Bona Faye Hicks v. Donald Ray Hicks

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/14/2012 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110408 Bona Faye Hicks v. Donald Ray Hicks Appeal MOORE, Court Judge. Bona Faye H i c k s 2011, from D e K a l b C i r c u i t (CV-09-4) ("Bona Faye") a p p e a l s judgment o f t h e DeKalb C i r c u i t C o u r t denying h e r motion f o r contempt, f r o m a December 15, ("the t r i a l sanctions, court") and s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e stemming from a p r e v i o u s judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e 2110408 t r i a l court deciding a boundary-line and D o n a l d Ray H i c k s ("Donald"). d i s p u t e b e t w e e n Bona Faye We On J a n u a r y 9, 2009, D e n n i s H i c k s filed a complaint a boundary-line entered ("Dennis") a g a i n s t Donald i n the t r i a l dispute. the Following a t r i a l , appeal. and Bona Faye court regarding the t r i a l court a j u d g m e n t on S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009, o r d e r i n g D o n a l d t o relocate a fence, which l o c a t i o n of a previous had 12, 2010, contempt, sanctions, motion, they the t r i a l asserted by t h a t Donald had Dennis and Donald, t h a t Donald had filed a motion performance. failed the removed. and Bona Faye specific to In that t o comply with c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009, j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e he moved t h e f e n c e only p a r t i a l l y t r i a l court's d i r e c t i o n s . a suggestion O c t o b e r 3, been e r e c t e d fence On A u g u s t for dismiss of death, 2011, r a t h e r than according to the On S e p t e m b e r 29, 2011, D o n a l d indicating Donald f i l e d had filed t h a t Dennis had d i e d . On a motion to d i s m i s s , a s s e r t i n g t h a t D e n n i s h a d d i e d and t h a t D e n n i s ' s e s t a t e , w h i c h , Donald a r g u e d , was an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , h a d n o t b e e n opened. Donald requested the trial court to dismiss a c t i o n f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f Bona Faye t o add D e n n i s ' s e s t a t e an indispensable party. On October 2 5, 2011, however, the as the 2110408 trial court dismiss for entered an order behalf. The t r i a l substantially court and d e n i e d and s p e c i f i c Bona Faye f i l e d November and s p e c i f i c also complied with judgment sanctions, trial Donald's Bona lacked concluded motion Faye's motion f o r contempt, among subject-matter s o u g h t an a t t o r n e y On Bona Donald had performance. o f t h e motion to dismiss that S e p t e m b e r 18, a motion t o a l t e r , performance. the motion court's amend, o r v a c a t e on other things, jurisdiction O c t o b e r 5, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e no f i l i n g upon t h e f i l i n g to p e r f o r m a n c e on h e r own the t r i a l 1, 2 0 1 1 , a s s e r t i n g , court specific motion a n d n o t i n g t h a t Bona Faye was p r o s e c u t i n g contempt, s a n c t i o n s , 2009, denying that the t o enter i t s fee h a d been p a i d f o r contempt, s a n c t i o n s , and On November 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , D o n a l d f i l e d a F a y e ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ; he a l s o fee. December 15, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l that stated, i n pertinent court entered an o r d e r part: "It has been h e l d that t h e payment o f a docketing fee or the f i l i n g of a court-approved verified statement of s u b s t a n t i a l hardship is 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 a c t i o n , a n d t h a t a m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e a p r e v i o u s o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t i s a new a c t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e payment o f s u c h a f e e . Odom v . Odom, [89 So. 3 d 121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ] ; O p i n i o n o f 3 2110408 t h e C l e r k [No. 1 7 ] , Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a , 363 So. 2d 97 ( A l a . 1978) . A j u r i s d i c t i o n a l defect c a n n o t be w a i v e d and t h e r u l e o f e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l has n o t b e e n a p p l i e d t o remedy s u c h a d e f e c t . "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has r u l e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t when a f i l i n g f e e has n o t b e e n p a i d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may make s u c h o r d e r s as a r e r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e payment, and has a p p r o v e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t g i v i n g a p a r t y an o p p o r t u n i t y d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a p r o c e e d i n g t o pay a f i l i n g f e e t h a t was not p a i d at the time of f i l i n g . Espinoza v. R u d o l p h , 46 So. 3d 403 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . " I t a p p e a r s t o t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e payment o f t h e f i l i n g [ f e e ] , even at t h i s s t a g e of the p r o c e e d i n g , w i l l c u r e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t and t h a t t h e court has the discretion to permit such late payment. