Charles McGee v. Karen McGee Bevill

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/20/2012 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2101209 C h a r l e s McGee v. Karen McGee B e v i l l Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t Court (CV-06-40) MOORE, J u d g e . Charles judgment McGee ("the f o r m e r o f t h e DeKalb Circuit husband") Court appeals ("the t r i a l from a court") g r a n t i n g a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n f i l e d b y K a r e n 2101209 McGee B e v i l l in certain ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) real property. Facts According purchased subject to certain auction, had History wife, the located at a land-sale married, the appeal. former i n Fort auction husband Payne ("the i n 1990, w h i l e t h e and, she says, he came home f r o m i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t he h a d p u r c h a s e d the subject and drove h e r by t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . property, wife former real property p a r t i e s were s t i l l the We d i s m i s s and P r o c e d u r a l the property") a n d a w a r d i n g h e r an i n t e r e s t The f o r m e r testified paid that t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t he $205, 000 f o r t h e s u b j e c t property and t h a t "David Hammonds w o u l d be i n on i t . " The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t property adjoins property owned b y I r b y H a r r i s a n d i s l o c a t e d n e x t t o I n t e r s t a t e 59. The former w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and t h e former husband s e p a r a t e d i n 1994. She a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e a p o r t i o n o f t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s d e p o s i t i o n , t a k e n on June 28, 1994, p u r s u a n t to the p a r t i e s ' testified, attorney, Irby divorce i n response that Harris." a c t i o n , i n which t o questions he d i d n o t have the former by t h e former "some p r o p e r t y He s t a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n 2 husband wife's a d j o i n i n g an t h a t he h a d gone 2101209 i n t o a venture w i t h D a v i d Hammonds t o p u r c h a s e p r o p e r t y , that he h a d n e v e r c o m p l e t e d t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , a n d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y had never been p u r c h a s e d . attorney h a d been questioning According the The f o r m e r w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r referring former t o the former to the subject husband wife, after deposition was taken, discovered that no d e e d h a d b e e n subject property she v i s i t e d t o t h e former during property h i s deposition. the former the probate recorded husband. husband's office On June The f o r m e r wife trial property. 14, 1996, t h e t r i a l judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e former w i f e among o t h e r and t r a n s f e r r i n g the t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no m e n t i o n d u r i n g t h e d i v o r c e of t h e s u b j e c t when court entered and t h e former a divorce husband; t h i n g s , t h a t judgment s t a t e d : "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y t i t l e d i n t h e name o f C h a r l e s A. McGee, i n d i v i d u a l l y o r j o i n t l y w i t h h i s F o r m e r W i f e , K a r e n E. McGee, i s marital property subject to equitable division thereof according t o t h e laws t o t h e S t a t e o f Alabama i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t . The C o u r t has f a s h i o n e d t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n p r o v i d e d f o r h e r e i n i n t h e manner d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C o u r t t o be p r o t e c t i v e o f t h e Former W i f e , t h e minor c h i l d r e n i n c l u d i n g t h e i r homestead; t o conclude t h i s matter w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e ; and, t o a v o i d c o n t i n u e d c o n t r o v e r s i e s over the property acquired during the marriage of the p a r t i e s . " 3 2101209 The divorce several list judgment awarded t h e former w i f e specified parcels the subject property. former husband " a l l other of real property, telephoned of the to real the former h e r and informed Fort Payne but i t d i d not The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d t h e property i n d i v i d u a l l y o r j o i n t l y w i t h [ t h e former According an i n t e r e s t i n wife, titled wife]." i n 2006, property; Times-Journal, that story, f o r m e r w i f e , was p u b l i s h e d wife also submitted her the local submitted newspaper, a deed f o r t h e as e v i d e n c e on J a n u a r y 26, 2006. as e