Paul Lowe v. Robert Rogers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 02/25/2011 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, 2010-2011 2091114 Paul Lowe v. Robert Rogers Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-08-245) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Paul Court, Bessemer February Rogers Lowe a p p e a l s f r o m t h e o r d e r Division, 2, 2 0 0 9 , was v o i d t o s e taside that finding of the Jefferson that and g r a n t i n g judgment. Circuit i t s judgment themotion of of Robert 2091114 The record A u g u s t 6, indicates the following 2007, Lowe, a c t i n g p r o Rogers in the Court ("the Bessemer district se, Division court") relevant filed of a complaint the alleging that had lien his that preprinted 2007, favor Lowe form p r o v i d e d Rogers 28, house. failed the aside the Civ. P. that Lowe h a d In On court filed an Rogers action a false lien court would still a p p e a r i n g pro stating was that not b r e a c h of an not would the have sound se, contract. on The and on default to Rule among Rogers a s s e r t e d in on equity, to September judgment in a motion to 60, Ala. other that meaning hear the a false lien district 2 asserted but court an set R. things, an the had action district claim. r e s p o n d e d t o R o g e r s ' s R u l e 60 a c t i o n he a the a " f a l s e l e a n , " w h i c h he jurisdiction cause of action stated, on t a k e n t o mean a " f a l s e l i e n . " on pursuant placed court. 2007, Rogers f i l e d judgment motion, a doing installed complaint complaint, entered Rogers, improperly district the November 25, default the the answer district o f Lowe. set to by wrote District improperly h a r d w o o d f l o o r i n g i n Lowe's h o u s e and On against Jefferson b u s i n e s s as C u s t o m H a r d w o o d F l o o r i n g , h a d on facts. Lowe, motion, in his complaint action alleging aside the default 2091114 judgment trial and h e l d a trial i n the d i s t r i c t appeal. On judgment i n favor court February amount o f $ 2 , 5 0 0 . 1, The de court's novo. the and the judgment party entered t o him appealed from court the a i n the the p a r t i e s that to the c i r c u i t on they for a district judgment. On February district 20, 2008, c o u r t had e n t e r e d less than three se, f i l e d a complaint t i t l e d "Slander" the Bessemer D i v i s i o n of the circuit court"). had In that completed weeks after i t s j u d g m e n t , Lowe, a g a i n pro Rogers court damages advised of the i n the record district awarded judgment Neither A transcript i s not i n c l u d e d 2008, o f Lowe had 14 days t o appeal trial on t h e m a t t e r . Jefferson against Circuit a c t i o n , Lowe a s s e r t e d the work house, Rogers had i m p r o p e r l y he was hired filed a lien appearing Rogers i n Court ("the that, t o do on L o w e ' s the before on Lowe's property. Lowe a l s o c o n t e n d e d t h a t , e v e n t h o u g h R o g e r s h a d a t t e m p t e d t o file a release incorrectly said, He he stated close of the "according had been that, lien, to unable because the the court," to close of the on t h e s a l e o f h i s h o u s e release on lien, and, had been done therefore, Lowe the sale he had of h i s house. been unable f o r m o r e t h a n one y e a r , 3 to causing 2091114 him t o pay d u r i n g that t i m e more t h a n t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e h o u s e . damages for "slander Once a g a i n , was held on February was not day, the circuit In the financial 2, 2009, represented court judgment") 2009 Lowe c l a i m e d by the On 13, July after the action, 15, pursuant o f $24,000 i n a A d i d n o t a p p e a r ; he at the t r i a l . judgment The same of Lowe i n favor R o g e r s t o p a y Lowe circuit trial court $24,000. found i n the c i r c u i t with process specifically court 2008. 2010, judgment Rogers on injury." counsel and o r d e r e d judgment, on May a total but Rogers entered t h a t Rogers had been s e r v e d action in interest Rogers d i d not answer the c o m p l a i n t . also ("the 2009 and $20,000 filed had more than been one entered year in the a motion to set aside to Rule 60(b)(1), ( 3 ) , ( 4 ) , and and five months circuit t h e 2009 ( 5 ) , A l a . R. court judgment C i v . P. A s g r o u n d s f o r h i s m o t i o n , R o g e r s a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d n o t , i n fact, received summary stated d i d not that circuit doctrine he indicate that the d o c t r i n e court of s e r v i c e , and action. claimed he had that been the case-action served. of res j u d i c a t a applied Rogers res j u d i c a t a , the 4 argued circuit He to bar also the that, applying the court's judgment was 2091114 void and, that can be The circuit motion. on he asserted, r a i s e d at court whether a judgment i s v o i d any 2010, held granting circuit the circuit Rogers the on Rogers's court Rule 60(b) entered relief order, the district court's j u d g m e n t o f F e b r u a r y 1, had "simply filed successive a court a hearing its then the issue time. A f t e r the h e a r i n g , A u g u s