Sean G. Casey v. Jonice Dorriety Casey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/19/2012 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, 2012-2013 2110324 Sean G. Casey v. J o n i c e D o r r i e t y Casey Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t (DR-03-180.01) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Sean order G. C a s e y ("the f o r m e r o f t h e Escambia C i r c u i t husband") appeals Court purporting f r o m an t o deny h i s m o t i o n , f i l e d 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., s e e k i n g 2110324 relief f r o m a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d been e n t e r e d against him b y t h a t c o u r t i n p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g h i m and Jonice Dorriety Casey ("the former wife"). Because we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l has been t a k e n f r o m a v o i d order, This involving is we d i s m i s s the second these p a r t i e s . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) That opinion the appeal w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . appeal arising from litigation See C a s e y v. C a s e y , 85 So. 3d 435 ( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) . summarized much of the pertinent procedural background: "The f o r m e r h u s b a n d and t h e f o r m e r w i f e were married i n 1 9 9 9 ; i n 2000, the former husband reentered military s e r v i c e and was temporarily transferred to F l o r i d a . During t h a t time, the f o r m e r w i f e r e s i d e d i n A t m o r e and w a i t e d f o r t h e former husband t o r e c e i v e a permanent a s s i g n m e n t ; t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d was b o r n i n September 2000. The p a r t i e s n e v e r r e u n i t e d , and, i n 2003, t h e y d e c i d e d t o p r o c e e d w i t h an u n c o n t e s t e d d i v o r c e . Although t h e d i v o r c e documents were p r e p a r e d i n 2003, t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was n o t e n t e r e d u n t i l December 2006, i n p a r t b e c a u s e t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d been sent overseas. The d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n c o r p o r a t e d an agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s ; t h a t judgment awarded p h y s i c a l custody of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d t o the former w i f e , awarded t h e former husband l i b e r a l v i s i t a t i o n , and o r d e r e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t o p a y $500 i n monthly c h i l d support. "The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t , a f t e r l e a v i n g m i l i t a r y service i n June 2003, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d took employment w i t h a p r i v a t e s e c u r i t y company t h a t s e n t 2 2110324 him t o I r a q i n J u l y 2 0 0 4 ; he d i d n o t r e t u r n t o F l o r i d a u n t i l M a r c h 2005. T h e r e a f t e r , he t r a v e l e d t o I d a h o b r i e f l y and t h e n r e t u r n e d t o F l o r i d a u n t i l September 2005. At that time, he moved t o P e n n s y l v a n i a t o a t t e n d s c h o o l and r e m a i n e d t h e r e u n t i l June 2007. Subsequently, the former husband r e m a r r i e d and moved t o New J e r s e y , s t a y i n g t h e r e u n t i l September 2007, when h i s e m p l o y e r s e n t h i m t o S a u d i A r a b i a u n t i l F e b r u a r y 2008. " I n May 2007, t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d an a c t i o n s e e k i n g a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t the former husband was i n c o n t e m p t f o r f a i l i n g t o p a y $ 8 1 9 i n c h i l d s u p p o r t and $2,900 i n m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s (case no. DR0 3 - 1 8 0 . 0 1 ) ; t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h a t a c t i o n i n J u l y 2007. At that t i m e , he was n o t i f i e d t h a t a h e a r i n g was s e t f o r September 2007, when he was s c h e d u l e d t o be i n S a u d i A r a b i a , so he h i r e d an a t t o r n e y i n Bay M i n e t t e t o r e p r e s e n t h i m and t o s e e k a c o n t i n u a n c e u n t i l h i s r e t u r n from overseas. A f t e r t h e September 2007 h e a r i n g was c o n t i n u e d , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d t e r m i n a t e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f t h a t a t t o r n e y ; h o w e v e r , unknown t o the former husband, another hearing had been scheduled f o r December 13, 2 0 0 7 ; n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the former husband r e c e i v e d formal n o t i f i c a t i o n from the t r i a l court of t h a t December h e a r i n g d a t e . However, t h e r e c o r d does c o n t a i n a November 2007 e - m a i l message f r o m t h e former husband t o t h e former w i f e i n which the former husband acknowledged 'knowing' that a December h e a r i n g d a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e u n p a i d child s u p p o r t and m e d i c a l b i l l s h a d been s e t . The f o r m e r h u s b a n d t e l e p h o n e d h i s c u r r e n t w i f e i n New J e r s e y and d i s c o v e r e d t h a t she h a d n o t r e c e i v e d any n o t i c e o f an u p c o m i n g h e a r i n g , so he ' a s s u m e d ' t h a t t h e r e w o u l d be no h e a r i n g i n December 2007. When t h e former husband returned from Saudi Arabia in F e b r u a r y 2008, he r e c e i v e d n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him. That judgment had d e t e r m i n e d the former h u s b a n d ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e t o be $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 . 