J.B.M. v. J.C.M. (Appeal from Cullman Probate Court: AD-2012-30)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 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 , The s t e p f a t h e r , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 2120165 and 2120166 J.B.M. v. J.C.M. Appeals from Cullman Probate Court (AD-2012-30 and AD-2012-31) DONALDSON, J u d g e . J.B.M. ("the f a t h e r " ) , t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f W.M. a n d B.M. ("the c h i l d r e n " ) , Probate Court appeals ("the p r o b a t e from orders court"), of the Cullman disposing of h i s postjudgment motions s e e k i n g r e l i e f from judgments e n t e r e d by 2120165 and 2120166 t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t on J u l y 18, 2012, g r a n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n s o f J.C.M. ("the s t e p f a t h e r " ) , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s t e p f a t h e r , t o a d o p t the children. probate We court's dismiss order the appeals of October 12, f a t h e r ' s second postjudgment motion, the probate court i n part, the dismissing 2012, reverse the and remand t h e c a s e s t o f o r i t to consider the father's second postjudgment motion. Facts The father children, were Court i n A p r i l into and M.M. divorced 2008. the divorce awarded j o i n t and P r o c e d u r a l History ("the m o t h e r " ) , by j u d g m e n t the mother of the Cullman As a p a r t o f an a g r e e m e n t judgment, of the the mother and Circuit incorporated the father l e g a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e mother a w a r d e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y , and t h e f a t h e r was visitation support. were rights. The d i v o r c e The father also j u d g m e n t was agreed to granted pay child subsequently modified A u g u s t 2011 on a p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i was in f i l e d by t h e m o t h e r , and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r s o l e l e g a l c u s t o d y o f the children subject to the father's v i s i t a t i o n rights. The m o t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y m a r r i e d t h e s t e p f a t h e r . 17, 2012, t h e s t e p f a t h e r On A p r i l f i l e d p e t i t i o n s i n the probate 2 court 2120165 and to adopt consent 2120166 the to children. the The stepfather's p e t i t i o n s a l l e g e d t h a t the and thereby had given mother adopting f a t h e r had implied submitted of the her children. abandoned the consent p u r s u a n t t o § 26-10A-9, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . 1 written to The the The children adoptions petitions also P u r s u a n t t o § 26-10A-7, A l a . Code 1975, a child's p r e s u m e d f a t h e r must p r o v i d e c o n s e n t t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e child. Section 26-10A-9, concerning implied consent, provides, i n pertinent p a r t : 1 "(a) A c o n s e n t o r r e l i n q u i s h m e n t Section 26-10A-7 may be i m p l i e d by f o l l o w i n g acts of a p a r e n t : r e q u i r e d by any of the "(1) Abandonment of the adoptee. Abandonment i n c l u d e s , b u t i s n o t l i m i t e d to, the failure of the father, with r e a s o n a b l e knowledge of the pregnancy, t o o f f e r f i n a n c i a l and/or e m o t i o n a l support f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x months p r i o r t o t h e birth. II II "(3) Knowingly l e a v i n g the adoptee with others without p r o v i s i o n for support and w i t h o u t c o m m u n i c a t i o n , o r n o t o t h e r w i s e maintaining a significant parental r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the adoptee f o r a p e r i o d of s i x months." "(4) Receiving n o t i f i c a t i o n of the pendency of the a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s under S e c t i o n 26-10A-17 and f a i l i n g t o answer o r o t h e r w i s e r e s p o n d t o t h e p e t i t i o n w i t h i n 30 days. II II 3 2120165 and 2120166 stated that "there exist custody, v i s i t a t i o n The of no other orders or access to the of Court adoptee." r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e f a t h e r was each petition notices by certified specifically stated mail that regarding on the served with May 18, father 2012. "must of July [ s i c ] , guardian ad litem 2012." for The 2 the probate children. The court The file o b j e c t i o n t o t h e p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t on o r b e f o r e day notice any the 18th appointed guardian ad a litem s u b s e q u e n t l y s u b m i t t e d a r e p o r t s t a t i n g t h a t the c h i l d r e n had n o t s e e n o r had and t h a t the The c o n t a c t w i t h the f a t h e r i n over a year f a t h e r had probate 2012. any court not p a i d c h i l d set Other than the deadline f o r the the matter notices father to support since A p r i l for a hearing hearing date. otherwise respond appear at the The object, there f a t h e r d i d not to the hearing on July e s t a b l i s h i n g a J u l y 18, r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r was the on 2011. petitions. July 18, i s nothing provided 2012. father On 2012, in with notice answer, o b j e c t The 18, that the of to, or failed to date, the We n o t e t h a t § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 1 7 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " [ t ] h e n o t i c e [ o f pendency of the a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g ] s h a l l s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e t h a t the person s e r v e d must r e s p o n d t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r w i t h i n 30 d a y s i f he o r she i n t e n d s t o c o n t e s t t h e adoption." 