Wiley v. Bohannon Services, Inc.

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Tommy Wiley appealed a circuit court judgment in favor of Bohannon Services, Inc. As a Bohannon employee, Wiley suffered a shoulder injury as a result of a work-related accident. Wiley filed a complaint requesting that the trial court set the issue of his right to receive total-disability benefits for an immediate hearing, order Bohannon to pay a 15% penalty and award any other benefits to which Wiley may be entitled. At a hearing, counsel for both parties informed the trial court that a settlement had been reached, and the terms of the settlement agreement were read into the record. Both parties were to separately file a proposed settlement agreement and obtain approval from the trial court. According to Bohannon, Wiley had failed to file a proposed settlement agreement as required by the trial court and had refused to sign the proposed settlement agreement submitted to the trial court by Bohannon. Wiley filed a response to Bohannon's motion in which he averred that he did not agree with certain provisions of the proposed settlement agreement that was submitted to the trial court by Bohannon, and he requested that the trial court set the matter for a hearing. The trial court entered an order purporting to grant Wiley's postjudgment motion to set aside the settlement agreement, provided that Wiley reimburse Bohannon for any settlement proceeds that Wiley had received and all costs and attorney fees that Bohannon had incurred during the course of this action. Subsequently, Wiley filed a motion requesting relief from the court's prior order and for leave to amend his original complaint. After a hearing, the trial court found that Wiley had failed to comply with the requirements of the set-aside order and therefore denied Wiley's requests for relief and enforced the previously entered settlement agreement. Wiley filed a motion styled as a "motion for new trial or in the alternative motion for relief from judgment or order and motion to alter, vacate or amend pursuant to Rule[s] 59 and 60," but that too was denied. Wiley then appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Wiley did not timely file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Download PDF
REL: 03/15/2013 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 2120330 Tommy S. Wiley v. Bohannon S e r v i c e s , Inc. Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (CV-11-900054) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Tommy S. W i l e y a p p e a l s Circuit Services, Court from a judgment o f t h e L a u d e r d a l e ("the t r i a l I n c . ("Bohannon"). court") i n favor o f Bohannon 2120330 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t W i l e y , an e m p l o y e e o f Bohannon, suffered related Wiley an accident filed the injury to h i s on shoulder September 28, as a 2010. result On of a 7, March work2011, a complaint trial of issue r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the right total-disability Wiley's to receive court set b e n e f i t s f o r an i m m e d i a t e h e a r i n g , o r d e r Bohannon t o pay a 15% penalty pursuant other t o § 25-5-59, A l a . Code 1975, b e n e f i t s to which Wiley may be and award entitled. a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t on M a r c h 20, 2011, any Bohannon and a s s e r t e d v a r i o u s defenses. A h e a r i n g was for both parties had h e l d A u g u s t 1, 2011, been reached, were r e a d into informed the and the the trial court that a terms of the record. Both at which time counsel settlement settlement agreement p a r t i e s were t o s e p a r a t e l y f i l e a p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t and o b t a i n a p p r o v a l the trial motion court. to enforce On September the 20, 2011, settlement Bohannon agreement or, a l t e r n a t i v e , to d i s m i s s the a c t i o n w i t h p r e j u d i c e . to Bohannon, W i l e y a g r e e m e n t as had failed r e q u i r e d by the to f i l e trial a proposed c o u r t and had filed in a the According settlement refused s i g n the p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t agreement s u b m i t t e d t o the 2 from to trial 2120330 court by Bohannon. Wiley filed response to the 2011, a v e r r e d t h a t he d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h provisions submitted of to the t h a t the t r i a l The the trial proposed trial settlement c o u r t by the t r i a l 2011, agreement responsible f o r any other agreement. as an he than Wiley and certain that was requested 2011. On c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment g r a n t i n g the s e t t l e m e n t agreement. the details 1 The of the s t a t e d t h a t Bohannon w o u l d n o t b e n e f i t s or those 20, for a hearing. judgment a l s o s e t out settlement