Jimmie L. Holifield v. Shirley J. Lambert

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 11/30/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 2110312 Jimmie L. H o l i f i e l d v. S h i r l e y J . Lambert Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (DR-10-1192) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t a r i s e s o u t o f e f f o r t s on t h e p a r t o f J i m m i e L. H o l i f i e l d ("the f a t h e r " ) t o s e t a s i d e a judgment o f t h e J e f f e r s o n F a m i l y C o u r t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f S h i r l e y J . L a m b e r t ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) on h e r c h i l d - s u p p o r t - a r r e a r a g e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r stemming from a 1 9 7 1 judgment o f p a t e r n i t y e n t e r e d b y a W i s c o n s i n court 2110312 s p e c i f y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s as t o a c h i l d b o r n of the parties authorities, interest, in the to December father's the mother 1968. According and the Wisconsin indebtedness, combined to including State of Wisconsin f u n c t i o n of h i s h a v i n g f a i l e d t o f u l l y comply w i t h the provisions of that paternity judgment had swelled as a support to over $105,000 as o f November 2007. The matter was referred to the Jefferson D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"), w h i c h , on the mother, f i l e d seeking a money arrearage. a complaint i n the That number support against case generally, prefix, Procedure. So. 3d 1276, 868 So. 2d See Although We note and in C o u r t and the that Court to court that as case concerning cases filed the Alabama R u l e s of filed State ex 2 0 0 9 ) , and ( A l a . C i v . App. father as child in the a Juvenile r e l . M.S.M., 34 M.C. v. L.J.H., 2003). motion to dismiss mother's f a m i l y - c o u r t a c t i o n , t h a t c o u r t denied h i s motion entered a j u d g m e n t on J u n e 16, amount of $105,136.99. of d o c k e t e d w i t h a c a s e number h a v i n g ( A l a . C i v . App. the that actions g e n e r a l l y H.J.T. v. 467 father in particular a r e g o v e r n e d by 1278 465, was relation Jefferson Family docketed CS-08-806. Jefferson Family a "CS" judgment County the and 2009, a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r i n t h e No appeal 2 was taken from that 2110312 j u d g m e n t ; however, i n A p r i l 2010, a f t e r t h e m o t h e r h a d f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o h o l d t h e f a t h e r i n contempt and s e e k i n g t o e x e c u t e on t h e j u d g m e n t , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n family i n the c o u r t s e e k i n g t o have t h e j u d g m e n t s e t a s i d e as v o i d under Rule on J u l y 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 29, 2010. On A u g u s t T h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d 10, 2010, w i t h i n 14 d a y s after the e n t r y of the order denying the f a t h e r ' s motion pursuant t o Rule 60(b), t h e f a t h e r t i m e l y appealed from t h a t order t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r de novo r e v i e w . 1 See R u l e s 28(B) and 2 8 ( C ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. In the f a t h e r ' s DR-10-1192, mother's court 2 the appeal, which father again c l a i m s a g a i n s t h i m and take judicial family-court case notice involving was a s s i g n e d c a s e sought a dismissal number of the requested that the c i r c u i t o f o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n an the p a r t i e s . The c i r c u i t earlier court The f a m i l y c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) was i t s e l f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h a t w o u l d i n d e p e n d e n t l y s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; s u c h an a p p e a l b r i n g s up f o r r e v i e w o n l y t h e m a t t e r s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g j u d g m e n t . See F o o d W o r l d v. C a r e y , 980 So. 2d 404, 406 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , a n d W i l g e r v . D e p a r t m e n t o f P e n s i o n s & S e c . , 343 So. 2d 529, 532 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . F u r t h e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e f a m i l y c o u r t d i d n o t c e r t i f y t h e r e c o r d as a d e q u a t e f o r d i r e c t r e v i e w b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 8 ( A ) , A l a . R. J u v . P. 1 DHR moved t o , a n d was p e r m i t t e d t o , w i t h d r a w f r o m i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r , who t h e r e a f t e r m a i n t a i n e d h e r c l a i m s i n h e r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y r a t h e r than as a r e l a t o r . 