t 25, i s an not that circuit stated: " I t i s a l s o c l e a r to the Court t h a t the s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h i s a c t i o n i s t h e same as t h a t o f the D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t i o n , i . e . , [ L o w e ] s e e k s damages for [ R o g e r s ' s ] poor workmanship i n i n s t a l l i n g the h a r d w o o d f l o o r s i n h i s r e s i d e n c e and f o r p l a c i n g a l i e n on h i s p r o p e r t y . "It i s impermissible f o r [ L o w e ] to have two b i t e s o f t h e same a p p l e s as he a t t e m p t e d t o h e r e . T h a t i s , a l l c a u s e s o f a c t i o n and claim[s] for d a m a g e s m u s t be b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r i n one a c t i o n , as c o u l d have o c c u r r e d h e r e i n . " M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , [ L o w e ] h a d b e f o r e h i m , on o r p r i o r t o t h e J a n u a r y 16, 2008, t r i a l and e n t r y o f t h e F e b r u a r y 1, 2 0 0 8 , [ j u d g m e n t ] i n [ t h e district c o u r t a c t i o n ] c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o h a v e made one presentation to a court of law to resolve a l l p e n d i n g i s s u e s b e t w e e n h i m s e l f and [ R o g e r s ] . For all that is known, [ L o w e ] may have actually presented a l l such evidence to the D i s t r i c t Court b u t i f he d i d n ' t he s h o u l d h a v e . 5 In appealed 2008, but The order requested. n o t e d t h a t Lowe h a d lawsuit." an he court 2091114 " T h u s , i f [ L o w e ] was n o t s a t i s f i e d with the $ 2 , 5 0 0 d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g m e n t h i s o p t i o n was t o h a v e a p p e a l e d f o r a t r i a l de n o v o . Furthermore, i f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w e r e t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the relief sought by [ L o w e ] was outside i t s jurisdiction, those proceedings could have been s t a y e d and a t r a n s f e r t o t h i s c o u r t c o u l d have been effectuated." The that circuit a l lof circuit the court the d i s t r i c t circuit that res judicata and t h a t , action. as a r e s u l t , Lowe a p p e a l e d f r o m setting i n the t h e judgment i n the c i r c u i t court found and, t h e r e f o r e , v a c a t e d the August cannot be 25, 2010, taken from that order. an order a s i d e a judgment or order p u r s u a n t t o Rule 60(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., the trial considered Guyton, appeal existed t h e r e l i e f Lowe s o u g h t i n t h e Accordingly, t h e 2 0 0 9 j u d g m e n t was v o i d an t h a t Rogers had demonstrated of court action barred Generally, for concluded elements action court judgment. this court because court, f u r t h e r proceedings and, t h e r e f o r e , interlocutory. 41 S o . 3 d 9 5 , 99 case, relief See T u s c a l o o s a order or t h e judgment is a final, i s I n c . v. motion r e l i e v e d him from the the c i r c u i t appealable by However, i n g r a n t i n g Rogers's not only 6 order Chevrolet, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). 2009 j u d g m e n t , b u t i t t e r m i n a t e d Thus, t h a t t h e judgment t h e August 25, 2010, o r d e r from are contemplated court order. litigation. I d . ; see a l s o 2091114 Wal-Mart Civ. App. 2004) order an Stores, I n c . v. P i t t s , ("[T]he g r a n t i n g Rule order bears rule 900 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 4 b a r r i n g appellate review 60(b) r e l i e f sufficient (Ala. o f an i s n o t a b s o l u t e ; where indicia of f i n a l i t y such to warrant a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t c o n s t i t u t e s a ' f i n a l judgment,' pursuant t o ยง 1 2 - 2 2 - 2 , A l a . Code As mentioned, that t h e 2009 Rule 60(b)(1), judgment 1975, i t i s a p p e a l a b l e . " ) . i n h i s Rule judgment 60(b) motion, Rogers was d u e t o b e s e t a s i d e ( 3 ) , (4), and (5), which p r o v i d e f o r the following asserted pursuant to r e l i e f from a reasons: "(1) m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , o r e x c u s a b l e neglect; ... (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated i n t r i n s i c or extrinsic), 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 party; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) t h e j u d g m e n t has been s a t i s f i e d , r e l e a s e d , o r d i s c h a r g e d , o r a prior judgment upon w h i c h i t i s b a s e d h a s been r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r e q u i t a b l e t h a t t h e judgment s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e application " Rule 6 0 ( b ) f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t a m o t i o n made p u r s u a n t rule "shall (1), b e made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e ( 2 ) , and (3) n o t m o r e judgment, order, filed months h i s Rule after than or proceeding 60(b) motion entry four time, on J u l y of t h e judgment 7 and f o r reasons (4) m o n t h s was e n t e r e d after or taken." 