v i d e n c e a c o p y o f t h e d e e d , w h i c h was a one-half former husband. by t h e The f o r m e r e x e c u t e d on S e p t e m b e r 10, 1990, a n d s i g n e d b y D a v i d conveying father h e r t h a t a s t o r y on t h e f r o n t page i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e former husband had p r e s e n t e d subject i n h i s name Hammonds, interest i n the subject property The d e e d was r e c o r d e d tothe on J a n u a r y 23, 2006. On F e b r u a r y 6, 2006, t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e q u e s t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l court p a r t i a l l y s e t aside the p a r t i e s ' divorce judgment and a w a r d h e r an e q u i t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y o r a n y proceeds derived from pursuant t o Rule 60(b), the sale of the subject A l a . R. C i v . P. 4 property, On M a r c h 24, 2006, 2101209 the former husband filed an answer to the former wife's c o m p l a i n t , a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e a c t i o n was barred was by the statute of limitations, that the action t i m e - b a r r e d by R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e h a d b e e n aware of h i s o w n e r s h i p i n t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y a t a l l t i m e s , t h a t he had referred t o an unrelated negotiation in his deposition d u r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e c a s e , and t h a t he h a d n e v e r d e n i e d his i n t e r e s t i n the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . The DeKalb circuit-court judges recused themselves from h e a r i n g t h e p r e s e n t c a s e b a s e d on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s h a v i n g practiced f o r y e a r s as an a t t o r n e y b e f o r e t h e m . 1 On October 18, 2006, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a s s i g n e d t h e c a s e t o A l l e n Millican, the p r e s i d i n g c i r c u i t judge of Etowah C o u n t y . 2 On A u g u s t 18, 2010, t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h e trial c o u r t t o s e t the case f o r a t r i a l ; i n t h a t motion, f o r m e r w i f e i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n an u n r e l a t e d a c t i o n , t h e Circuit Court had d e c l a r e d the former husband the DeKalb " t o have an The D e K a l b c i r c u i t - c o u r t j u d g e s h a d s i m i l a r l y r e c u s e d themselves from h e a r i n g the p a r t i e s ' o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e case. 1 B e c a u s e Judge M i l l i c a n was s i t t i n g as a j u d g e f o r t h e D e K a l b C i r c u i t C o u r t , any r e f e r e n c e s h e r e i n a f t e r t o " t h e t r i a l c o u r t " c o n t i n u e t o be r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e D e K a l b C i r c u i t C o u r t . 2 5 2101209 undivided one-half i n t e r e s t i n the r e a l p r o p e r t y which i s the s u b j e c t o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n " and The located trial in Etowah husband d i d not entered court t h a t t h a t j u d g m e n t was conducted a t r i a l County, attend. On on August A u g u s t 8, final. i n Gadsden, w h i c h i s 4, 2011, 2011; the the trial former court a judgment t h a t s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " 1 . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] fraudulently misrepresented and fraudulently concealed his ownership interest i n the real p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d i n t h e d e e d a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t A t o t h i s Judgment ('the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y ' ) during the d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s between the p a r t i e s i n the C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r D e K a l b C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , C a s e No, DR-94-098 ('the d i v o r c e c a s e ' ) , i n o r d e r t o a v o i d an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of t h i s m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y i n the d i v o r c e . The [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s ] f r a u d d u r i n g the divorce, together with h i s f a i l u r e to record h i s 1990 deed t o the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y u n t i l J a n u a r y 2006, p r e v e n t e d t h e [ f o r m e r w i f e ] f r o m d i s c o v e r i n g [his] f r a u d u n t i l that date, at which time the [former w i f e ] immediately f i l e d her Complaint. "2. I t a p p e a r i n g t h a t t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s ] f r a u d p r e v e n t e d the C o u r t i n the d i v o r c e case from making an equitable division of the subject property, the Court hereby grants the relief r e q u e s t e d by [ t h e f o r m e r w i f e ] i n h e r c o m p l a i n t and d i v i d e s s a i d p r o p e r t y e q u a l l y between the [former w i f e ] and t h e [ f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] . [The former w i f e ] i s h e r e b y a w a r d e d an u n d i v i d e d o n e - h a l f i n t e r e s t i n the [ f o r m e r husband's] u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y , and any p r o v i s i o n o f t h e judgment i n the divorce case which could be construed t o have a w a r d e d t h i s p r o p e r t y t o the [ f o r m e r husband] d u r i n g the d i v o r c e i s d e c l a r e d of no e f f e c t . 