Theophilus Hall v. Frankie C. Hall

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/11/2013 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, 2012-2013 2110943 Theophilus H a l l v. Frankie C. H a l l Appeal from D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court (DR-03-118.01) MOORE, J u d g e . Theophilus H a l l of h i s motion, ("the husband") a p p e a l s from t h e d e n i a l 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., t o s e t a s i d e a 2004 judgment, e n t e r e d b y t h e D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l court"). That judgment d i v o r c e d h i m from 2110943 F r a n k i e C. H a l l ("the w i f e " ) , d i v i d e d t h e m a r i t a l e s t a t e , and o r d e r e d the husband t o pay c h i l d support and p e r i o d i c a l i m o n y . The h u s b a n d a l s o s o u g h t t o s e t a s i d e a 2011 j u d g m e n t in a m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n t h a t was We dismiss the appeal resolved during i n p a r t because the t r i a l entered mediation. court lacked 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 t o e n t e r p a r t o f i t s j u d g m e n t , and we a f f i r m t h e r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n s of the judgment. Background On May 14, 2003, t h e w i f e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t court seeking assigned was c a s e no. DR-03-118. mail court granted the trial a d i v o r c e from the husband; t h a t complaint I n M a r c h 2004, a f t e r unable to p e r f e c t personal certified i n the was the wife s e r v i c e upon t h e h u s b a n d v i a or v i a a s p e c i a l process server, the trial t h e w i f e ' s m o t i o n f o r s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n on husband. On May 24, 2004, t h e w i f e r e q u e s t e d enter a default judgment against the that the t r i a l husband. court The wife a t t e s t e d i n a sworn and n o t a r i z e d a f f i d a v i t t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had failed, after service, against her complaint to answer or otherwise defend and t h a t , t o h e r k n o w l e d g e , t h e h u s b a n d was n o t on a c t i v e m i l i t a r y d u t y . 2 The t r i a l court granted the 2110943 wife's m o t i o n and entered that judgment, the other things, t o pay a d e f a u l t judgment of d i v o r c e . trial court ordered $766.48 p e r the month as husband, child In among support for t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' m i n o r c h i l d ; t o pay an a d d i t i o n a l $400 p e r arrearage month u n t i l satisfied; alimony; to to pay a specified child-support the wife $1, 500 per month convey h i s i n t e r e s t i n r e a l p r o p e r t y Seymore R o a d in Dallas County to the wife; p a r t i e s ' debts a s s o c i a t e d with r e a l property S t r e e t i n D a l l a s C o u n t y ; t o pay and t o pay the was The retirement e n t i t l e d o r had wife's trial located pay the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l debts; divorce i f he c o u r t a l s o awarded the w i f e i n t e r e s t i n as o f t h e d a t e o f one- fees. A the $3,500 t o w a r d wage-withholding order s u b s e q u e n t l y i s s u e d t o the husband's employer f o r the the a l l the l o c a t e d on C h u r c h o r d e r e d t h e h u s b a n d t o pay attorney of g a r n i s h i n g on or p e n s i o n b e n e f i t t o which the husband a vested d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and the to periodic c o l l e g e expenses of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d , attended college. h a l f o f any as was was purpose h i s wages t o c o m p l y w i t h h i s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r judgment. On S e p t e m b e r 1, 2010, the husband, t h r o u g h l e g a l c o u n s e l , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n the t r i a l c o u r t seeking 3 t o m o d i f y t h e 2004 2110943 judgment o f d i v o r c e . that, the In that p e t i t i o n , t h e husband s i n c e t h e e n t r y o f t h e May 24, 2004, d i v o r c e parties' child had reached t h e age asserted judgment, of majority and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e w a g e - w i t h h o l d i n g order i s s u e d by the t r i a l court s h o u l d be The husband terminated. also 1 asserted that he h a d been her divorce m i l i t a r y d u t y when t h e w i f e h a d f i l e d on active complaint; t h a t t h e w i f e h a d known h i s w h e r e a b o u t s b u t h a d c h o s e n n o t t o s e r v e h i m w i t h t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t ; "had never complaint separated" she had filed her divorce and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t he c o u l d n o t have h a d a c h i l d - support arrearage 2004, before t h a t he a n d t h e w i f e divorce as e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e