O.S. and J.A.S. v. E.S.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110621 O.S. and J.A.S. v. E.S. E.S. v. O.S. and J.A.S. Appeals from Walker C i r c u i t (DR-10-900006) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This court case requires p r e s i d i n g over whose b i o l o g i c a l us t o d e t e r m i n e a 2010 d i v o r c e child whether a circuit a c t i o n between p a r t i e s was a d o p t e d b y t h e c h i l d ' s paternal 2110621 grandfather and jurisdiction his to circuit 2008 the presented probate ("the child"), 2007. The Their union i n August grandfather"), (hereinafter and i f so, whether from which i t fraud. ("the w i f e " ) began produced 2006; the a daughter, couple married sometimes grandparents The had living B.T.S. i n March mobile the c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r h i s w i f e , J.A.S. grandparents"). referred given the ("the ("the stepgrandmother") to collectively as "the was evidence undisputed that the husband a s s i s t a n c e and t h a t t h e c h i l d had and the wife financial spent s u b s t a n t i a l time with grandparents. In wife adoption h u s b a n d , t h e w i f e , and t h e c h i l d l i v e d i n a home n e x t d o o r t o O.S., the court's Procedural History B.O.S. ("the husband") and E.S. i n 2005. subject-matter with evidence the e x i s t e n c e of such F a c t u a l and together had o f f r a u d on t h e c o u r t and, c o u r t was c o u l d have f o u n d in aside set j u d g m e n t on a c c o u n t the wife January took February divorce. the 3, The 2010, child 2010, the and the husband and wife separated. went t o s t a y w i t h h e r husband filed a parents. complaint seeking c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t 2 The On a one 2110621 c h i l d had b e e n b o r n t o t h e c o u p l e b u t t h a t t h e c h i l d had been a d o p t e d by t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s i n 2008 a f t e r t h e h u s b a n d and the wife a l l the had "signed grandparents. The over complaint parental requested rights" that to the child be removed f r o m t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e w i f e and r e t u r n e d t o the adoptive parents The i . e . , the grandparents moved grandparents immediately. the to intervene in divorce a c t i o n , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e y were t h e c h i l d ' s a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s and s e e k i n g immediate pendente l i t e child. On F e b r u a r y 4, 2010, physical custody of the t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r a l l o w i n g the grandparents to i n t e r v e n e i n the a c t i o n , g r a n t i n g their request f o r pendente lite custody d i r e c t i n g the w i f e to r e t u r n the c h i l d The wife answered "counterclaim and grandparents, the husband's independent seeking to set of the t o them complaint action" aside a child, immediately. and filed against final judgment a d o p t i o n r e n d e r e d on M a r c h 11, 2008, by t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t Walker County. fraudulently similar child The induced wife her alleged to consent t o an a d o p t i o n b u t was might r e c e i v e c o l l e g e t h a t the to grandfather "something a the of of had that was n o t an a d o p t i o n , so t h a t the a s s i s t a n c e i n the 3 and future." The 2110621 wife further alleged that the grandfather had assured her t h a t , i f she c o n s e n t e d t o h i s p r o p o s a l , " n o t h i n g w o u l d c h a n g e " and she would always a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she for adoption" in grandfather, but, her, not had she not had the asserted in she the office an of adoption grandparents independent attorney asserted Adoption Code, attorney, documents she and to she had signed. g r a n d p a r e n t s had falsely petition that home s i n c e the child [the c h i l d ' s p e r p e t r a t i n g , the w i f e answered action wife's § the own the wife's seeking to claim, set aside j u d g m e n t c o u l d p r o p e r l y be the for had birth claimed, court. to consider that wife been e x p l a i n e d the matter. claim 26-10A-1 et 4 was The a probate subject-matter grandparents barred seq., asserting f i l e d o n l y i n the p r o b a t e c o u r t and t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had no jurisdiction The had her the [grandparents'] court's adoption an a l l e g e d t h a t the a f r a u d on t h e p r o b a t e that of alleged, nothing copies their mother. s i g n e d a document l a b e l e d " c o n s e n t on] A u g u s t 31, 2006," t h e r e b y The child's b e e n a s s i s t e d by wife " r e s i d e d i n the had the been g i v e n Further, be by Ala. the Code also Alabama 1975, 2110621 specifically, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , in pertinent part: "(a) The c o n s e n t [ t o an a d o p t i o n ] . . . , once s i g n e d o r c o n f i r m e d , may n o t be w i t h d r a w n e x c e p t : " "(2) .... A f t e r one y e a r f r o m t h e d a t e a f i n a l decree of adoption i s entered, a c o n s e n t ... may n o t be c h a l l e n g e d on any g r o u n d , e x c e p t i n c a s e s where t h e a d o p t e e has b e e n k i d n a p p e d . " (Emphasis added.) The w i f e a n d t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s f i l e d partial summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i s s u e o f t h e c i r c u i t jurisdiction Ala. Code petition wife cross-motions to set aside court's t h e judgment o f a d o p t i o n . 1975, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 1 6 ( a ) be " s i g n e d , for a (requiring that and v e r i f i e d an Citing adoption by each p e t i t i o n e r " ) , the a r g u e d t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d on t h e court, the c i r c u i t court could s e t aside the adoption judgment on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was " v o i d on i t s f a c e " b e c a u s e the grandparents' circuit the wife adoption court entered petition a partial on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l evidentiary hearing unverified. The summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f issue on t h e m e r i t s 5 was and then of the wife's conducted claim. an 2110621 A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n November 2005, soon after child, the she had learned grandfather c e r t a i n papers, had that she informed was her the g r a n d f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he was an a d o p t i o n , " b u t , he wife] child] would would said, always always According proposing [the stay with child's] signed to the w i f e , something "like change, t h a t mother, [ t h e h u s b a n d and and the [the wife]." The w i f e s t a t e d t h a t t h e g r a n d f a t h e r had a s k e d h e r n o t t o anyone a b o u t h i s p r o p o s a l t o a d o p t t h e The wife testified that, after the to c o l l e g e f o r "nothing would ever be with t h a t i f she h e r c h i l d w o u l d be a b l e t o "go free," using h i s veteran's benefits. [the pregnant tell child. having considered the g r a n d f a t h e r ' s p r o p o s a l , she had a g r e e d t o t h e p r o p o s a l b e c a u s e she