Wiley, and c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 31, Bohannon's m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e 7, September agreement Bohannon, c o u r t s e t the matter November 7, 2011, November a g r e e m e n t on Bohannon's motion to enforce i n w h i c h he settlement a medical identified bills in the f i l e d a m o t i o n on December 6, incurred be by settlement 2011, styled " a p p l i c a t i o n to set aside settlement, motion f o r r e l i e f S e c t i o n 25-5-56, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t "[u]pon s e t t l e m e n t s b e i n g approved, judgment s h a l l be e n t e r e d t h e r e o n and d u l y e n t e r e d on t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e c o u r t i n t h e same manner and h a v e t h e same e f f e c t as o t h e r j u d g m e n t s o r as an a w a r d i f t h e s e t t l e m e n t i s n o t f o r a lump sum." We n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 7, 2011, j u d g m e n t was p r o m p t e d by Bohannon's m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e , that j u d g m e n t was also, effectively, a final judgment a p p r o v i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t . See R u l e 5 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. P. ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e methods o f r e n d e r i n g an o r d e r o r judgment). 1 3 2120330 from judgment p u r s u a n t to Rule Ala. R. motion Civ. pursuant to P.,] and Rule 59, Ala. R. a v e r r e d i n t h e December 6, had d i s c o v e r e d new that rendered therefore, the Wiley asked also hearing. the Bohannon f i l e d 60(b)(1)(2) vacate P. In or [, amend," summary, Wiley postjudgment motion t h a t regarding h i s medical agreement agreement trial and alter, Civ. settlement settlement m o t i o n on J a n u a r y to 2011, evidence the 60(b)(6) court to a response condition unjust should set and be the that, set aside. matter to Wiley's he for a postjudgment 5, 2 0 1 2 ; W i l e y f i l e d a r e p l y on J a n u a r y 24, 2012. On June 5, 2012, the trial court entered an order p u r p o r t i n g to grant Wiley's postjudgment motion to set aside the settlement agreement, Bohannon f o r any and a l l costs and course attorney the matter for a hearing of m o t i o n on A u g u s t 29, order After the and that Wiley reimburse s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s t h a t W i l e y had during 2012, provided this on 2012, for leave hearing on fees received t h a t Bohannon had a c t i o n ; the September 6, trial 2012. incurred court set Wiley filed the a r e q u e s t i n g r e l i e f f r o m t h e June 5, t o amend t h e September 4 6, original 2012, the complaint. trial court 2120330 entered court an order found requirements Wiley's on that September Wiley 11, had failed o f t h e J u n e 5, 2012, requests for 2012, relief i n which to the comply trial with the o r d e r and t h e r e f o r e d e n i e d and enforced the previously e n t e r e d s e t t l e m e n t agreement. W i l e y f i l e d a m o t i o n s t y l e d as a " m o t i o n in the a l t e r n a t i v e and m o t i o n and motion to a l t e r , 6 0 , " A l a . R. for relief vacate C i v . P., court denied t h a t motion on S e p t e m b e r 25, on O c t o b e r The trial an 2012. i t s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , Bohannon a s s e r t s t h a t W i l e y ' s m o t i o n was R. order Wiley f i l e d a p p e a l i s u n t i m e l y b e c a u s e h i s December 6, 2011, Ala. or t o R u l e [ s ] 59 2012. 4, 2012. 22, trial judgment or o r amend p u r s u a n t a p p e a l w i t h t h i s c o u r t on O c t o b e r In from f o r new postjudgment d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e C i v . P., on March 5, 2012, f i l e d more t h a n s e v e n months l a t e r , and, was thus, his untimely. We 59.1, appeal, agree. A l t h o u g h W i l e y ' s December 6, 2011, m o t i o n i n v o k e d b o t h R u l e and R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e 59 motion, " [ t ] h e ' c h a r a c t e r of a [motion] i s determined and from i t s descriptive i t s essential substance, and name o r t i t l e . ' " Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. 5 not Gen. from I n s . Co., interpreted 684 So. 2d 2120330 1281, Green, 1282 285 ( A l a . 