Beatrice Rose O'Hare v. Scott O'Hare

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/10/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110968 B e a t r i c e Rose O'Hare v. S c o t t O'Hare Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-11-974) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Beatrice default Rose judgment O'Hare ("the m o t h e r " ) o f t h e Madison Circuit c o u r t " ) g r a n t i n g S c o t t O'Hare ("the the parties' divorce judgment, appeals Court from a ("the t r i a l father") a modification of which h a d been entered i n 2110968 Colorado, to the extent the default judgment awarded t h e f a t h e r l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' minor c h i l d ("the child"). We d i s m i s s t h e mother's appeal f o r lack of jurisdiction. On J u l y 14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r request for registration attached to that filed of a foreign i n the t r i a l child-custody r e q u e s t was a c e r t i f i e d judgment t h a t had been e n t e r e d court a copy o f a order; divorce b y t h e E l Paso D i s t r i c t i n C o l o r a d o , a s e p a r a t i o n agreement t h a t had been e n t e r e d Court into b y t h e p a r t i e s t h a t was a t t a c h e d as an e x h i b i t t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment, that and a support order r e i t e r a t e d the s u p p o r t awards e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e s e p a r a t i o n child- agreement. Also on J u l y 14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y and c h i l d that support, a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h e mother had sent t h e c h i l d t h a t t h e mother c o u l d n o t p r o v i d e that t h e mother danger of incident, had been serving a the father, a s t a b l e home f o r t h e c h i l d , arrested sentence to l i v e with things, of f o r assault a n d was i n incarceration f o r that and t h a t t h e c h i l d had r o u t i n e l y been l e f t a l o n e when he was i n t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y . 2 a t home Attached to the 2110968 f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was D i s t r i c t Court's divorce On September service by 29, was 2011, granted, newspaper of g e n e r a l Following j u d g m e n t and the p u b l i c a t i o n ; the publication a n o t h e r c o p y o f t h e E l Paso other father father's and the orders. filed motion notice a for was motion for service published by in c i r c u l a t i o n i n E l Paso C o u n t y , C o l o r a d o . s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n on the mother, the father f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , s u p p o r t e d b y affidavit. On a January 6, 2012, the trial court his entered a d e f a u l t judgment i n f a v o r of the f a t h e r , g r a n t i n g the father's request to awarding the father terminating the register the sole legal the father's mother, o r d e r i n g father, Colorado ordering child-support the and the court's physical m o t h e r t o pay a r r e a r a g e t h a t had father's petition, and custody o b l i g a t i o n t o pay m o t h e r t o pay the judgment, child child the child, support support to father to the a retroactive a c c r u e d s i n c e the aside January the 26, default mother argued t h a t 2012, awarding the the filing the judgment the mother and father's 3 a father attorney of costs. On and of filed motion affidavit a motion to to dismiss. i n s u p p o r t of fees set The his 2110968 m o t i o n f o r s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t and t h a t the h e r and, trial thus, court lacked personal jurisdiction t h a t t h e a c t i o n s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . over A f t e r a hearing, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n s on M a r c h 23, 2012. The m o t h e r f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A p r i l 20, 2 0 1 2 ; t h e trial court purported t o deny t h a t m o t i o n The m o t h e r f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on May 24, 2012. t o t h i s c o u r t on J u l y 5, 2012. Upon request by t h i s court, t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r f i l e d " l e t t e r b r i e f s " r e g a r d i n g t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f the mother's appeal. This court allowed the appeal t o p r o c e e d as an a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n . R.P.M. v. P.D.A., [Ms. 2110915, Nov. 30, 2012] ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , this court stated, So. 3d , i n pertinent part: " A l t h o u g h t h e a p p e a l was a l l o w e d t o p r o c e e d , s u c h p e r m i s s i o n 'does n o t p r e c l u d e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e fundamental q u e s t i o n of a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a f t e r an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t h a s h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d . ' S m i t h v. S m i t h , 919 So. 2 d 315, 316 n. 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a l s o W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) (noting this court's p o l i c y of taking notice o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s a t a n y t i m e , e v e n e x mero motu)." 4 In 2110968 "The timely jurisdictional (Ala. filing act." C i v . App. of a notice R.J.G. v. 2009). of S.S.W., 42 So. On J a n u a r y 26, 2012, a motion to set aside appeal 3d is 747, the mother t h e d e f a u l t judgment; we a 751 filed construe that m o t i o n as a m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., which default allows judgment judgment. filed to within Following a motion motion. a party a motion days 30 after the d e n i a l of t h a t styled as this court Because file a Rule 59(e), to the set aside entry motion, the A l a . R. determined, based a Rule s u c h on mother motion, h o w e v e r , we mother on t h e , letter properly consider i t as appeal. The 60(b) the C i v . P. b r i e f s s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s , t h a t t h a t m o t i o n was considered of a postjudgment argues motion i n her would letter brief that her have b e e n more p r o p e r l y R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., second styled m o t i o n b e c a u s e , she s a y s , c o n t e n d e d i n t h e m o t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r was for lack however, of j u r i s d i c t i o n . sought the same The mother's relief as that Rule 60(b) a she void motion, requested i n the o r i g i n a l Rule 55(c) m o t i o n , i n w h i c h the mother a l s o argued a l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . "Generally, t h i s court reviews 5 2110968 the denial of a Rule determine whether 55(c)[, the t r i a l denying the motion." A l a . R. court C i v . P.,] abused A u s t i n v. A u s t i n , to i t s discretion i n [Ms. 2120102, M a r c h 8, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) . of motion "[T]he Rules C i v i l P r o c e d u r e do n o t a u t h o r i z e a movant t o f i l e a m o t i o n to reconsider the trial post-judgment motion." (Ala. 1985). (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . judge's ruling on his own Ex p a r t e D o w l i n g , 477 So. 2d 400, 404 See a l s o N.F.N. v. J.M.M.J., 999 So. 2d 5 2 1 , 523 Because t h e same r e l i e f was r e q u e s t e d by t h e m o t h e r i n h e r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) m o t i o n a n d i n h e r R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , t h e l a t t e r m o t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s an a t t e m p t t o u s e a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n as a s u b s t i t u t e will 2010) not allow. ("Because Ex p a r t e there f o r an a p p e a l , w h i c h t h i s Haynes, existed 58 So. 3d 761, 765 nothing court (Ala. i n the motion to d i s t i n g u i s h t h e R u l e 5 5 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] m o t i o n f r o m t h e purported Rule 60(b)[, A l a . R. C i v . P.,] motion, any R u l e 60(b) a s p e c t t o t h e m o t i o n w o u l d s i m p l y c o n s t i t u t e a m o t i o n t o 'reconsider' the Rule 55(c) motion."). Because the trial 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 t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g on t h e mother's postjudgment motion f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 5 ( c ) , see Williams v. W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d 332, 334 6 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2110968 2009), t h e mother's second postjudgment motion is a nullity and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p u r p o r t e d d e n i a l o f t h a t m o t i o n i s v o i d . N.F.N. v . J.M.M.J., 999 So. 2d a t 523. Because t h e mother's n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d more t h a n 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h e r Rule 55(c) postjudgment motion, see Rule 4, A l a . R. App. P. ( r e q u i r i n g t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o be within 42 d a y s o f t h e d a t e of the entry filed o f t h e judgment o r o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m ) , t h a t n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y a n d did not invoke Merriman, 963 therefore, dismiss this So. court's 2d 86, 88 jurisdiction. ( A l a . C i v . App. the mother's a p p e a l . Kennedy 2007) . v. We, Id. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 7

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.