6 2101209 "3. I n a i d o f t h i s Judgment, t h e C l e r k o r R e g i s t e r of DeKalb County, Alabama, i s o r d e r e d t o e x e c u t e a C l e r k ' s o r R e g i s t e r ' s Deed c o n v e y i n g an undivided one-half interest in the [former husband's] u n d i v i d e d one-half interest in the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y to the [ f o r m e r w i f e ] " The trial court denied a l l other relief r e q u e s t e d by the p a r t i e s and t a x e d c o s t s a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d . On S e p t e m b e r 19, 2011, of appeal to this court. the former husband f i l e d a n o t i c e A l s o on September 19, 2011, the former husband p u r p o r t e d t o f i l e a "motion t o a l t e r , v a c a t e or amend and m o t i o n f o r new trial" under Rule 6 0 ( b ) . 3 Discussion The f o r m e r h u s b a n d r a i s e s two he a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l . c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g the First, former w i f e ' s m o t i o n t o amend o r m o d i f y 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 The former husband a s s e r t s i n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , in the s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d "statement of the case," that c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n "was s t a y e d by t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s a p p e a l . " We d i s a g r e e . I n C . T . J . v. A . S . J . , 816 So. 2d 61, 63 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d : "The h u s b a n d f i l e d a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., on t h e same day as h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l ; however, t h a t f i l i n g i s a n u l l i t y because l e a v e o f t h i s c o u r t was n o t o b t a i n e d . See G l e n n v. G l e n n , 740 So. 2d 417 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . " S i m i l a r l y , the former husband f a i l e d t o o b t a i n l e a v e o f t h i s c o u r t t o f i l e h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n ; thus, t h a t motion i s a n u l l i t y . 3 7 2101209 "due to the a c t i o n was response accord that the undisputed e v i d e n c e was that the n o t t i m e l y f i l e d as a l l e g e d i n t h e a n s w e r f i l e d i n to the complaint r e l i e f under the judgment outside fact is void DeKalb County. provides, was facts." because s e c o n d i s s u e b e c a u s e we R u l e 60(b) and 4 the We not type S e c o n d , he trial pretermit f i n d the the first court of fraud argues t h a t held the consideration issue to the trial of the dispositive. in pertinent part: "On m o t i o n and upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , the c o u r t may relieve a p a r t y or a p a r t y ' 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 , or p r o c e e d i n g f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : ... (3) f r a u d (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic 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 , or other misconduct o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y The m o t i o n s h a l l be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , and f o r r e a s o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , and (3) n o t more t h a n f o u r (4) months a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was e n t e r e d o r t a k e n . ... T h i s r u l e does n o t l i m i t t h e power o f a c o u r t to entertain an independent action within a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e and n o t t o e x c e e d t h r e e (3) y e a r s a f t e r the e n t r y of the judgment (or such a d d i t i o n a l t i m e as i s g i v e n by § 6-2-3 and § 6-2-8, Code o f A l a b a m a 1975) t o r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a judgment, To t h e e x t e n t t h e f o r m e r w i f e a s s e r t s t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f a i l e d t o r a i s e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h i s argument t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s c o m p l a i n t was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , we n o t e t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e r t e d i n h i s answer t h a t the f o r m e r w i f e ' s c o m p l a i n t was t i m e - b a r r e d by R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ; t h u s , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d d i d r a i s e the i s s u e b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t . 