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y may, w i t h i n 14 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r , pay t h e f i l i n g f e e t h a t was u n p a i d by [Bona F a y e ] , and upon s u c h payment, t h e c o u r t w i l l deny [Bona F a y e ' s ] m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend o r v a c a t e i t s o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 5, 2011. In the event the f i l i n g fee i s not p a i d w i t h i n such p e r i o d , then the c o u r t w i l l v a c a t e i t s o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 5, 2 0 1 1 . " On December 19, indicating that he Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n . this court court lacked the motion Donald f i l e d a n o t i c e to the paid the filing Bona F a y e f i l e d h e r raises only O c t o b e r 5, 2011, when had on J a n u a r y 26, Bona F a y e trial 2011, associated with n o t i c e of appeal to 2012. one issue subject-matter contempt, 4 on a p p e a l -- jurisdiction j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e no for fee court, filing that the to enter i t s f e e had b e e n p a i d sanctions, and specific 2110408 performance was f i l e d . Both p a r t i e s agree t h a t a "contempt a c t i o n i s a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n r e q u i r i n g t h e payment o f a f i l i n g fee." G.E.A. v . D.B.A., 920 So. 2 d 1110, 2005) . Citing Odom v . Odom, 89 So. 3 d 121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , Bona F a y e matter argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d jurisdiction failure to rule on h e r c o n t e m p t t o p a y a f i l i n g f e e when s h e f i l e d In Odom, modification" the of former husband the support filed 89 So. 3 d a t 121-22. Citing 2d 556 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , t h i s and c o n c l u d e d t h a t , b e c a u s e motion for her a "motion f o r of a judgment The t r i a l c o u r t p u r p o r t e d deny t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n , appealed. subject- that motion. provisions d i v o r c i n g him from the former w i f e . to 1113 ( A l a . C i v . App. and t h e former husband Vann v . Cook, 989 So. court dismissed the appeal t h e former husband pay a d o c k e t f e e o r f i l e a v e r i f i e d had f a i l e d t o statement o f s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p s e e k i n g w a i v e r o f prepayment o f any a p p l i c a b l e d o c k e t fee, t h e t r i a l c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n former husband's motion. in 89 So. 3 d a t 123. t o a c t on t h e This court stated Vann: " 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 f e e , known a s a d o c k e t fee, [shall be] c o l l e c t e d ... a t t h e t i m e a complaint i s f i l e d i n c i r c u i t court or i n d i s t r i c t 5 2110408 court,' although that payment 'may be waived i n i t i a l l y and 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 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 f i l e d and i s a p p r o v e d by t h e trial c o u r t . I n t u r n , § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975, specifies that 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 f i l e d 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 modify or e n f o r c e an e x i s t i n g d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s c o u r t o r d e r ' ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d [ i n V a n n ] ) . The payment o f a f i l i n g fee or the f i l i n g of a court-approved verified statement of substantial hardship is 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 a c t i o n . See De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d Res., 470 So. 2d 1218, 1222 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; see 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 o r d o c k e t i n g f e e i s a jurisdictional defect.'). " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h e m o t h e r p a i d any d o c k e t i n g f e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h e r A u g u s t 2005 m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e the divorce judgment or her September 2005 petition for p r o t e c t i o n f r o m a b u s e . L i k e w i s e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h e f a t h e r p a i d any f i l i n g f e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s S e p t e m b e r 2005 m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t o r h i s December 2005 p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y . E a c h o f t h o s e f i l i n g s may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as ' c a s e s ... i n t h e d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s d o c k e t o f t h e 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 c o u r t o r d e r ' under § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , y e t on none o f t h o s e o c c a s i o n s was the a p p r o p r i a t e d o c k e t i n g fee p a i d . " "The t r i a l court, i n exercising j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s ' c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a f t e r the e n t r y of i t s d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n A p r i l 2005, a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n because the p a r t i e s d i d not pay the d o c k e t i n g f e e s r e q u i r e d u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 12-19-70 et seq., for that court to acquire 6 2110408 s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . A judgment e n t e r e d by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction i s a b s o l u t e l y v o i d a n d w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d appeal from such a v o i d j u d g m e n t . Hunt T r a n s i t i o n & I n a u g u r a l Fund, I n c . v . G r e n i e r , 782 So. 2d 270, 274 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) . The m o t h e r ' s a p p e a l i s , t h e r e f o r e , d i s m i s s e d , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s i n s t r u c t e d t o vacate a l l orders entered a f t e r the A p r i l 2005 