Timothy Edward Stephens v. Kathryn Nelson (Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court: CV-05-78)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 09/06/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111181 Timothy Edward Stephens v. Kathryn Nelson 2120111 Rebecca Lynn Stephens Kimbrough v. Kathryn Nelson Appeals from C l a r k e C i r c u i t (CV-05-00078) Court 2111181 and 2120111 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . In 2005, Circuit Kathryn Court S t e p h e n s and for complaint of and and trial filed an court") a c t i o n i n the against Clarke Timothy Edward Rebecca Lynn Stephens Kimbrough s e e k i n g division Stephens, ("the Nelson certain Kimbrough. real property Nelson owned later a by sale Nelson, amended her 2005 a d d e d L a r r y W h a t l e y as a d e f e n d a n t . On September 22, 2008, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d an a g r e e m e n t r e a c h e d by judgment d i v i d e d the location survey to of be the property various conducted but parcels later. the p a r t i e s . specified would In non-exclusive existing Paragraph easement roadways 8 of which the for September 22, exact determined addition, the ingress transverse the be p r o v i d e d t h a t "each p a r t y t o t h i s p r o c e e d i n g a that That and the 2008, subject granted along the property." judgment further stated: "8. T h a t [ N e l s o n ] s h a l l have t h e o p t i o n o f closing the existing roadway w h i c h e n t e r s the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y from the Northwest s i d e of the p r o p e r t y , p r o v i d e d a roadway o f e q u a l o r g r e a t e r w i d t h and q u a l i t y i s f i r s t c o n s t r u c t e d a c r o s s t h e p r o p e r t y o f [ N e l s o n ] , w h i c h roadway c o n n e c t s w i t h t h e roadway w h i c h i s p r e s e n t l y b e i n g u s e d t o a c c e s s 2 a judgment s h a l l be egress by 2111181 and 2120111 the property to be received [ K i m b r o u g h ] , and L a r r y W h a t l e y . " On June 26, 2009, N e l s o n f i l e d seeking t o have comply with judgment Kimbrough some held provisions pertaining i n contempt of Kimbrough [Stephens], a "motion f o r contempt," the t o t h e payment under t h a t judgment. by for failing September 22, to 2008, f o r the survey r e q u i r e d later moved t o d i s m i s s that m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t she h a d p a i d f o r h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e s u r v e y c o s t , and, on J u l y 16, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g N e l s o n ' s motion f o r contempt. A l s o on J u l y 16, 2009, N e l s o n f i l e d a " m o t i o n t o c o m p e l , " seeking based an on judgment. order the requiring survey Kimbrough ordered in the to execute the September 22, deeds 2008, On A u g u s t 3, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g Kimbrough t o e x e c u t e t h o s e deeds. On June 22, 2011, S t e p h e n s f i l e d a " m o t i o n t o c o m p e l for temporary r e l i e f and for specific N e l s o n h a d c l o s e d t h e e x i s t i n g roadway road") used by Stephens c o n s t r u c t e d a new r o a d to access alleging that ( h e r e i n a f t e r "the o l d his property and had ("the new r o a d " ) a c r o s s h e r p r o p e r t y t o a l l o w access to Stephens's p r o p e r t y . the acts," and Stephens a l l e g e d that new r o a d d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f p a r a g r a p h 3 2111181 and 2120111 8 o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2008, j u d g m e n t . On October Kimbrough f i l e d a motion s i m i l a r i n substance S t e p h e n s on June 22, The hearing record indicates d u r i n g which matter before to that f i l e d the that the parties trial agreed court not the new road. conducted to submit Rather, the p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s the trial court, and the t r a v e l e d to the p r o p e r t y at i s s u e to view both and 2011, by 2011. testimony of w i t n e s s e s . the 14, The r e c o r d on appeal trial a the argued court the o l d road does n o t contain a t r a n s c r i p t of t h a t h e a r i n g . On May 24, 2012, f a v o r of Nelson. the trial court entered a judgment i n That o r d e r p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m o t i o n s , [ N e l s o n ' s ] r e s p o n s e , a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l , and t h e C o u r t h a v i n g gone t o t h e p r o p e r t y and v i e w e d the roads in q u e s t i o n , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f