3 2110324 "... The r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e former w i f e amended h e r contempt complaint to r e f l e c t any i n c r e a s e i n h e r child-support-arrearage c l a i m ; m o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t any o f f i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e December 2007 h e a r i n g was s e n t t o anyone r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d o t h e r than the former husband's p r e v i o u s a t t o r n e y . The record also reflects the f a c t that the former husband, a c t i n g p r o se, f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t on June 9, 2 0 0 8 . Then, on June 25, 2008, t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d f i l e d a r e q u e s t seeking a m o d i f i c a t i o n of v i s i t a t i o n , a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d s u p p o r t , and t h e r i g h t t o c l a i m t h e c h i l d as a d e p e n d e n t f o r t a x purposes and requests concerning the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs of v i s i t a t i o n and p o t e n t i a l r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ; t h a t a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. DR-03-180.02. The f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d an a n s w e r ; she a l s o f i l e d a counterclaim s e e k i n g an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d be i n s t r u c t e d t o o b t a i n p r o f e s s i o n a l t r e a t m e n t f o r c e r t a i n a l l e g e d substance-dependency and m e n t a l health issues before being awarded u n s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d . 1 " Although the former w i f e contends t h a t t h a t motion was an untimely Rule 59, A l a . R. Civ. P., p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b e c a u s e (1) t h e m o t i o n was f i l e d more t h a n 30 days a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t and (2) t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d , albeit inartfully, p l e a d e d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was v o i d on d u e - p r o c e s s g r o u n d s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t the former husband's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n , and we t r e a t i t as s u c h i n t h i s o p i n i o n . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e L a n g , 500 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , and C u r r y v. C u r r y , 962 So. 2d 261 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . " 1 85 So. 3d a t 437-38. As appeal, we noted "[t]he i n our trial opinion court on rehearing i n the conducted a b i f u r c a t e d ore 4 former tenus 2110324 proceeding to A u g u s t 31, 2009." outset the of made t h e address a l l pending 85 So. 2d a t 439. presentation of motions The evidence on trial on April 21 court, at August 31, "THE COURT: Now l e t me a l s o make i t c l e a r , we've g o t a c a s e number t h a t i s a 180, a n o t h e r c a s e number t h a t ' s 180.01 a n o t h e r one w h i c h i s t h e 180.02. And f o r p u r p o s e s o f what we a r e d o i n g , and w h e t h e r I d i d i t b e f o r e o r n o t , I'm c o n s o l i d a t i n g a l l t h r e e o f t h e s e a c t i o n s and t h a t a r e a l l h e r e b y c o n s o l i d a t e d as one a c t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f what a r e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s therein. And f r o m t h i s p o i n t f o r w a r d , any f u t u r e filing or p l e a d i n g i n t h i s proceeding will be i d e n t i f i e d u n d e r t h e .02 a c t i o n . And t h e r e a s o n I do t h i s i s t h a t we do have some f i l i n g s t h a t a r e i n some o f , I t h i n k t h e .01 may have a f i l e , maybe t h e .00, and i t a l l needs t o be u n d e r one h e a d i n g , one c a s e number, so t h a t we can f u n c t i o n a l l y l o o k i n t h a t f i l e and see e v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s o u t t h e r e . the "THE COURT: We a r e g o i n g by DR 03-180.02. And t h a t ' s j u s t f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s so t h a t we a l l have one c a s e number t o f i l e t h i n g s i n . So be it. Any f u t u r e f i l i n g s , u n l e s s o f c o u r s e t h e r e was a t some p o i n t way down t h e r o a d where t h e r e m i g h t be a n o t h e r p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y o r c o n t e m p t t h a t c o u l d be a .03, b u t a t t h i s s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e s s , e v e r y t h i n g i s c o n s o l i d a t e d u n d e r .02. A l l pending claims, et cetera. And as f a r as t h e f u t u r e f i l i n g s .02, u n l e s s i t ' s a new a c t i o n , w h i c h t h e a t t o r n e y s w o u l d understand." (Emphasis added.) 