Susan Rayford Daniels v. Rodney K. Rayford

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/16/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100516 Susan R a y f o r d D a n i e l s v. Rodney K. R a y f o r d Appeal MOORE, Court Judge. Susan judgment court") from Shelby C i r c u i t (DR-99-533.02) Rayford entered Daniels ("the mother") by t h e Shelby Circuit appeals Court from a ("the t r i a l d e n y i n g h e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n f o r 2100516 relief from a judgment entered by the trial court on May 5, 2004. Procedural On October filed in mother's allowed the court the The had on court a trial father June 20, had with court awarding him petition, by and had that, The modified father to pursuant joint that father custody to in 2 be the trial judgment, their two one the of asserted February that 2003 At the bottom that " [ t ] h e c l e r k ... s e r v e a c o p y o f t h e t h e f o l l o w i n g b y U.S. Certified Mail: " S u s a n R. R a y f o r d " R t . 1, B o x 368 "Noxapater, M i s s i s s i p p i 39346" the that of he that by claim further children. requested to the income-tax things, custody allowed father") modify requesting among o t h e r " s o l e custody" of the the seeking a judgment e n t e r e d awarded purposes. ("the parties' children for each parent being for tax Rayford petition asserted, 2000, been K. o b l i g a t i o n and been d i v o r c e d parties children his Rodney to c l a i m both of the children, the trial 2003, child-support purposes. parties 31, History foregoing to by of 2100516 (Bold typeface petition the omitted.) a n d summons clerk's office On service January sent The record by c e r t i f i e d indicates mail that was r e t u r n e d to marked " N o t D e l i v e r a b l e as A d d r e s s e d . " 19, 2004, the father b y p u b l i c a t i o n , " i n w h i c h he filed a "motion f o r asserted: "COMES now t h e [ f a t h e r ] a n d m o v e s t h e C o u r t t o e n t e r a n O r d e r g r a n t i n g l e a v e t o s e r v e a summons b y p u b l i c a t i o n f o r t h e g r o u n d s shown a s f o l l o w s : "1. T h i s i s an e q u i t a b l e p r o c e e d i n g p e r t a i n i n g t o a divorce decree, custody, and support order o f the Court. "2. [The mother's] whereabouts a r e unknown cannot reasonably be ascertained reasonable d i l i g e n c e . "3. S e r v i c e a t [ t h e m o t h e r ' s ] l a s t known a d d r e s s was u n s u c c e s s f u l , a n d [ t h e m o t h e r ] i s b e l i e v e d t o be a v o i d i n g s e r v i c e . "4. The a f f i d a v i t o f [ t h e f a t h e r ] i s a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t A p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 . 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) [ , A l a . R. Civ. P.]. "5. The W i n s t o n C o u n t y J o u r n a l , l o c a t e d a t N o r t h C o u r t A v e n u e , L o u i s v i l l e , M i s s i s s i p p i 3 9 3 3 9 ... i s t h e newspaper o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h e l a s t c o m m u n i t y [ t h e m o t h e r ] i s known t o h a v e resided. "6. The p r o p o s e d n o t i c e i s attached and with a s E x h i b i t B. "WHEREFORE, t h e d e f e n d a n t , RODNEY K. RAYFORD, r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t s t h e C o u r t t o e n t e r an O r d e r g r a n t i n g l e a v e t o s e r v e a summons b y p u b l i c a t i o n . " (Capitalization the i n original.) 3 2100516 The father's father's motion, affidavit, attached a s e x h i b i t "A" to the stated: "1. I c e r t i f y t h a t I am o v e r t h e a g e o f n i n e t e e n (19) a n d h a v e f i r s t h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s stated herein. "2. The p r e s e n t whereabouts o f [the mother] a r e unknown a n d c a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y be ascertained with reasonable d i l i g e n c e . "3. S e r v i c e by c e r t i f i e d returned unclaimed. "4. [The m o t h e r ' s ] l a s t Box 368, N o x a p a t e r , "5. I d o n o t know w h e r e [ t h e m o t h e r ] h a v e no m e a n s t o l o c a t e h e r . "6. [The m o t h e r ] moves f r o m p l a c e t o p l a c e b o y f r i e n d . S h e w i l l n o t t a k e my c a l l s have a number f o r h e r . "7. She me. "8. I believe that [ t h e mother] i s a v o i d i n g any c o n t