t r i a l judgment; and t h a t c o u r t ' s May 24, he h a d n o t c h a l l e n g e d the t e r m s o f t h e May 24, 2004, d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t " b e c a u s e he was willing deception to provide f o r the minor child regardless of the on t h e p a r t o f t h e [ w i f e ] . " On F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d a l s o f i l e d a " M o t i o n to Temporarily S e t Aside Order of C h i l d Support." In that motion, the husband a s s e r t e d t h a t the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d had r e a c h e d t h e age o f m a j o r i t y as o f November 13, 2008, a n d t h a t , as a result, h i s child-support obligation should be terminated. 1 4 2110943 The husband r e q u e s t e d t h a t the t r i a l child-support provisions of the terminate the wage-withholding requiring m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was 24, 2004, judgment, $400 p e r month i n i n this matter." a s s i g n e d c a s e no. arrearages The husband's DR-03-118.01. The w i f e a n s w e r e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n counterclaimed not complied divorce f o r contempt, a s s e r t i n g t h a t the with numerous p r o v i s i o n s o f judgment. She the o r d e r , and " s e t a s i d e t h e O r d e r the [ h u s b a n d ] t o pay t h a t were n e v e r a c c r u e d o r due May court set aside sought "full the husband May 24, compliance" and had 2004, with the d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , i n t e r e s t , and an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . On May to 19, 2011, the trial court ordered the parties mediation. On July Settlement 13, 2011, the p a r t i e s e n t e r e d Agreement." Pursuant to the a g r e e m e n t , t h e h u s b a n d and t h e w i f e a g r e e d child-support terminated; and periodic-alimony into a "Mediation terms of that t h a t the husband's o b l i g a t i o n s should t h a t t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d m a i n t a i n a $250,000 be life- i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y naming t h e w i f e as t h e b e n e f i c i a r y ; t h a t t h e husband would cooperate q u a l i f i e d domestic with the wife's attorney r e l a t i o n s o r d e r ("QDRO") c o u l d be 5 so that a entered; 2110943 t h a t t h e husband would pay t o t h e w i f e ' s attorney attorney $8,600 as f e e s ; and t h a t t h e husband would pay t o t h e w i f e a t o t a l o f $250,000 a t a r a t e o f $1,500 p e r month t o s a t i s f y h i s c h i l d - s u p p o r t and a l i m o n y a r r e a r a g e s . According J u d i c i a l Information System ("SJIS"), on A u g u s t 5, 2 0 1 1 , t h e trial the parties' court entered 2011, adopted settlement i t as t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l entry "disposed on SJIS indicates that agreement and court. the to the State An A u g u s t 12, .01 action was on 08/01/2011 b y ( s e t t l e d ) . " On A u g u s t 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e w i f e f i l e d a " V e r i f i e d M o t i o n f o r Pendente L i t e R e l i e f . " the I n her motion, the wife a s s e r t e d husband had f a i l e d t o abide divorce judgment, i n which wife b y p a r a g r a p h 11 o f t h e 2004 the t r i a l husband t o pay a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' that court debts f o r h e r payment o f s u c h d e b t s . had ordered the and t o i n d e m n i f y The w i f e asserted the that t h e h u s b a n d h a d r e f u s e d t o make t h e payments due on a L e x u s SC 430 wife automobile; t h a t t h e husband had f a i l e d t o i n d e m n i f y t h e f o r payments she h a d made on t h a t a u t o m o b i l e ; t h e h u s b a n d h a d damaged h e r c r e d i t by f a i l i n g the requested required court order payments. The w i f e and t h a t t o t i m e l y make that the t r i a l t h e h u s b a n d t o p a y a l l amounts due on t h e L e x u s 6 2110943 automobile, that she be awarded possession of the Lexus a u t o m o b i l e , t h a t she be a w a r d e d $8,000 i n damages f o r i n j u r y to her credit, and Although the wife's claim against that she be awarded attorney motion appears t o a s s e r t t h e husband, there fees. a new contempt i s no i n d i c a t i o n that the w i f e p a i d a f i l i n g f e e a t t h e t i m e she f i l e d t h a t m o t i o n , and t h e m o t i o n was d o c k e t e d u n d e r c a s e no. DR-03-118.01. On A u g u s t 23, 2 0 1 1 , w i t h o u t a hearing, the t r i a l o r d e r e d t h e husband t o i m m e d i a t e l y t u r n over p o s s e s s i o n court of the L e x u s a u t o m o b i l e t o t h e w i f e a n d t o i m m e d i a t e l y make a l l b a c k payments owed on " b o t h also scheduled c a r s " to the wife. a hearing further relief should The t r i a l court f o r t h e h u s b a n d t o show c