City of Birmingham v. Ernest Alexander

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/19/2013 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 2120188 C i t y o f Birmingham v. E r n e s t Alexander Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-11-900892.80) Court PER CURIAM. This i s the second time t h i s c i v i l - f o r f e i t u r e come b e f o r e this court. Ernest Alexander matter has filed an a c t i o n a g a i n s t the C i t y o f Birmingham ("the c i t y " ) i n the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l seized during a search court") seeking of h i s residence. the r e t u r n o f cash Alexander asserted 2120188 that he was entitled a forfeiture although federal court, initiated. 1252 no to the return proceeding state of the cash had forfeiture been because, prosecuted proceeding had in been A l e x a n d e r v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 99 So. 3d 1251, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . The other c i t y moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a s s e r t i n g , things, that the t r i a l court lacked among jurisdiction "because, i t s a i d , the cash had a t a l l r e l e v a n t t i m e s b e e n i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f f e d e r a l a g e n t s , who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s e a r c h and h a d d e l i v e r e d t h e cash t o the [ f e d e r a l Drug Enforcement A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ('DEA')]. I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e c i t y a r g u e d t h a t , even i f t h e cash i n i t i a l l y had been s e i z e d by [Birmingham P o l i c e Department ('BPD')] o f f i c e r s , exclusive federal jurisdiction o v e r any i n rem p r o c e e d i n g a g a i n s t t h e c a s h a t t a c h e d p u r s u a n t t o 21 U.S.C. § 881 and the doctrine of adoptive forfeiture when t h e c a s h was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e DEA. " A l e x a n d e r f i l e d a c r o s s - m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment i n h i s f a v o r , a r g u i n g that the c i r c u i t c o u r t had c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t r o l , and thus e x c l u s i v e i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n , o v e r t h e c a s e b y v i r t u e o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t i s s u e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n District Court." Alexander, 99 So. 3d a t 1253. After a hearing entered court, on t h e p a r t i e s ' m o t i o n s , t h e t r i a l a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r of the c i t y . Id. court This r e l y i n g a G r e e n v . C i t y o f Montgomery, 55 So. 3d 256, 2 2120188 259 Jan. the ( A l a . C i v . App. 6, 2012] ___ 2 0 0 9 ) , and So. summary j u d g m e n t , 3d ___ Ex p a r t e Bingham, [Ms. 2100676, ( A l a . C i v . App. reversed 2012), stating: " ' I n G r e e n [ v. C i t y o f Montgomery] , we d e s c r i b e d how t h e a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e process works: "'"The adoptive-seizure process begins when state or local authorities seize property part of a criminal as inves t i g a t i o n or arrest. Generally, the state or local officials either make a determination that f o r f e i t u r e i s n o t p o s s i b l e u n d e r s t a t e law o r conclude t h a t i t i s advantageous t o them t o t r a n s f e r t h e m a t t e r t o federal authorities for a federal administrative forfeiture proceeding. See I.R.S. M a n u a l 9.7.2.7.3 ( J u l y 25, 2 0 0 7 ) ; A s s e t Forfeiture Law, Practice, and Policy, Asset Forfeiture Office, Criminal D i v i s i o n , United States Department of Justice, Vol. I (1988) a t 38 ( c i t e d i n J o h n s o n v. Johnson, 849 P.2d 1361, 1363 (Alaska 1993)). Once s t a t e or l o c a l o f f i c i a l s have d e t e r m i n e d that an adoptive seizure is advantageous, they f i l e a request with federal authorities. The a p p r o p r i a t e f e d e r a l agency then decides whether to accept or reject the request. If the adoptive-seizure request is a c c e p t e d , the p r o p e r t y i s taken into the custody of federal 3 2120188 agents and f e d e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f o r f e i t u r e proceedings begin. At the successful conclusion of t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s , u s u a l l y 80% o f the f o r f e i t e d p r o p e r t y i s given back to the state or local agency." "'55 So. 3d 2009)].' [256,] 258 [(Ala. C i v . App. "We n o t e t h a t , i n G r e e n , Montgomery police o f f i c e r s ' f i l l e d o u t t h e r e q u i s i t e forms t o b e g i n the adoptive-seizure process ' and t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department o f t h e T r e a s u r y r e v i e w e d the request t o determine whether i t would accept the adoptive seizure. G r e e n , 55 So. 3d a t 258. In Edney v. C i t y o f Montgomery, 960 F. Supp. 270 (M.D. Ala. 1997), Montgomery police officers seized approximately $280,000 i n cash from Edney a n d a n o t h e r man who h a d b e e n d e t a i n e d a t t h e Montgomery airport. A f t e r t h e s e i z u r e , ' t h e DEA a d o p t e d t h e c i t y ' s s e i z u r e by a u t