Step Burgess v. Reatha Burgess

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/29/2012 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 2110387 Step Burgess v. Reatha Burgess Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-10-826) PER CURIAM. Step Burgess the J e f f e r s o n ("the wife"). ("the h u s b a n d " ) a p p e a l s f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t o f Circuit Court d i v o r c i n g him from Reatha Burgess 2110387 The wife husband on filed June 9, p a r t i e s married an action 2010. Her i n 1981. seeking r e a c h e d t h e age In July of 2011, from the i n d i c a t e d that complaint divorce the By t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g t h e a c t i o n , b o t h o f t h e c h i l d r e n who had a were b o r n o f t h e m a r r i a g e majority. the p a r t i e s entered into agreement d i v i d i n g t h e i r m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y , p a r c e l s of r e a l p r o p e r t y . entered a divorced final the settlement rental an real ("the 2011, incorporated other the settlement the t r i a l court judgment") that the terms of the things, the divorce to the wife, awarded awarded the w i f e awarded a including several divorce m a r i t a l residence and three p a r c e l s husband the of parties' property. On A u g u s t 11, amend, o r v a c a t e J u l y 29, Among automobile, property, remaining and agreement. judgment awarded the each p a r t y On judgment parties in 2011, the husband f i l e d a motion to alter, t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h he a r g u e d t h a t he had n o t f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h e p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t agreement u n t i l he On r e c e i v e d a copy of the d i v o r c e judgment. 1 August A l t h o u g h t h e h u s b a n d i n d i c a t e d t h a t h i s m o t i o n was f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., and R u l e 60, A l a . R. Civ. P., we c o n c l u d e t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e m o t i o n d i d n o t s e e k 1 2 2110387 16, 2011, the wife postjudgment motion. filed a response to the husband's I n t h a t f i l i n g , t h e w i f e s o u g h t an o r d e r from the c o u r t d e n y i n g the husband's postjudgment r e q u i r i n g the husband in motion t o e x e c u t e deeds c o n v e y i n g h i s i n t e r e s t the three r e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s and t h e m a r i t a l residence to h e r as c a l l e d f o r i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t ; she a l s o s o u g h t award an o f an a t t o r n e y f e e . On A u g u s t 30, and p o s t j u d g m e n t final order." husband to and one 2011, the w i f e f i l e d [motion] to a l t e r , In that motion, an "amended r e s p o n s e amend, and m o d i f y [ t h e ] the wife argued h a d f a i l e d t o p a y c e r t a i n d e b t s and e x p e n s e s of the r e n t a l properties, including a sewer that the related lien of $ 5 5 0 , b a c k t a x e s o f $ 1 , 4 6 0 . 0 7 , and a m o r t g a g e n o t e on w h i c h a t o t a l o f $850 was The wife stated owed f o r t h r e e months o f p a s t - d u e p a y m e n t s . that those debts were incurred before the r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , t h a t m o t i o n was f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See M o r r i s o n v. P h i l l i p s , 992 So. 2d 743, 744 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( t h e " m o t i o n d i d n o t ... a l l e g e any g r o u n d j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. Civ. P. The m o t i o n was, i n b o t h f o r m and s u b s t a n c e , a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n " ) ; see a l s o P o n t i u s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 915 So. 2d 557, 562-63 ( A l a . 2005) ("This C o u r t w i l l l o o k a t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n , r a t h e r than i t s t i t l e , t o d e t e r m i n e how t h a t m o t i o n i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d under the Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . " ) . 3 2110387 entry of the d i v o r c e those amounts. The removed a p i s t o l judgment, wife also and she alleged sought that an award the husband and a t r e a d m i l l f r o m t h e m a r i t a l of had residence, and she s o u g h t an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g h i m t o r e t u r n t h o s e i t e m s . The w i f e ' s A u g u s t 30, 2011, m o t i o n was f i l e d 32 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e J u l y 29, 2011, d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , and, therefore, i t d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a t i m e l y and v a l i d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . See R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. f i l e d w i t h i n 30 The trial (a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n must be days). c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g , a f t e r w h i c h , on O c t o b e r 24, 2011, i t e n t e r e d an o r d e r t i t l e d "amended f i n a l of divorce." In i t s October 24, 2011, judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d the r e l i e f in h i s postjudgment requested by motion, the wife amended divorce the husband sought p u r p o r t e d to grant the relief i n her August denied a l l other requested [judgment] 30, 2011, motion, and relief. On November 14, 2011, t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d