fact: "1. T h a t t h e new r o a d c o n s t r u c t e d by [ N e l s o n ] across her p r o p e r t y i s of g r e a t e r w i d t h and q u a l i t y t h a n t h e 'plantation r o a d ' o r o l d r o a d t h a t she c l o s e d . "2. T h a t t h e new r o a d c o n s t r u c t e d by [ N e l s o n ] f u l l y complies w i t h paragraph 8 of t h e [ j u d g m e n t ] e n t e r e d on September 22, 2008. "3. road or T h a t [ N e l s o n ] has c l o s e d t h e o l d 'plantation road' across her 4 2111181 and 2120111 p r o p e r t y by constructing t h e new road across her p r o p e r t y , which i s o f g r e a t e r w i d t h and q u a l i t y t h a n t h e o l d r o a d o r 'plantation road.'" Based on those f i n d i n g s , the t r i a l s o u g h t by S t e p h e n s and relief each f i l e d a postjudgment motion. s u p p o r t o f h i s m o t i o n , S t e p h e n s s u b m i t t e d h i s own and an a f f i d a v i t by D e b r a J . S t e p h e n s . in denied the Kimbrough. S t e p h e n s and K i m b r o u g h In court support o f her postjudgment motion Kimbrough 1 certain affidavit submitted deeds and an a f f i d a v i t of a surveyor. N e l s o n r e s p o n d e d t o t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s by p o i n t i n g out that the p a r t i e s had m e r i t s t h a t t e s t i m o n y was agreed during unnecessary. the hearing Nelson also on asserted a r g u m e n t s d i s p u t i n g c e r t a i n " f a c t s " as a l l e g e d by S t e p h e n s Nelson. the and N e l s o n a l s o moved t o s t r i k e t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by S t e p h e n s and N e l s o n i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s on A u g u s t 10, 2012, stating: "Whereas a h e a r i n g was h e l d on J u l y 27, 2012, on s a i d [postjudgment] motions. A t s a i d h e a r i n g each The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t D e b r a J . S t e p h e n s i s S t e p h e n s ' s w i f e , b u t she i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n o r t o t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2008, j u d g m e n t . 1 5 2111181 a n d 2120111 a t t o r n e y p r e s e n t e d a r g u m e n t s , a n d some and o t h e r e x h i b i t s were p r e s e n t e d . photographs "Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m o t i o n s , [ N e l s o n ' s ] r e s p o n s e , arguments o f c o u n s e l , e x h i b i t s and t h e C o u r t h a v i n g gone t o t h e p r o p e r t y a n d v i e w e d t h e roads i n q u e s t i o n "It follows: i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as "1. The motions filed by [Stephens and K i m b r o u g h ] t o a l t e r , amend o r v a c a t e a r e h e r e b y denied." (Emphasis motion added.) The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on N e l s o n ' s to strike. Stephens and Kimbrough each t i m e l y appealed. Our supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e appeal t o t h i s c o u r t pursuant t o § 12-27(6), A l a . Code 1975. Initially, we n o t e subject-matter this of that jurisdiction the dissent has q u e s t i o n e d t h e of the t r i a l court to consider m a t t e r b e c a u s e o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e the t r i a l - c o u r t clerk to collect a filing o f a l a c k o f p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e on N e l s o n . compel" f i l e d by Stephens failure on t h e p a r t f e e and because The 2011 " m o t i o n s t o and Kimbrough sought a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r N e l s o n h a d p r o p e r l y c o m p l i e d w i t h p a r a g r a p h 8 o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 22, 2008, j u d g m e n t b y c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e new r o a d before exercising h e r o p t i o n under 6 t h e September 22, 2008, 2111181 and judgment 2120111 to jurisdiction close the old road. t o i n t e r p r e t and A 2 enforce trial court retains i t s owns j u d g m e n t s . "A trial court has inherent authority to interpret, clarify, and enforce i t s own final judgments. See Helms v. Helms' K e n n e l s , I n c . , 646 So. 2d 1343, 1347 ( A l a . 