2 3 2110312 denied the f a t h e r ' s motions r a i s i n g 14, 2011, the the matter, circuit entered f a t h e r ' s appeal for the a f t e r having On November held a hearing a f i n a l j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g r e l i e f as t o and entry court, those i s s u e s . remanding the of any cause t o the further necessary family on the court orders. No 3 p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s were f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h e November 14, As Civ. we noted App. in court, " ' s h a l l novo.'" 1(B), A l a . R. on t h e r e l a t i o n such 976 So. 2d 458 (Ala. Juv. P., mandates as the child-support of the mother i n the that family be u n i f o r m i n a l l c o u r t s , w h e t h e r a t c i r c u i t court 976 Rule judgment. K.L.C., juvenile actions, action initiated district i n H.E.H. v. 2007), procedures 2011, So. level or in 2d a t 459 the circuit court by trial ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n H.E.H.). or de Thus, w h e r e , as h e r e , no p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s h a v e b e e n t i m e l y f i l e d i n the p e r t i n e n t c i r c u i t c o u r t , an a p p e a l to this a judgment of a c i r c u i t court an sitting as court appellate from court We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was f i n a l notwithstanding the v e r b i a g e r e g a r d i n g remandment t o the f a m i l y court f o r the p o s s i b l e e n t r y of f u r t h e r orders because the c i r c u i t c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o the l i m i t e d scope of review p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a l f r o m t h e f a m i l y c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l i e f from the f a m i l y c o u r t ' s judgment, " d i s p o s e d of a l l i s s u e s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s " and l e f t "no m a t t e r s ... p e n d i n g " b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s . Bd. v. M i l l e r , 66 So. 3d 757, 761 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . 3 4 2110312 w i t h r e s p e c t t o a judgment o f a j u v e n i l e , f a m i l y , o r d o m e s t i c relations Rules court exercising of Juvenile original Procedure must jurisdiction be f i l e d under t h e within f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment. 2 8 ( C ) , A l a . R. J u v . court confirm P. Numerous r e c e n t the applicability H.E.H., 976 So. 2 d a t 459; a c c o r d 663, 665-66 ( A l a . C i v . App. 76 ( A l a . C i v . App. 20 0 8 ) ; See J.F.M. v . C.W.B., 72 So. 3 d Ryans v . S t a t e ex r e l . Stoudmire, 2 0 0 7 ) ; B.R. v . F.H., 962 2 0 0 7 ) ; and R.M. v . J.D.C., 925 972 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; D.A.L., 18 So. 3 d 420, principle. 2 0 1 1 ) ; D.T. v . S t a t e , 1 So. 3 d 74, So. 2 d 882, 884 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 d 970, See R u l e precedents of t h i s of that 963 So. 2 d 95, 96-97 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 14 d a y s see a l s o 422 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) W.C.R. v . (indicating t h a t an a n a l o g o u s 14-day a p p e a l p e r i o d a p p l i e s when a t i m e l y postjudgment motion i n the c i r c u i t court tolls the time f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l ) . Notwithstanding the foregoing waited until December 27, appeal from the c i r c u i t 2011, court's before November 28, 2011, judgment. thefinal filing the father his notice of November 14, 2011, denying h i s appeal from the f a m i l y from the u n d e r l y i n g authorities, That court's judgment denial of r e l i e f d a t e was 29 d a y s d a y on w h i c h the father have t i m e l y a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . 5 after could Under 2110312 R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P., " [ a ] n a p p e a l s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d if the notice jurisdiction the 2011, o f a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y of the a p p e l l a t e court." father's appeal from the c i r c u i t filed to invoke the T h e r e f o r e , we d i s m i s s c o u r t ' s November 14, judgment. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 6 Thomas, and Moore, 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.