a u s e why n o t be g r a n t e d t o t h e w i f e . On A u g u s t 24, 2 0 1 1 , t h e h u s b a n d f i l e d a " M o t i o n t o V a c a t e Judgment." divorce j u d g m e n t was v o i d over him. divorce on I n t h a t m o t i o n , t h e h u s b a n d a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e 2004 f o r lack of personal The h u s b a n d a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e 2004 j u d g m e n t was v o i d , t h e A u g u s t 2011 j u d g m e n t , t h e p a r t i e s m e d i a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , a l s o was On jurisdiction October pendente l i t e 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e w i f e relief; i n that amended void. her motion f o r amended m o t i o n , 7 entered she r e q u e s t e d 2110943 that the trial automobile. court exercise jurisdiction over the Lexus On t h a t same d a t e , t h e h u s b a n d o p p o s e d t h e w i f e ' s motion f o r pendente l i t e relief, as amended, a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e L e x u s a u t o m o b i l e b e c a u s e i t h a d n o t been been purchased after part of the m a r i t a l e s t a t e , the d i v o r c e had assuming t h a t the p a r t i e s ' mediation b i n d i n g upon t h e p a r t i e s , husband requested wife to pay for been i t had finalized, a g r e e m e n t was v a l i d and t h a t agreement d i d not r e q u i r e t h e the that the t r i a l Lexus court automobile. The impose s a n c t i o n s husband against f o r the f i l i n g of her motion f o r pendente l i t e w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d c h a r a c t e r i z e d as f r i v o l o u s ; an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y and, the relief, he a l s o s o u g h t fees. On November 11, 2011, t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d into a written s t i p u l a t i o n agreeing t o extend the time f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e On December 19, 2011, t h e w i f e i n September husband to 2011, immediately the turn judgment. f i l e d a motion t o compel the h u s b a n d t o "Comply w i t h P r e v i o u s that, the divorce Court Order." trial over court had possession She ordered of the a u t o m o b i l e t o t h e w i f e a n d t o make a l l b a c k payments 8 asserted the Lexus owed on 2110943 it. The with t h a t September trial had w i f e a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e h u s b a n d had court order repossessed 2011 him order, f a i l e d to comply and she requested to immediately pay Wells the Lexus, and, that Fargo, the which i f the husband f a i l e d t o do so, t o take c e r t a i n o t h e r s p e c i f i e d a c t i o n s t o secure the debt owed on t h a t a u t o m o b i l e . 2011, the t r i a l The court granted On J a n u a r y 13, 2012, t h e December 20, 2011, f o l l o w i n g day, on December 20, the w i f e ' s motion to c o m p e l . the husband f i l e d a motion to order. On M a r c h 26, 2012, vacate the trial c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e n d i n g m o t i o n s t o v a c a t e ; at that hearing, o n l y the husband t e s t i f i e d . c o n c l u s i o n of the h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t requested At the that the p a r t i e s submit l e t t e r b r i e f s a d d r e s s i n g the p e r t i n e n t i s s u e s . The husband 2012, submitted the w i f e filed supporting e x h i b i t s . strike certain On May his letter 2012, and, On A p r i l the 16, 2012, same denying date, the April 10, t h e h u s b a n d moved t o exhibits. trial court entered denying " [ t h e husband's] motion to vacate that on a r e s p o n s e t h e r e t o , a t t a c h i n g numerous of the w i f e ' s 16, brief, trial court entered the husband's motion t o s t r i k e 9 a judgment and/or m o d i f y . " a separate the e x h i b i t s On order attached 2110943 to the wife's this letter brief. The h u s b a n d t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o court. Denial of Motion t o V a c a t e t h e 2004 D i v o r c e Judgment We vacate first address t h e d e n i a l o f t h e husband's motion t o t h e 2004 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t as v o i d f o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l jurisdiction. " R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s f o r r e l i e f f r o m a j u d g m e n t when t h a t j u d g m e n t i s v o i d . G e n e r a l l y , t h i s Court reviews a t r i a l court's r u l i n g on a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . However, w i t h r e g a r d t o Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , t h i s Court has s t a t e d : "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w on a p p e a l from t h e d e n i a l o f r e l i e f under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) i s n o t w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s