1994) ('a t r i a l c o u r t does have r e s i d u a l j u r i s d i c t i o n or a u t h o r i t y to take c e r t a i n a c t i o n s necessary to e n f o r c e or i n t e r p r e t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ' ) ; G i l d v. Holmes, 680 So. 2d 326, 329 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ('A t r i a l c o u r t p o s s e s s e s an i n h e r e n t power o v e r i t s own judgments that a u t h o r i z e s i t to i n t e r p r e t , c l a r i f y , implement, or enforce those judgments.'). Thus, even a f t e r t h i s C o u r t , on t h e d i r e c t a p p e a l , a f f i r m [ s ] t h e trial c o u r t ' s ... j u d g m e n t , [ t h e t r i a l ] c o u r t r e t a i n [ s ] jurisdiction to interpret and clarify that judgment." S t a t e P e r s . Bd. In Garris 1 9 9 4 ) , and 1981), supports v. A k e r s , v. Garris, 797 So. 643 So. Mayhan v. Mayhan, 395 this court explained an a p p e a l may 2d 422, So. that 2d 424 993 ( A l a . 2000). (Ala. Civ. App. (Ala. Civ. App. judgment that 2d 1022 a final a l s o be i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n t h e s e n s e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n to implement, e n f o r c e , c l a r i f y i t s judgment. I n G a r r i s v. G a r r i s , 643 So. 2d a t or 995, E a c h o f t h e two 2011 " m o t i o n s t o c o m p e l " was i n t h e n a t u r e o f a m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t . T h e r e f o r e , a f i l i n g f e e was due f o r those motions. However, we disagree with the d i s s e n t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e payment o f a f i l i n g f e e was a requirement i m p l i c a t i n g 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 of the t r i a l court. 2 7 2111181 and this court jurisdiction 2120111 explained to enforce the trial or c l a r i f y court's retention of i t s judgment: "[A]lthough the motion i s e n t i t l e d as one for m o d i f i c a t i o n , the a c t u a l r e l i e f sought i s f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o c l a r i f y and e n f o r c e i t s o r i g i n a l judgment, which ' e q u a l l y d i v i d e d ' the remaining funds. F o r appeal p u r p o s e s , the d i v o r c e judgment was a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ; h o w e v e r , i t a l s o c o n t i n u e d t o be i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n n a t u r e i n t h e e v e n t i t became e s s e n t i a l t o augment, r e f i n e , c l a r i f y , o r e n f o r c e provisions regarding the final disposition of p r o p e r t y and t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d s . Mayhan v. Mayhan, 395 So. 2d 1022 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) . " (Emphasis added.) In Mayhan, s u p r a , c i t e d i n G a r r i s v. G a r r i s , court explained that a t r i a l its supra, this court retains j u r i s d i c t i o n over judgments: "We concur w i t h the husband t h a t a d i v o r c e judgment d i v i d i n g p r o p e r t y between the p a r t i e s i s n o t s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n as t o s u c h p r o p e r t y division on account of changed conditions. Culverhouse v. C u l v e r h o u s e , 389 So. 2d 937 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) ; R u s s e l l v. R u s s e l l , 386 So. 2d 758 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . However, t h e 1980 j u d g m e n t d i d n o t m o d i f y t h e 1979 a g r e e m e n t and j u d g m e n t . The a g r e e m e n t a u t h o r i z e d an e q u a l division of [ t h e p a r t i e s ' ] e q u i t y i n t h e p r o p e r t y s h o u l d t h e house be s o l d and no a l t e r a t i o n as t o s u c h p r o v i s i o n was made by t h e l a t e s t j u d g m e n t . The a g r e e m e n t was ambiguous s i n c e i t d i d n o t s t a t e how, when, by whom o r i n what manner t h e house w o u l d be s o l d , and t h e j u d g m e n t c l a r i f i e d such matters. By v i r t u e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t of the parties, the court originally had j u r i s d i c t i o n of the p r o p e r t y . By o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r any 8 2111181 and 2120111 further judgments which might be subsequently r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o e n f o r c e , i m p l e m e n t o r make a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of the matter. For the purposes o f a p p e a l , t h e 1979 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was f i n a l ; y e t , i t was a l s o i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n nature ' i n s o f a r as n e c e s s a r y t o i m p l e m e n t o r e n f o r c e t h e p r o v i s i o n s as t o f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y by s a l e and d i v i s i o n of the proceeds. (Citations omitted).' Haney v. Haney, 50 A l a . App. 79, 277 So. 2d 356 (1973). I n Haney t h e h u s b a n d r a i s e d t h e same i s s u e as i s h e r e i