had thought i t would g i v e the a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she had child a better l i f e . gone t o a l a w y e r ' s She o f f i c e and s i g n e d p a p e r s shown t o h e r by a woman i n t h e l a w y e r ' s had office, b u t , she s a i d , she had n o t r e a d t h e documents o r b e e n g i v e n a c o p y o f them. The the papers, the w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r she had grandfather's ... change" p r o v e d she said t o be the c h i l d statement true i n fact. still that "nothing Nothing signed would d i d change, r e s i d e d w i t h t h e h u s b a n d and 6 her 2110621 and r e g u l a r l y v i s i t e d w i t h the grandparents the husband The u n t i l she separated. husband testified that the grandfather a d o p t i o n when t h e proposed and had child was about a year first old. At t h a t t i m e , t h e h u s b a n d s a i d , t h e g r a n d f a t h e r had n o t referred to and the proposal as "something like an adoption," h u s b a n d had u n d e r s t o o d t h a t an a d o p t i o n meant g i v i n g up to a child. On acknowledged that cross-examination, the grandfather however, had told the the rights husband him that the a d o p t i o n w o u l d be, i n e f f e c t , "a p a p e r a d o p t i o n o n l y " and t h a t the husband parents. and The the wife continue that and child's had that they had e v e n t u a l l y d e c i d e d t h a t a d o p t i o n w o u l d be i n t h e c h i l d ' s best interest grandfather's because, advantage of the husband s a i d that, they he the wife the stated t o be the discussed husband would proposal thought, the and child grandfather's veteran's on A u g u s t 2007, he 13, would have benefits. and the The the w i f e had gone t o a l a w y e r ' s o f f i c e , where a woman had p r e s e n t e d e a c h o f them w i t h two "affidavit signed. The of documents a "consent natural parent" for adoption" that they had and read an and h u s b a n d s a i d t h a t he and t h e w i f e had b e e n shown 7 2110621 no o t h e r documents, i n c l u d i n g t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s ' adoption, n o r h a d he a n d t h e w i f e s p o k e n w i t h t h e l a w y e r d r a f t e d t h e documents o r h a d t h e i r The she stepgrandmother and t h e g r a n d f a t h e r letter testified to her attorney, arranged own requesting that, during a week when she had w r i t t e n a t h a t s h e be removed as a She a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t she f o r t h e w i f e t o r e a d t h e l e t t e r a n d t h a t she h a d t o l d t h e w i f e t h a t " i t was w r o n g " f o r t h e g r a n d f a t h e r the c h i l d from t h e husband and t h e w i f e . s t a t e d t h a t she had a l s o t o l d raised who lawyers. had been s e p a r a t e d , p a r t y from t h e i n s t a n t l i t i g a t i o n . had petition for one c h i l d and t h a t the wife t o take The s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r t h a t she had a l r e a d y s h e was t o o o l d t o r a i s e another child. The like grandfather an a d o p t i o n " denied t h a t he h a d p r o p o s e d t o t h e w i f e , b u t he a d m i t t e d t o l d the wife that, a f t e r the adoption, be the child's usual." child mother and t h a t The g r a n d f a t h e r "something t h a t he h a d she w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o " t h i n g s w o u l d go on j u s t a s e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t was u s u a l t o " r e s i d e " i n both f o r the h i s home a n d i n t h e home o f t h e h u s b a n d a n d t h e w i f e , a n d , he i n s i s t e d , t h e c h i l d was w i t h h i m more t h a n h a l f t h e t i m e . He a d m i t t e d , 8 h o w e v e r , t h a t he h a d 2110621 not informed that the probate the c h i l d court i n h i s p e t i t i o n had r e s i d e d anywhere other f o r adoption than with the grandparents since her b i r t h . On his cross-examination, brother addition, the grandfather had adopted t h a t the grandfather brother's admitted acknowledged t h a t grandchildren. that he h a d p r e v i o u s l y p r o p o s e d t o t h e h u s b a n d t h a t he a d o p t a d i f f e r e n t c h i l d born t o the union wife woman rejected acknowledged case, that the c h i l d health-insurance dependent one o f t h e h u s b a n d a n d a woman o t h e r t h a n t h e but, the grandfather had In said, that after proposal. the adoption had s t i l l policy t h e husband and t h e o t h e r been The of the c h i l d covered and had s t i l l on t h e t a x r e t u r n s wife, but, the grandfather filed grandfather i n this by t h e husband's been claimed by t h e husband as a and t h e s a i d , he h a d p a i d t h e m a j o r i t y o f the expenses a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c h i l d because the husband and the wife h a d been struggling financially. Finally, the g r a n d f a t h e r a d m i t t e d t h a t , b y v i r t u e o f a d o p t i n g t h e c h i l d , he had begun amount receiving additional o f $100 p e r month veteran's and a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s i n t h e amount o f $739 p e r month. 9 benefits Social He d e n i e d , i n the Security however, 2110621 t h a t h i s motive f o r adopting the child was to receive those benefits. On November claim against final j u d g m e n t as Civ. P. The the 17, 2011, the grandparents to that circuit and ruling. c i r c u i t court's 1 r u l e d on d i r e c t e d the See Rule the wife's entry 54(b), of Ala. a R. judgment s t a t e s : " T h i s cause, coming f o r t r i a l b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t on November 2, 2011, and November 4, 2011, on t h e complaint for intervention filed by the [grandparents] and the [wife's] counterclaim t h e r e t o , and upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e o f , together w i t h ore tenus testimony, i t i s hereby ordered, a d j u d g e d and d e c r e e d as f o l l o w s : "1. The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s , as t h e p a r t i e s have b e e n p r e v i o u s l y a d v i s e d , t h a t i t has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c l a i m s p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . "2. T h a t t h e [ w i f e ' s ] m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e j u d g m e n t o f a d o p t i o n i s v o i d on i t s f a c e i s h e r e b y d e n i e d . "3. The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e [ w i f e ] has proven t h a t the [grandparents] perpetrated a fraud a g a i n s t the Probate Court of Walker County, Alabama, and made f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o t h a t C o u r t i n o r d e r t o i n v o k e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h a t C o u r t and to o b t a i n the adoption the s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n . "4. Judgment i s h e r e b y r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r o f [wife] and against the [grandparents] on [ w i f e ' s ] c o u n t e r c l a i m and i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n t o The husband's c l a i m a g a i n s t the w i f e remained pending b e f o r e the c i r c u i t c o u r t . 