4 8 2101209 o r d e r , or p r o c e e d i n g , or t o s e t a s i d e a judgment f o r f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . " The from former w i f e the filed judgment. an She independent asserts action that the seeking former relief husband c o m m i t t e d " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t " by p e r j u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y to l e a d the an former w i f e i n t e r e s t i n the t o b e l i e v e t h a t he subject property I n H a l l v. H a l l , 587 So. during 2d 1198 had their not acquired marriage. ( A l a . 1991), t h i s stated: " ' F r a u d on t h e c o u r t ' has b e e n d e f i n e d as ' f r a u d p e r p e t r a t e d by o f f i c e r s o f t h e c o u r t so t h a t t h e judicial machinery cannot p e r f o r m i n the usual manner i t s i m p a r t i a l t a s k o f a d j u d g i n g c a s e s t h a t a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n . ' 7 J . Moore, M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e § 60.33 (2nd ed. 1 9 9 0 ) . Such f r a u d must be ' e x t r i n s i c , ' t h a t i s , p e r p e t r a t e d t o o b t a i n the judgment, r a t h e r than ' i n t r i n s i c . ' Brown v. K i n g s b e r r y M o r t g a g e Co., 349 So. 2d 564 ( A l a . 1977) . I n d i s c u s s i n g ' f r a u d on t h e c o u r t , ' t h e Eleventh C i r c u i t Court of Appeals s t a t e d : " ' P e r j u r y i s an i n t r i n s i c f r a u d w h i c h will not support relief from judgment t h r o u g h an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n . See 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 , 8 O t t o 61, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93 (1878); see a l s o G r e a t Express [v. International Coastal Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & H e l p e r s of America], 675 F.2d [1349] a t 1358 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) ; Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 (9th C i r . 1981). Under t h e T h r o c k m o r t o n d o c t r i n e , f o r f r a u d to l a y a foundation f o r an independent a c t i o n , i t must be s u c h t h a t i t was n o t i n 9 court 2101209 i s s u e i n the former a c t i o n nor c o u l d i t have b e e n p u t i n i s s u e by t h e reasonable d i l i g e n c e o f t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y . See T o l e d o S c a l e Co. v. C o m p u t i n g S c a l e Co., 261 U.S. 399, 425, 43 S.Ct. 458, 465, 67 L.Ed. 719 ( 1 9 2 3 ) . P e r j u r y by a p a r t y does n o t meet t h i s standard because the opposing p a r t y i s not p r e v e n t e d from f u l l y p r e s e n t i n g h i s c a s e and r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e o f p e r j u r y i n the o r i g i n a l a c t i o n . "'"Perjury and fabricated e v i d e n c e a r e e v i l s t h a t can and s h o u l d be e x p o s e d a t t r i a l , and t h e l e g a l s y s t e m e n c o u r a g e s and e x p e c t s l i t i g a n t s t o r o o t them out as early as possible F r a u d on t h e c o u r t i s t h e r e f o r e limited t o t h e more e g r e g i o u s forms of s u b v e r s i o n of the l e g a l process, ... those we cannot n e c e s s a r i l y e x p e c t t o be e x p o s e d by t h e n o r m a l a d v e r s a r y process." ""Great C o a s t a l Express, " ' T r a v e l e r s I n d e m n i t y Co. 1552 (11th C i r . 1985)." 587 So. 2d a t a t 1357.' v. Gore, 761 cites United States v. F.2d 1549, 1200-01. The U.S. 675 F.2d former w i f e 61 (1878), f o r the Throckmorton, following proposition: "Where t h e u n s u c c e s s f u l p a r t y has b e e n p r e v e n t e d from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or d e c e p t i o n p r a c t i s e d on him by h i s o p p o n e n t , as by k e e p i n g him away f r o m c o u r t , a f a l s e p r o m i s e o f a compromise; or where the defendant never had k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s u i t , b e i n g k e p t i n i g n o r a n c e by t h e a c t s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ; o r where an attorney 10 98 2101209 fraudulently or without authority assumes to r e p r e s e n t a p a r t y and c o n n i v e s a t h i s d e f e a t ; o r where t h e a t t o r n e y r e g u l a r l y employed c o r r u p t l y s e l l s out h i s c l i e n t ' s i n t e r e s t t o the other s i d e , t h e s e , and s i m i l a r c a s e s w h i c h show t h a t t h e r e has never been a r e a l c o n t e s t i n the t r i a l or h e a r i n g of t h e c a s e , a r e r e a s o n s f o r w h i c h a new s u i t may be s u s t a i n e d t o s e t a s i d e and a n n u l t h e f o r m e r j u d g m e n t o r d e c r e e , and open t h e c a s e f o r a new and a f a i r hearing." 