been an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . When t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f r e l i e f t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f the j u d g m e n t , as u n d e r R u l e 60(b)(4), d i s c r e t i o n h a s no p l a c e . I f t h e j u d g m e n t i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d ; i f i t i s v o i d , i t must be s e t a s i d e . A j u d g m e n t i s v o i d o n l y if the court rendering i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subject matter or of the p a r t i e s , o r i f i t a c t e d i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s . Satterfield v. W i n s t o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61 (Ala. 1989).' " I n s u r a n c e Mgmt. & A d m i n . , I n c . v. P a l o m a r I n s . C o r p . , 590 So. 2d 209, 212 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . In other words, i f t h e u n d e r l y i n g judgment i s v o i d because the t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r o r p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o r because t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment violated the defendant's due-process r i g h t s , then 10 2110943 t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s no d i s c r e t i o n a n d must g r a n t r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) . T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de novo t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a j u d g m e n t as v o i d , b e c a u s e t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e v a l i d i t y o f a judgment i s a q u e s t i o n of l a w . O r i x F i n . S e r v s . , I n c . v. Murphy, 9 So. 3d 1241, 1248 ( A l a . 2008)(Murdock, J . , concurring s p e c i a l l y ) . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g o u r de novo r e v i e w , i n his special writing i n Orix, Justice Murdock r e c o g n i z e d t h a t when a t r i a l c o u r t , i n r u l i n g on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, makes factual findings i m p l i c a t i n g the ore tenus r u l e , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s a r e e n t i t l e d t o some d e f e r e n c e b y t h i s Court. I n E t h r i d g e v. W r i g h t , 688 So. 2d 818 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s a p p l i e d the ore tenus r u l e t o o r a l testimony heard by t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e g a r d i n g s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s challenged pursuant t o Rule 60(b)(4)." A l l s o p p v. B o l d i n g , 86 So. 3d 952, 957-58 The husband a s s e r t s that, ( A l a . 2011). i n 2003, when t h e w i f e filed h e r c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e a n d , i n 2004, when t h e w i f e p u r p o r t e d t o s e r v e h i m by p u b l i c a t i o n , he was a n o n r e s i d e n t o f Alabama and t h a t jurisdiction over publication. We a trial a court nonresident could not obtain personal defendant v i a service by agree. In B r a l e y v. H o r t o n , 432 So. 2d 463, 465 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , o u r supreme court recognized that Rule 4.3, A l a . R. C i v . P., a u t h o r i z e s s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n o n l y on r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t s . In Shaddix v. Shaddix, 603 So. 2d 1096 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , the Court of C i v i l Appeals addressed the p r o h i b i t i o n against 11 2110943 s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n on n o n r e s i d e n t defendants, s t a t i n g the following: " I t must h e r e be a d m i t t e d that reading and i n t e r p r e t i n g R u l e s 4.2 and 4.3, A [ l a ] . R. C i v . P., i n p a r i materia i s a d i f f i c u l t venture. Moreover, i t i s n o t r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t f r o m B r a l e y [ v. H o r t o n , 432 So. 2d 453 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , ] and o t h e r judicial attempts at construing these r u l e s whether the i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n a p p l i e s where the plaintiff asserts simply that the d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e i s unknown, b u t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s , as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , a n o n r e s i d e n t . However, s t a t e m e n t s by o u r supreme c o u r t s i n c e B r a l e y t e n d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n i s p e r m i s s i b l e o n l y where a r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t has a v o i d e d s e r v i c e and c a n n o t be l o c a t e d o r where s e r v i c e i s s o u g h t upon a c o r p o r a t i o n h a v i n g one of i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e s of b u s i n e s s w i t h