what he t i t l e d a " m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n " i n w h i c h he a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e r r e d i n t h a t p a r t o f i t s O c t o b e r 24, 2011, o r d e r i n which i t p u r p o r t e d to grant the r e l i e f her August 30, 2011, m o t i o n . s o u g h t by t h e w i f e i n On December 20, 2011, 4 after a 2110387 h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s November 14, 2011, m o t i o n , t h e court e n t e r e d an J a n u a r y 12, 2012, o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o deny t h a t the husband f i l e d trial motion. On a n o t i c e of appeal to t h i s court. As an i n i t i a l this court m a t t e r , we has jurisdiction "'[J]urisdictional notice of App. 1997) 1987)). The Jays Mfg. timely 12 So. act. Co., do 689 when a p a r t y f i l e s filing filing of a 1202 Williamson v. Rule this e v e n ex 2d 210, 518 a appeal. So. mero motu. 211 of 712 appeal F o u r t h Ave. of filed within F o u r t h Ave. is 42 d a y s o f appeal P. a Ala. R. motion, the time f o r i s extended to 42 days motion m o t i o n by o p e r a t i o n o f Civ. Supermarket, 5 the However, c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the postjudgment 59.1, (Ala. Supermarket, R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. notice (Ala. Civ. 2d 711, notice take ( A l a . 2009). the d e n i a l of the postjudgment to so a t i m e l y postjudgment f o l l o w i n g the t r i a l pursuant consider So. of o f a p p e a l must be e n t r y of a judgment. or and W i l l i a m s o n v. 3d 1200, A notice the time ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , jurisdictional Inc., to whether m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we them a t any W a l l a c e v. Tee must a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e P. Inc., Rule 12 law 4(a)(1); So. 3d at 2110387 1203-04; and B r o o k e v. B e l l i s l e , Civ. App. within 2011). 30 days this 3d 1279, 1281 ( A l a . A t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n must be of the 5 9 ( e ) ; M a r s h v. M a r s h , In 73 So. entry 852 of the final timely judgment. Rule ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 161 case, the husband filed 2002). filed h i s August 11, 2011, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e July 29, 2011, final divorce A u g u s t 30, 2011, m o t i o n was of the July 30, August 29, 2011, 2011, judgment. wife's f i l e d 32 d a y s f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y divorce motion However, t h e filed judgment. by the Accordingly, wife, the purportedly p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d , and, t h e r e f o r e , the trial motion. court had no jurisdiction t o r u l e on the wife's M a r s h v. M a r s h , 852 So. 2d a t 163 n. 3; D i c k e r s o n Dickerson, 885 So. 2d 160 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( i n the absence of a t i m e l y f i l e d postjudgment motion, the t r i a l h a d no jurisdiction t o amend i t s judgment more t h a n 30 the entry trial c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 24, 2011, o r d e r a w a r d i n g t h e r e l i e f requested judgment). court after wife of t h a t i n her untimely f o r want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . Thus, postjudgment See J.B. v. A.B., 6 that part v. days of the the m o t i o n was void 888 528, So. 2d 2110387 532 ( A l a . C i v . App. without jurisdiction We (Ala. 2004) is a ("An o r d e r e n t e r e d by a t r i a l nullity."). n o t e t h a t i n H e n d e r s o n v. Civ. App. 1998), this Koveleski, court held 717 a that So. 2d trial c o u l d amend o r c o r r e c t i t s j u d g m e n t so as l o n g as one postjudgment court motion entered awarded c h i l d order as While was pending. In a divorce judgment that, but failed to set law. See support r e q u i r e d by one of p e n d i n g , on the father's J u l y 31, income-withholding that case, forth § 30-3-6(a), c o u r t , sua a reaching H e n d e r s o n v. that determination, this 717 court trial things, A l a . Code motions remained So. 2d an t h a t the J u l y at original 806. explained: "Although a trial court generally loses j u r i s d i c t i o n t o amend i t s j u d g m e n t 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t (see Ex p a r t e Owen, 420 So. 2d 80, 81 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ) , a t r i a l c o u r t r e t a i n s t h e power t o c o r r e c t sua s p o n t e any e r r o r i n i t s j u d g m e n t t h a t comes t o i t s a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f a p a r t y ' s R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e e r r o r was a l l e g e d or not a l l e g e d i n the motion. See, e.g., V a r l e y v. Tampax, I n c . , 855 F.2d 696, 699 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ; C h a r l e s v. D a l e y , 799 F.2d 343, 347 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) ; A r n o l d v. S u l l i v a n , 131 F.R.D. 129, 133 (N.D. 7 1975. sponte, entered This court concluded Koveleski, party's withholding 31 o r d e r " c o n s t i t u t e d a p e r m i s s i b l e amendment" t o t h e judgment. 