2 4 2120165 a n d 2120166 probate court entered final judgments granting the s t e p f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s t o adopt t h e c h i l d r e n and t e r m i n a t i n g the father's parental r i g h t s to the c h i l d r e n . I n t h e months f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t s , t h e father f i l e d three separate the probate court's postjudgment motions t o s e t aside J u l y 18, 2012, j u d g m e n t s . On o r a b o u t A u g u s t 31, 2012, t h e f a t h e r , t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , filed his postjudgment as a motion i n both cases, styled first "Verified M o t i o n t o Amend, A l t e r o r V a c a t e t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t Judgment." In t h e body seeking of the motion, the father stated that he was r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 59 a n d R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P. He c o n t e n d e d t h a t he n e v e r r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e J u l y 18, 2012, hearing and t h a t he h a d been u n d e r stepfather's attorney him. He made amended, asserted and that attached or the guardian reference granted him the impression ad l i t e m would to the divorce visitation that the contact j u d g m e n t , w h i c h , as rights to the c h i l d r e n , t h e m o t h e r was d e n y i n g h i s v i s i t a t i o n rights, a c o p y o f t h e A u g u s t 2011 j u d g m e n t m o d i f y i n g t h e divorce judgment. probate court's He c o n t e n d e d t h a t adoption judgment he h a d l e a r n e d when he whether t o p e t i t i o n the c i r c u i t court t o enforce 5 was of the exploring or modify the 2120165 and 2120166 d i v o r c e judgment c o n c e r n i n g the i s s u e of v i s i t a t i o n . He did n o t r a i s e f r a u d as an i s s u e i n h i s f i r s t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The father other also exhibits, stepfather's attached to his including a letter attorney dated s t a t e d , among o t h e r not the 2012, postjudgment from h i s a t t o r n e y April attorney sign first 10, things, consent-to-adoption 2012, t h a t the forms. On 3 to the which his f a t h e r would September 5, the s t e p f a t h e r f i l e d a response to the f a t h e r ' s motion, i n w h i c h he c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had stepfather's the adoption counsel or petitions. t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n was In in motion r e p l y , the father o n l y u n d e r R u l e 59, the court regarding The stepfather further asserted 2012, an the objection argued that but he was seeking a l s o u n d e r R u l e 60. denying the relief Without first P. not holding an o r d e r i n b o t h c a s e s father's to that u n t i m e l y u n d e r R u l e 59 A l a . R. C i v . a h e a r i n g , the probate c o u r t e n t e r e d S e p t e m b e r 17, f a i l e d to n o t i f y on postjudgment motion. B a s e d upon t h e e x h i b i t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e f a t h e r ' s f i r s t postjudgment motion, i t i s u n c l e a r whether the f a t h e r was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e t i m e o f t h e A p r i l 10, 2012, l e t t e r and t h e t i m e o f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e f i r s t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A u g u s t 3 1 , 2012. 3 6 2120165 and On 2120166 September postjudgment motion Motion f o r R e l i e f the 26, petitions 2012, the father filed i n both cases, s t y l e d as a second a "Rule 60(b) f r o m J u d g m e n t , " i n w h i c h he c o n t e n d e d for adoption filed by the that stepfather i n a c c u r a t e l y s t a t e d t h a t " t h e r e e x i s t no o t h e r o r d e r s o f C o u r t r e g a r d i n g custody, v i s i t a t i o n or access t o the adoptee." The f a t h e r s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e r t e d i n h i s second postjudgment motion t h a t t h a t a s s e r t i o n by t h e s t e p f a t h e r c o n s t i t u t e d a f r a u d upon the court, stepfather thus rendering responded 2012, m o t i o n was could n o t be court by the a d o p t i o n judgments v o i d . contending that a successive c o n s i d e r e d by apparently agreed Rule the September 60(b) motion the probate court. and dismissed the The and, The 26, thus, probate September 26 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 12, 2012, w i t h o u t c o n d u c t i n g a hearing. I n the d i s m i s s a l order, the probate court s t a t e d that it lacked jurisdiction to consider any further motions because i t had d e n i e d the f a t h e r ' s Rule 60(b) f i r s t Rule 60(b) motion. On O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a " m o t i o n t o amend, a l t e r o r v a c a t e " t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 12, 2012, d i s m i s s i n g t h e September 26 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 7 The order father 2120165 and 2120166 argued aside that