Danny L. Smith v. Brandi M. Smith (Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court: DR-06-822.90)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/21/2013 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 2120466 Danny L. Smith v. Brandi M. Smith Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (DR-06-822.90) Court 2120491 Ex p a r t e Danny L. Smith PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Brandi M. Smith v. Danny L. Smith) (Etowah C i r c u i t Court, DR-06-822.90) 2120466; 2120491 PER CURIAM. Danny L. S m i t h ("the f o r m e r husband"), an incarcerated inmate i n t h e Alabama c o r r e c t i o n a l system and a r e g i s t e r e d sex offender, writ seeks r e v i e w , v i a b o t h a p p e a l and a p e t i t i o n o f mandamus, o f an o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e E t o w a h fora Circuit Court denying h i s motion, f i l e d pursuant t o Rule 60(b), A l a . R. C i v . P. 60(b) m o t i o n , In that Rule Smith sought relief f r o m a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h a t c o u r t i n S e p t e m b e r 2006 t h a t had granted relief sought b y B r a n d i M. Smith ("the f o r m e r w i f e " ) i n a p r o t e c t i o n - f r o m - a b u s e ("PFA") p r o c e e d i n g . the f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s mandamus petition; we a f f i r m We deny as t o t h e former husband's a p p e a l . These are the second and t h i r d appellate i n v o l v i n g t h e s e p a r t i e s ; i n S m i t h v. S m i t h 5, 2 0 1 0 ) , 75 So. 3d 709 (No. 2081148, M a r c h ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) a f f i r m e d a judgment o f t h e t r i a l proceedings (table), court denying a motion we filed by t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d s e e k i n g r e l i e f f r o m a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g the p a r t i e s . The r e c o r d transmitted c a s e , o f w h i c h we have t a k e n j u d i c i a l parte Hacker, reveals to this court i n that notice ( s e e , e . g . , Ex 250 A l a . 64, 77, 33 So. 2d 324, 337 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ) , t h a t t h e p a r t i e s m a r r i e d i n F e b r u a r y 2006, when t h e f o r m e r w i f e was 16 y e a r s o l d a n d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was 49 years o l d . I n S e p t e m b e r 2006, a f t e r 2 t h e former husband had 2120466; 2120491 been i n c a r c e r a t e d and t h r e e weeks f o l l o w i n g t h e b i r t h o f t h e parties' child, the from abuse protection former wife filed a petition i n the t r i a l court (case no. for DR-06- 8 2 2 . 9 0 ) ; she a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d h a d p u n c h e d h e r in t h e s t o m a c h d u r i n g h e r p r e g n a n c y and t h a t he h a d her by h e r h a i r making other for a distance o f 12 threats of violence. temporary order feet, court entered appeal involving these Although a judgment i n the PFA parties, proceeding was n o t i c e t o t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d and a h e a r i n g , 2006; that judgment provided, f o r m e r h u s b a n d was e n j o i n e d no f u r t h e r appeared i n the r e c o r d i n a record t r a n s m i t t e d to t h i s court i n the present that a g r a n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n on September 11, 2006, o r d e r o r judgment i n t h a t p r o c e e d i n g previous i n addition to The t r i a l and s e t t h e c a s e f o r a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g . the dragged case reveals entered, after on S e p t e m b e r i n pertinent from committing supplemental part, that 27, the or threatening to commit f u r t h e r a c t s o f abuse a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r w i f e o r t h e i r child, that he was p r o h i b i t e d from former w i f e or the c h i l d , from p l a c e s frequented the f o r m e r w i f e was communications w i t h t h a t he was the d i r e c t e d to stay away by t h e f o r m e r w i f e and t h e c h i l d , that t o have t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y of the child, and t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d was t o have no v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e child. Consistent with former law governing 3 PFA o r d e r s and 2120466; 2120491 judgments, the the t r i a l c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006, j u d g m e n t i n PFA p r o c e e d i n g a l s o s p e c i f i e d t h a t i t was a p e r i o d o f 12 months." 