i n the s t a t e . See W i s e v. S i e g e l , 527 So. 2d 1281 (Ala. 1988). Further, i t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e l i m i t s o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l due p r o c e s s m i l i t a t e a g a i n s t s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n as a mechanism f o r a c q u i r i n g p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a nonresident defendant in an in personam proceeding. See A l a b a m a W a t e r p r o o f i n g Co. v. Hanby, 431 So. 141 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . " S h a d d i x , 603 agree w i t h So. the jurisdiction 2d a t 1098. husband t h a t over j u d g m e n t i n 2004. the issues before "A defense B a s e d on him the court the trial time Shaddix, lacked i t entered we personal the default T h a t c o n c l u s i o n , h o w e v e r , does n o t resolve this at B r a l e y and court. alleging a lack of personal because of i n s u f f i c i e n c y of s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s , 12 jurisdiction however, can 2110943 be w a i v e d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b m i t s h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f t o t h e jurisdiction of the t r i a l court." K l a e s e r v. M i l t o n , 47 So. 3d 817, 820 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( c i t i n g R u l e 1 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.). In Klaeser, supra, a trial court entered a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e f a t h e r on F e b r u a r y 29, 2008. Id. a t 819. I n May communicated w i t h 2008 a n d i n November the t r i a l she was i n a c t i v e m i l i t a r y of child support judgment. Id. mother's request A l a . R. C i v . P., among o t h e r denied affirmed the court father the t r i a l judgment in trial default and d e n i e d her the d e n i a l f i l e d a motion, pursuant t o Rule to vacate t h e d e f a u l t judgment, t h i n g s , t h a t t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was that motion, court the court denied the jurisdiction. t h e mother I d . A f t e r the t r i a l appealed. o f the mother's Rule after the entry This 60(b)(4) r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d made a g e n e r a l the that I d . a t 819-20. v o i d f o r lack of personal court the of the d e f a u l t The m o t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y asserting, to A f t e r a hearing, for relief. notifying t h e mother s e r v i c e and c o n t e s t i n g t h e amount awarded "contest" 60(b)(4), court, 2008, motion, appearance i n o f t h e d e f a u l t judgment and t h a t she h a d f a i l e d t o c h a l l e n g e p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n 13 court at her 2110943 earliest judgment. opportunity I d . a t 821. following the entry of the default T h i s c o u r t s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : " I n K i n g v i s i o n P a y - P e r - V i e w , L t d . v. A y e r s , 886 So. 2d 45, 53 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t q u o t e d a p p r o v i n g l y f r o m L o n n i n g v. L o n n i n g , 199 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1 9 7 2 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t : "'"The r u l e s w h i c h g o v e r n o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s case a r e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . The filing of a pleading is a general appearance. Rule 65(c), Rules of C i v i l Procedure. J u r i s d i c t i o n of the person i n a c i v i l c a s e may be a c q u i r e d by s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e i n t h e manner and f o r m p r e s c r i b e d by law, o r by d e f e n d a n t ' s g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e . A g e n e r a l appearance i s a waiver of n o t i c e and i f a p a r t y a p p e a r s i n p e r s o n o r by attorney he submits himself to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. He may n o t thereafter avoid that jurisdiction by s p e c i a l appearance."' "This statement i s i n accord with earlier Alabama cases t h a t h o l d t h a t a defendant waives t h e defense of improper s e r v i c e of process i f that d e f e n d a n t does n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e i n h i s o r h e r f i r s t appearance f o l l o w i n g the e n t r y of a d e f a u l t judgment. I n P r i d g e n v. Head, 282 A l a . 