M.G. v. J.T.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/28/2012 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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110761 M.G. v. J.T. Appeal from Cullman J u v e n i l e Court (JU-11-436.02) MOORE, J u d g e . This this i s t h e second time court. these p a r t i e s have been before I n M.G. v . J.T., 90 So. 3d 762 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , M.G. ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) a p p e a l e d from a judgment o f t h e C u l l m a n J u v e n i l e C o u r t ("the j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) d e c l a r i n g B.L.T. 2110761 ("the c h i l d " ) d e p e n d e n t and a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y of the c h i l d to J.T., t h e c h i l d ' s s t e p m o t h e r ("the s t e p m o t h e r " ) . that the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment a c c o r d a n c e w i t h due p r o c e s s void. M.G., 2012, we We h a d n o t been concluded entered i n and, t h u s , t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t 90 So. 2d a t 766. Therefore, d i s m i s s e d the mother's appeal on F e b r u a r y with On February 27, 2012, the j u v e n i l e court o f judgment was i s s u e d on M a r c h M a r c h 29, 2012, a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g juvenile court entered to Id. scheduled c a u s e f o r a h e a r i n g t o be h e l d on M a r c h 1, 2012. certificate 24, instructions the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e i t s v o i d judgment. was the This court's 15, 2012. On t h e h e a r i n g on M a r c h 1, t h e a judgment, again finding the child d e p e n d e n t and a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e s t e p m o t h e r . The m o t h e r a g a i n appeals. We f i r s t a d d r e s s the i s s u e whether the j u v e n i l e c o u r t had subject-matter jurisdiction its Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a judgment. 2d 891, 895 766, 768 ( A l a . 2008) (Ala. 1983)) t o c o n d u c t t h e h e a r i n g and Dep't o f Human R e s . , 999 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e ("'[I]t i s the duty Smith, 438 2 So. So. 2d o f an a p p e l l a t e court to consider l a c k of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n motu. ' " ) . enter ex mero 2110761 "'It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t "[o]nce an a p p e a l i s taken, the t r i a l court loses j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a c t except i n matters entirely collateral to the a p p e a l . " ' P o r t i s v . A l a b a m a S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n, 8 63 So. 2d 1125, 1126 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ward v . U l l e r y , 412 So. 2 d 796, 797 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982)). Further, "'Alabama l a w i s c l e a r t h a t " [ j ] u r i s d i c t i o n o f a c a s e c a n be i n o n l y one c o u r t a t a t i m e . " Ex p a r t e S t a t e ex r e l . O.E.G., 77 0 So. 2d 1087, 1089 ( A l a . 2000) . F u r t h e r m o r e , " w h i l e an a p p e a l i s pending, the t r i a l c o u r t 'can do n o t h i n g i n r e s p e c t t o a n y matter or question which i s i n v o l v e d i n the a p p e a l , a n d w h i c h may be a d j u d g e d b y t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . ' " Reynolds v. C o l o n i a l Bank, 874 So. 2d 497, 503 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g F o s t e r v . G r e e r & Sons, I n c . , 446 So. 2 d 605, 608 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . ' "Johnson 2004) . v. W i l l i s , 893 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Ala. II "We a l s o n o t e t h a t , u n t i l an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e n t e r s i t s c e r t i f i c a t e o f judgment, i t s d e c i s i o n i s not y e t f i n a l and i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a case i s n o t t e r m i n a t e d . See R u l e 4 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. (an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s ' c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t ... s h a l l i s s u e 18 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t u n l e s s t h e time i s shortened o r e n l a r g e d by o r d e r ' ) ; see a l s o P o r t i s , 863 So. 2d a t 1126; a n d V e t e t o v . Yocum, 792 So. 2 d 1117, 1119 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . " L a n d r y v . L a n d r y , 91 So. 3d 88, 89-90 In the p r e s e n t March 1, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . c a s e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on 2012, w h i c h was before 3 this court issued i t s 2110761 certificate o f j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 15, time of the h e a r i n g , had not t e r m i n a t e d , jurisdiction this 2012. Therefore, court's j u r i s d i c t i o n over the and t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had n o t over the case. Landry, 91 So. at 3d the case reacquired at 90. A j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be e n t e r e d upon e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a t a h e a r i n g that was held at subject-matter So. 2d 510, a t i m e when t h e jurisdiction. 511 h e l d when t h e the t r i a l previous on the c o u r t ' s M a r c h 29, void G r a y , we new 1994) had foregoing, 2012, we i n s t r u c t the a new We, Like hearing that the dismiss j u v e n i l e court Court of the unless must of juvenile subject- the appeal, to set aside C r i m i n a l Appeals and h e a r i n g u n l e s s the p a r t i e s facts. Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s Pittman herself. 4 in entering a 658 So. 2d a t 511. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , be jurisdiction). j u v e n i l e court that, before into a stipulation 658 b e e n h e l d a t a t i m e when therefore, the have State, judgment i s v o i d f o r l a c k of j u d g m e n t , i t must c o n d u c t a new enter G r a y v. conclude i n s t r u c t i o n s to the judgment. d i d not (holding that, facts, hearing jurisdiction. albeit with its to the court e.g., court lacked subject-matter Based matter See, ( A l a . C r i m . App. p a r t i e s would s t i p u l a t e trial and Bryan, J J . , concur.

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.