n v o l v e d and i t was t h e r e d e c i d e d c o n t r a to him." Mayhan v. Mayhan, 395 So. 2d a t 1023-24 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . a l s o B o y d v. B o y d , 447 ("For appeal So. purposes the 2d 790, 1979 793 See ( A l a . C i v . App. d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t was 1984) a final j u d g m e n t , b u t i t a l s o c o n t i n u e d t o be i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n n a t u r e i n the event or i t became e s s e n t i a l t o augment, r e f i n e , enforce residence. i t s provisions regarding ... The jurisdiction trial a sale of clarify, the marital c o u r t , by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , r e t a i n e d so t h a t any f u t u r e o r d e r s or judgments c o u l d e n t e r e d as m i g h t be p r u d e n t i n order to e n f o r c e , implement, or f i n a l l y d i s p o s e o f t h e e n t i r e c a s e by e f f e c t i n g a s a l e o f home o f t h e The that the parties."). September 22, b u t t h a t j u d g m e n t was trial be 2008, j u d g m e n t was a final judgment, a l s o i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n the sense t h a t the c o u r t might need t o c l a r i f y or e n f o r c e p a r a g r a p h judgment. Thus, the trial 9 court in this case 8 of retained 2111181 and 2120111 jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the parties r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r N e l s o n had p r o p e r l y c o m p l i e d w i t h p a r a g r a p h 8 of the S e p t e m b e r 22, Also, of the process 2008, j u d g m e n t . dissent's implicates subject-matter c o n c e r n a b o u t any personal jurisdiction. defect jurisdiction in service rather N e l s o n d i d n o t r a i s e an argument p e r t a i n i n g to s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s e i t h e r i n the t r i a l in this court. Therefore, 1 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. than any ("A s u c h e r r o r was defense of ... court waived. or Rule insufficiency of p r o c e s s [ ] or 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 i s waived" if not raised Accordingly, On in we appeal, reach t h a t the paragraph alleges party 8 that rather responsive the m e r i t s pleading of the or of new the the new than in ruling road the court i n f a v o r of N e l s o n . does n o t September road motion.). appeal. Kimbrough contends t h a t the t r i a l "as a m a t t e r o f l a w " alleges a 22, crosses property comply w i t h 2008, the Kimbrough the judgment, property belonging erred of to terms of and she a third Nelson. 3 In her response to Stephens's and Kimbrough's postjudgment motions, N e l s o n d i s p u t e d the a l l e g a t i o n t h a t the new r o a d was p l a c e d on t h e p r o p e r t y of a t h i r d party. Instead, she a l l e g e d t h a t t h e new r o a d was on property f o r m e r l y owned by a t h i r d p a r t y and t h a t t h a t p r o p e r t y i s now 3 10 2111181 and 2120111 Kimbrough asserts arguments and c i t e s caselaw p e r t a i n i n g to easements. Stephens constituted argues an that the impermissible May 24, modification 2012, judgment of the original, September 22, 2008, j u d g m e n t more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y of t h a t judgment. (Ala. 2004) modify See George v. S i m s , 888 So. 2d 1224, ("Generally, o r amend a f i n a l judgment has been a trial c o u r t has no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o order entered, more t h a n except 30 to days Stephens a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l to certain apparent easement 4 arguments and i n s p e c t i n g the property, the requirements pertaining that the trial i n determining of paragraph a f t e r the correct errors."). address 1227 to court clerical court an failed implied erred, after t h a t t h e new r o a d 8 o f t h e September or met 22, 2008, evidence to the t r i a l court judgment. The p a r t i e s d i d n o t p r e s e n t during the hearing on the merits. c o n t a i n s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g The record on appeal on t h e m e r i t s o r o f t h e owned by S t e p h e n s and K i m b r o u g h . N e l s o n c o n t e n d s t h a t t h o s e a r g u m e n t s were n o t r a i s e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s May 24, 2012, j u d g m e n t . 