the October because he 12, 2012, o r d e r had raised was f o r the first due t o be s e t time i n the S e p t e m b e r 26 m o t i o n t h e i s s u e o f f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t , was a separate and d i s t i n c t issue from t h e i s s u e o f l a c k o f n o t i c e t h a t he h a d r a i s e d i n h i s f i r s t p o s t j u d g m e n t The probate court denied which the t h i r d postjudgment motion. motion on court on November 2, 2012. The father filed November 16, 2012. mero motu. notices of appeal to this T h i s c o u r t has c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l s e x On a p p e a l , the f a t h e r contends t h a t the probate c o u r t c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by f a i l i n g t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on the father's postjudgment motions. The father also c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p r o b a t e 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 by n o t g r a n t i n g h i s motions t o s e t aside the adoption asks t h a t the orders the alternative, court for a The o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t be r e v e r s e d or, i n hearing. contends to consider court's rulings that the merits because the f a t h e r f i l e d untimely probate He t h a t t h e s e c a s e s be remanded t o t h e p r o b a t e stepfather jurisdiction judgments. this court lacks of the father's appeals n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l from the on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t 8 motions. The 2120165 and 2120166 underlying judgments children. Pursuant in this to § case are for adoption 26-10A-2 6 ( a ) , Ala. of Code the 1975, " [ a ] p p e a l s f r o m any f i n a l d e c r e e o f a d o p t i o n s h a l l be t a k e n t o the Alabama C o u r t of C i v i l from the App. P., 50, 52, final a postjudgment 55, suspends the appeal. As So. decree." 2d 1008 or 59 of running our Appeals Pursuant and filed to Rule within 4(a)(3), 14 days Ala. R. motion t i m e l y f i l e d pursuant to Rules the Alabama R u l e s of the time for of C i v i l filing a Procedure notice of supreme c o u r t n o t e d i n Ex p a r t e A.M.P., 997 (Ala. 2008): " S e c t i o n 26-10A-26, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e A l a b a m a A d o p t i o n Code, p r o v i d e s t h a t an a p p e a l s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e f i n a l o r d e r o f adoption. S e c t i o n 26-10A-37 p r o v i d e s that the Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure apply to the probate c o u r t i n adoption proceedings to the e x t e n t t h a t t h e y a p p l y u n d e r § 12-13-12, A l a . Code 1975. S e c t i o n 12-13-12 p r o v i d e s t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f express p r o v i s i o n s t o the c o n t r a r y , p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Code r e l a t i n g t o p l e a d i n g , p r a c t i c e , e v i d e n c e , and j u d g m e n t s and o r d e r s i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l a p p l y i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t . The g r e a t - u n c l e and great-aunt t i m e l y f i l e d a postjudgment motion. That m o t i o n was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was t h u s t i m e l y f i l e d u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s has addressed the m e r i t s i n appeals i n a d o p t i o n cases f r o m t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t where a p a r t y has f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . See I n r e J.C.P., 871 So. 2d 831 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( t h e p u t a t i v e f a 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 , w h i c h was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , and t h e f a t h e r s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p e a l e d t h e 9 2120165 and 2120166 f i n a l o r d e r o f a d o p t i o n ) ; J.B. v. F.B., 929 So. 2d 1023 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( f o l l o w i n g t h e d e n i a l o f h i s postjudgment motion, the f a t h e r appealed from the judgment of t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t g r a n t i n g t h e adoption p e t i t i o n ) . " 997 So. 2d a t 1013 n.3. to A postjudgment motion f i l e d pursuant R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., taking does n o t " t o l l an a p p e a l f r o m t h e u n d e r l y i n g Landers, 812 So. 2d 1212, 1216 However, a d e n i a l o f a p o s t j u d g m e n t Rule 60(b) that will under So. plain 2d 404, text a g g r i e v e d p a r t y has judgment Alabama of 406 of (Ala. Civ. Landers App. itself The 2001). a final appeal." Food judgment World v. that an 2007). 