h o r i z i n g t h e c i t y t o s e i z e t h e money on b e h a l f o f t h e DEA a n d t o t r a n s f e r t h e money t o t h e DEA.' I d . a t 273. The f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e DEA h a d a d o p t e d t h e s e i z u r e o f the c u r r e n c y a t i s s u e : thus, the f e d e r a l c o u r t had jurisdiction. See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. $119,000 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y , 793 F. Supp. 246, 248 (D. Haw. 1992) ( i n a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e c a s e , a H o n o l u l u p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e DEA a d o p t t h e state seizure for federal forfeiture' and t r a n s f e r r e d t h e c u r r e n c y t o t h e DEA). " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e p r o c e s s was e v e r b e g u n , much l e s s b r o u g h t to fruition. A BPD officer p r o v i d e d t h e a f f i d a v i t from which t h e J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d the warrant, which s t a t e d that t h e BPD was t o h o l d any i t e m s s e i z e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e w a r r a n t ' u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r from t h e D i s t r i c t Court of J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama.' According t o the 4 2120188 DEA's investigative report, two BPD officers d i s c o v e r e d a n d s e i z e d t h e money a t i s s u e . The money was taken to t h e BPD's facility, where a d r u g - d e t e c t i n g dog a l e r t e d on t h e money. At that point, a law-enforcement officer who h a d b e e n d e p u t i z e d as a DEA a g e n t s e a l e d t h e money i n an e n v e l o p e a n d d e p o s i t e d i t w i t h t h e DEA. T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was a d e c i s i o n made by any s t a t e o r l o c a l o f f i c i a l s t h a t 'forfeiture [was] n o t p o s s i b l e u n d e r s t a t e l a w o r ... t h a t i t [was] a d v a n t a g e o u s t o them t o t r a n s f e r t h e m a t t e r t o federal authorities f o r a federal administrative f o r f e i t u r e proceeding.' G r e e n , 55 So. 3d a t 258 (and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ) . L i k e w i s e , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e BPD, t h e J e f f e r s o n County d i s t r i c t attorney, the Jefferson County d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r c i r c u i t c o u r t , o r any o t h e r s t a t e a g e n t o r o f f i c i a l f i l e d a r e q u e s t f o r t h e DEA t o adopt the s e i z u r e . In a d d i t i o n , there i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 'the a p p r o p r i a t e federal agency' d e c i d e d whether t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t t h e request. The e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d i n d i c a t e s t h a t f e d e r a l ' c o n t r o l ' o f t h e money came a b o u t b e c a u s e one p e r s o n , John W a l k e r , d e p o s i t e d t h e money i n t h e DEA o v e r n i g h t d r o p b o x a n d t h e n l a t e r t o o k t h e money t o a bank a n d h a d a c h e c k made o u t t o t h e U n i t e d States Marshal. The c h e c k was t h e n g i v e n t o a f e d e r a l agent. Walker's a c t i o n s are i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h that the adoptive-seizure doctrine i s a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. In fact, the evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e p o s i t i n g t h e money i n t h e o v e r n i g h t d r o p b o x was a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s command t h a t l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s h o l d t h e money a n d o t h e r s e i z e d i t e m s u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r from t h e c o u r t . " Alexander, This 99 So. 3d a t 1255-56. court concluded that the evidence i n the record i n d i c a t e d that j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s matter vested i n the state 5 2120188 court upon the Jefferson District Court's warrant to search Alexander's residence. issuance of the This court then h e l d that "[t]he c i t y f a i l e d to present s u f f i c i e n t evidence f r o m w h i c h t o f i n d , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h a t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t had o b t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over the money a t i s s u e o r t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t h a d b e e n d i v e s t e d of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s case; thus the c i t y f a i l e d t o meet i t s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e r e were no g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law." Id. a t 1256. was remanded t o t h e t r i a l at 1257. The summary j u d g m e n t was The city cause court for further proceedings. d i d not seek i t did r e v e r s e d , and t h e decision, and not certiorari w i t h o u r supreme file a r e h e a r i n g of t h i s a petition for a Id. court's writ of court. On remand, A l e x a n d e r a g a i n moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , claiming that, forfeiture money. 