193, 198, 210 So. 2d 426, 430 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court stated: " ' I n A e t n a I n s . Co. v. E a r n e s t , 215 Ala. 557, 112 So. 145 [(1927)], [the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ] q u o t e d a p p r o v i n g l y f r o m 4 C o r p u s J u r i s , A p p e a r a n c e s , § 64, p. 1364, as f o l l o w s : "'"Where a j u d g m e n t h a s been r e n d e r e d by t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t jurisdiction of the person, a 14 2110943 general appearance after such judgment w a i v e s a l l o b j e c t i o n t o the jurisdiction of the court over the person. Thus a g e n e r a l appearance by defendant after f i n a l j u d g m e n t w a i v e s any and a l l d e f e c t s and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s and return, j u s t as f u l l y as i t does where such appearance i s e n t e r e d b e f o r e f i n a l judgment." " ' I n t h e A e t n a I n s . Co. c a s e , s u p r a , [ t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ] p o i n t e d out t h a t i n t h e same t e x t (§ 65, p. 1365) many c a s e s were c i t e d t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t : "As t o t h e i m m e d i a t e p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n , a g e n e r a l appearance v a l i d a t e s a judgment t h a t was t h e r e t o f o r e a b s o l u t e l y v o i d f o r want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ' " Klaeser, The one. 47 So. 3d a t 821 Klaeser case is strikingly s i m i l a r to omitted). the present In t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t judgment i n 2004, and, i n 2010, that judgment. default husband sought i m p o s e d on husband did process or over ( c i t a t i o n s t o Iowa c a s e s him in modification him to by not the the husband f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to modify In his terminate v i r t u e of trial 2004. the court's At the p e t i t i o n , he the the challenge modification child-support 2004 d e f a u l t sufficiency lack time was the of of husband the obligation judgment; personal r e p r e s e n t e d by 15 petition, service the of jurisdiction filed legal his 2010 counsel. 2110943 N o t h i n g i n t h e h u s b a n d ' s 2010 modification petition placed the t r i a l c o u r t o r t h e w i f e on n o t i c e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d i n t e n d e d challenge over him, the t r i a l as did Hubbard, 625 So. husband the relies. distinguishable c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of p e r s o n a l 2d father 815 in Hubbard ( A l a . C i v . App. We, therefore, from Hubbard, o v e r him in his find a p p e a r a n c e and result, the t r i a l seeking to vacate the 2011 due we court's judgment e n t e r e d t o be a f f i r m e d . pretermit trial court's exhibits State the ex rel. which present the case supra. first the t r i a l court's appearance f o l l o w i n g e n t r y o f t h e 2004 d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , he a general jurisdiction 1 9 9 3 ) , on Because the husband f a i l e d t o c h a l l e n g e jurisdiction v. to the i s deemed t o have made t o have w a i v e d t h a t d e f e n s e . As a d e n i a l of h i s Rule 60(b)(4) motion, 2004 d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , as w e l l as the on t h e p a r t i e s ' m e d i a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , i s I n l i g h t o f our r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s consideration denial of of the husband's c h a l l e n g e his motion to strike the issue, to the wife's from evidence. D e n i a l o f M o t i o n To V a c a t e t h e December 2011 Judgment Although on appeal the husband has not specifically a d d r e s s e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of h i s motion t o v a c a t e 16 the 2110943 trial court's whether t h i s December 20, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t , we must c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n "'[J]urisdictional notice a n d do so e v e n S i n g l e t o n v. Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, (Ala. 2d W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s not be jurisdiction judgment. waived; a e x mero motu. '" 225 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g 7 1 1 , 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . may that 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 t a k e o f them a t a n y t i m e (quoting t o review consider i n t u r n Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. "'"[S]ubject-matter court's lack of jurisdiction subject-matter may be r a i s e d a t a n y t i m e b y a n y p a r t y a n d may e v e n be r a i s e d b y a c o u r t ex mero motu."'" M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So. 3d 1048, 1050 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So. 2d 452, 455 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n turn C . J . L . v. M.W.B., 868 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003)). On A u g u s t 16, 2 0 1 1 , when t h e w i f e pendente husband lite relief t o comply and sought with paragraph an 11 f i l e d her request f o r order o f t h e 2004 j u d g m e n t , no a c t i o n r e m a i n e d p e n d i n g b e f o r e The trial petition court had disposed and t h e w i f e ' s compelling the t r i a l the