803 court the among o t h e r postjudgment the t r i a l order. court In 2110387 Ind. 1990). Thus, the t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by i s s u i n g i t s A u g u s t 1, 1997, income w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r , w h i c h e f f e c t i v e l y amended i t s A p r i l 24, 1997, j u d g m e n t so as t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e requirements of § 30-3-61[, Ala. Code 1975]. M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had the d i s c r e t i o n to d i r e c t immediate implementation of the income w i t h h o l d i n g o r d e r by d i r e c t i n g s e r v i c e o f t h e o r d e r upon t h e f a t h e r ' s e m p l o y e r . A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-61(c); H e n d e r s o n v. H e n d e r s o n , 680 So. 2d 373, 374 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ( c i t i n g H e r m s m e i e r v. McCoy, 563 So. 2d 1058 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990))." Id. (emphasis added). We conclude, distinguishable however, from those that the f a c t s of this case o f H e n d e r s o n v. K o v e l e s k i , are supra. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t amended i t s o r d e r t o c o r r e c t t h e judgment. she had T h a t amendment a f f o r d e d one originally O c t o b e r 24, 2011, relief. Before incorporating received requested. of the p a r t i e s r e l i e f In t h i s case, order, the t r i a l c o u r t a f f o r d e d the w i f e i t e n t e r e d i t s J u l y 29, 2011, the however, i n i t s agreement of the testimony from the d i v o r c e judgment parties, h u s b a n d and the the trial wife understood the terms of the proposed s e t t l e m e n t specifically amounts t h e I n h e r A u g u s t 30, 2011, stated that husband she was apparently agreement 8 each and claims motion, the wife reimbursement for have p a i d b e f o r e the seeking should court that t h a t t h a t a g r e e m e n t r e s o l v e d a l l t h e p e n d i n g i s s u e s and between the p a r t i e s . new 2110387 e n t r y o f the d i v o r c e judgment. sought t o recover Thus, i n t h a t m o t i o n , t h e w i f e amounts t h a t c o u l d have b e e n , b u t were n o t , addressed i n the settlement a g r e e m e n t and d i v o r c e In o t h e r words, the reimbursement the w i f e attempted t o recover was not sought judgment. an expenses a failure result judgment on to that the of that the motion was pending 30, 2011, error in before existed at issue the that that allowed the the could 90 2011, motion the debts have by or been we postjudgment court to amend the relief based the t r i a l court claims. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. had of Accordingly, d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t so as t o award t h e w i f e m o n e t a r y upon new divorce entry husband's trial motion caused outstanding d i v o r c e judgment. fact the c l a i m f o r r e l i e f was there addressed i n that o r i g i n a l say an recognize property cannot amount f o r d e b t s o r e x p e n s e s i n her August Rather, the wife's apparent divorce as judgment. days to rule postjudgment within jurisdiction upon motion. those to enter 90 the C i v . P., husband's The trial days, and, t i m e l y , August court r u l e d on therefore, t h a t p o r t i o n of i t s October 9 i t 24, 11, that had 2011, 2110387 order denying postjudgment the relief r e q u e s t e d by the husband in his motion. The h u s b a n d d i d n o t a p p e a l t h e d e n i a l o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t motion w i t h i n App. P. to "if t h e 42 d a y s a l l o w e d by R u l e R u l e 59. a a Our has party supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d , h i s own 'motion post-judgment to reconsider' judgment m o t i o n . " 2d A l a . R. R a t h e r , he f i l e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n p u r p o r t e d l y p u r s u a n t r e v i e w o f t h a t d e n i a l i s by a p p e a l . for 4(a)(1), 649, 651 a r g u e s on August ( A l a . 1998). 2011, timely asserted. motion that denied, the d e n i a l Thus, the t r i a l postjudgment the The r u l e s do n o t p r o v i d e o f one's own post- Ex p a r t e M u t u a l Sav. L i f e I n s . Co., 765 appeal that 11, however, to the e x t e n t the court motion, erred that So. husband i n denying h i s argument i s not We d i s m i s s t h a t p a r t o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s appeal p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e d e n i a l o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as b e i n g untimely f i l e d . R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P.; Momar, I n c . v. S c h n e i d e r , 823 So. 2d 701, 707 The husband also raises ( A l a . C i v . App. issues concerning that p a r t of the t r i a l i n his appellate brief c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 24, 2011, order that p u r p o r t s to grant the r e l i e f in her u n t i m e l y postjudgment 10 2001). motion. r e q u e s t e d by t h e w i f e However, the void 2110387 portions of that order Etowah Cnty. cannot support an a p p e a l . J.D.R. v . Dep't o f Human R e s . , 86 So. 3d 3 9 1 , 394 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . A c c o r d i n g 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 husband's a p p e a l p e r t a i n i n g t o those p o r t i o n s o f t h e October 24, 2011, o r d e r "albeit with that are void instructions f o r want to the [ t r i a l ] those v o i d p o r t i o n s of t h a t order. of jurisdiction, court to vacate" Id. The a p p e l l e e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e i s d e n i e d . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Thompson, INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without 11 writing.

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.