26-10A-26(a) § v. motion f i l e d pursuant to ( A l a . C i v . App. provides 14 d a y s t o f i l e adoption. judgment." law, i n d e p e n d e n t l y s u p p o r t an C a r e y , 980 The "is, the time f o r denial an a p p e a l f r o m t h e of a Rule 60(b) final motion p e r t a i n i n g t o a c a s e g o v e r n e d by t h e A l a b a m a A d o p t i o n Code i s not a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f a d o p t i o n f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l must be t a k e n w i t h i n 14 d a y s . Rather, i t i s a separate f i n a l judgment f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l l i e s and t o w h i c h t h e 14-day p r e s c r i p t i v e period of § 26-10A-26(a) does not apply. Therefore, the p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l from the d e n i a l of a Rule 60(b) m o t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o an a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e t h e 10 2120165 and probate App. P. 2120166 c o u r t i s 42 days pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), R. 4 As motions noted, the pertaining father filed to both three separate cases, which r u l e d were s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t the motions. postjudgment probate The contends that the motions were successive motions, that the probate court lacked court stepfather postjudgment jurisdiction c o n s i d e r t h e s e c o n d and t h i r d m o t i o n s , and t h a t , as a the Ala. to result, f a t h e r ' s appeals are untimely. "As s t a t e d by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , ' [ a ] f t e r a t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , t h a t c o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o entertain a s u c c e s s i v e postjudgment motion to " r e c o n s i d e r " or o t h e r w i s e review i t s order denying t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . ' 771 So. 2d a t 1022 (emphasis added). I n o t h e r w o r d s , a p a r t y who has p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d an u n s u c c e s s f u l m o t i o n s e e k i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) may n o t p r o p e r l y f i l e a s e c o n d m o t i o n i n the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t , i n e f f e c t , r e q u e s t s the t r i a l court to r e v i s i t i t s d e n i a l of the f i r s t motion, s u c h as by r e a s s e r t i n g t h e g r o u n d s r e l i e d upon i n t h e f i r s t m o t i o n . See Wadsworth v. M a r k e l I n s . Co., 906 So. 2d 179, 182 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( ' S u c c e s s i v e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n s on t h e same g r o u n d s are g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d motions t o r e c o n s i d e r the R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s , w i t h l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n s , t h a t a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t must be f i l e d w i t h i n 42 days o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t a p p e a l e d from. 4 11 2120165 a n d 2120166 original ruling 60(b).') Pinkerton So. are not authorized Sec. & I n v e s t i g a t i o n s Servs., successive subsequent by Rule " 2d 386, 390-91 against and I n c . v . Chamblee, 934 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) . The g e n e r a l Rule 60(b) motions does n o t a p p l y R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n r a i s e s new g r o u n d s when a upon w h i c h a j u d g m e n t c o u l d be s e t a s i d e . See E.S.R., J r . v. M a d i s o n Dep't o f Human R e s . , 11 So. 3d 227, 230 n.2 rule Cnty. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e a l s o McLendon v. H e p b u r n , 876 So. 2d 479, 483 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . In his first postjudgment motion, filed on A u g u s t 31, 2012, t h e f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e hearing and judgments therefore that the July were due t o be s e t a s i d e . 18, 2012, a d o p t i o n The body o f t h e m o t i o n r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f f r o m t h e a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t s u n d e r R u l e 59 a n d R u l e 60(b) . he On a p p e a l , d i d n o t appear motion could judgments be the f a t h e r a l s o contends t h a t , at the hearing, viewed as a m o t i o n his first because postjudgment to s e t aside default pursuant t o Rule 55(c), A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h i s "the p r o p e r v e h i c l e f o r r e q u e s t i n g a t r i a l court to set aside a d e f a u l t judgment 333 W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d 332, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . " B o t h a R u l e 59(e) a n d a R u l e 5 5 ( c ) 12 2120165 and 2120166 m o t i o n , h o w e v e r , must be f i l e d b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . See 5 5 ( c ) ." I d . The Rule w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e j u d g m e n t 5 9 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f a t h e r ' s f i r s t postjudgment and m o t i o n was Rule filed more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t s were entered either Rule postjudgment and 59(e) King, t h e r e f o r e not or Rule passed 55(c). timely The motion under father's first f o r r e l i e f from the d e f a u l t . I d . ( c i t i n g 776 So. 2d 31, C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 P.("Rule a m o t i o n , h o w e v e r , can be p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u e d as a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n parte was 35 (Ala. 2000)); 60 becomes a v a i l a b l e when more t h a n t h i r t y d a y s since on the e n t r y of the S e p t e m b e r 17, without specifying j u d g m e n t by 2012, default."). a reason f o r the d e n i a l . 