1996) Ala. 114, (quoting Union 117, 229 So. Springs 2d 503, T e l . Co. 505 v. (1969)). W i l e y ' s m o t i o n , w h i c h was f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y of j u d g m e n t , was, t h e November 7, 2011, i n substance and i n l e g a l e f f e c t , a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. " ' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t [an a p p e l l a t e court] looks to the essence of a motion, not n e c e s s a r i l y to i t s t i t l e , to determine how t h e m o t i o n i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . Ex p a r t e A l f a M u t u a l G e n e r a l I n s . Co., [684 So. 2d 1281 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ] . [The A l a b a m a Supreme Court] has held on several occasions t h a t a motion f i l e d w i t h i n the 30-day l i m i t a t i o n o f R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , s e e k i n g r e l i e f from a judgment t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as a R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n to a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t . See Ex p a r t e A l f a M u t u a l G e n e r a l I n s . Co., s u p r a ; S e x t o n v. P r i s o c k , 495 So. 2d 581 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; H o l t v. F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f M o b i l e , 372 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1979) . See, a l s o , E v a n s v. W a d d e l l , 689 So. 2d 23 ( A l a . 1997) (noting that [the Alabama Supreme] Court has repeatedly construed a "motion to r e c o n s i d e r " a j u d g m e n t , when i t has b e e n f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , as a R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n ) . A R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a R u l e 59 m o t i o n so as t o a v o i d t h e o p e r a t i o n o f R u l e 59.1. See M a t k i n v. S m i t h , 531 So. 2d 876 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; I n g r a m v. P o l l o c k , 557 So. 2d 1199 ( A l a . 1989) . The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s has 6 2120330 also recognized these p r i n c i p l e s . See, e.g., Conway v. H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y o f t h e Birmingham D i s t r i c t , 676 So. 2d 344 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; Ex p a r t e Adams, 534 So. 2d 626 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) ; Simmons v. Simmons, 390 So. 2d 622 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1980) .' "Ex p a r t e J o h n s o n , 715 So. 1998) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " 2d C u r r y v. C u r r y , 962 So. 2d 261, 263-64 783, 785-86 ( A l a . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007); see a l s o G o o d y e a r T i r e & R u b b e r Co. v. Haygood, 93 So. 3d 132, 140 n.2 ( A l a . C i v . App. p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was the judgment, treated Rule that 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. filed was required pursuant to Rule 59(e), C i v . P., on motion newly motion to n o t as a from a seeking r e l i e f discovered be evidence."). A p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t i s n o t d i s p o s e d o f by t h e t r i a l court within based second f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f postjudgment as a m o t i o n judgment 2 0 1 2 ) ( " [ B ] e c a u s e Goodyear's 90 d a y s i s c o n s i d e r e d d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. As n o t e d e a r l i e r , See i n the present c a s e , W i l e y ' s December 6, 2011, p o s t j u d g m e n t 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 on M a r c h Under s u b d i v i s i o n s P., a notice after the 5, (1) and o f a p p e a l must be trial court has 2012. (3) o f R u l e 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. filed acted 7 either upon within a timely 42 App. days filed 2120330 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n o r w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r s u c h a m o t i o n been denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1. T h e r e f o r e , t h e 42-day p e r i o d i n w h i c h W i l e y c o u l d have a t i m e l y a p p e a l e x p i r e d on A p r i l Wiley f i l e d 16, 2012. a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on O c t o b e r As 22, noted 2012. appeal. A c c o r d i n g l y , we jurisdiction. See Rule dismiss this 2(a)(1), shall be d i s m i s s e d i f the filed to invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n A l a . R. notice of filed above, For reasons s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , W i l e y d i d not t i m e l y f i l e of has the a notice appeal f o r lack of App. P. ("An appeal appeal was not timely of the a p p e l l a t e court."). In d i s m i s s i n g t h e a p p e a l , we n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r s e n t e r e d on June 5 and September 11, 2012, a f t e r the t r i a l c o u r t l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n 5, 2012, trial and, thus, are v o i d . As were e n t e r e d o f t h e m a t t e r on M a r c h a result, we direct the court to vacate those orders. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 8

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.