F.Z. v. S.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/02/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2100609 F.Z. v. S.P. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-50282.01) THOMAS, J u d g e . F.Z. Jefferson custody. judgment. ("the f a t h e r " ) Juvenile Court appeals denying We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l from a judgment h i s petition as b e i n g taken to from of the modify a void 2100609 On O c t o b e r 14, juvenile court had 2010, with r e s u l t o f an e a r l i e r the S.P., The division in aunt, the child"), paternal child's an o r d e r a petition ("the who as a j u v e n i l e court i n which f o u n d t h e c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t . domestic-relations Court. the o f D.Z. judgment of the j u v e n i l e court entered the father f i l e d to modify custody been p l a c e d i t had the On O c t o b e r 26, 2010, t r a n s f e r r i n g the case of the Jefferson j u v e n i l e court's t r a n s f e r order to Circuit stated: "Ex Mero Motu t h i s c a u s e i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e D o m e s t i c R e l a t i o n s C o u r t as t h i s m a t t e r ( p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y f i l e d ... ) was f i l e d a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 [ , A l a . Code 1975.] " A l l orders entered i n t h i s matter subsequent to f i l i n g o f t h i s p e t i t i o n a r e s e t a s i d e and h e l d f o r n a u g h t as t h i s C o u r t does n o t have s u b j e c t m a t t e r jurisdiction." The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n any order from the circuit court t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e c a s e b a c k t o t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r any order from the j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t t i n g a s i d e i t s t r a n s f e r of the case to the In circuit circuit spite court, court. of i t s order the t r a n s f e r r i n g the j u v e n i l e court continued case to to the act in the c a s e , h o l d i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n and, on February 28, 2011, entering 2 a judgment d e n y i n g the 2100609 father's petition t o modify f i l e d a postjudgment motion, The father subsequently Alabama that courts jurisdiction custody of the c h i l d . which the j u v e n i l e court appealed have long o f a case The f a t h e r to this recognized denied. court. "the general c a n be i n o n l y one c o u r t rule at a t i m e . " Ex p a r t e S t a t e e x r e l . O.E.G., 770 So. 2d 1087, 1089 (Ala. 2000). When the juvenile court entered its order t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e case t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and h o l d i n g a l l o f i t s o r d e r s i n t h e case v o i d , i t l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n further did it a c t i o n i n t h e case. I d . Because t h e j u v e n i l e n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n entered i t s order court, the juvenile orders entered transferring court's after t o t a k e any t h e case judgment, the entry over t h e case along court after to the c i r c u i t with of the transfer any o t h e r order, are v o i d . G u l f B e a c h H o t e l , I n c . v. S t a t e e x r e l . W h e t s t o n e , 935 So. 2d 1177, 1 1 8 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . support an a p p e a l . attempted So. A void judgment w i l l not I d . " [ A ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an a p p e a l f r o m s u c h a v o i d j u d g m e n t . " Vann v . Cook, 98 9 2 d 556, 559 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we d i s m i s s the f a t h e r ' s appeal and i n s t r u c t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o v a c a t e its February 28, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t , a l o n g w i t h a n y o t h e r 3 orders 2100609 entered after transferring October t h e case 26, 2010, the date to the c i r c u i t court. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Pittman, the order 1 INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, of P . J . , and Bryan, and Moore, J J . , concur. We e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n as t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n i t s O c t o b e r 26, 2010, o r d e r t h a t i t d i d n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e father's petition. 1 4

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.