16, 2012, which i s more than probate c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the motion. u n t i m e l y as t o t h e f i r s t postjudgment R u l e 60(b) The postjudgment 42 has The without holding a hearing not appeal the d e n i a l of the f i r s t November also A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 55, A l a . R. C i v . p r o b a t e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e f i r s t motion see Ex father did motion days and after until the Because the appeals are motion, this court lacks j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s o f t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l s as to his first postjudgment motion. 13 A c c o r d i n g l y , the father's 2120165 and 2120166 appeals dismissed are i n s o f a r as they p e r t a i n to h i s first postjudgment motion. In h i s second postjudgment motion, the f a t h e r argued f o r the first were due time to be that set the probate aside stepfather perpetrated court's because, the adoption father a " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t " 5 judgments argued, by the asserting R u l e 60(b) (3) a l l o w s " t h e c o u r t [ t o ] r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a final judgment ... for ... fraud ... , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y . " To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e f a t h e r c l a i m s t h a t t h e s t e p f a t h e r ' s a s s e r t i o n s i n t h e p e t i t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d a " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t , " we n o t e t h a t mere m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s by a p a r t y a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o d e m o n s t r a t e " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t " : 5 " ' [ T h e supreme c o u r t ] has d e f i n e d " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t " as t h a t s p e c i e s o f f r a u d t h a t d e f i l e s o r attempts to d e f i l e the c o u r t i t s e l f or t h a t i s a f r a u d p e r p e t r a t e d by an o f f i c e r o f t h e c o u r t , and i t does n o t i n c l u d e f r a u d among t h e p a r t i e s , without more." W a t e r s v. J o l l y , 582 So. 2d 1048, 1055 ( A l a . 1991) ( c i t i n g Brown v. K i n g s b e r r y M o r t g a g e Co., 349 So. 2d 564 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , and S p i n d l o w v. S p i n d l o w , 512 So. 2d 918 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) . B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 686 ( 8 t h ed. 2004) d e f i n e s ' f r a u d on t h e c o u r t ' as f o l l o w s : 'In a j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g , a l a w y e r ' s o r p a r t y ' s m i s c o n d u c t so s e r i o u s t h a t i t undermines or i s i n t e n d e d to undermine the i n t e g r i t y of the p r o c e e d i n g . ' See Ex p a r t e F r e e , 910 So. 2d 753 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . The c a s e s i n w h i c h f r a u d on t h e c o u r t has b e e n f o u n d , f o r t h e most p a r t , have b e e n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e r e was 'the most e g r e g i o u s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g a c o r r u p t i o n of the judicial process itself,' s u c h as t h e b r i b e r y o f a j u d g e o r the employment o f c o u n s e l t o i m p r o p e r l y i n f l u e n c e t h e c o u r t . 11 C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t e t a l . , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 14 2120165 and 2120166 i n t h e a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n t h a t " t h e r e e x i s t no o t h e r o r d e r s o f Court regarding adoptee." custody, visitation or access to the The m o t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n t h e f o u r - m o n t h p e r i o d 6 p r e s c r i b e d by R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . Compared t o t h e f i r s t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e s e c o n d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n r a i s e d an e n t i r e l y new g r o u n d upon w h i c h t h e a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t s c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y be set aside; therefore, postjudgment motion. motion t h e s e c o n d m o t i o n was n o t a s u c c e s s i v e in relation The p r o b a t e c o u r t , postjudgment m o t i o n was to the f i r s t however, r u l e d successive. that postjudgment the second Without addressing the m e r i t s of the motion or h o l d i n g a hearing, the probate court e r r o n e o u s l y d i s m i s s e d the second postjudgment motion f o r l a c k of jurisdiction on O c t o b e r 12, 2012. The t h i r d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s a s u c c e s s i v e motion. In the third postjudgment motion, the father r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, a l t e r , & P r o c e d u r e C i v . 2 d § 2870 C h r i s t i a n v. M u r r a y , (1995)." 915 So. 2d 23, 28 ( A l a . 