1 10 for a the the set divorce 2110621 a s i d e an o r d e r o f a d o p t i o n f o r f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e f i n a l d e c r e e o f a d o p t i o n o f M a r c h 11, 2008, i s h e r e b y s e t a s i d e and s a i d a d o p t i o n i s h e l d n u l l and v o i d . "5. T h i s c o u r t ' s o r d e r o f F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 1 0 [ , d i r e c t i n g the wife to r e t u r n the c h i l d to the g r a n d p a r e n t s ] i s h e r e b y d i s s o l v e d , and j u d g m e n t i s r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e [wife] and a g a i n s t t h e [grandparents] on t h e c o m p l a i n t i n i n t e r v e n t i o n . " The court grandparents d i d n o t have court's appeal, arguing jurisdiction judgment o f a d o p t i o n ; the circuit set aside to (1) t h a t the probate (2) t h a t the fraud a l l e g e d to have b e e n c o m m i t t e d i n t h i s c a s e d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e " f r a u d on t h e c o u r t " ; and (3) t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f a c t u a l that the grandparents had committed u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . the a l l e g e d on a p e t i t i o n that was arguing t h a t t h e judgment o f a d o p t i o n was n o t v o i d b e c a u s e , she m a i n t a i n s , predicated fraud, The w i f e c r o s s - a p p e a l s , that the c i r c u i t court erred i n determining was finding, t h a t judgment h a d n o t been v e r i f i e d as r e q u i r e d by § 26-10A-16(a). Discussion I. "[R]elief The C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s from Jurisdiction a j u d g m e n t on t h e b a s i s of fraud is in e s s e n c e an e q u i t a b l e remedy l o n g e x i s t i n g i n A l a b a m a a n d now incorporated See i n Alabama's Rules 11 of Civil Procedure. 2110621 Committee Comments, R u l e Nicholas, 689 So. 2d 1 0 1 , 104 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . In our 60, A l a . R. C i v . P." L a r g e v. Hayes, 534 So. 2d 1101, 1105-06 supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e h i s t o r i c a l Rule "bill Francis ( A l a . 1988), underpinnings of 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n of review" and a "bill v. i n the nature between a of a b i l l of review": " R u l e 60(b) r e t a i n s t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e d e v i c e s f o r m a k i n g an e x t r a o r d i n a r y a t t a c k on a j u d g m e n t t h a t were i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e R u l e , t h o u g h t h e w r i t s t h e m s e l v e s , i . e . coram n o b i s , coram v o b i s , a u d i t a q u e r e l a , s u p e r s e d e a s , b i l l s o f r e v i e w , and b i l l s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a b i l l of r e v i e w , were a b o l i s h e d b y t h e R u l e . The r e l i e f must be b y m o t i o n , as p r e s c r i b e d b y R u l e 60, o r b y an ' i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n ' t h a t s e e k s t o v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t on one o f t h e g r o u n d s on w h i c h i t c o u l d have b e e n v a c a t e d p r i o r t o t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n o f R u l e 60. ... A b i l l o f r e v i e w must be b a s e d upon e r r o r o f law apparent upon the record o r upon newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . Cunningham v . Wood, 224 A l a . 288, 289, 140 So. 351 ( 1 9 3 2 ) . '[A] b i l l w h i c h s e e k s to vacate a decree f o r fraud, actual or constructive, or ... because of any other c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h i s s u f f i c i e n t t o a n n u l i t as b e i n g v o i d a b l e , i s s a i d t o be a b i l l i n t h e n a t u r e of a b i l l o f r e v i e w . ' Cunningham v . Wood, s u p r a . " "Under R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A [ l a ] . R. C i v . P., a p r i o r j u d g m e n t c a n be c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k e d i n an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n f o r ' f r a u d upon the court.' The i n d e p e n d e n t action must be b r o u g h t within t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t o r w i t h i n one y e a r 12 2110621 a f t e r d i s c o v e r y by t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y o f t h e f r a u d . Waldrop v. A k e r v. Waldrop, State 395 So. 2d 60 ex r e l . R o y s t e r , 1985). and, Unlike 477 So. 2d 437, 437 probate therefore, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) . " courts, which ( A l a . C i v . App. are "'court[s] g e n e r a l l y do[] not possess of law jurisdiction to d e t e r m i n e e q u i t a b l e i s s u e s , ' " K i s h L a n d Co. v. Thomas, 42 So. 3d 1235, 1237 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) (quoting L o v e t t e , 577 So. 2d 893, 896 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) , c o u r t s do have j u r i s d i c t i o n circuit civil courts actions provided i n the other a plain Alabama that the j u r i s d i c t i o n as t o e q u i t a b l e m a t t e r s i n which extends and adequate attack 26-10A-25(d), 2 remedy i s not judicial tribunals.'" Id. is governed which provides by Ala. Code 1975, that "[a] final decree of adoption may not be c o l l a t e r a l l y attacked, except i n cases of f r a u d or where t h e a d o p t e e has b e e n k i d n a p p e d , a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f one y e a r f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l d e c r e e and a f t e r a l l a p p e a l s , i f any." 2 of 'to a l l A p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o s e t a s i d e an a d o p t i o n collateral v. "Alabama's c i r c u i t over e q u i t a b l e matters. Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 1 ( 1 ) , p r o v i d e s the Lappan B u t see § 26-10A-14(a), supra. 13 on § 2110621 See G.M. 2011). v. T.W., The 75 So. 3d 1181, 1186-87 fact jurisdiction, that the pursuant probate to § ( A l a . C i v . App. court 26-10A-25(d), has statutory to entertain a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on a j u d g m e n t o f a d o p t i o n does n o t , h o w e v e r , vitiate either entertain (a) the circuit an i n d e p e n d e n t action court's t o have jurisdiction a probate to court's j u d g m e n t s e t a s i d e on t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d on t h e c o u r t o r (b) the c i r c u i t court's general equitable j u r i s d i c t i o n all i s s u e s between t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e "Although the t y p i c a l under Rule rendered collateral action." 