a c t w i t h me t o p r e v e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e support decree, knowing she s h o u l d provide support to her c h i l d r e n . "9. I have tried to contact her through her parents. However, h e r p a r e n t s h a v e n o t known her whereabouts s i n c e [January 2004]." does not c a l l mail to [the mother] was k n o w n a d d r e s s was R o u t e M i s s i s s i p p i 39346. h e r c h i l d r e n who lives, 1, and with when live a I with 1 The t y p e w r i t t e n a f f i d a v i t s t a t e s t h a t " h e r p a r e n t s have n o t known h e r w h e r e a b o u t s s i n c e S e p t e m b e r o f 2 0 0 3 . " However, "September of" i s crossed out and "January 2004" i s handwritten below i t . 1 4 2100516 The father's granted motion on J a n u a r y 22, April 2004, On default," 2, asserting, for service by publication 2004. the among father other filed a things, "motion that the mother had " f a i l e d appearance or request per n o t i c e i s s u e d by t h e C l e r k o f C o u r t , " the t r i a l matter on A p r i l 29, Obligation on 2004, to modify. contains Income April Guidelines 5, The m a t t e r 29, a 2004, and r e q u e s t i n g that was completed proof in support set for a hearing CS-41 Statement/Affidavit 2004, along with form a Child-Supportsigned CS-42 same d a t e . the t r i a l See R u l e court 3 2 , A l a . R. entered to pay c h i l d support Jud. Admin. a judgment by the Child-Support form completed and s i g n e d by t h e f a t h e r ' s m a t e r i a l change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s parties' make a n 2004. record on t h a t 2004, c o u r t e n t e r a d e f a u l t a g a i n s t t h e mother and s e t t h e of h i s p e t i t i o n father by ... M a r c h 1 9 , f o r a h e a r i n g t o a l l o w him t o present The 28, t o answer o r t o o t h e r w i s e an e x t e n s i o n b e f o r e for service p u b l i c a t i o n h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d on o r a b o u t F e b r u a r y that was finding attorney On May that a e x i s t e d , o r d e r i n g the mother i n t h e amount o f $392 p e r month u n t i l t h e children attain t h e age 5 of 19 years, allowing the 2100516 father to suspending further On claim both children f o r income-tax the mother's v i s i t a t i o n w i t h order of the 2010, children and pending court. October the purposes, 20, the mother filed a "motion for r e l i e f f r o m j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , " a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r things, been t h a t t h e May entered 5, against personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . " 2 0 0 4 , j u d g m e n t was her "without Specifically, v o i d because proper she service i t had and/or asserted: "A. The M o t i o n f o r S e r v i c e b y P u b l i c a t i o n a n d A f f i d a v i t i n Support t h e r e o f f i l e d by the [ f a t h e r ] on J a n u a r y 19, 2004 a l l e g e t h a t t h e [ m o t h e r ' s ] l a s t known place of residence was in Noxapater, Mississippi. A c c o r d i n g l y , the [ m o t h e r ] would have been a n o n - r e s i d e n t Defendant. At the time of the a t t e m p t e d s e r v i c e , s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n was not p e r m i t t e d o n a n o n - r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t . S e e [ A l a . R. C i v . P., R u l e ] 4.3; C a m e r s o n v . T i l l i s , 952 S o . 2 d 352 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . "B. The M o t i o n f o r S e r v i c e b y P u b l i c a t i o n a n d A f f i d a v i t i n S u p p o r t t h e r e o f f i l e d by t h e [ f a t h e r ] are f a c i a l l y d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t t h e y do n o t aver facts sufficient enough t o have found that the [ m o t h e r ' s ] r e s i d e n c e was u n k n o w n a n d c o u l d n o t b e a s c e r t a i n e d by r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e . McBrayer v. H o k e s B l u f f A u t o P a r t s , 685 S o . 2 d 763 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996. "C. The M o t i o n f o r S e r v i c e b y P u b l i c a t i o n a n d A f f i d a v i t i n S u p p o r t t h e r e o f f i l e d by t h e [ f a t h e r ] are f a c i a l l y d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t t h e y do n o t aver facts sufficient enough t o have found t h a t the [ m o t h e r ] was a v o i d i n g s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s . M c B r a y e r 6 2100516 v. Hokes B l u f f A u t o App. 1996." Parts, The father f i l e d a response On January 2011, 24, 685 S o . 