5 the 2009, f o l l o w i n g remarks: " [ C o u n s e l f o r t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ] : What was number we're g o i n g t o go b y ? and 2110324 On September 30, 2009, t h e t r i a l in c a s e no. DR-03-180.02 t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d e n i e d t h e former husband's R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d been e n t e r e d visitation to c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment award child during husband i n January 2008; m o d i f i e d the p r o v i s i o n s of the p a r t i e s ' the former to husband specified be d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t so as supervised school evaluated the default visitation v a c a t i o n s ; ordered by a qualified with the the former mental-health p r o f e s s i o n a l and t o submit t o p e r i o d i c drug t e s t i n g every days f o r a s p e c i f i c requests child p e r i o d ; and d e n i e d f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d as a d e p e n d e n t the former support, f o r t a x purposes, 60 husband's to claim the and f o r c u r r e n t and prospective r e l i e f as t o t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s o f v i s i t a t i o n . On 27, 2009, October pursuant t o Rules the former husband 59(a) and 5 9 ( e ) , either a new t r i a l vacate t h e September a motion, A l a . R. C i v . P., seeking or that the t r i a l 30, 2009, filed court a l t e r , judgment; that amend, o r motion was a c c o m p a n i e d b y a memorandum o f f a c t s a n d l a w t h a t , among o t h e r things, challenged the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g i n t h e September 30, 2009, j u d g m e n t as t o t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n t h a t t h e f o r m e r husband had f i l e d i n c a s e no. DR-03-180.01. 6 The t r i a l court 2110324 denied the former husband's Rule 59 m o t i o n on December 30, 2009. The 15, former husband 2010, i n case no. filed a notice DR-03-180.02; o f a p p e a l on in his brief a p p e a l , the former husband contended t h a t the t r i a l e r r e d i n d e n y i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n 03-180.01, drug that he been a mental-health evaluation, court had erroneously T h a t a p p e a l was On M a r c h 4, 2011, opinion awarded this the and undergo that former a s s i g n e d a p p e a l no. wife no. the an 2090371. 2090371 i n w h i c h we concluded, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t , t o the e x t e n t the former husband u n d e r R u l e 60(b) DR- c o u r t , on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n , i s s u e d i n a p p e a l no. review of the t r i a l that c o u r t had erroneously ordered to and attorney's fee. in i n c a s e no. testing trial an had filed January court's denial of h i s motion sought for relief from the judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d i n case DR-03-180.01, the former husband's a p p e a l had not timely taken: "As an i n i t i a l m a t t e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d as [ t h e a p p e a l ] r e l a t e s t o t h e d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n may n o t be c o n s i d e r e d , because the former husband's a p p e a l from that denial i s untimely. As we have n o t e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 30, 2009; h o w e v e r , t h e f o r m e r 7 been 2110324 husband w a i t e d u n t i l from t h a t r u l i n g . January 15, 2010, to appeal "'After a trial c o u r t has denied a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), t h a t c o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a s u c c e s s i v e postjudgment motion to " r e c o n s i d e r " or otherwise review i t s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n , and s u c h a s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n does not suspend the r u n n i n g of the time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of appeal.' "Ex p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018, 1022 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; see a l s o G r e e n v. G r e e n , 43 So. 3d 1242, 1244 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( t r i a l c o u r t s l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n s u c c e s s i v e motions a f t e r e n t r y of a f i n a l j u d g m e n t r e q u e s t i n g same o r s i m i l a r r e l i e f as a party's original motion or requesting r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d e n i a l of o r i g i n a l postjudgment motion). Thus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 30, 2009, j u d g m e n t d e n i e d t h e former h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 31, 2008, d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s f i l i n g o f h i s O c t o b e r 27, 2009, m o t i o n d i d n o t s u s p e n d t h e 42-day p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d on J a n u a r y 15, 2010, was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n t h e 42-day a p p e a l p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h e September 30, 2009, j u d g m e n t . See g e n e r a l l y R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. B e c a u s e t h e former husband's a p p e a l of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i s n o t t i m e l y , we d i s m i s s t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l , and we a d d r e s s o n l y t h o s e i s s u e s as t o w h i c h t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l is timely." (Footnote The rehearing omitted.) former husband i n appeal no. filed a 2090371. 