d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t . See, e . g . , S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue v. Z e g a r e l l i , 676 So. 2 d 354, 356 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). Any f u r t h e r p l e a d i n g s f i l e d i n the t r i a l c o u r t i n w h i c h e i t h e r p a r t y may s e e k t o e n f o r c e o r modify t h a t c o u r t ' s A p r i l 2005 d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h e r e q u i s i t e f i l i n g f e e . " 989 So. 2d a t 558-60. Donald attempts to distinguish Odom a n d Vann from t h e p r e s e n t c a s e b y a s s e r t i n g t h a t , i n t h o s e c a s e s , no f i l i n g f e e was p a i d b y e i t h e r p a r t y a t any t i m e , w h e r e a s , i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , he a r g u e s , Donald p a i d the f i l i n g f e e subsequent t o t h e e n t r y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s December 15, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r a l l o w i n g e i t h e r p a r t y t o pay t h e f i l i n g In 315, Bernals, 319 fee. I n c . v. K e s s l e r - G r e y s t o n e , ( A l a . 2011), t h e Alabama whether a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l Supreme L L C , 70 So. 3 d Court discussed d e f e c t c a n be c u r e d w i t h r e g a r d t o l a c k of s t a n d i n g a t t h e time a complaint i s filed: "The question of standing implicates the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . Ex p a r t e H o w e l l Eng'g & S u r v e y i n g , I n c . , 981 So. 2d 413, 419 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . 'When a p a r t y w i t h o u t s t a n d i n g p u r p o r t s 7 2110408 t o commence an a c t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c q u i r e s no s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 ( A l a . 1999). Moreover, '[t]he jurisdictional defect r e s u l t i n g from t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s l a c k o f s t a n d i n g c a n n o t be c u r e d b y amending t h e c o m p l a i n t t o a d d a p a r t y h a v i n g s t a n d i n g . ' C a d l e Co. v. S h a b a n i , 4 So. 3d 460, 463 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . 'When t h e a b s e n c e o f subject-matter jurisdiction i s n o t i c e d by, or p o i n t e d o u t t o , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t c o u r t h a s no jurisdiction to entertain further motions or p l e a d i n g s i n t h e c a s e . I t c a n do n o t h i n g b u t d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n f o r t h w i t h . ' I d . When a c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , a l l o r d e r s and j u d g m e n t s e n t e r e d i n t h e c a s e , e x c e p t an o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l , a r e v o i d ab i n i t i o . R e d t o p M a r k e t , I n c . v. S t a t e , 66 So. 3d 204 ( A l a . 2010) . Thus, i f B r e n t w o o d l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o commence t h i s a c t i o n , t h e n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n was n o t c u r e d b y t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f K e s s l e r , and e v e r y o r d e r and judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s void." A p p l y i n g t h a t d i s c u s s i o n t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , we c o n c l u d e the l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r case could n o t be cured jurisdiction that at the outset of the by t h e subsequent payment of the f i l i n g fee. The 403 stood been trial c o u r t r e l i e d on E s p i n o z a ( A l a . 2010), i n i t s judgment, f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that, paid, reasonable trial court the t r i a l court and n e c e s s a r y may "giv[e] may concluding 8 that "when a f i l i n g make t o ensure a party v. R u d o l p h , 46 So. 3d such payment," Espinoza f e e has n o t orders as a r e and t h a t t h e an o p p o r t u n i t y during the 2110408 course of a proceeding t o p a y a f i l i n g f e e t h a t was n o t p a i d at the time of f i l i n g . " In Espinoza, counterclaim; We disagree. a f i l i n g f e e was n o t s u b m i t t e d alongside the c i r c u i t court l a t e r dismissed the a complaint t h a t h a d i n i t i a t e d t h e a c t i o n , and a s u b s e q u e n t m o t i o n t o s e t aside the order pending d i s m i s s i n g the a c t i o n , based counterclaim, was filed. 46 So. on t h e still- 3d a t 409. c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a n t days t o pay t h e r e q u i s i t e f e e f o r h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m ; indicated t h a t , upon h e r p a y i n g counterclaimant paid the filing s u c c e s s f u l on h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m . A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t c o n c l u d e d to "active." fee and I d . a t 411. was 14 the court the fee, the status c a s e w o u l d be c h a n g e d f r o m " d i s p o s e d " The of the Id. The ultimately On a p p e a l , the t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t had not erred by r e i n s t a t i n g the counterclaims filing fee, stating, upon payment of the i n pertinent part: " I n De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d R e s o u r c e s , 470 So. 2d 1218 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t p a y t h e d o c k e t f e e r e q u i r e d by § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] u n t i l n e a r l y two months a f t e r t h e y h a d f i l e d t h e i r c o m p l a i n t . The s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e a c t i o n had e x p i r e d between t h e time the c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d and t h e t i m e