5-7(e)(1) (portion "effective for Compare f o r m e r A l a . Code 1975, § 30- o f Alabama Protection from Abuse Act i n e f f e c t b e f o r e 2010 amendments t h a t p r o v i d e d t h a t " [ a ] n y f i n a l p r o t e c t i o n o r d e r ... s h a l l be f o r a p e r i o d o f one y e a r u n l e s s a s h o r t e r or l o n g e r p e r i o d o f time i s e x p r e s s l y o r d e r e d by t h e court"). No temporary PFA appeal order was or taken from by either t h e September party 27, from 2006, the final judgment. In M a r c h 2007, t h e f o r m e r w i f e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a d i v o r c e from the former husband ( c a s e no. DR-07-253). former to the complaint husband failed h a v i n g been p e r s o n a l l y detention center. the to respond s e r v e d by t h e s h e r i f f The t r i a l - c o u r t former husband's d e f a u l t , judgment based upon that despite county c l e r k entered the f a c t of and t h e t r i a l default at the The divorcing court entered a the p a r t i e s on a c c o u n t o f i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament; g r a n t i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e s o l e custody of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d ; v e s t i n g i n the former wife a one-half interest i n real estate located i n Wellington that the former awarding the husband had p u r c h a s e d former recreational vehicle; wife the d u r i n g the marriage; contents of a certain and r e s t o r i n g t h e f o r m e r w i f e ' s m a i d e n 4 2120466; 2120491 name to her. a p p e a l was In No postjudgment t a k e n from t h a t July 2009, h u s b a n d , who was p e n a l system, more motions were action; and no judgment. than 26 months t h e n (as he i s now) later, the former i n c a r c e r a t e d i n the s t a t e f i l e d a m o t i o n i n c a s e no. DR-07-253 s e e k i n g t o r e o p e n b o t h t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and t h e f i n a l PFA filed, citing Rule 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. judgment i n the C i v . P., the h u s b a n d a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e had c o m m i t t e d former f r a u d upon the c o u r t b o t h i n s e e k i n g t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and i n s e e k i n g the o r d e r i n t h e PFA proceeding. husband a v e r r e d t h a t the September 11, 2008 he h a d 2006, temporary a t t o r n e y as criminal-defense apparently in July In h i s motion, he unrelated criminal was PFA the former received copies of order through preparing for t r i a l matters because, the on former husband s a i d , the s t a t e had i n d i c a t e d i t s i n t e n t t o prove a " p e r m a n e n t " PFA his judgment had been e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him. that He f u r t h e r a v e r r e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r w i f e had f a l s e l y p l e a d e d t h a t she had former separated husband from stated the no former rationale husband. Notably, i n h i s motion for his l e n g t h y d e l a y i n s e e k i n g r e l i e f under Rule 6 0 ( b ) . The wife motion filed a response to the former husband's the former for r e l i e f f r o m t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h she a v e r r e d t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d had h a d n o t i c e o f b o t h t h e PFA p r o c e e d i n g and 5 2120466; 2120491 the d i v o r c e proceeding, b u t had c h o s e n n o t t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n e i t h e r , and t h a t she had r e m a r r i e d i n O c t o b e r 2008 and had a c h i l d w i t h h e r new spouse. The former l e a v e t o have h i s d e p o s i t i o n t a k e n . trial court entered h u s b a n d t o be an order deposed and husband then sought On S e p t e m b e r 1, 2009, t h e denying leave also denied the f o r the former Rule 60(b) motion a t t a c k i n g the d i v o r c e judgment. former husband's We affirmed the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment denying the Rule 60(b) motion i n the d i v o r c e a c t i o n , and affirmance by (No. was denied 1091150, June certiorari our 18, review of t h i s supreme c o u r t 2010), had 83 So. 3d filed court's (Ex p a r t e 596 Smith (Ala. 2010) (table)). In February ( c a s e no. final said, the t r i a l to in a c o u r t had custody or PFA l a c k of i n the h u s b a n d , i n t h e PFA a motion that case. following proceeding: personal (1) for relief In his claimed c o u r t