divorce court. o f t h e husband's m o d i f i c a t i o n counterclaim 17 on A u g u s t 5, 2 0 1 1 , b y 2110943 entering a judgment the Additionally, previously on raised been a s s e r t e d h o w e v e r , p a i d no for wife filing pendente l i t e A l t h o u g h the their before new new the issues trial relief trial or her court motion to purported during that action that should had not The filed her wife, request compel. to consider 2011 and were n u l l i t i e s b e c a u s e t h e y p u r p o r t e d contempt agreement. court. f e e a t t h e t i m e she upon t h o s e a d d i t i o n a l p l e a d i n g s pleadings mediation have been and rule 2012, those to i n i t i a t e assigned a a ".02" s u f f i x by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c l e r k and t h a t w o u l d have r e q u i r e d t h e payment o f a new 1038, appeal See M.M. Civ. App. 2005) from taken fee. (Ala. 1041-42 filing a 926 (dismissing 2d father's on g r a n d p a r e n t s ' a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n was not properly the i n the juvenile court, required filing by fee the was a c t i o n pending at t h a t time before t h e p e t i t i o n was Alabama paid, purportedly So. entered filed judgment v. B.L., Rules which was not of served Civil required on the father Procedure, to initiate as and no a new a c t i o n ; as a r e s u l t , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t l a c k e d subject-matter jurisdiction and F a r m e r , 842 to g r a n t the So. 2d 679, adoption p e t i t i o n ) ; 681 ( A l a . C i v . App. 18 2002) Farmer v. (father's 2110943 appeal was dismissed custody-modification for petition p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and and had failed to lack of could f a t h e r had properly jurisdiction not substitute f a i l e d t o pay serve because mother for a filing with a a fee his custody- m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n , w h i c h were r e q u i r e d s i n c e t h e custody- m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n w o u l d have i n i t i a t e d a new T.B. v. T.A.P., (Pittman, 979 So. 2d J., dissenting) 80, 91 (Ala. action). Civ. App. Cf. 2007) ( r e c o g n i z i n g that motions seeking r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a r e deemed f i l e d i n the initiate a new previous Moore v. a c t i o n and Moore, 849 do So. 2d (recognizing a distinction modification petition, payment o f a f i l i n g As trial a result not 969, 970 (Ala. Civ. between R u l e the action); latter of nonpayment of 60(b) App. m o t i o n s and which requires of the subject-matter the filing jurisdiction i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e w i f e ' s A u g u s t and December 2011 the which purported trial court's December extent a the 20, 2011, fee, the over the filings. judgment, to grant the w i f e ' s motion to compel, i s v o i d and o f no e f f e c t ; t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s May the 2002) fee). c o u r t a c q u i r e d no Therefore, and i t denied the husband's 19 16, 2012, motion to judgment, t o vacate that 2110943 December 20, effect. Because a v o i d judgment w i l l 2 2 0 1 1 , judgment i s likewise void and o f no 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 a t p o r t i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l t o t h e e x t e n t it seeks review of the denial of h i s motion t o vacate the December 20, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t , a l b e i t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e trial c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s December 20, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t . APPEAL DISMISSED I N PART WITH INSTRUCTIONS; P i t t m a n and Bryan, Thompson, with AFFIRMED. J J . , concur. P.J., concurs i n part and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t , writing. Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s herself. We e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s December 20, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t , h a d t h e w i f e p a i d t h e necessary f i l i n g f e e . 2 20 2110943 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g in part. I concur with i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g t h a t p o r t i o n of the o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g the trial c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the husband's m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 60(b)(4), dissent trial lite from that court's relief A l a . R. C i v . P. portion r u l i n g s on However, of the opinion the mother's I respectfully holding request because the mother a f i l i n g fee. 21 the f o r pendente a n d h e r m o t i o n t o c o m p e l were v o i d subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n that for lack failed of t o pay

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.