15, 2 0 1 0 , more he tothe sought the Rogers than 17 t o have s e t 2091114 aside. Therefore, set aside for aside motion, "ha[d] prior or pursuant to Rule setting 60(b) any c o n t e n t i o n been the Rogers otherwise upon t h a t the judgment the grounds circuit based judgment is to Rule be or [that] have in d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e 2009 Further, that the i t [was] no Rule 60(b)(5). aside. set aside which Indeed, j u d g m e n t was grounds judgment or longer [that] equitable application," t h e 2009 the the d o c t r i n e of res that circuit a void court v o i d because, i t found, judicata. "'"The s t a n d a r d of review on appeal from the d e n i a l [or granting] of r e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(4) i s not whether there h a s b e e n an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . When t h e grant o r d e n i a l o f r e l i e f t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t , as u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , d i s c r e t i o n h a s no p l a c e . I f the judgment i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d ; i f i t i s v o i d , i t m u s t be s e t a s i d e . A judgment i s v o i d only i f the court rendering i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the s u b j e c t matter or of 8 the judgment t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a c t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n t h a t j u d g m e n t was under a reversed Accordingly, provides be i n h i s Rule 2009 or discharged, [had] p r o s p e c t i v e 60(b)(4), set (3) c a n n o t be i t [was] b a s e d h a [ d ] b e e n c o u l d have p r o p e r l y upon and assert released, should provided court only d i d not which vacated, 60(b)(1) 200 9 j u d g m e n t . satisfied, judgment t h a t the judgment s h o u l d barred 2091114 the p a r t i e s , or i f i t acted i n a i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s . " ' " Bank of America 2003) (quoting 823 Corp. Image A u t o , S o . 2 d 6 5 5 , 657 Mgmt. 212 & Admin., (Ala. [Ms. In t h i s had (Ala. (emphasis June case, 2001), subject-matter added); over with the complaint the circuit court made no that that Rogers the record 2009 judgment to Rogers's had been Lowe's court setting supports that sheriff May the c i r c u i t 13, 2008. t h e 2009 court court's i n this served i n entering judgment, that issue. specifically on May 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 . R o g e r s was s e r v e d executed i n h i s motion f o r regarding assertion, the case-action the court slander-of-title action, aside findings served 2010). that the c i r c u i t However, i n t h e 2009 j u d g m e n t , t h e c i r c u i t found N.B., t h a t he h a d n o t b e e n i n the c i r c u i t 25, 2010, order Insurance Ex p a r t e (Ala. Furthermore, although 60(b) r e l i e f Rogers a s s e r t e d August (Ala. 590 S o . 2 d 2 0 9 , see a l s o i s no q u e s t i o n Rule its i n turn So. 3d jurisdiction claim against Rogers. quoting I n s . Corp., 30, 2010] there 881 S o . 2 d 4 0 3 , 405 Inc. v. Mike K e l l e y E n t e r s . , I n c . , I n c . v. Palomar 1991)) 1080440, v. Edwards, manner finding case. We i nthe Contrary summary r e f l e c t s s e r v i c e o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t 9 note that on 2091114 Based the record served was upon with the complaint that an he failed to respond to a f f i r m a t i v e defense court, i t is deemed M a r k e t i n g C o r p . v. see to also the Rule his as he an argument assert that in or filed the have 560 Civ. that an 2d P. application circuit void so court as to in of court but i n the trial Imperial Crown 1027 Rogers Rogers judicata is raised 1025, appear affirmative "Res waived." So. that circuit complaint. been otherwise waived i t appears i n the a f f i r m a t i v e defense. the action to us, i f i t i s not 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. thus, judicata and Wright, complaint action; before (Ala. failed the the to 1989); respond circuit court doctrine of res Rogers cannot p r e v a i l defense action that renders warrant relief he on to judgment the failed in pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). Rogers not it have did failed not the in 2009 finding demonstrate subject-matter have Furthermore, acted to he a manner the to over the with Accordingly, 2 0 0 9 j u d g m e n t was 10 the over demonstrate inconsistent judgment. that jurisdiction jurisdiction failed that the parties that due the circuit did action or to action. the the circuit process in circuit void. court court that court entering erred in 2091114 For order the reasons of the c i r c u i t and the of a judgment R E V E R S E D AND Pittman, Moore, forth court reversed, entry this set cause above, setting the aside August this court opinion. REMANDED. Bryan, and J . , concurs Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . i n the 11 result, 2010 , t h e 2009 j u d g m e n t i s i s remanded t o the c i r c u i t consistent with 25, without writing. for
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.