4 11 2111181 and 2120111 postjudgment-motion hearing. Thus, this court d e t e r m i n e what a r g u m e n t s were p r e s e n t e d The only entered the evidence i t s May property situations evidence considered 24, 2012, and the i n which and observe the by the roads a a l s o has property, at trial court the court. before i t of note in that, received disputed presumption i n favor ore tenus property of the Bell v. Jackson, W a l l a c e v. Putman, 495 case, because the t r i a l So. 2012, judgment So. 2d 1072, 2d 1075 42, 44 (Ala. ( A l a . 1986) . arises i n f a v o r of the t r i a l based on i t s having the 1988); In t h i s c o u r t r e c e i v e d no o t h e r e v i d e n c e , presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s 24, 530 to trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s e n h a n c e d by t h e c o u r t ' s h a v i n g v i e w e d property. to observation We has trial court i t s own issue. t r a v e l e d to the to the trial j u d g m e n t was i s unable the court's May viewed the property. In h i s b r i e f to t h i s court, Stephens c i t e s , as support f o r h i s a r g u m e n t s , t h e a f f i d a v i t s he submitted his c l e a r whether the postjudgment motion. court motion considered to submitted strike in that the support I t i s not evidence, especially evidence Stephens of postjudgment their 12 and i n support given of trial Nelson's Kimbrough had motions. See 2111181 a n d 2120111 J.S.M. v. P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89, 91 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t had n o t c o n s i d e r e d in support indicate submitted o f a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n when t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t whether evidence). evidence the trial court had considered We n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r S t e p h e n s n o r K i m b r o u g h h a s o f f e r e d an e x p l a n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g why t h e e v i d e n c e t h e y to not that sought o f f e r a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s have b e e n s u b m i t t e d reaching court to assist i t in i t s judgment. In t h i s case, motion to the t r i a l could hearing, i t i s c l e a r that, during the postjudgmentthe t r i a l court d i d allow the p a r t i e s to s u b m i t some e v i d e n c e . I n i t s A u g u s t 10, 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t order, stated that the t r i a l court photographs and o t h e r e x h i b i t s . " to this from t h e h e a r i n g postjudgment motions. The p a r t i e s d i d n o t s u b m i t on t h e m e r i t s See R u l e o r t h e h e a r i n g on 10(d), A l a . R. App. P. ( " I f no r e p o r t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o r p r o c e e d i n g s trial "some court a t r a n s c r i p t or a statement of the evidence or proceedings the i t had c o n s i d e r e d was appellant proceedings made, may or i f a prepare from a the best transcript statement i s unavailable, of the a v a i l a b l e means, 13 at a hearing or evidence the or i n c l u d i n g the 2111181 a n d 2120111 appellant's recollection."). to determine submitted whether i n support Therefore, the t r i a l court t h i s court i s unable considered o f the postjudgment motions o r whether o t h e r , o r a d d i t i o n a l , e x h i b i t s were s u b m i t t e d Regardless, none o f t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d arguments any photographs photographs, considered postjudgment-motion appeal. by hearing and, the by t h e p a r t i e s . i n support therefore, trial none court are contained of t h e i r of the during court evidence must not set f o r t h presume postjudgment order. that that the i n the record A c c o r d i n g l y , because i t i s c l e a r t h a t the t r i a l considered this exhibits i n the record evidence on on court appeal, supported i t s B e r r y h i l l v. M u t u a l o f Omaha I n s . Co., 479 So. 2d 1250, 1251 ( A l a . 1985) ("Where a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s not i n the record, i t w i l l be p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n t h e v e r d i c t o r j u d g m e n t . " ) ; H e n n i n g v. H e n n i n g , 26 So. 3d 450, 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) evidence before appellate support the t r i a l court, the t r i a l court the evidence court's ... i s n o t p r e s e r v e d f o r the i s c o n c l u s i v e l y presumed t o [judgment].'" W h i t e , 589 So. 2d 740, 743 ( A l a . C i v . App. 14 ("'Where ... (quoting 1991))). White v. 2111181 and 2120111 T h i s c o u r t i s u n a b l e t o r e v i e w t h e a r g u m e n t s s e t f o r t h by Kimbrough and S t e p h e n s i n t h e i r Kimbrough has maintained that matter of law," the