2 d 7 6 3 t o t h e mother's Rule 60(b) motion. the trial court d e n y i n g t h e mother's Rule 60(b) motion. the mother filed what she styled Alter, o r Amend"; the t r i a l motion on F e b r u a r y 23, 2011. On F e b r u a r y mother's motion as court entered 24, 2011, t h e f a t h e r to vacate, alter, motion her e n t e r e d an o r d e r a "Motion purported filed of appeal On F e b r u a r y finding that to Vacate, t o deny that a response to the o r amend; h e a l s o m o v e d t o failure t o comply 28, 2011, t h e the father's t o h o l d t h e mother i n c o n t e m p t moot. notice judgment 2 previous court orders. court a On F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 1 , h o l d t h e mother i n contempt f o r h e r a l l e g e d with (Ala. C i v . response trial and t h e The m o t h e r filed same d a y . Standard o f Review "'"The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w on appeal from t h e d e n i a l of r e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(4)[, A l a . R. " 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 motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P . , ] t h a t c o u r t d o e s n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n to entertain a successive postjudgment motion ... o r o t h e r w i s e 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 . " E x p a r t e K e i t h , 771 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 2 ( A l a . 1998). 2 7 2100516 Civ. P.,] i s n o t w h e t h e r there has been an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . When the grant or denial of 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 the judgment, as under Rule 60(b)(4), discretion has no p l a c e . I f t h e 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 must be s e t a s i d e . A judgment i s void only i fthe court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the p a r t i e s , or i f i t acted i n a manner 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 o f A m e r i c a 2003) 823 Corp. v. Edwards, ( q u o t i n g Image A u t o , S o . 2 d 6 5 5 , 657 Mgmt. & Admin., Inc. v. Mike K e l l e y E n t e r s . , I n c . , (Ala. 2001), I n c . v. Palomar 212 (Ala. 1991)); 30, 2010] 881 So. 2 d 4 0 3 , 405 ( A l a . quoting Ins. see a l s o Ex p a r t e So. 3d , (Ala. i n turn Corp., N.B., Insurance 590 So. 2 d 2 0 9 , [Ms. 1 0 8 0 4 4 0 , June 2010). Discussion On a p p e a l , in she declining t h e mother t o grant h e r Rule that the t r i a l 60(b) motion. court erred Specifically, a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e s h e was n o t a r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a i n 2004, the t r i a l court her by p u b l i c a t i o n . 4.3, argues A l a . R. August 2004, erred i n allowing the father to The m o t h e r c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t C i v . P., as i t read d i d not allow before a nonresident 8 i t was serve Rule amended i n i n an i n personam 2100516 action t o be s e r v e d Tillis, 952 So. 2d by p u b l i c a t i o n . 352, 353-54 ( A l a . 2006) s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n on a n o n r e s i d e n t August 1, 2 0 0 4 , The that, i n Gross 1988), amendment t o R u l e f a t h e r argues this modification court 522 proceeding, served by p u b l i c a t i o n . a that p a r t o f our o p i n i o n i n Gross. i n Gross, rule acknowledges, that, nonresident The m o t h e r a s k s that 3 So. 2 d 306 indicated i n dicta (holding v. was i n v a l i d b e f o r e t h e 4.3). and t h e mother v. Loewen, See, e . g . , Cameron ( A l a . C i v .App. i n a postdivorce defendant this however, could be court to overrule As t h e mother p o i n t s o u t , t h i s c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l exists because postdivorce proceedings are actually R u l e 4 . 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a s i t r e a d b e f o r e t h e A u g u s t 1, 2 0 0 4 , a m e n d m e n t , p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " I n no e v e n t s h a l l a n i n p e r s o n a m j u d g m e n t b e e n t e r e d on s e r v i c e b y p u b l i c a t i o n e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b p a r a g r a p h (c) o f t h i s rule." R u l e 4 . 