t h e p l a i n t i f f s p a i d t h e docket f e e . In c o n s i d e r i n g whether the p l a i n t i f f s ' a c t i o n commenced f o r s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n p u r p o s e s b e f o r e t h e payment o f t h e d o c k e t f e e , t h i s C o u r t 9 2110408 o b s e r v e d t h a t '§ 12-19-70 r e q u i r e s t h e payment o f f i l i n g f e e s ... a t t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t ' and t h a t ' t h e d e f e n d a n t i n an i n i t i a l a c t i o n c a n n o t know o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s u i t a g a i n s t h i m ' u n t i l the f e e s a r e p a i d and c e r t a i n j u d i c i a l a c t i o n i s t a k e n on t h e c o m p l a i n t . Accordingly, this Court c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e payment o f t h e f e e s r e q u i r e d b y § 12-19-70 ' 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 a c t i o n f o r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s p u r p o s e s . ' De-Gas, 470 So. 2d a t 1222. B u t c f . R u l e 3(a), A l a . R. C i v . P. ('A c i v i l a c t i o n i s commenced by f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e c o u r t . ' ) . "Section 12-19-71(a)(8), A l a . Code 1975, requires the c l e r k to c o l l e c t a f i l i n g fee f o r a counterclaim filed i n the c i r c u i t court. Jabez argues t h a t , l i k e t h e d o c k e t f e e mandated by § 12-19-70, t h e f i l i n g fee f o r a counterclaim i s ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . ' See De-Gas, 470 So. 2d a t 1222. Jabez suggests t h a t a c o u n t e r c l a i m i s not t r u l y 'filed,' a n d t h u s does n o t become p a r t o f t h e a c t i o n , u n t i l t h e f i l i n g f e e r e q u i r e d b y § 12-19-70 is paid. " A l t h o u g h § 12-19-70 e x p r e s s l y r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e d o c k e t f e e must be ' c o l l e c t e d f r o m [ t h e ] p l a i n t i f f at the time [the] complaint i s filed,' § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has n o t e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d t h a t a f i l i n g f e e must be c o l l e c t e d a t t h e t i m e a c o u n t e r c l a i m i s f i l e d . C f . De-Gas, 470 So. 2d a t 1220 ('"There s h a l l be a c o n s o l i d a t e d c i v i l f i l i n g f e e . c o l l e c t e d from a p l a i n t i f f a t the time a complaint i s f i l e d " ... I t was the obvious intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e t o r e q u i r e t h a t e i t h e r t h e payment o f t h i s fee or a court-approved 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 accompany t h e c o m p l a i n t a t t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g . ' ( q u o t i n g § 12-19-70, A l a . Code 1975)). Therefore, when R u d o l p h d e l i v e r e d the counterclaim to the c l e r k , the counterclaim was ' f i l e d ' and became a p a r t o f t h e a c t i o n o v e r w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n . See R u l e 5 ( e ) , 10 2110408 A l a . R. C i v . P. ('The f i l i n g of papers w i t h the c o u r t as r e q u i r e d by t h e s e r u l e s s h a l l be made by f i l i n g them w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t . . . . ' ) ; R u b i n v. D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 469 So. 2d 657 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985) ('"[A] p l e a d i n g o r o t h e r p a p e r may be s a i d t o have b e e n d u l y f i l e d when i t i s d e l i v e r e d to the proper f i l i n g o f f i c e r . " ' (quoting C o v i n g t o n B r o s . M o t o r Co. v. R o b i n s o n , 239 A l a . 226, 194 So. 663 ( 1 9 4 0 ) ) ) ; c f . Cunningham v. L a v o i e , 874 So. 2d 1068, 1071-72 ( A l a . 2003) ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y fee f o r f i l i n g a c l a i m i n the probate c o u r t f r o m t h e d o c k e t f e e s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d t o be submitted w i t h complaint i n a c i v i l a c t i o n i n the c i r c u i t o r d i s t r i c t c o u r t ) ; De-Gas, 470 So. 2d a t 1222 ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the docket fee submitted w i t h a complaint from the filing fee required in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e f i l i n g o f an a p p e a l ) . " 46 So. 3d a t 413-14 Thus, necessity the of (footnotes supreme a filing court fee omitted). distinguished alongside between a complaint, which, a c c o r d a n c e w i t h De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d R e s o u r c e s , 470 1218 ( A l a . 1985), i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , docket fee at d e t e r m i n e d , may the be time a So. and t h e f a i l u r e t o pay counterclaim subsequently is filed, in 2d a which, i t cured. Donald argues i n h i s a p p e l l e e ' s b r i e f that " [ a ] d d r e s s i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t i n the manner p r e s c r i b e d by the trial court prevents p l a i n t i f f s , s u c h as [Bona Faye] i n t h i s c a s e , f r o m f i l i n g a c l a i m and p u r s u i n g i t t o t h e end, but g e t t i n g a n o t h e r b i t e a t t h e a p p l e when t h e y d i s a g r e e w i t h the f i n a l judgment. The t r i a l court has a l r e a d y i n v e s t e d s u b s t a n t i a l t i m e and money i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c a s e and t o a l l o w [Bona Faye] t o 11 the 2110408 pursue h e r c l a i m a second time would cause t h e c o u r t ' s a l r e a d y s t r e t c h e d r e s o u r c e s t o be s t r e t c h e d even f u r t h e r . " Although we agree that this judicially economical, considered whether a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l on we result the basis of