8 timely In application for his application for 2110324 rehearing, had t h e former husband a s s e r t e d not entered DR-03-180.01 concluding Although that the t r i a l court i t s S e p t e m b e r 30, 2009, j u d g m e n t i n c a s e no. and posited that this court had erred t h a t h i s a p p e a l was due t o be d i s m i s s e d the former husband first t i m e on r e h e a r i n g , court that had r a i s e d and a l t h o u g h the rehearing that in i n part. issue f o r the i t was p r o p o s e d t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n as t o t h a t point be o v e r r u l e d on t h a t b a s i s , t h a t p r o p o s a l was n o t a c c e p t e d b y a l l the members o f t h i s majority court. of the court U l t i m a t e l y , i t was a g r e e d b y a that, even i f the former husband's belated invocation of the general rule regarding consolidation ( i . e . , t h a t when a c t i o n s a r e c o n s o l i d a t e d , e a c h a c t i o n r e t a i n s its separate judgments) similarly i d e n t i t y so as t o r e q u i r e t h e e n t r y o f was appropriate, insisted upon t h a t the former same p r i n c i p l e husband DR-03-180.02. 2011, those i n only case T h i s c o u r t e l e c t e d t o w i t h d r a w i t s M a r c h 4, o p i n i o n a n d t o r e l e a s e a new o p i n i o n s i m p l y q u o t i n g t h e general scope had not of separateness b e c a u s e h i s own n o t i c e o f a p p e a l h a d b e e n f i l e d no. separate rule requiring separate judgments o f t h e former husband's a p p e a l issues adjudicated by 9 the and deeming t h e t o be l i m i t e d trial court to only that had 2110324 o r i g i n a l l y a r i s e n i n c a s e no. 85 So. 3d a t 439-40 This was court's i s s u e d on ( o p i n i o n on J u l y 29, our of certiorari A l a . R. App. P., However, the issuance seeking this 2090371 former husband, filed a petition 2011, court's the 2090371, f i l e d a motion i n the court entry final the "a judgment" i n case while former husband's c e r t i o r a r i the the t r i a l June 9, no. of court entered DR-03-l80.0l. DR-03-180.01, b u t from the addressed a l l of the p a r t i e s on t h e and Case No. DR-03-180.02." t h a t a p p e a l was pending, judgment e n t e r e d issues presented The ... the in order [ i t s ] September c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s i n Case No. o f a p p e a l on December 6, 2011, order; was 2011, i t expressly opined i n that t h a t i t had b e e n t h a t c o u r t ' s i n t e n t " t h a t 2009, o r d e r appealable November 30, petition of trial an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o a g a i n deny 2008, m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f c a s e no. On and by former certificate j u d g m e n t i n a p p e a l no. requesting for a f u r t h e r review i n September of Casey, rehearing). i n a p p e a l no. a f t e r which the i n A u g u s t 2011 supreme c o u r t . husband, b e f o r e 2011, C a s e y v. application for substituted opinion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 39, writ DR-03-180.02. by 30, the DR-03-l80.01 former husband f i l e d a n o t i c e p u r p o r t i n g to appeal from t h a t docketed i n t h i s 10 court as appeal no. 2110324 2110324. The no. 2090371 was was denied, former husband's c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n n o t a c t e d upon u n t i l December 9, 2011, and a p p e a l d i d not The 2010, i n appeal this court's certificate i s s u e u n t i l December 12, statements of the t r i a l hearing by which when i t of judgment i n t h a t 2011. c o u r t made a t t h e A u g u s t "everything," i.e., "[a]ll 29, pending c l a i m s " i n v o l v i n g t h e p a r t i e s , were " c o n s o l i d a t e d " w i t h i n c a s e no. DR-03-180.02, and i t s i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e November 30, order t h a t i t s September 30, to "address[] a l l of the 2009, j u d g m e n t had b e e n issues presented ... by 2011, intended the p a r t i e s on t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s , " c a s t c o n s i d e r a b l e d o u b t upon t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t c a s e no. t o have had court's any continuing separate consolidation w o u l d have had DR-03-180.01 c o u l d p r o p e r l y be any directive jurisdiction e x i s t e n c e a f t e r the such that to enter the trial a separate said trial court order November 2011 i n t h a t c a s e t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . Schnabel Lui, v. 302 F.3d 1023, ( d i s c u s s i n g the a u t h o r i t y of t r i a l R. C i v . P., to f u l l y 1035 order from which "merge" a c t i o n s t o g e t h e r ) . the former 11 Cir. Cf. 2002) c o u r t s u n d e r R u l e 42, i s not n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s appeal t o decide the (9th in Fed. However, i t t h a t i s s u e , because husband has attempted to 2110324 appeal i s c l e a r l y v o i d : the t r i a l court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n to t a k e any a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y t h e p a r t i e s i n appeal no. 2090371 i n a d v a n c e o f t h e i s s u a n c e certificate See of t h i s court's o f j u d g m e n t on December 12, 2011, i n t h a t Reneke v. R e n e k e , 920 So. 2d 579, 584 case. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d P o r t i s v. A l a b a m a S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n, 863 So. 2d 1125, 1126 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . husband's vacate appeal with We t h u s d i s m i s s t h e f o r m e r i n s t r u c t i o n s to the t r i a l court to i t s November 30, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n , Thomas, a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r in the r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g s . 12

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.