3 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a s i t r e a d b e f o r e t h e A u g u s t 1, 2 0 0 4 , a m e n d m e n t , p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 3 "(c) Avoidance of S e r v i c e . When a r e s i d e n t defendant avoids service and that defendant's p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n i s unknown and t h e p r o c e s s server has e n d o r s e d t h e f a c t o f f a i l u r e o f s e r v i c e and t h e r e a s o n t h e r e o f on t h e p r o c e s s a n d r e t u r n e d same t o the clerk o r where t h e r e t u r n r e c e i p t shows a f a i l u r e o f s e r v i c e , t h e c o u r t may, o n m o t i o n , o r d e r s e r v i c e t o b e made b y p u b l i c a t i o n . " (Emphasis added.) 9 2100516 continuations of however, that o u r supreme c o u r t petition to purposes of applying filing 237, the modify In dicta Gross, 30-3-25(a)(4), codified has h e l d : "The action." Ex p a r t e We judgment this also relied 1975, a p a r t Jurisdiction the as t h e 782 S o . 2 d of flawed. court Act on former of the former ("the UCCJA"), § Uniform formerly persuasive h o w e v e r , t h a t , a t t h e t i m e t h e m o t h e r was served by p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h i s by i s ,f o r treated Davidson, of a T h u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e a s o n i n g i n G r o s s was We n o t e , note, filing a t § 30-3-20 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, as authority. replaced action. domestic-relations A l a . Code Custody divorce the rules of procedure, (Ala. 2000). court's original a of a separate 240 Child the Uniform case, Child t h e UCCJA h a d a l r e a d y b e e n Custody Jurisdiction and E n f o r c e m e n t A c t ("the U C C J E A " ) , § 30-3B-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. Section 30-3B-108(a), A l a . Code 1975, o f t h e UCCJEA provides: "Notice required f o r the exercise of j u r i s d i c t i o n when a p e r s o n i s o u t s i d e t h i s s t a t e may b e g i v e n i n a manner p r e s c r i b e d by t h e l a w o f t h i s s t a t e f o r s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s . N o t i c e must be g i v e n i n a manner r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o g i v e a c t u a l n o t i c e b u t may be b y p u b l i c a t i o n i f o t h e r means a r e n o t e f f e c t i v e . " 10 2100516 The A l a b a m a Comment t o clear the that "out manner Civil not find that set Having misplaced instead 30-3B-108, A l a . state currently Procedure. exception as of § provided (Rule the service 4.2[, of for UCCJEA is i n the the rationale present in this c a s e , was served, the 354. A default void C o r p . v. E d w a r d s , 881 that the trial Rule 60(b) judgment and court motion. So. 2d erred We remand t h i s be for the opinion. dicta We 4.3 decline in to Gross follow 2004, amendment, s e r v i c e set a t 405. s u c h as the mother not C a m e r o n , 952 aside. Bank 2d at America conclude i n d e c l i n i n g to grant the mother's therefore Accordingly, in properly So. of by we reverse cause f o r the Rule 4.2, as i t read a m e n d m e n t , r e f e r e n c e d R u l e 4.3 f o r s e r v i c e by p u b l i c a t i o n . 4 do authority B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r "was must of T h u s , we 4 Rules i t . we judgment i s v o i d . " judgment to be a nonresident defendant, improper. Alabama P.])." Gross the [is limited] to i t e x i s t e d b e f o r e t h e A u g u s t 1, on Civ. makes i t the p l a i n language of Rule case, c o n c l u d e t h a t , b a s e d on publication the persuasive f o r t h i n d i c t a i n the found process by A l a . R. Code 1975, the trial trial court court's to enter a before the August 1, 2004, w i t h r e g a r d to the r e q u i r e m e n t s 11 2100516 judgment aside granting t h e mother's Rule t h e May 5, 2 0 0 4 , void and s e t t i n g judgment. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED WITH Thompson, 60(b) motion INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 12 Bryan, a n d Thomas, 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.