502, approach 60(b) i s by f i l i n g the judgment, attack on a ... judgment action. f o r a t t a c k i n g a judgment a motion the to decide rule by i n the court does filing an that provide f o r independent EB I n v s . , L.L.C. v . A t l a n t i s Dev., I n c . , 930 So. 2d 508 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . " [ T ] h e C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P., ... s t a t e t h a t ' i f r e l i e f f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t i s s o u g h t i n some o t h e r c o u r t t h a n t h e c o u r t w h i c h r e n d e r e d t h e judgment, t h e p a r t y s h o u l d b r i n g an i n d e p e n d e n t p r o c e e d i n g ' ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . W h i l e t h e r e m i g h t o t h e r w i s e be ' l i t t l e p r o c e d u r a l d i f f e r e n c e ' b e t w e e n a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n a n d an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n (see i d . ) , t h e a p p a r e n t i n t e n t o f the drafters of our r u l e was to l i m i t the a v a i l a b i l i t y of such 'independent a c t i o n s ' t o c o u r t s other than the court that o r i g i n a l l y rendered the judgment." 14 2110621 R o b i n s o n v. K a t o , (Pittman, 944 So. 2d 965, 968 J . , concurring specially) See a l s o S w i g e r t v. S w i g e r t , App. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) (second emphasis added). 553 So. 2d 607, 608-09 ( A l a . C i v . 1989) ( n o t i n g t h a t a p a r t y h a d c o r r e c t l y asserted that " r e l i e f f r o m a j u d g m e n t may be s o u g h t v i a t h e commencement o f an independent rendered action i n a court the seeking to counterclaim present set aside the parties." will which was a action compulsory before they married. jurisdiction settle of a c h i l d born t o The to adjudicate circuit those assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n a a l l t h e e q u i t i e s between t h e C r e e l v. C r e e l , 342 So. 2d 793, 794 ( A l a . C i v . App. C f . Ex p a r t e 2004) independent adoption " I t i s an a x i o m t h a t h a v i n g of equity 1977) . the wife's t h e p a r e n t a g e and c u s t o d y had subject-matter court App. case, husband and t h e w i f e issues. that that i m p l i c a t e d a c e n t r a l issue i n the divorce a c t i o n , namely: court from the judgment"). In the different (rejecting Jones, 896 So. 2d 553, 556 t h e argument that (Ala. C i v . p a t e r n i t y must be d e t e r m i n e d e x c l u s i v e l y under t h e Alabama U n i f o r m Parentage A c t and h o l d i n g t h a t w i f e h a d a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o d e c i d e i n 15 2110621 divorce action parties' action, of the paternity marriage 2d 316, child a born before the custody or divorce i s central to the d i s p o s i t i o n ( q u o t i n g F l o y d v . F l o y d , 701 So. 2d 1151, 1153 C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n M.M. v . C.M., 600 So. 317 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) ) . In support of t h e i r seeking could "'"[i]n the issue of parentage the case"'" (Ala. because, of a a r g u m e n t t h a t an i n d e p e n d e n t t o s e t aside the probate p r o p e r l y be filed only court's adoption i n the probate action judgment court, the g r a n d p a r e n t s c i t e M.A.N. v . J.A.N., 611 So. 2 d 1090 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , B.W.C. v . A.N.M., 590 So. 2d 282 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991), 1981). In two a n d Holcomb v . Bomar, 392 So. 2 d 1204 ( A l a . C i v . App. We w i l l d i s c u s s those cases i n r e v e r s e order. Holcomb, s u p r a , t h e b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r s o u g h t t o have j u d g m e n t s o f a d o p t i o n s e t a s i d e on g r o u n d s o f f r a u d ; one judgment h a d been rendered i n 1972 a n d t h e o t h e r in 1976. W i t h i n f o u r months o f t h e r e n d i t i o n o f t h e 1972 j u d g m e n t , t h e mother f i l e d i n the p r o b a t e c o u r t a p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h a t judgment. She f a i l e d t o pursue the action, remained pending i n the probate c o u r t . the r e n d i t i o n however, and i t More t h a n a y e a r a f t e r o f t h e 1976 j u d g m e n t , t h e m o t h e r f i l e d 16 i n the 2110621 c i r c u i t court a p e t i t i o n sought to removed action and the have from her the 1205. circuit and this remove t h e court. We court 1976 and with her ordered 392 So. validity the also judgment "Removal was for t r i a l . " upheld She 1972 consolidated judgment. court the the mother a p p e a l e d t o t h i s With respect adoption, the challenging [were] c o n s o l i d a t e d The adoptions, action probate challenging cases t o s e t a s i d e t h a t judgment. 2d of both court. to the mother's a c t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g the court adoption stated: held that proceeding there was no authority from probate c o u r t to " T h e r e i s no statute f o r removal of i n the probate c o u r t to the c i r c u i t 12-11-41, [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , p e r t a i n i n g t o a d m i n i s t r a t i o n Id. c h a l l e n g i n g the With 1976 respect adoption, we to the to any court except § mother's of action stated: "We have d i l i g e n t l y s e a r c h e d f o r some l e g a l a u t h o r i t y p e r m i t t i n g the c i r c u i t c o u r t to determine, by i n d e p e n d e n t p e t i t i o n , t h e v a l i d i t y o f an a d o p t i o n d e c r e e e n t e r e d by t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t . We have f o u n d no s u c h a u t h o r i t y . We a r e c o n v i n c e d t h e circuit c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h e original petition c h a l l e n g i n g the v a l i d i t y of the probate c o u r t d e c r e e f o r a d o p t i o n e n t e r e d i n 1976. That p e t i t i o n c o u l d o n l y be f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t . " 17 1972 circuit proceeding estates." at 2110621 Id. As supra, our discussion Rule 60(b) independent i n d i c a t e s , an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n s e e k i n g j u d g m e n t may rendered be sought i n a c o u r t the judgment. determining that jurisdiction of the the c h a l l e n g i n g t h e 1976 p o i n t of In other Therefore, circuit adoption, r e l i e f from a than the court that t h e Holcomb c o u r t e r r e d i n court biological actions, lacked mother's subject-matter independent action and we o v e r r u l e Holcomb on t h a t law. B.W.C., supra, c h i l d r e n i n 1984. after of the the husband and wife adopted The p a r t i e s l a t e r d i v o r c e d , and t h r e e r e n d i t i o n of the adoption judgment, two years the husband f i l e d an a c t i o n i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e t h e adoption j u d g m e n t on g r o u n d s o f f r a u d , a l l e g i n g t h a t h i s s i g n a t u r e the adoption petition t r a n s f e r r e d the court denied court parties' validity that divorce of proceeding, the been case t o the the r e l i e f stated had forged. probate j u v e n i l e c o u r t , and s o u g h t by the husband. i t had reviewed proceeding and adoptions The had not the had only The juvenile of the that the raised in that determined b u t a l s o had b e e n a d d r e s s e d by t h e c i r c u i t j u d g m e n t o r d e r i n g t h e h u s b a n d t o pay 18 court the j u v e n i l e transcript been on c h i l d support court's f o r the two 2110621 children. divorce The h u s b a n d , h o w e v e r , h a d n o t a p p e a l e d judgment. The husband appealed to this c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , and we d i s m i s s e d 38, A l a . Acts lapse 279 1990 ( e f f e c t i v e ( A l a . C i v . App. Court o f Alabama grated holding have certiorari that January years." 