98 U.S. at 65-66. husband prevented d e c e i v i n g her and thereby their her causing Supreme well the note, without however, that, "On the other hand, that the court will settled evidence, presented and property the the subject following United the considered (emphasis added). for any matter doctrine not i n the which the States set is aside f o u n d e d on a f r a u d u l e n t i n s t r u m e n t , or by case to d i v i d e directly stated: former case" subject to Throckmorton, perjured is reference the [her] divorce in j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e i t was a t 66 judge i n the that fully language Court equally argues from " e x h i b i t i n g estate We above-quoted former w i f e r e g a r d i n g h i s i n t e r e s t i n the marital property. The was a or actually judgment a s s a i l e d . " 98 U.S. Thus, t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n T h r o c k m o r t o n consistent with that i n Hall. The husband former was wife a asserts also practicing t h a t , because attorney 11 at the the former time he 2101209 misrepresented property, his p e r j u r y c o n s t i t u t e d a " f r a u d on t h e c o u r t " i n a c c o r d a n c e with the h i s ownership definition Court has "officer others. stated recognized of the in Hall. that court" an the subject The United attorney i n some may as an " o f f i c e r separate States Supreme function capacities, while See I m b l e r v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. (noting prosecutor's and of as an not i n 409, 431 n.33 (1976) f u n c t i o n s as an " a d m i n i s t r a t o r " of the c o u r t " ) . We agree a l s o w i t h the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f M a i n e i n G l e n w o o d Farms, I n c . v. O'Connor, 666 F. Supp. 2d 154, 179-80 (D. Me. 2 0 0 9 ) , i n i t s decision d e c l i n i n g to i n t e r p r e t "'attorney' t o i n c l u d e anyone with their a witness, that, bar membership, party, "whereas representative notwithstanding or representative of a party," the involvement capacity impairs of the an therefore, that a inferring attorney in a adequate the involvement and p a r t i e s does n o t . " We the former wife's as and ordinarily mechanisms o f d i s c o v e r y a n d c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , o f a t t o r n e y s as w i t n e s s e s role conclude, argument i s w i t h o u t merit and t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s p r o f e s s i o n as an a t t o r n e y not n e c e s s i t a t e t h a t any p e r j u r y c o m m i t t e d by h i m as a p a r t y r i s e s t o t h e l e v e l o f f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . 12 does 2101209 I n Ex (Ala. parte Third Generation, 820 So. 2d 89, 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t i s n o t a f r a u d on t h e C o u r t , a R u l e 60(b) (3) [, A l a . R. m o t i o n must be filed judgment b e i n g assailed. any Inc., longer actions b a s e d on fraud C i v . P.,] Id. The period R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) m o t i o n was of entry of the t h a t t h e m o t i o n was ground." A R u l e 60(b) court. not timely to 3d 275, 279 C i v . P.,] (Ala. Civ. App. the present void." Id. judgment," (Ala. case. Because the j u d g m e n t , we Harvey 1 9 9 8 ) , we to the trial motion." v. "[a]n Thus, i t s A u g u s t 8, appeal w i l l C i t y of former conclude Oneonta, dismiss t h i s appeal, untimely N o l l v. N o l l , the 2011, "A j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d w i t h o u t Because on filed. 2010). lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter the independent "A t r i a l c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r an R u l e 6 0 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. of f i l e d w i t h i n f o u r months parties' divorce not entry (3) former w i f e cannot r e l y applicable upon t h e wife's the "perjury ... b u t i n t r i n s i c f r a u d , w h i c h i s w i t h i n f o u r months o f t h e limitations 90 47 trial So. court judgment i n jurisdiction is not l i e from a 715 So. 2d 779, void 781 albeit with instructions c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s A u g u s t 8, 2011, judgment. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 13 Bryan, and Thomas, JJ.,

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.