estoppel note that i s not this particularly court has d e f e c t may be already overlooked i n V a n n , i n w h i c h we s t a t e d : "[W]e r e j e c t t h e f a t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e mother i s e s t o p p e d t o a s s e r t nonpayment o f f i l i n g trial f e e s as a g r o u n d o f a t t a c k on t h e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n because subject matter estoppel.'" of a proceeding 989 So. 2d a t 559 Educ. f o r G u n t e r s v i l l e , 2005)). (1) ' j u r i s d i c t i o n cannot (quoting be conferred Alves 922 So. 2d 129, 134 over the by v. B o a r d o f ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 B e c a u s e no f i l i n g f e e was p a i d when Bona Faye f i l e d h e r m o t i o n f o r contempt, s a n c t i o n s , and s p e c i f i c conclude that the trial court lacked p e r f o r m a n c e , we subject-matter See a l s o Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 807 So. 2d 534 ( A l a . 2001) (concluding that, although the c i r c u i t court purported t o i n v o k e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an i n m a t e ' s R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n b y t a x i n g t h e f i l i n g f e e as c o s t s a t t h e e n d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g , when t h e i n m a t e h a d f a i l e d t o pay a f i l i n g f e e a n d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d n o t a p p r o v e d an i n forma p a u p e r i s d e c l a r a t i o n f o r t h e p e t i t i o n , the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r was v o i d b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t n e v e r h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on t h e p e t i t i o n ) . 1 12 2110408 jurisdiction over the a c t i o n . Because a judgment e n t e r e d by a court lacking subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i s absolutely void and w i l l with n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l , instructions to the stemming from the f i l i n g s a n c t i o n s , and trial court to vacate a l l orders o f Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t , s p e c i f i c performance. See Vann, supra. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas, J . , Bryan, concurs. J . , concurs albeit i n the r e s u l t , without Thompson, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h writing. Pittman, J . , d i s s e n t s , without writing. 13 writing. 2110408 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I believe that the facts of t h i s c a s e a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h o s e o f De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d R e s o u r c e s , 470 S o . 2 d 1218 cases this court ( A l a . 1985), and t h a t has i n c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d i n subsequent the holding of that case. In De-Gas, supra, the p l a i n t i f f s others ("the fraud. However, because t h e p l a i n t i f f s fee, she in the t r i a l - c o u r t d i d not "assign summonses office case plaintiff paid limitations filing that to pay fee had e x p i r e d applicable statute docket 470 contract the case, and "filed"; i t was two months on t h e i r f r a u d of further fee. after claim. the fraud limitations. 14 forward The clerk the p o l i c y of the c l e r k ' s the f i l i n g that or to the s h e r i f f ' s So. 2d a t 1219. and n o t t a k e a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , the of d i d not pay the docket of the complaint De-Gas, an a c t i o n had f a i l e d the breach I n c . , and s t a m p e d t h e a c t i o n as actions, copies explained to hold De-Gas, t h e c o m p l a i n t a c a s e number, l i s t t h e c a s e for service." that office and alleging c l e r k only the index of pending the in defendants") sued action The the i f the plaintiffs statute The of defendants c l a i m was b a r r e d The trial by court 2110408 disagreed and denied that part judgment motion t h a t a s s e r t e d fraud claim. payment of or the Our the filing substantial commencement purposes." required of a hardship of defendants' reversed, by is a jurisdictional action Inc. (emphasis added). The testimony i n that case v. concluding verified for supreme Res., court to that Code Inc. v. Midland of p r e r e q u i s i t e to the of 470 noted So. that limitations 2d the at 470 15 So. 2d at 1221. 1222 clerk's established Res., "the 1975,] " t h a t , u n l e s s the f i l i n g fees are p a i d at the time a complaint is filed, there is absolutely no judicial n o t i c e t o a d e f e n d a n t t h a t an a c t i o n has been f i l e d a g a i n s t him. R e g a r d l e s s of the f a c t t h a t the clerk's office stamped the complaint and summonses ' f i l e d ' on J u n e 14, no r e a l a c t i o n was taken to set t h i s s u i t i n motion u n t i l the filing f e e s were p a i d , by w h i c h t i m e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d had expired. Not only were the defendants not n o t i f i e d by personal or other s e r v i c e , but they c o u l d not have even gone t o the c l e r k ' s o f f i c e and f o u n d e v i d e n c e t h a t a s u i t had been f i l e d against t h e m b e c a u s e t h e c a s e was n o t l i s t e d i n t h e i n d e x o f pending actions. Thus, the d e f e n d a n t s r e c e i v e d no more n o t i c e o f t h i s a c t i o n t h a n i f t h e plaintiffs' attorney had retained the complaint in his desk drawer." De-Gas, the statement statute Midland summary- regard § 12-19-70[, A l a . court-approved an De-Gas, the t h a t argument w i t h supreme c o u r t fees of 2110408 Later, App. In in Farmer 2002), t h i s that court divorce motion t h a t the handed a petition to clerk. The modify, arguing, required to p r o