1991). citing which set aside a f t e r B.W.C. v . A.N.M., 590 So. 2 d 2 7 9 , The h u s b a n d p e t i t i o n e d t h e Supreme for certiorari review the juvenile 1, 1 9 9 1 ) ) , from being review. and r e v e r s e d former § 26-10-5(c) an a d o p t i o n within had of five from ( r e p e a l e d b y A c t No. 554, " p r o h i b i t [ e d ] a decree o f adoption the court t h e a p p e a l as moot, f o r m e r § 2 6 - 1 0 - 5 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975 § from t h e s e t aside the five-year period The supreme this court's required that be commenced, and t h a t been f i l e d w i t h i n t h a t p e r i o d . judgment, an a c t i o n t o not adjudicated, t h e husband's Ex p a r t e court petition B.W.C., 590 So. 2d 279 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . On stated court, remand a f t e r t h e supreme c o u r t ' s that the d i s p o s i t i v e issue which jurisdiction granted over was " w h e t h e r the divorce, the adoptions u p h o l d them o r s e t them a s i d e . " 19 reversal, this such had that court the c i r c u i t subject matter i t could either B.W.C., 590 So. 2d a t 2 8 3 . 2110621 R e l y i n g on Holcomb, s u p r a , court which matter granted this court h e l d t h a t "the c i r c u i t the divorce jurisdiction over mechanism" and "could adoptions." had not acquired the adoptions by any s t a t u t o r y Id. Because consider adoptions decide the court that jurisdiction n o t have subject over the ratified i n B.W.C. circuit the issue erroneously court had concerning by v i r t u e o f i t s g e n e r a l or s e t aside the failed to subject-matter the v a l i d i t y of the equitable jurisdiction to a l l i s s u e s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n , we o v e r r u l e B.W.C. The supra, remaining case does n o t s t a n d cited by t h e grandparents, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an a c t i o n t o s e t a s i d e an a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t must be b r o u g h t i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , as t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s c o n t e n d . proposition that there an a d o p t i o n M.A.N., proceeding Rather, i t stands f o r the i s no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o t r a n s f e r from p r o b a t e court to circuit court unless the c i r c u i t court i s e x e r c i s i n g j u v e n i l e j u r i s d i c t i o n . In M.A.N., consents the biological t o the adoption paternal grandfather parents, of their claiming child that by t h e c h i l d ' s a n d s t e p g r a n d m o t h e r were i n v a l i d , 20 their moved 2110621 the probate court to set aside the adoption. The probate c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d the case t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e of c h i l d custody. Following that hearing, c i r c u i t court determined that the b i o l o g i c a l were invalid and set aside the grandparents' parents' consents judgment. the adoption however, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t v a c a t e d the Later, i t sruling, agreeing argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s with judgment was n u l l and v o i d b e c a u s e t h e c a s e was " ' i n t h e wrong c o u r t . ' " 611 So. 2d a t 1091. The b i o l o g i c a l mother a p p e a l e d t o c o u r t , and we a f f i r m e d , h o l d i n g t h a t , a l t h o u g h 12-12-35(a), adoption A l a . Code proceeding jurisdiction, the 1975, authorized to a court record t h a t was d i d not §§ 12-12-34 exercising juvenile reflect that the circuit and, a c c o r d i n g l y , that court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subject matter. a t 1092. and t h e t r a n s f e r o f an c o u r t was e x e r c i s i n g j u v e n i l e j u r i s d i c t i o n 2d this 390 So. Because the p r e s e n t c a s e does n o t i n v o l v e t h e t r a n s f e r o f an a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g t o c i r c u i t c o u r t , M.A.N. i s simply i n a p p l i c a b l e here. 21 2110621 II. F r a u d on t h e C o u r t S e c t i o n 26-10A-28, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h g o v e r n s a d o p t i o n by grandparents and o t h e r r e l a t i v e s , provides, i n pertinent part: "A g r a n d f a t h e r ... a n d [ h i s ] r e s p e c t i v e s p o u s e [ ] , i f any may a d o p t a m i n o r g r a n d c h i l d ... a c c o r d i n g t o the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s chapter, except t h a t : "(1) B e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n , t h e a d o p t e e must have r e s i d e d f o r a p e r i o d of one y e a r w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n e r , u n l e s s t h i s f i l i n g p r o v i s i o n i s w a i v e d by t h e c o u r t f o r good cause shown; "(2) No [pre-placement] investigation under Section 26-10A-19 s h a l l occur unless otherwise d i r e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t . ... " The c h i l d was b o r n on A u g u s t 17, 2007, petition t o adopt alleged that the c h i l d s i n c e August 3 1 , 2006. the c h i l d , I n t h e i r December the grandparents "has r e s i d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' 3 1 , 2006," a n d t h a t "said child home i s now i n t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f [the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r and t h e p a t e r n a l stepgrandmother]." The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d spent s u b s t a n t i a l time a t t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s ' house, overnight v i s i t s . next door including The h u s b a n d , t h e w i f e , a n d t h e c h i l d to the grandparents; the c h i l d lived enjoyed p l a y i n g at t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s ' h o u s e ; b o t h p a r e n t s w o r k e d o u t s i d e t h e home; 22 2110621 and t h e g r a n d f a t h e r was r e t i r e d . Even v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n the the light most favorable to grandparents i.e., c r e d i t i n g the grandparents' testimony t h a t they had "kept" the child more than half the time the c i r c u i t r e a s o n a b l y have f o u n d t h a t t h e c h i l d the grandparents' grandparents home, much since her b i r t h , had never less court could "resided" i n "resided" with the b u t , i n s t e a d , had o n l y v i s i t e d w i t h them, a n d t h u s t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n i n t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s ' a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n was k n o w i n g l y Citing [Ms. this false. court's recent decision 2101209, June 29, 2012] 2012), and o t h e r cases i n McGee v. B e v i l l , So. 3d involving ( A l a . C i v . App. perjury, the grandparents a r g u e t h a t a f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n i n a p l e a d i n g may i n d i c a t e between the p a r t i e s constitute Anderson, court to the l i t i g a t i o n , f r a u d on t h e c o u r t . but We d i s a g r e e . 250 A l a . 