Sylvia McCaskill et al. v. Ernestine McCaskill et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/16/2012 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 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 2110425 Sylvia McCaskill e t a l . v. Ernestine McCaskill e t a l . Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-10-901) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . I n J a n u a r y 2010, S y l v i a M c C a s k i l l s u e d h e r m o t h e r - i n - l a w , Ernestine McCaskill, and Ernestine's M c C a s k i l l , i n the Mobile D i s t r i c t Court, husband, asserting a claim of m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n ; E r n e s t i n e and Anthony f i l e d denying liability counterclaim as alleging to Sylvia's that Sylvia Anthony claim an answer and a s s e r t e d was l i a b l e a t o them f o r 2110425 having abused process. district court entered district court's After a an ore judgment judgment tenus on indicates May the 7, The 2010. Ernestine was t o S y l v i a as a m a t t e r o f l a w d e t e r m i n e d n o t t o be l i a b l e that proceeding, (see R u l e 5 0 ( a ) and R u l e 5 0 ( d c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P . ) , t h a t A n t h o n y found not l i a b l e was t o S y l v i a b a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , and t h a t S y l v i a was found l i a b l e t o E r n e s t i n e and A n t h o n y t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m ; E r n e s t i n e was a w a r d e d $750 and A n t h o n y on was awarded $2,500. On May j u d g m e n t was 21, 2010, t h e 1 4 t h day a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s entered, Sylvia f i l e d a postjudgment motion 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 R u l e 59(e) and R u l e 5 9 ( d c ) , A l a . R. c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on May 26, C i v . P. 2010, The allowing district Ernestine and A n t h o n y respond to S y l v i a ' s postjudgment motion. 10 On June 4, 2010, 1 4 t h day a f t e r S y l v i a f i l e d h e r m o t i o n , E r n e s t i n e and f i l e d a response to that Under Alabama motion to a l t e r , P., may law, days to the Anthony motion. among o t h e r m o t i o n s , a postjudgment amend, o r v a c a t e u n d e r R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . not remain pending i n a d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r more t h a n 14 days w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s , u n l e s s the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o w h i c h an a p p e a l o f t h e j u d g m e n t lie e x t e n d s t h e d e a d l i n e o r , p u r s u a n t t o a 2008 amendment t o 2 would 2110425 Rule the 59.1(dc), the d i s t r i c t p e r i o d up t o an a d d i t i o n a l 14 days " f o r good c a u s e shown." R u l e s 59.1 did c o u r t e n t e r s an o r d e r e x t e n d i n g not and 5 9 . 1 ( d c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. c o n s e n t on the r e c o r d b e c a u s e no l e a v e was Because to extend the the p a r t i e s 14-day o b t a i n e d from the c i r c u i t c o u r t period, allowing S y l v i a ' s m o t i o n t o r e m a i n p e n d i n g o u t s i d e t h e 14-day p e r i o d , and b e c a u s e the d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t e n t e r an o r d e r on t h e r e c o r d d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t good c a u s e the had b e e n shown t o e x t e n d 14-day p e r i o d , S y l v i a ' s m o t i o n was a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e n i e d on June 4, 2010, see R u l e 5 9 . 1 ( d c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a l t h o u g h t h e district to c o u r t e n t e r e d on o r d e r on June deny S y l v i a ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t A notice 11, 2010, purporting motion. of a p p e a l from a judgment o f a d i s t r i c t court must be f i l e d " w i t h i n 14 days f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r the d e n i a l of a p o s t t r i a l Code 1975, § 12-12-70(a). S y l v i a ' s postjudgment notice of appeal motion, whichever i s l a t e r . " The 1 4 t h day after to the 21, 2010, t h r e e days l a t e . circuit the d e n i a l of m o t i o n , and t h e f i n a l day f o r f i l i n g a circuit court, was S y l v i a f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal to the c i r c u i t the Ala. June 18, 2010. c o u r t on However, d e s p i t e t h a t l a t e June filing, c o u r t p r o c e e d e d t o h e a r t h e a p p e a l on i t s m e r i t s ; i t h e l d an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g , p u r p o r t e d t o g r a n t E r n e s t i n e and Anthony's motion f o r a judgment 3 as a matter of law on 2110425 Sylvia's claim they asserted a claim against had and on their amended c o u n t e r c l a i m Sylvia and (in which her attorneys, C r e o l a R u f f i n and V a n e s s a S h o o t s , u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , A l a . Code 1975, entered a j u d g m e n t on § 12-19-270 e t s e q . ) , November 3, 2011, purporting damages o f $12,071.56 t o E r n e s t i n e and A n t h o n y . denial of t h e i r court's Litigation to and her attorneys award Following postjudgment motion d i r e c t e d to the judgment, S y l v i a and the circuit appealed to this court. Although our no p a r t y ' s b r i e f appellate whether we jurisdiction, have "'jurisdictional notice of App. 1997) 1987)). by the matters are time over of and Co., appeal must has consider this do 689 Ex Smith, parte the parties' i t i s the so So. 438 So. jurisdiction claims circuit duty subject matter de court 2d 766, of the novo was lacked of even ex 2d 210, So. an 768 because 211 take (Ala. Civ. 712 (Ala. n o t be w a i v e d appellate court ex court In to consider t i m e l y invoked, to mero motu." ( A l a . 1983) . subject-matter 4 sponte mero motu. 2d 711, jurisdiction circuit not sua appeal " L a c k o f 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 may p a r t i e s and challenged s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 l a c k of the any J a y s Mfg. consider case, we jurisdiction them a t W a l l a c e v. Tee in this and this the because jurisdiction, that 2110425 court's this judgment i s v o i d court. and w i l l not support an a p p e a l t o See S i n g l e t o n v . Graham, 716 So. 2d 224, 225-26 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , a n d D a v i s v. Townson, 437 So. 2d 1305, 1305-06 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) . Based dismiss upon the foregoing facts t h e appeal from t h e c i r c u i t and a u t h o r i t i e s , court's we v o i d judgment o f November 3, 2011, p u r p o r t i n g t o a w a r d damages o f $12,071.56 t o Ernestine and Anthony. 1 We instruct the c i r c u i t court to v a c a t e i t s judgment a f t e r t h i s c o u r t ' s c e r t i f i c a t e o f judgment has d u l y b e e n i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 1 , A l a . R. App. P., a n d to dismiss S y l v i a ' s a p p e a l from t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t court. See S i n g l e t o n , timely appeal 716 So. 2d a t 226. F u r t h e r , b e c a u s e no was t a k e n from t h e judgment c o u r t , we n o t e t h a t t h a t c o u r t ' s of the d i s t r i c t judgment remains i n effect. See i d . APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , concur. The a p p e l l a n t s ' motion to s t r i k e a portion of the a p p e l l e e s ' b r i e f i s d e n i e d as moot. The a p p e l l e e s ' m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 38, A l a . R. App. P., i s d e n i e d . 1 5

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.