p e r l y modify objections, modify. on had failed action. This and The serve the to trial court dismissed f a i l e d to p r o p e r l y Rule Ala. of the trial failed t o pay pay the Farmer Civ. court. filing v. R. the or Farmer, P., This filing the file so as court that the with its petition to father was court or the for fee overruled the holding the p e t i t i o n invoke as the also noted that that required the father stated that docketing fee is a jurisdictional 2d at 16 681 "[t]he failure (citing to the by jurisdiction and So. the mother's father's petition fee 842 open petition appeal, to in filing a court father modification i t u l t i m a t e l y d e n i e d the f a t h e r had 5(e), pay indicate that supra. the judge purported things, Civ. postjudgment filed, trial the a the not to file to (Ala. i n De-Gas, untimely the objected 679 on did in other 2d holding custody filed among So. hearing appeal was mother but a modify record modification during to The he 842 f a t h e r c o n c e d e d was petition that Farmer, expanded the case, court. and v. DeGas, had to defect." supra). 2110408 This court want of j u r i s d i c t i o n and d i s m i s s e d This characterized a failure fee as held that court a again defect jurisdiction the t r i a l in court's the 2008). In that case, appeal that the appeal. trial i n Vann v. Cook, j u d g m e n t was v o i d f o r court's parties because required f i l i n g court. the court h a d no jurisdiction implicated and this fee required jurisdiction. the appeal went 12-19-70(a), jurisdiction as v o i d again court f u r t h e r i n Odom v . Odom, 89 S o . 3 d 121 supra. e x a m i n i n g t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l court A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , subject-matter after This t opay of C i v . App. 2011), had f a i l e d the i nthe t r i a l of the t r i a l f o r want (Ala. appellant on she n o r t h e f a t h e r had p a i d t h e i n § Vann v . Cook, court over court held that the f a i l u r e the subject-matter dismissed This neither time i n i t i a t e d by both o f fees f o r t h e i r respective f i l i n g s In that case, filing subject-matter t h e mother argued f o r t h e f i r s t the t r i a l filing 989 S o . 2 d 5 5 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . m o d i f i c a t i o n and postjudgment proceedings the t o pay a and d i s m i s s e d t o pay f i l i n g concluded an a p p e a l and d e t e r m i n i n g fees motu that the i n the t r i a l that the failure 17 e x mero court. to pay the f i l i n g 2110408 fee rendered the t r i a l subject-matter Although that this Cook, cases jurisdiction. I concurred i n those a n d Odom v. Odom, cases, court incorrectly determined subject-matter jurisdiction addressed A l a . Code 1975. when a n a c t i o n Midland limitations 2004) own such So. a those 2d actions f e e r e q u i r e d by supra, at defense. 1222. De-Gas, I n c . The statute defense of and does of the trial 891 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 3 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . c o u r t may d i s m i s s a n a c t i o n basis, of limitations are not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l sua sponte courts The h o l d i n g i n D e - G a s , on a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l as t h e s t a t u t e our i n those the t r i a l over i s an a f f i r m a t i v e ("[A]lthough a t r i a l motion that the subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n v. Waite, beyond i s deemed commenced f o r t h e p u r p o s e s f o r an a c t i o n Waite judicata base R e s . , 470 implicate court. convinced and t h a t to pay the f i l i n g analyzing a statute-of-limitations not of supra. extend supra, this 12-19-70, v. f o r want I am now supra, c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n De-Gas, because of a p a r t y ' s f a i l u r e of void Odom v . Odom, lacked had § judgment c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g s i n Farmer v. Farmer, s u p r a , Vann v. supra, supreme court's 18 or the doctrine bases dismissal."). affirmative upon w h i c h Rather, on i t s defenses of res a c o u r t may the statute of 2110408 limitations court, is may b e r a i s e d t o b a r a c l a i m a s s e r t e d a n d , a s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , not asserted by t h e d e f e n d a n t . C h a s e Home F i n a n c e , Taylor I matter 991 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 675 that that implicates to consider not hold t h e payment the subject-matter an a c t i o n t h a t jurisdiction i n De-Gas that fee i s a jurisdiction 2 court Our supreme lacked had I interpret a filing f e e m u s t be p a i d at the time of the complaint f o r the purposes of that fee. court Rather, De-Gas as h o l d i n g filing of a subject- over the a c t i o n because the p l a i n t i f f to pay the r e q u i r e d the f i l i n g 2011). i s otherwise w i t h i n the of the court. the t r i a l i f i t ( A l a . 2007); of the f i l i n g not agree trial L.L.C. v. do matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of Special Assets, ( A l a . C i v . App. subject-matter failed be w a i v e d v . Newman, 93 S o . 3d 1 0 8 , 115 court trial did L.L.C., i t may i n the properly I n t h i s w r i t i n g , I a s s e r t my b e l i e f t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o pay a f i l i n g f e e r e q u i r e d by § 12-19-70 does n o t i m p l i c a t e t h e subject-matter jurisdiction of the c i r c u i t courts. In r e f e r e n c i n g t h a t f a i l u r e t o pay a f i l i n g f e e i n t h i s w r i t i n g , I also intend to include those s i t u a t i o n s i n which a party f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y o b t a i n a w a i v e r o f t h e f i l i n g f e e on t h e basis of s u b s t a n t i a l hardship. See § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a w a i v e r o f a f i l i n g f e e , " [ a ] v e r i f i e d statement of s u b s t a n t i a l hardship, s i g n e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f and a p p r o v e d by t h e c o u r t , s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k of c o u r t " ) . 