427, 34 So. 2d 585 fraud i t does I n A n d e r s o n v. (1948), o u r supreme stated: "It i s thoroughly e s t a b l i s h e d that a decree w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e on a b i l l i n t h e n a t u r e o f a b i l l of r e v i e w s o l e l y b e c a u s e i t was p r e d i c a t e d on f a l s e t e s t i m o n y ; n o r on f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e b i l l on which i t i s founded, u n l e s s those a l l e g a t i o n s a r e necessary to invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court to render t h e decree under a t t a c k . " 23 not 2110621 250 A l a . a t 430, 34 So. 2d a t 588 ( e m p h a s i s added; citations omitted). "'In Alabama, t h e r i g h t o f a d o p t i o n i s p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y a n d i n d e r o g a t i o n o f t h e common l a w , ... and unless the s t a t u t e by express p r o v i s i o n or necessary i m p l i c a t i o n confers the r i g h t of adoption, s u c h r i g h t does n o t e x i s t . ' E v a n s v. R o s s e r , 280 A l a . 163, 164-65, 190 So. 2d 716, 717 (1966) ( c i t i n g Doby v. C a r r o l l , 274 A l a . 273, 147 So. 2d 803 (1962))." Hays v. Hays, 946 So. 2d 867, 869 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) . The circuit that the grandparents' a l l e g a t i o n t h a t the c h i l d had r e s i d e d w i t h them court could reasonably have determined s i n c e h e r b i r t h was made t o i n v o k e t h e power of the probate court, their pursuant petition. Civ. to § 26-10A-28, adoption See A.M.H. v. T.L.H., 733 So. 2d 4 2 1 , 423 ( A l a . App. perpetrated 1998) a fraud sought a d i v o r c e (holding that on a c o u r t biological i n Georgia, mother where and custody o f c h i l d p r e v i o u s l y g r a n d p a r e n t s , by making a b a s e l e s s the t o grant she had adopted by c l a i m that her consent t o c h i l d ' s a d o p t i o n h a d been o b t a i n e d b y "'undue influence, f r a u d , and d e c e i t ' " and by k n o w i n g l y and f a l s e l y a v e r r i n g she h a d met Georgia the six-month residency divorce). 24 had requirement that f o rthe 2110621 The 28(1) dissent -- implies i.e., grandparents that that the f o r one y e a r the requirement child have o f § 26-10A- resided with i s not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l the because t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t c o u l d have b e e n w a i v e d b y t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t "for good cause necessarily shown." The w a i v e r provision, d e p e n d e n t upon a p r o b a t e however, i s court's determination, f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , t h a t "good c a u s e " e x i s t s , s e e , e . g . , Ex p a r t e Owen, 860 So. 2d 877, 880 ( A l a . 2003) -- a d e t e r m i n a t i o n without which, requirement as i n this case, pleading i s clearly jurisdictional. C f . A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human R e s . v. B.V., 59 So. 3d 700, 709-10 2010) (discussing provides that § 26-10A-25(b), "the court shall the residency (Ala. C i v . A l a . Code grant a final 1975, App. which decree of a d o p t i o n i f i t f i n d s on c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t ... [t]he adoptee has been i n t h e a c t u a l p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e petitioners f o r a period shown, t h i s requirement t h a t "no p a r t y c o n t e n d e d o f 60 d a y s , u n l e s s f o r good cause i s waived by t h e c o u r t , " and s t a t i n g at t r i a l that the Jefferson Probate Court s h o u l d n o t g r a n t [the f o s t e r p a r e n t s ' ] a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n on t h e b a s i s that [the adoptee] had n o t been i n [ t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s ' ] p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y f o r 60 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g " ) . 25 2110621 In l i g h t the present of evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the case (a) had previously approached with a proposal to adopt a d i f f e r e n t c h i l d , t h e h u s b a n d and a woman o t h e r t h a n t h e w i f e , wife and not to t e l l (c) had anyone o f h i s p r o p o s a l received, by v i r t u e of grandfather the the husband o f f s p r i n g of (b) had told t o adopt the the adoption, no other caretaking changes i n the parties' living responsibilities t h e h u s b a n d and f o r the t h e w i f e had child separated, additional had changed Social fraud Security the Veterans' Administration, Walker County. See (Ala. In 1976) . on misrepresentation Duncan v. Duncan, and until was fraudulently thereby Administration, the J o h n s o n , 338 our or the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n c o c t e d a sham c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n , a that arrangements a u t h o r i z e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s had perpetrating the child, g o v e r n m e n t b e n e f i t s i n t h e amount o f $839 p e r month, b u t (d) in supreme Probate So. 2d court the Court 1243, held t o t h e c o u r t t h a t m i n o r c h i l d r e n who of 1251 that a held a remainder i n t e r e s t i n land a l s o h e l d a cotenancy i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d , so as t o g i v e t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a proceeding f o r the s a l e of the l a n d f o r d i v i s i o n , a f r a u d on t h e court. The Duncan c o u r t 26 stated: constituted 2110621 " ' [ W ] h e r e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t o f law i s a c q u i r e d by t h e f r a u d u l e n t c o n c o c t i o n o f a s i m u l a t e d c a u s e o f a c t i o n , t h e f r a u d i t s e l f t o be consummated through the i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y of a c o u r t of j u s t i c e , t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t demands t h a t there s h o u l d be a remedy.'" 338 So. 2d a t 1251 I r o n Co., In wife, 215 the who ( q u o t i n g B o l d e n v. S l o s s - S h e f f i e l d S t e e l & A l a . 334, 335, i n s t a n t case, signed the 110 the So. 574, grandparents out denied rights. the a l l e g e d f r a u d i n the r e l i e f b e c a u s e she was The 322 U.S. Supreme C o u r t 238 argue import, the United forms be States v. seminal fraud-on-the-court Company ( " H a r t f o r d " ) . United States Supreme C o u r t planned Patent and Standard 17 (1976), a the ordered to set in judgment The a Court of decision. Third Circuit patent-infringement deliberately answered Hartford-Empire o f C a l i f o r n i a v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 429 U.S. f o r the should i n p r o t e c t i n g her O i l Co. Appeals without to ( 1 9 4 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , In H a z e l - A t l a s , the the court, not d i l i g e n t of that or attempting probate s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t i n H a z e l - A t l a s G l a s s Co. Co., (1925)). consent-for-adoption r e a d i n g them, i n q u i r i n g as t o t h e i r root 575 aside favor of a nine-year-old Hartford-Empire Court determined t h a t H a r t f o r d had executed the O f f i c e by 27 a using scheme an to