2012, pursuant had not promptly entitled c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . and instituted to the r e t u r n of h i s c i t y o p p o s e d t h e m o t i o n , and on O c t o b e r the t r i a l Alexander city p r o c e e d i n g s , he was The the t r i a l because the 30, 2012, On November 5, c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f ordered to the the city search warrant. 6 to On return the money November 19, seized 2012, the 2120188 trial c o u r t amended i t s summary j u d g m e n t t o i n c l u d e an a w a r d of i n t e r e s t , b r i n g i n g t h e t o t a l amount t h e c i t y was o r d e r e d t o pay A l e x a n d e r t o $46,604.15. Two of the issues The c i t y the c i t y appealed. raises a d d r e s s e d i n A l e x a n d e r , s u p r a , namely: i n this appeal were (1) w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e c o u r t h a d e x c l u s i v e i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t was s e i z e d p u r s u a n t federal this to the search warrant; a d o p t i o n was p e r f e c t e d i n t h i s a n d (2) w h e t h e r case. In Alexander, court held that "[t]he c i t y f a i l e d to present evidence federal issue from which to find, as a m a t t e r c o u r t had o b t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n or that the state over had been t h e money a t divested of i n this Furthermore, a f t e r q u o t i n g f r o m G r e e n v. C i t y o f Montgomery, a n d Bingham, supra, federal adoptive forfeiture, "there i s no e v i d e n c e Alexander, of law, that the jurisdiction supra, case." court sufficient regarding this indicating 99 So. 2d a t 1256. the procedure court also determined that to f r u i t i o n . " t h e 'law o f t h e c a s e ' d o c t r i n e , once e s t a b l i s h e d that the adoptive-seizure p r o c e s s was e v e r b e g u n , much l e s s b r o u g h t "'"[U]nder for a b e t w e e n t h e same p a r t i e s Id. 'whatever i s i n t h e same case c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e l a w o f t h a t c a s e , w h e t h e r o r n o t c o r r e c t 7 2120188 on general decision was case.'"'" 2011) So. principles, predicated 2d 5 7 1 , 572-73 cases) doctrine law, continue provides t o be on w h i c h t h e the facts litigating Constr. of the added). t h a t when a c o u r t continue (Ala. Co. v. M a d e w e l l , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , that rule should litigation & Miller (emphasis subsequent stages to as t h e f a c t s Walden v. ES C a p i t a l , L L C , 89 So. 3d 90, 107 (quoting M i l l e r other so l o n g quoting 920 i n turn "'"The law-of-the-case decides upon a r u l e o f t o g o v e r n t h e same i s s u e s i n i n t h e same c a s e , thereby hastening by f o r e c l o s i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y an i s s u e a l r e a d y d e c i d e d . " ' " of an e n d repeatedly I d . (quoting Martin v. C a s h E x p r e s s , I n c . , 60 So. 3d 236, 249 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , quoting in turn Belcher v. Queen, 39 So. 3d 1023, 1038 ( A l a . 2009)); see a l s o B l u m b e r g v. Touche R o s s & Co., 514 So. 2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1987)(same). The submit r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on remand, t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t new evidence f o r the t r i a l court's consideration. 1 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e O c t o b e r 30, 2012, h e a r i n g on remand t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e c i t y s t a t e d t h a t t h e c i t y had " a t t a c h e d t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Agent John W a l k e r " r e g a r d i n g t h e DEA's p r a c t i c e a n d p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e s . The o n l y a f f i d a v i t o f W a l k e r f o u n d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i s t h e same a f f i d a v i t t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e c i t y i n Alexander. 1 8 2120188 Furthermore, our holdings as to the Alexander remain the law of the case. a rehearing for a issues decided The c i t y d i d n o t s e e k o f our d e c i s i o n , and i t d i d n o t f i l e writ of certiorari Consequently, this court with will in our a petition supreme not at t h i s point court. reconsider those issues decided i n Alexander. The c i t y r a i s e s two a d d i t i o n a l c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t a r e a r g u a b l y "new" did not decide Creekside i n Alexander. Motors, ("[T]he d o c t r i n e this case I n c . , 913 we Walker Reg'l 2003) (quoting So. 2d Med. d i d not, in now C t r . , I n c . , 868 Gray 441, ... the issue[s decide v. appeal that this court See B a g l e y ex r e l . B a g l e y of law of the case because dispositively issues, i . e . , issues i n this Reynolds, 446 553 ( A l a . 2005) i s inapplicable to the So. original raised]."); appeal, Lyons As t o t h o s e "new" under e q u i t y , law So. 2d 79, 81 ( A l a . Specifically, court case."'"). issues, the c i t y a good-faith enforcement's v. 2d 1071, 1077 ( A l a . 