2 19 2110408 initiating an limitations applicable However, claims action the that case, this are the enforcement, within in compliance to that circuit not claims and to are those filing a I cannot of claims [such statute of (emphasis believe of Alabama as the added). is Further, Code have Article noted not the of purposes." the later a filing be limitations fees or the be said to can this of court] So. 2d in this fee and filed commencement before In limitations. filing D e - G a s , 470 i s explained to pay to s t a t u t e of of over contempt required payment currently failure of limitations. s u b s t a n t i a l hardship one As of a s t a t u t e of p r e r e q u i s i t e to limitations that one courts are the statute jurisdiction nature t o w h i c h no how a statement action 12, see "jurisdictional this the a c e r t a i n t i m e p r e s c r i b e d by applies, be exercise a statute in In a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g c l a i m s the action. courts subject with an for at 1222 writing, I i n cases such as part of the the various curable. § 12-19-70 governing is the jurisdiction. 19, which i n De-Gas, t h e not set matters Rather, governs court purpose behind 20 forth in a over which i t i s contained finances. the As enactment of in Title the court § 12-19- 2110408 70 was to ensure t h e payment trial-court c l e r k from having termination of of f i l i n g ("No was to discourage that See behind the f i l i n g Accordingly, preferable that I the f i l i n g a c t i o n , the f a i l u r e De-Gas, 470 of f r i v o l o u s courts conclude fee i s paid t o do and t o p r e v e n t those the passage the c l e r k s of the c i r c u i t men.'"). new to collect litigation. doubt the purpose fees fees So. suits do a f t e r the 2d of t h i s at and t o i n s u r e although 'credit i t is at the i n i t i a t i o n so i s a m a t t e r of a of concern f o r the t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k and does n o t d e t e r m i n e t h e t r i a l subject-matter jurisdiction to consider 1220 provision n o t become that, a the pending court's action. 3 I a l s o b e l i e v e t h a t my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a n a l y s i s o f De-Gas s e t f o r t h i n o u r supreme c o u r t ' s r e c e n t d e c i s i o n i n E s p i n o z a v. R u d o l p h , 46 So. 3d 403 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . I n t h a t c a s e , o u r supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t did not e r r i n r e i n s t a t i n g counterclaims a f t e r the defendant p a i d the f i l i n g fees f o r those c l a i m s . The t r i a l c o u r t a n d o u r supreme c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had not o b t a i n e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c o u n t e r c l a i m s because the defendant had not p a i d the f i l i n g f e e a t t h e t i m e he a s s e r t e d t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m . The c o u r t n o t e d t h a t § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h s e t f o r t h t h e amount o f f i l i n g f e e s t o be p a i d on a c o u n t e r c l a i m , d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h o s e f e e s be p a i d a t t h e t i m e t h e c o u n t e r ¬ c l a i m was f i l e d . 46 So. 3d a t 413-14. In i t s a n a l y s i s i n t h a t c a s e , o u r supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t De-Gas h a d h e l d t h a t t h e payment o f f e e s was 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 ... for s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s purposes.'" E s p i n o z a v. R u d o l p h , 46 So. 3d a t 413. The c o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t , i n t h a t c a s e , t h e p l a i n t i f f h a d made no argument t h a t t h e f i l i n g f e e f o r t h e 3 21 2110408 Recently, 2012] i n Johnson So. 3d based v. H e t z e l , , [Ms. 1 1 1 0 7 5 4 , A u g . 1 0 , ( A l a . 2012), on t h e a r g u m e n t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , o u r supreme held court, a trial court's judgment v o i d f o r want o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n because the filing appellant case, had not p a i d o u r supreme court Odom v . Odom, s u p r a , own holding The court. Raine, § relied on t h i s and Vann v . Cook, on De-Gas, precedent the required A l a . Code supra, Odom improperly Johnson this v. court Odom, expanding urge De-Gas t o h o l d supra, t h e supreme v. H e t z e l , cannot court supra, that, u n d e r § 12-19-70 i n as i t s again divests 22 supra, as However, i t s holding i n whether, i n this expands t h e h o l d i n g o f a failure the c i r c u i t counterclaim had n o t been p a i d l i m i t a t i o n s e x p i r e d on t h a t c l a i m . For that supra. t o reexamine i n a l l cases, v. i n Johnson v. Cook, o f De-Gas, improperly this Farmer v. Farmer, v. and t o c o n s i d e r on I n s . Exch. holding overrule and Vann the holding case, t h e main o p i n i o n fee i s binding 905 S o . 2 d 8 3 2 , 835 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) . Hetzel, would holdings as w e l l 1975; Farmers b e c a u s e o f o u r supreme c o u r t ' s I supra, court reason, supra, court's In that supra. o f o u r supreme 12-3-16, fee. to pay a court of filing subject- before the statute I d . a t 414 n . 