s h o u l d g r a n t him i n the upon entered trial entered former filed husband s t a t e d the judgment based the DR-06-822.90), judgment former 2013, the no j u r i s d i c t i o n visitation as to was (2) void was the t o e n t e r an o r d e r p e r t a i n i n g the n o t i c e o r an a d v e r s a r i a l h e a r i n g ; and 6 he final therefore, absence of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n ; the the why, from the judgment s e r v i c e and, from motion, reasons relief action parties' child without (3) t h e f o r m e r w i f e had 2120466; 2120491 g i v e n t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g a 2008 c r i m i n a l t r i a l , well a f t e r the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e PFA p r o c e e d i n g , t e n d i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d c o u l d n o t have a b u s e d the The o r t h r e a t e n e d t o abuse f o r m e r w i f e i n t h e manner a s s e r t e d i n h e r PFA p e t i t i o n . trial court entered a judgment denying the former h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 19, 2 0 1 3 . The f o r m e r husband then timely filed judgment and s e p a r a t e l y mandamus seeking couched a notice filed a substantially i n terms o f t h e t r i a l of appeal petition similar from for a relief that writ of (although court's having actually denied a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r l a c k o f i n p e r s o n a m jurisdiction). T h i s c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d b o t h t h e former husband's a p p e a l and h i s mandamus p e t i t i o n f o r purposes of decision. We will address the s u b s t a n t i v e q u e s t i o n s presented only i n connection w i t h t h e a p p e a l , however; because t h e r e i s an a d e q u a t e mandamus w i l l n o t l i e when remedy b y a p p e a l , s u c h as when t h e t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a motion filed pursuant t o Rule g e n e r a l l y Ex p a r t e R.S.C., 853 So. 2d 228, 234-36 60(b), see (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d b e c a u s e t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n a p r e s u m p t i v e l y reasonable time f o r s e e k i n g review of t r i a l - c o u r t February orders o n l y as t o t h e t r i a l 19, 2 0 1 3 , j u d g m e n t , we 7 conclude that court's t h e former 2120466; 2120491 h u s b a n d ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n i s due t o be d i s m i s s e d as s e e k i n g relief d u p l i c a t i v e o f t h a t p r o p e r l y sought i n h i s appeal. Rule trial 60(b), courts i n pertinent to grant relief number o f s p e c i f i e d r e a s o n s , see Rule part, discretion from judgments n o t o n l y s u c h as v o i d n e s s to fora o f t h e judgment, 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b u t a l s o f o r "any o t h e r reason j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f from t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e judgment," see R u l e 60(b) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. appeal affords I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t an f r o m a d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60(b) "does n o t b r i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g j u d g m e n t up f o r r e v i e w but presents o n l y t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e judgment denying t h e Rule 60(b) m o t i o n . " Appellate grounds review other Ex p a r t e of a r u l i n g than R.S.C., 853 So. 2d a t 236. on a m o t i o n voidness seeking o f t h e judgment relief on attacked is d e f e r e n t i a l : n o t o n l y i s i t t r u e t h a t "a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t t a c h e s t o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) motion," but i t i s also discretion decision t o grant will discretion." 