1989)) ("'[O]n remand t h e i s s u e s d e c i d e d b y an a p p e l l a t e become t h e " l a w o f t h e v. first exemption should action in this contends exist 9 governing forfeiture the c i t y asserts that the good-faith that, case. exception 2120188 to the exclusionary officers search, t o use authority legal The law-enforcement its and matters, not this of items city cites or no any other argument "breaks challenged, to the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e i s not the f a c t s of exceptions to the v a l i d i t y of the search this that ultimate case. rule deal issue to be The with exclusionary evidentiary determined. of Alexander's residence has The not been and t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d d u r i n g t h a t s e a r c h was deemed i n a d m i s s i b l e during to accept the faith exception would amount The from The i t acknowledges t h a t t h i s under the during seizure. contention good-faith exception and decline and flawed ground." applicable of allows evidence that i s seized i n a a v a l i d search for jurisdiction, rule at t r i a l which s h o u l d be a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l o w t h e f o r f e i t u r e seized during new rule, to to a the city's the invitation exclusionary "good-faith a v a l i d search forfeiture and proceedings. We to extend the rule to forfeiture" not good- encompass of items what seized seizure. c i t y a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Alexander was improperly entered because, i t says, a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s as t o w h e t h e r A l e x a n d e r 10 2120188 a c t u a l l y h a s an i n t e r e s t i n t h e money a t i s s u e . when t h e t r i a l the c i t y , presented the t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e r e was no d i s p u t e t h a t A l e x a n d e r h a d an i n t e r e s t i n t h e money. Attorney court entered We n o t e t h a t The money was f o u n d i n h i s r e s i d e n c e . t h e sworn The c i t y d e c l a r a t i o n of A s s i s t a n t United States James D. I n g r a m , w h i c h i s i n c l u d e d as an e x h i b i t i n r e c o r d on a p p e a l prospective claimant [sic] J . Alexander i n this case, stating: t o the defendant " "The o n l y currency is known Earnest I n g r a m goes on t o n o t e t h a t A l e x a n d e r d i d not appear or otherwise defend the f o r f e i t u r e action i n f e d e r a l c o u r t , as n o t e d b y t h i s c o u r t i n A l e x a n d e r , 99 So. 3d a t 1252. In other w o r d s , t h a t A l e x a n d e r h a d an i n t e r e s t i n t h e money was " u n d i s p u t e d . " party The l a w i s c l e a r t h a t a n o n m o v i n g may not create a genuine submitting affidavits or testimony e a r l i e r sworn t e s t i m o n y . McAlpin issue of m a t e r i a l fact by t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s i t s own v. C i t y o f D e c a t u r , 628 So. 2d 611, 613 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; s e e a l s o T i t t l e v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 570 when So. 2d 601, 604 a party to an ( A l a . 1990) action ("This c o u r t has given has h e l d clear answers that to unambiguous q u e s t i o n s t h a t n e g a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any g e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t , t h a t p a r t y c a n n o t l a t e r c r e a t e an i s s u e o f f a c t 11 2120188 by s u b m i t t i n g explanation, an a f f i d a v i t t h a t d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s , w i t h o u t that e a r l i e r testimony."). On remand, A l e x a n d e r moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t the r e t u r n o f t h e money. contradict i t s earlier The c i t y d i d n o t o f f e r e v i d e n c e t o p o s i t i o n t h a t A l e x a n d e r was t h e o n l y known c l a i m a n t t o t h e money. on F o r example, t h e r e the issue. that other seeking The c i t y p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g people l i v e d i n the residence where t h e money was f o u n d o r t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e were p r e s e n t a t t h e home when l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l s executed the search t h e c i t y now s p e c u l a t e s warrant. Instead, t h a t , because A l e x a n d e r d i d n o t appear i n the f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n , a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact e x i s t s regarding w h e t h e r t h e money s e i z e d a t A l e x a n d e r ' s h o u s e was a c t u a l l y h i s . Mere s p e c u l a t i o n i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o create a genuine of material Creek Plantation, Accordingly, we issue L.L.C., conclude 934 that fact. So. 2d the c i t y K e l l y v. P a n t h e r 1049 ( A l a . 