepted, w i l l of t h e payment of t h a t fee u n t i l light of our d i s m i s s a l , former husband's o t h e r 22, we having erroneous contempt allow f o r waiver the c l o s e of the case. contentions, including represented given found the p r i n c i p l e s of res j u d i c a t a or by appointed c o n s t r u c t i v e nature by t h e t r i a l In t h a t t h e June e s t o p p e l , was e n t e r e d w i t h o u t t h e f o r m e r been of p r e t e r m i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the 2011, j u d g m e n t c o n t r a v e n e d collateral affidavit counsel, of husband's and was the purported c o u r t and t h e f o r m e r husband's c l a i m e d i n a b i l i t y t o pay h i s d e b t s . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. 7 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.