defraud article about the 2110621 m a c h i n e f o r w h i c h i t was b e e n w r i t t e n by seeking Hartford's own a patent. The employees but article published had in a t r a d e j o u r n a l u n d e r t h e name o f a s u p p o s e d l y o b j e c t i v e e x p e r t , who had been "paid unsuccessful in a o f f " by later Hartford. After patent-infringement Hartford action was against H a z e l - A t l a s G l a s s Company, H a r t f o r d c i t e d t h e bogus a r t i c l e t o the T h i r d C i r c u i t Court of Appeals i n support o f i t s argument on Appeals appeal; the extensively from Third the Circuit article in Court i t s decision Hartford. The Supreme C o u r t o r d e r e d of Appeals to set writing aside f o r the Court, of in quoted favor the T h i r d C i r c u i t i t s decision. J u s t i c e Hugo of Court Black, stated: "Every element of the f r a u d here d i s c l o s e d demands t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e h i s t o r i c power o f e q u i t y to set a s i d e f r a u d u l e n t l y begotten judgments. This i s not s i m p l y a case of a judgment o b t a i n e d w i t h the aid of a witness who, on the basis of a f t e r - d i s c o v e r e d evidence, i s b e l i e v e d p o s s i b l y to have b e e n g u i l t y o f p e r j u r y . H e r e , e v e n i f we c o n s i d e r n o t h i n g b u t H a r t f o r d ' s sworn a d m i s s i o n s , we f i n d a d e l i b e r a t e l y p l a n n e d and c a r e f u l l y e x e c u t e d scheme t o d e f r a u d n o t o n l y t h e P a t e n t O f f i c e b u t t h e C i r c u i t Court of Appeals." 322 U.S. A t l a s was at 245. entitled Answering t o no Hartford's argument t h a t r e l i e f because i t had 28 been Hazelderelict 2110621 in f a i l i n g to discover trial and c o u r t , the Court r o o t out the alleged fraud i n the continued: "[E]ven i f H a z e l d i d not e x e r c i s e the h i g h e s t degree o f d i l i g e n c e H a r t f o r d ' s f r a u d c a n n o t be c o n d o n e d f o r t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e . T h i s m a t t e r does n o t c o n c e r n o n l y p r i v a t e p a r t i e s . T h e r e a r e i s s u e s o f g r e a t moment t o the p u b l i c i n a patent s u i t . Furthermore, tampering w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e i n t h e manner i n d i s p u t a b l y shown h e r e i n v o l v e s f a r more t h a n an i n j u r y t o a s i n g l e l i t i g a n t . I t i s a wrong a g a i n s t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s s e t up t o p r o t e c t and s a f e g u a r d t h e public, institutions in which fraud cannot c o m p l a c e n t l y be t o l e r a t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e good o r d e r o f s o c i e t y . ... The p u b l i c w e l f a r e demands t h a t t h e a g e n c i e s o f p u b l i c j u s t i c e be n o t so i m p o t e n t t h a t t h e y must a l w a y s be mute and h e l p l e s s v i c t i m s o f d e c e p t i o n and f r a u d . " 322 U.S. a t 246 (citations omitted). Conclusion The w i f e was circuit court d i d not e n t i t l e d t o have t h e err adoption t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d on t h e c o u r t . Circuit dismissed Court is affirmed. The The that judgment s e t a s i d e judgment of the wife's the on Walker cross-appeal is as moot. APPEAL AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED. Thomas and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Donaldson, P.J., i n determining J., dissents, with joins. 29 w r i t i n g , which Thompson, 2110621 Donaldson, Judge, d i s s e n t i n g . Probate courts have original jurisdiction proceedings. § 26-10A-3, A l a . Code 1975. the Court Probate of Walker County On adoption M a r c h 11, issued a d o p t i o n o f B.T.S. ("the c h i l d " ) by O.S., of a 2008, judgment the c h i l d ' s of paternal grandfather ("the g r a n d f a t h e r " ) and h i s w i f e , J.A.S. (O.S. J.A.S. hereinafter are referred to collectively as and "the g r a n d p a r e n t s " ) , a f t e r B.O.S. ( t h e " t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r " ) and E.S. consents ("the biological adoption. mother") T h a t j u d g m e n t i s t o be judgments from the c i r c u i t c o u r t s : decrees filed of probate and p r e s u m p t i o n s written given the same s t a t u s " A l l o r d e r s , judgments c o u r t s s h a l l be a c c o r d e d to as and t h e same v a l i d i t y w h i c h a r e a c c o r d e d t o j u d g m e n t s and o r d e r s o f o t h e r c o u r t s o f g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . " § 1 2 - 1 3 - 1 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975. The A l a b a m a A d o p t i o n Code, § 26-10A-1 e t . s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, to provides a b i o l o g i c a l withdraw and/or parent with a l i m i t e d attack the validity of adoption: "At any time u n t i l the f i n a l decree that consent or the duress, mistake, petitioner or relinquishment undue or h i s or her was influence agent or the 30 a consent to upon a s h o w i n g obtained on opportunity the by part fraud, of a a g e n c y t o whom o r f o r 2110621 whose b e n e f i t final i t was decree of r e l i n q u i s h m e n t may given. After adoption is one year from the date of entered, a consent n o t be c h a l l e n g e d on any g r o u n d , e x c e p t i n c a s e s where t h e a d o p t e e has b e e n k i d n a p p e d . " § Ala. Code 1975 The (emphasis legislature collateral or attacks added). also on 26-10A-14(2), has probate provided court limitations judgments of on adoption b a s e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s : "A f i n a l d e c r e e o f a d o p t i o n may n o t be c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k e d , e x c e p t i n c a s e s o f f r a u d o r where t h e a d o p t e e has b e e n k i d n a p p e d , a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f one f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l d e c r e e and a f t e r any." § 26-10A-25(d), A l a . Code year a l l appeals, i f 1975. On F e b r u a r y 26, 2010, a l m o s t two y e a r s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f the a d o p t i o n judgment filed an independent in this action challenging the adoption proceedings from the biological (1) h e r case, in the judgment biological i n v a l i d based biological Walker as of It into mother Circuit part father. mother's c o n t e n t i o n s f a l l c o n s e n t was the Court divorce appears three categories: on m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o r o t h e r f r a u d u l e n t c o n d u c t o f t h e g r a n d f a t h e r , (2) a f r a u d perpetrated by the motivations f o r the grandparents based a d o p t i o n , and/or 31 the on (3) their the was improper petition for 2110621 adoption filed jurisdiction by of the the grandparents probate contends that the filing circuit court was necessary Walker County a c t i o n was Ala. not three biological independent because invoke the action probate in power of a court to the court of independent which p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : the the mother a u t h o r i z e d by t h e " s a v i n g s c l a u s e " o f R u l e limit independent