r e c o r d appellate briefs. the t r i a l court Although erred "as a l a c k s evidence t h a t would enable t h i s c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e f a c t s upon w h i c h S t e p h e n s and Kimbrough accurate. record base their purported legal arguments are Thus, t h i s c o u r t i s u n a b l e t o d i s c e r n , b a s e d on t h e presented to i t , whether the trial court correctly d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e new r o a d c o m p l i e s w i t h p a r a g r a p h 8 o f t h e September judgment 22, 2008, judgment, c o n s t i t u t e d an whether impermissible the May 24, modification 2012, of e a r l i e r judgment, o r whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d w i t h to some a s p e c t o f t h e l a w p e r t a i n i n g t o e a s e m e n t s . well settled that the that record the a p p e l l a n t on appeal warrant a r e v e r s a l . " (Ala. May has contains Goree v. S h i r l e y , C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . relied Accordingly, on we 765 So. 2d 661, 662 Also, i t i s clear that i n reaching i t s evidence cannot ensuring evidence to 24, 2012, judgment a n d i t s p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r , court regard "[I]tis the burden of sufficient the say not that 15 the trial available to this court. Kimbrough or Stephens has 2111181 a n d 2120111 demonstrated error on judgment o f t h e t r i a l appeal. Therefore, we affirm court. AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n and Donaldson, J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without Thomas, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h w r i t i n g . 16 writing. the 2111181 and 2120111 THOMAS, Judge, I dissenting. respectfully dissent from the main o p i n i o n . Timothy E d w a r d S t e p h e n s and R e b e c c a L y n n S t e p h e n s K i m b r o u g h b o t h filed a " m o t i o n t o c o m p e l and f o r t e m p o r a r y r e l i e f and f o r s p e c i f i c acts" were and asserted that the motions filed pursuant R u l e 70, A l a . R. C i v . P. However, " ' [ i ] t i s w e l l s e t t l e d "[t]his than Court w i l l its title, l o o k at the substance to the considered under Turner determine Alabama Moore, v. 76 So. 2011)(quoting B r a s f i e l d 35 So. 3d 601, S t a t e Farm Mut. 604 Auto. how that Rules 3d of a motion 842, of motion Civil 844 is to that rather to be Procedure."'" (Ala. Civ. App. & G o r r i e , LLC v. Soho P a r t n e r s , LLC, ( A l a . 2009) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n I n s . Co., 915 So. 2d 557, Pontius v. 562-63 ( A l a . 2005))). Rule its own 70 r e c o g n i z e s a t r i a l c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o e n f o r c e j u d g m e n t ; h o w e v e r , " R u l e 70 i s i n t e n d e d p r i m a r i l y to p r e v e n t r e c a l c i t r a n t p a r t i e s from f r u s t r a t i n g c o u r t o r d e r s f o r the performance of s p e c i f i c a c t s . " Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 5 70.02[1] R u l e 70, A l a . R. C i v . P., R u l e 70, F e d . R. C i v . P. 5 17 13 James W. (3d ed. Moore e t a l . , 2013). i s substantially 5 See also similar to 2111181 and 2120111 12 C h a r l e s A. Federal W r i g h t , A r t h u r R. P r a c t i c e and Miller, P r o c e d u r e § 3021 & R i c h a r d L. (2d ed. Marcus, 1997)("Rule g i v e s t h e c o u r t s ample power t o d e a l w i t h p a r t i e s who thwart seek t o j u d g m e n t s by r e f u s a l s t o c o m p l y w i t h o r d e r s t o p e r f o r m specific Alabama acts."); Rules 2 of Champ Civil Lyons, Jr., Procedure fails, f i v e d i f f e r e n t remedies B a s e d on my not remove the the ... & Ally Annotated 2 0 0 4 ) ( " O n c e a p a r t y has b e e n o r d e r e d was 70 W. Howell, 867 (4d ed. t o do s p e c i f i c a c t s , are a v a i l a b l e and "). review of the r e c o r d , I conclude t h a t Rule appropriate gates from remedy t o the compel K a t h r y n disputed roadway. 70 Nelson Instead, to the " m o t i o n s ] t o c o m p e l " f i l e d by S t e p h e n s and K i m b r o u g h s h o u l d c o n s i d e r e d motions f o r contempt. 