925, true that o r deny r e l i e f n o t be r e v e r s e d "[t]he trial under Rule 60(b), except f o r an abuse V a l l e y F o r g e I n s . Co. v. A l e x a n d e r , 929 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . review the t r i a l motion for relief As t o t h e v o i d n e s s court's from decision has and i t s of that 640 So. 2d g r o u n d , h o w e v e r , we on t h e f o r m e r the underlying 8 court judgment husband's de novo, 2120466; 2120491 a s s e s s i n g o n l y whether the t r i a l c o u r t , when i t r e n d e r e d t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n t h e PFA p r o c e e d i n g , l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r the former husband. See, A s s ' n , 18 So. 3d 959, The trial e.g., 960 court, ( A l a . C i v . App. i n denying 60(b) m o t i o n s e e k i n g r e l i e f action, did moreover, we former w i f e court's not state have not offering decision. D e n n i s v. S t i l l the Waters Res. husband's Rule 2009). former f r o m t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n t h e PFA i t s reasons been for favored with a legal rationale However, we note having a brief done so; from the s u p p o r t i n g the that the trial underlying j u d g m e n t has e x p i r e d by i t s t e r m s : t h e j u d g m e n t s t a t e s t h a t i t will expire 12 months after o c c u r r e d i n S e p t e m b e r 2007. which the final judgment i t s entry, which expiration Thus, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e manner i n i n the PFA c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d , action may have been the former w i f e , or t h i r d p a r t y , t h a t j u d g m e n t c e a s e d t o have o p e r a t i v e e f f e c t any by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w 12 months a f t e r i t was e n t e r e d . We have grave doubts c o n c e r n i n g the order t h a t would p u r p o r t to grant r e l i e f propriety of any t o a p a r t y under the p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n d e e d , i n B a l d w i n v. B a k e r , 86 So. 3d 1006, of 1008 the ( A l a . C i v . App. former one-year 2 0 1 2 ) , we c o n c l u d e d t h a t , i n l i g h t statutory e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f PFA j u d g m e n t s , 9 a trial limitation on the court properly denied 2120466; 2120491 a petition entered seeking i n a PFA more t h a n one be further modification a c t i o n because the year a f t e r the further modified. that the However, e x p i r a t i o n of the does n o t destroy entry the reason" The void i s that served asserted judgment with not process in the The the and PFA that the to deciding, action seek to PFA relief v o i d n e s s and "any therein. for asserting that d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t he the PFA action supplemental former w i f e , trial-court petition, the setting a on husband i n care of service portion of hearing without grounds so being the the the PFA petition be Etowah County clerk's PFA this appeal listed "Etowah C o u n t y ordered order, and served on jail. a personal petition, at the service warrant a c t i o n had in is personally to clerk expressly temporary the was as record i n her f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a d d r e s s as Jail" the that judgment sought right c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e PFA indicates filed (including i t s v i s i t a t i o n provisions) i t was jurisdiction. been judgment i n the former husband's s o l e b a s i s underlying had judgment no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f i n t h i s c a s e as t o t h e two other of the assuming, final a final petition former husband's t h e r e f r o m , we p e r c e i v e of The order the the that order former return-oncontains an a t t e s t a t i o n by S t a c y L. S m i t h t h a t she p e r s o n a l l y d e l i v e r e d a 10 2120466; 2120491 copy the of September specified 11, 2006; specifying although the served Wellington, papers to that the former form, husband i n blank person's address, lists an a d d r e s s i n a signature the f o r m e r h u s b a n d , and t h e f o r m i n f a c t c o n t a i n s on that line signature trial that closely on h i s n o t i c e court could notwithstanding the Etowah the a former properly jail, have the former husband's been p e r s o n a l l y properly the date s p e c i f i e d and obtained i n personam that the t r i a l jurisdiction its that to served husband's rights of that of access with by S t a c y L. court had enter its We thus court erred i n concluding that j u d g m e n t i n t h e PFA a c t i o n was n o t v o i d the p r o v i s i o n s that, signature S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006, f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n t h e PFA a c t i o n . cannot conclude t h a t the t r i a l The than t h a t of p a p e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e PFA a c t i o n a t t h e j a i l on from husband's concluded o f an a d d r e s s o t h e r icon signature o f a p p e a l i n c a s e no. 2081148. the l i s t i n g County matches c o n f i r m e d t h a t he h a d , i n f a c t , Smith lines for t h e "Name" b l a n