2005). P u r s u a n t t o § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 2 5 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975, " [ a ] f i n a l d e c r e e o f a d o p t i o n may n o t be c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k e d , e x c e p t i n c a s e s o f f r a u d o r where t h e a d o p t e e has b e e n k i d n a p p e d , a f t e r the e x p i r a t i o n o f one y e a r f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l d e c r e e and a f t e r a l l a p p e a l s , i f a n y . " 6 15 2120165 a n d 2120166 amend, o r v a c a t e t h e O c t o b e r 12 o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g the second m o t i o n on t h e b a s i s motion based on an t h a t the second postjudgment entirely postjudgment motion. different ground than the was first Stated otherwise, the t h i r d postjudgment m o t i o n i s n o t h i n g more t h a n a t t e m p t t o have t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t reconsider i t s order dismissing the second postjudgment motion. " A f t e r a t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a postjudgment m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , t h a t c o u r t does n o t have jurisdiction to entertain a successive postjudgment motion t o 'reconsider' or otherwise r e v i e w i t s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , a n d s u c h a s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n does n o t suspend the r u n n i n g o f the time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l . " Ex parte father's the Keith, third 771 postjudgment time f o r f i l i n g Nonetheless, motion, timely. 2d 1018, 1022 ( A l a . 1998) . motion, therefore, The d i d not t o l l of a notice of appeal. as t h e y r e l a t e the father's The So. notices probate t o the second postjudgment of appeal to t h i s court's order of October court were 12, 2012, d i s m i s s i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s s e c o n d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was a f i n a l judgment t h a t would i n d e p e n d e n t l y s u p p o r t t h e a p p e a l s . Food W o r l d , 980 So. 2d a t 406. App. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. P., t h e f a t h e r h a d 42 d a y s t o f i l e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l f r o m 16 2120165 and 2120166 the d i s m i s s a l of the second postjudgment of a p p e a l were f i l e d date of the f i n a l , on November 16, 2012, appealable order. insofar as t h e y p e r t a i n motion, are p r o p e r l y before t h i s On appeal, erred i n not motion. even father note that i f one hearing to the the i f ( A l a . C i v . App. 1138, 1139 2011) the no Bradford Bradford, 628 Ex Oden, parte ... movant; motion procedural 60(b) indeed, is court postjudgment a Rule 1 9 7 9 ) ) ; see I n c . v. and probate motion, no clearly such without 141, ( c i t i n g W a l d r o n v. F i k e s , 378 So. Volkswagen, 1993), the postjudgment Summers v. Summers, 89 So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. v. the is requested held second h i s second h e l d on be 35 d a y s a f t e r that "[t]here s u b s t a n c e and f r i v o l o u s . " 143 asserts by notices court. a h e a r i n g be is need that The Therefore, the appeals, father's h o l d i n g a h e a r i n g on We requirement the motion. Speer, 689 So. So. 2d 617 also Snooky Hairrell 2d 51, 53 732, 734 (Ala. Civ. So. 2d (Ala. 1020, 2d 1028 1997), App. (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p a r t y m i g h t be e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g on a Rule 60(b) extraordinary judgment). motion when circumstances Based on the the to party presents support a reversal r e c o r d , the probate 17 evidence of of the c o u r t d i d not 2120165 and 2120166 conduct a review of the contents of the motion a s s e r t i n g a f r a u d had been committed adoption. As dismissed the considering noted i n the s t e p f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n s f o r above, father's the motion that the second probate postjudgment a t a l l on the b a s i s court, instead, motion that, without the court b e l i e v e d , i t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h e s e c o n d motion. B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t h a d jurisdiction to consider reverse probate the the second postjudgment court's order dismissing motion, the we father's s e c o n d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e p r o b a t e court to c o n s i d e r the a s s e r t i o n s i n the second motion, whether t h o s e a s s e r t i o n s w a r r a n t a h e a r i n g , and, i f s o , w h e t h e r relief s h o u l d be second granted. postjudgment In a s s e s s i n g the m e r i t s of the motion, the probate court father's shall make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r has " p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s and o f d i l i g e n c e s u f f i c i e n t warrant a h e a r i n g on [his] Rule 60(b) [] m o t i o n from the p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s judgments. The order dismissing the for to relief" S p e e r , 689 So. 2d a t 54. father's second Rule 60(b) p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s remanded t o 18 2120165 a n d 2120166 the probate court f o r proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 012, 2120165 -- APPEAL DISMISSED I N PART; ORDER OF OCTOBER 12, REVERSED; AND CAUSE REMANDED. 2120166 -- APPEAL DISMISSED I N PART; ORDER OF OCTOBER 12, 2012, REVERSED; AND CAUSE REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d M o o r e , J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, J . , Thomas, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , recuses herself. 19 without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.