2d 200, 205 So. 1067, 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1072 compel or coerce It i s well settled 1220 filing see See 2002)(quoting 1989))("'Civil that the filing e n t r y of a f i n a l g e n e r a l l y D e c k e r v. ( A l a . C i v . App. fee. T.L.D. v. C.G., 849 of contempt a Kaufman, 18 934 So. So. to '"). judgment i n i t i a t e s D e c k e r , 984 550 seeks contempt 2007), which r e q u i r e s the Kaufman v. So. S t a t e v. Thomas, compliance w i t h orders of the c o u r t subsequent to the proceeding, (Ala. See be 2d motion a new 1216, payment o f 2d 1073, a 1082 2111181 and 2120111 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; F a r m e r v. F a r m e r , 842 (Ala. C i v . App. So. 2d 679, 680 2002). I f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t S t e p h e n s and K i m b r o u g h r e q u e s t e d the t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r N e l s o n t o p e r m a n e n t l y remove t h e that gates or to c o n s t r u c t a road t h a t complied w i t h the requirements s e t o u t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s September 22, 2008, j u d g m e n t . September party "a which 22, 2008, judgment, nonexclusive transverse "'ascertain[ed] subject 276 So. declare[d] 2d 425, 225 A l a . 287, 426 the (1973) the granted existing That roadways judgment r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s v. R o b e r t s , 290 A l a . ( q u o t i n g C a r t e r v. and 303, Mitchell, 142 So. a f i n a l judgment. The g a t e s a c r o s s t h e d i s p u t e d r o a d were n o t until September well 22, after 2008, 519 each 293, erected 514, court property." s e t t l e [ d ] the e q u i t i e s , ' " McCulloch 305, trial easement a c r o s s the and the In i t s the ( 1 9 3 2 ) ) , and was entry judgment; of the therefore, therefore trial this court's issue was c l e a r l y r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t time i n the "motions to compel." Thus, S t e p h e n s and K i m b r o u g h p u r p o r t e d for an i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t N e l s o n . 3d 837, 851 ( A l a . 2012) ( q u o t i n g Price-Williams, 40 So. 3d 683, 19 to i n i t i a t e new See B a t e s v. S t e w a r t , Kappa 689-90 Sigma claims 99 So. F r a t e r n i t y v. (Ala. 2009)(quoting in 2111181 and turn 2120111 Black's injunction Law is Dictionary defined p r e v e n t i n g an as 788 '"[a] (7th court ed. order of motions action filed I trial new contempt and to 70, Rule t o c o n s i d e r and conclude j u d g m e n t was injunction for pursuant court purported action, commanding or action."'"). A l t h o u g h S t e p h e n s and K i m b r o u g h a t t e m p t e d causes 1999)))("[A]n that the have b e e n injunctive and trial although court's new relief r u l e upon t h e new v o i d b e c a u s e t h e new should to i n i t i a t e May the via trial causes 24, 2012, a c t i o n s f o r c o n t e m p t and assigned a ".01" suffix of by an the c o u r t ' s c l e r k and w o u l d have r e q u i r e d t h e payment o f a filing A l a . R. f e e and new C i v . P. See s e r v i c e of process pursuant J o h n s o n v. H e t z e l , 100 So. to Rule 3d 1056, 4, 1057 ( A l a . 2 0 1 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t b e c a u s e t h e r e was n e i t h e r payment o f a f i l i n g fee nor f i l i n g of a c o u r t - a p p r o v e d verified of substantial jurisdiction 1038, appeal hardship the circuit t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t ) ; M.M. 1041-42 ( A l a . C i v . App. taken grandparents' properly f i l e d from a 2005) judgment court v. did B.L., not 926 ( d i s m i s s i n g the have So. 2d father's entered on 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 i n the a c t i o n pending 20 purportedly statement at t h a t time b e f o r e the 2111181 and 2120111 j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h e p e t i t i o n was required filing by the fee was Alabama n o t s e r v e d on t h e f a t h e r as Rules p a i d , which of was Civil Procedure, r e q u i r e d to initiate 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 s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction to grant the adoption petition). In my o p i n i o n , b e c a u s e no f i l i n g Nelson was not served the jurisdiction to consider j u d g m e n t was entered. trial the f e e was court lacked subject-matter motions Therefore, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on May p a i d and b e c a u s e filed after I conclude 24, 2012, the final t h a t the trial i s v o i d and w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . C o n s e q u e n t l y , I would d i s m i s s t h i s with court instructions the trial stemming from "motions] t o c o m p e l and f o r t e m p o r a r y acts." App. See the to Vann v. filing Cook, of 989 to Stephens's So. 2008). 21 2d not appeal vacate a l l orders and Kimbrough's r e l i e f and f o r s p e c i f i c 556, 559-60 (Ala. Civ.

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.