2006). failed to present s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t A l e x a n d e r d i d n o t have an i n t e r e s t i n t h e money a t i s s u e . In i t sreply brief, the c i t y argues that c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n E r v i n v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 12 t h e supreme [Ms. 1101555, 2120188 M a r c h 22, 2013] of the t r i a l So. 3d court's (Ala. 2013), r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l judgment i n t h i s case. In E r v i n , our supreme c o u r t a f f i r m e d a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d the c i t y , h o l d i n g i n favor of that "Ervin's a c t i o n [seeking the return of cash s e i z e d i n a f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g ] amount[ed] t o a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k i n s t a t e c o u r t on a f i n a l j u d g m e n t entered by to the a federal court. forfeited property, ... As t h e s u c c e s s o r the [city judicata benefit of that f i n a l was] in title entitled judgment." to the res Ervin, So. 3d at . As d i s c u s s e d , h o w e v e r , t h i s c o u r t h a s a l r e a d y h e l d i n this case evidence federal issue that from which court or city city to find, had o b t a i n e d that jurisdiction The "[t]he the i n this failed state case." failed to present as a m a t t e r jurisdiction court had Alexander, t o seek a r e h e a r i n g sufficient of law, that the over t h e money a t been divested of 99 So. 2d a t 1256. or p e t i t i o n o u r supreme c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i ; t h e r e f o r e , t h a t h o l d i n g became the law o f t h e case and i s n o t s u b j e c t to further appellate review. Furthermore, because o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l c a s e , we f i n d NHS Management, LLC v. W r i g h t , 13 posture of this 24 So. 3d 1153 2120188 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t o be a p p l i c a b l e . Management, Viola LLC ("NHS"), operated J e n k i n s was a p a t i e n t . I n t h a t case, a nursing Jenkins home died while NHS i n which i n the care o f t h e n u r s i n g home, a n d P e t e r W r i g h t , as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f Jenkins's estate, f i l e d a g a i n s t NHS. a complaint a l l e g i n g numerous I d . a t 1154. NHS moved t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n . trial court attend held a hearing the hearing, granting the motion proceedings. claims On A p r i l on t h e m o t i o n . and t h e t r i a l t o compel court arbitration Wright d i d not appeal 3, 2007, t h e Wright entered d i d not an order and s t a y i n g a l l from t h e o r d e r . Id. S e v e r a l months l a t e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s to provide face i t w i t h a w r i t t e n s t a t u s u p d a t e w i t h i n 30 d a y s o r dismissal of the action. motion asking compelling the t r i a l arbitration U l t i m a t e l y , Wright court i n light to reconsider o f a May filed a i t s order 4, 2007, supreme c o u r t d e c i s i o n t h a t , W r i g h t s a i d , c h a n g e d t h e l a w on w h i c h t h e trial court granted order had based i t s prior decision. The t r i a l court t h e "motion t o r e c o n s i d e r " and s e t a s i d e i t s e a r l i e r compelling arbitration. NHS a p p e a l e d f r o m t h a t Id. 14 order. 2120188 T h i s c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e " m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r " 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 60(b) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h a l l o w s a court to set aside a f i n a l judgment or order j u d g m e n t on w h i c h i t i s b a s e d h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d vacated, among other things. W r i g h t was n o t e n t i t l e d arbitration, relief the This court i fa or n o t i n g t h a t Rule 60(b)(5) otherwise determined t o r e l i e f from t h e order prior that compelling "'"'does n o t a u t h o r i z e f r o m a j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e l a w a p p l i e d b y court overruled i n making i t s a d j u d i c a t i o n has been or declared erroneous i n another subsequently and unrelated proceeding.'"'" I d . a t 1156 ( q u o t i n g K u p f e r v. S C I - A l a b a m a Funeral Servs., I n c . , 893 So. 2d 1153, 1157 quoting i n turn other In t h i s case, this court's ( A l a . 2004), authorities). a c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t was i s s u e d as t o judgment i n A l e x a n d e r h o l d i n g that the federal c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e money s e i z e d i n t h e search of Alexander's rehearing of that residence. decision, The c i t y and i t d i d n o t p e t i t i o n supreme c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . r e l i e d on i n r e a c h i n g The l a w t h i s i t s h o l d i n g was s u b s e q u e n t l y or d e c l a r e d erroneous, b u t i n another, i.e., Ervin. d i d n o t seek unrelated a our court overruled proceeding, A c c o r d i n g l y , on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f NHS Management 15 2120188 and the relief cases from conclusion The cited this therein, court's the holding i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c i t y has city in i s not entitled Alexander. law-of-the-case f a i l e d to demonstrate t h a t the to This doctrine. trial court e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f A l e x a n d e r . Therefore, the judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas, Moore, and concur. Pittman, J., dissents, without 16 writing. Donaldson, J J . ,

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.