k has an a f f i x e d s t a r - s h a p e d t h a t a p p e a r s t o have been u t i l i z e d t o e l i c i t on (and, t h e r e f o r e , judgment a d d r e s s i n g to the parties' the former child were s i m i l a r l y not v o i d ) . The "any o t h e r r e a s o n " ground c i t e d by t h e former husband refers to h i s c i t a t i o n of testimony given 11 by t h e f o r m e r wife 2120466; 2120491 i n 2008 t h a t , he s a y s , t e n d s t o d i s p r o v e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n he c o u l d have c o m m i t t e d the t h e abuse o f w h i c h he was f o r m e r w i f e ' s PFA p e t i t i o n . that a motion reasonable time," as to and we grounds have v. C l a y t o n , 18 App. noted states that c o u r t i n r u l i n g on a R u l e voidness "'applies s u c h a m o t i o n has b e e n f i l e d a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e as w e l l (quoting expressly specifically other than d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether Price accused i n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o i s t o be made " w i t h i n d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d the t r i a l motion R u l e 60(b) that So. as t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h e 3d 370, P i t t m a n v. P i t t m a n , 397 376 So. 142 the 60(b) to the within motion.'" ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 139, a 2008) (Ala. Civ. 1981)). " ' [ I ] n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n has b e e n f i l e d w i t h i n a reasonable time, along with a l l of the circumstances surrounding the matter in c o n t r o v e r s y , i t i s b e n e f i c i a l and h e l p f u l f o r t h e court to e s p e c i a l l y c o n s i d e r whether delay i n s e e k i n g r e l i e f has p r e j u d i c e d t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y , w h e t h e r t h i r d p e r s o n s have r e l i e d upon t h e j u d g m e n t , w h e t h e r i t w o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l , and t h e e x t e n t o f s u c h d e t r i m e n t , f o r t h e j u d g m e n t t o be a l t e r e d , and w h e t h e r t h e movant has a v a l i d r e a s o n f o r f a i l u r e t o t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n a t an e a r l i e r d a t e . ' " M i t c h e l l v. Morgan, 491 So. 2d 981, 982 (quoting Pittman, particular, ... the "may moving 397 So. 2d at ( A l a . C i v . App. 141-42). A court, deny a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n where i t f i n d s party has not 12 shown good cause 1986) in that for having 2120466; failed 2120491 t o take appropriate 356 So. 2d 1208, 1211 a c t i o n sooner." ( A l a . C i v . App. C l a r k v. C l a r k , 1978). Here, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g can t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a r g u m e n t s , we readily the t r i a l conclude that d i s c r e t i o n i n denying r e l i e f the former subsection reason, in a husband relied court acted within i t s i n t h i s case t o the e x t e n t on the (6) o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . "catchall" that provision i n The f o r m e r h u s b a n d o f f e r e d no o t h e r t h a n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f an a p p e l l a t e t r a n s c r i p t separate approximately proceeding in 2012, as to why he waited f i v e years a f t e r the former w i f e ' s testimony i n open c o u r t a t h i s own criminal t r i a l before he s o u g h t relief i n t h e PFA a c t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h a t he h a d s o u g h t s i m i l a r relief i n the meantime, divorce action the underlying as early judgment had as 2009. expired In by the i t s own terms, the former w i f e had r e m a r r i e d , and t h e f o r m e r w i f e h a d given marriage. birth circumstances the trial to a child present court of i n this acted that case, outside we Under the cannot conclude that i t s discretion in denying r e l i e f , on t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s "any o t h e r r e a s o n " b a s i s , f r o m the PFA judgment that i t had previously. 13 entered more than s i x years 2120466; 2120491 B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s and a u t h o r i t i e s , court's judgment denying the former m o t i o n i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . 2120466 AFFIRMED. 2120491 PETITION All the judges DISMISSED. concur. 14 husband's the t r i a l Rule 60(b)

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.