1 1 . of 2110408 matter such jurisdiction a holding enacting offset over was an a c t i o n . the the requirement the costs I do intention that of the litigants of l i t i g a t i o n not b e l i e v e that legislature pay f i l i n g fees a t t h e commencement of in to their actions. Further, fee does even affect assuming a trial that court's when a l a t e p a y m e n t o f a f i l i n g with regard to i t s statute defect in jurisdiction filing fee. can to create To h o l d 4 doubt set aside may otherwise as t o w h e t h e r a judgment, subject-matter limitations, cured sets by 470 regardless believe o f how jurisdiction e i t h e r on d i r e c t f o r anyone Board of Educ. for City ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) who t o seek o l d t h e judgment have r e l i e d upon t h e Ass'n c a n "be s e t a s i d e o r on c o l l a t e r a l any of the v. S o . 2 d 1 2 1 5 , 1217 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) (A j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d void, 134 the claim f e e was p a i d See I n t e r n a t i o n a l L o n g s h o r e m e n ' s subject-matter v. jurisdiction, I the stage a filing filing t h e payment m i g h t be o r w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s o r o t h e r s judgment. of a fee would not a f f e c t of be the requirement attack Davis, without a t any time ...."); as Alves o f G u n t e r s v i l l e , 922 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , (same). Under the holding of the As i s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e m a i n o p i n i o n , i n t h i s c a s e , D o n a l d p a i d t h e f i l i n g f e e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n . 4 23 2110408 main o p i n i o n and t h e c a s e s upon w h i c h i t r e l i e s , i ti s easy t o foresee on a j u d g m e n t for a situation many y e a r s being bound i n which p a r t i e s might r e l y but i n which another by t h e judgment for a failure party who w a n t s seeks to s e t aside to pay a f i l i n g fee. p a r t y t o move t o s e t a s i d e subject-matter 892 So. 2d result judgment or a a n d J . T . v . A.C., ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) w o u l d be u n f o r t u n a t e monetary ( " R u l e 60 a l l o w s a t any t i m e . " ) ; (same). Such i n cases i n which a judgment w o u l d be v o i d u n d e r t h e h o l d i n g a v. Lambert, a judgment t h a t i s v o i d f o r l a c k o f jurisdiction 9 2 8 , 931 t h e judgment See S h a m b u r g e r 24 S o . 3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 2 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) to avoid an o f t h e main injunction, involved i t would judgment. Thus, t h e h o l d i n g o f t h e main o p i n i o n and t h e c a s e s See finality can operate to defeat of judgments Mississippi Valley upon Title divorce or be damaging of of a but that extremely upon w h i c h i t r e l i e s i n the context opinion a the p o l i c y which the l i t i g a n t s I n s . Co. v . H o o p e r , 2 0 9 , 214 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e p o l i c y custody i n favor may rely. 707 S o . 2 d favoring finality of judgments). In a d d i t i o n , as i s t h e s i t u a t i o n of the holding i n t h e main opinion 24 i n this case, the e f f e c t i s t o a l l o w p a r t i e s t o sue 2110408 for certain their relief, own f a i l u r e 3d See a l s o J o h n s o n v . H e t z e l , at (the appellant his failure supra. i n favor successfully nullified of the defendants t o pay the r e q u i r e d The courts certain circumstances, matter t o use f e e a s a means t o a v o i d t h e judgment Cook, i s denied, to pay a f i l i n g summary own relief of the l i t i g a t i o n . ramifications So. and, i f t h a t state after See L e v i n e f e e ) ; and Vann v. have ruled that, i n receiving v. L e v i n e , an unfavorable 262 A l a . 4 9 1 , 4 9 3 , 80 S o . 2d 2 3 5 , 237 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t f o r m e r w i f e was e s t o p p e d setting divorce aside jurisdiction by a on o r i g i n a l "ha[d] e n j o y e d t h e f r u i t s Shapiro v. (1966) (applying Shapiro, circumstances Ala. App. based submission of the o r i g i n a l 429, having agreement So. decree"). acquiesced and h a v i n g 25 507, of affirmed wife See a l s o by conduct" in Reiss 513 v. R e i s s , 46 ( C i v . App. i n the divorce accepted lack S o . 2 d 5 4 8 , 54 9 of estoppel 2d a from and t h e former to those i n Levine); 243 on had been 280 A l a . 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 190 the "doctrine similar 422, ("Mrs. R e i s s , separation judgment when t h e b a s i s f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n the former wife of p a r t i e s may n o t a s s e r t l a c k o f s u b j e c t - jurisdiction adjudication. of t h i s filing on t h e b a s i s a 1970) decree and t h e the f r u i t s thereof 2110408 for some t e n y e a r s , is bound So. 2d by t h e terms 198, estopped advantage estoppel his in 1 99 obtained by their the contempt and t h e t r i a l v. Payne, In this petition, court take may to their "To 624 be own constitute must have been i n t e n d e d f o r Colvin (1928). ("[P]arties fraud."). the conduct of the party filing 1 993) of a decree own t o a c t upon." and and Hughes v . Hughes, the i n v a l i d i t y 118 S o . 5 7 8 , 579 Dennis thereof."); ( A l a . C i v . App. to assert adversary 343, i s e s t o p p e d t o h a v e t h e same a n n u l l e d case, Bona action 218 A l a . 3 4 1 , i ti s clear Faye intended i n response to that that that petition. For court the foregoing properly Accordingly, reversal denied reasons, Bona I Faye's I respectfully dissent of that conclude order. 26 that postjudgment from t h e main the trial motion. opinion's

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.