the The not does n o t have e q u i t y p o w e r s and t h e R. C i v . P., does of court. did 60(b), "This rule entertain an a c t i o n w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e and n o t t o e x c e e d (3) y e a r s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t ... t o r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a judgment, o r d e r , or p r o c e e d i n g , or t o s e t a s i d e a j u d g m e n t f o r f r a u d upon t h e The of Civil court." l e g i s l a t u r e has s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e R u l e s Procedure are a p p l i c a b l e to adoption proceedings i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t . § 26-10A-37, A l a . Code 1975. Therefore, i t appears filed a biological Rule 60(b) mother in motion the v a l i d i t y of her consent. c o u l d have probate been court to by the challenge the S t a t e d o t h e r w i s e , i t does n o t appear t h a t i n v o k i n g the e q u i t a b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t was necessary ground. Such provisions of to a challenge the adoption c h a l l e n g e , however, § 26-10A-14(2). 32 was judgment on t i m e - b a r r e d by Adoption is a this the statutory 2110621 creation, "and i t i s i n derogation A d o p t i o n o f K.R.S., (Ala. Civ. independent [Ms. App. 2110722, O c t . 2012) . action of the i n the Even circuit c o u r t i s s u i n g the order b e i n g common l a w . " 12, assuming court that rather c h a l l e n g e d was re So. 2012] In 3d filing than in authorized the the under Rule 60(b), the i n v o c a t i o n of e q u i t a b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n would not permit the limitations circumvented or period extended. of Therefore, § 26-10A-14 any challenge b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r t o t h e c o n s e n t she gave was to be by the b a r r e d by § 26- 10A-14. The biological mother next p r o c e e d i n g s were a s u b t e r f u g e grandfather and permit a challenge j u d g m e n t must be that the adoption b a s e d on t h e m o t i v a t i o n s constituted a b i o l o g i c a l mother r e c o g n i z e s asserts "fraud upon t h e of court." The t h a t the type of f r a u d t h a t would a l m o s t two years characterized as a after "fraud r a t h e r than f r a u d between the p a r t i e s or a the entry upon t h e of It is considered recognized that such challenges t o be p r o c e e d i n g s i n e q u i t y , and, properly presented in circuit court: 33 the court" misrepresentation s u b j e c t t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. P. the are Civ. historically as s u c h , a c l a i m 2110621 "We have a p r i n c i p l e i n t h i s S t a t e t h a t f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n s i n a b i l l on w h i c h i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s f o u n d e d , and w h i c h a r e n e c e s s a r y t o i n v o k e such j u r i s d i c t i o n , c o n s t i t u t e a f r a u d on t h e c o u r t and a d e c r e e on s u c h a l l e g a t i o n s i s p r o c u r e d f r a u d u l e n t l y and i s s u b j e c t t o a t t a c k i n e q u i t y , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t was d u l y d i l i g e n t . Keenum v. Dodson, 212 A l a . 146, 102 So. 230 [ 1 9 2 4 ] ; B o l d e n v. S l o s s - S h e f f i e l d S t e e l & I r o n Co., 215 A l a . 334, 110 So. 574, 49 A.L.R. 1206 [ 1 9 2 6 ] ; Hooke v. Hooke, 247 A l a . 4 5 0 ( 9 ) , 25 So. 2d 33 [ 1 9 4 6 ] ; A n d e r s o n v. A n d e r s o n , 250 A l a . 427, 34 So. 2d 585 [1948]." Spencer v. Spencer, 254 Ala. 22, 27, 47 So. 2d 252, 256 found t h a t the g r a n d f a t h e r had (1950). The c i r c u i t court's order "perpetrated a fraud C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , and against [had] Court i n order to invoke the Probate Court made f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s the s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n . " evidence have adoption well Walker to that t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h a t C o u r t and o b t a i n the adoption may of been sufficient to Although set aside to the the j u d g m e n t b a s e d on i n t r i n s i c f r a u d o r o t h e r g r o u n d s i f a m o t i o n had Adoption Code evidence was been filed and/or not y e a r s a f t e r i t was w i t h i n the Rule 60(b) ( 3 ) , sufficient entered periods to set Ala. aside provided R. the Civ. 34 P., judgment b a s e d on a " f r a u d upon t h e " ' T h i s C o u r t has d e f i n e d as t h a t s p e c i e s o f f r a u d t h a t defile the court itself p e r p e t r a t e d by an o f f i c e r o f by the the two court": " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t " d e f i l e s or attempts to or that is a fraud t h e c o u r t , and i t does 2110621 n o t i n c l u d e f r a u d among t h e p a r t i e s , w i t h o u t more.' W a t e r s v. J o l l y , 582 So. 2d 1048, 1055 ( A l a . 1991) ( c i t i n g Brown v. K i n g s b e r r y M o r t g a g e Co., 349 So. 2d 564 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , and S p i n d l o w v. S p i n d l o w , 512 So. 2d 918 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)). Black's Law D i c t i o n a r y 686 ( 8 t h ed. 2004) d e f i n e s ' f r a u d on t h e c o u r t ' as f o l l o w s : 'In a j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g , a l a w y e r ' s o r p a r t y ' s m i s c o n d u c t so s e r i o u s t h a t i t undermines or i s i n t e n d e d to undermine the i n t e g r i t y of the p r o c e e d i n g . ' See Ex p a r t e F r e e , 910 So. 2d 753 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . The c a s e s i n w h i c h f r a u d on t h e c o u r t has b e e n f o u n d , f o r t h e most p a r t , have b e e n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e r e was 'the most e g r e g i o u s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g a c o r r u p t i o n of the judicial process itself,' s u c h as t h e b r i b e r y o f a j u d g e o r the employment o f c o u n s e l t o i m p r o p e r l y i n f l u e n c e t h e c o u r t . 11 C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t e t a l . , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & P r o c e d u r e C i v . 2d § 2870 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . " C h r i s t i a n v. M u r r a y , 915 So. 2d 23, 28 ( A l a . 2005). "'"Fraud on the court" has been d e f i n e d as " f r a u d p e r p e t r a t e d by o f f i c e r s o f t h e c o u r t so t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l m a c h i n e r y c a n n o t p e r f o r m i n t h e u s u a l manner i t s i m p a r t i a l t a s k of adjudging cases t h a t are p r e s e n t e d f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n . " 7 J . Moore, M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e § 60.33 (2nd ed. 1990) . Such f r a u d must be " e x t r i n s i c , " t h a t i s , p e r p e t r a t e d t o o b t a i n the judgment, rather than "intrinsic." Brown v. K i n g s b e r r y M o r t g a g e Co., 349 So. 2d 564 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . I n d i s c u s s i n g " f r a u d on t h e court," the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated: " ' " P e r j u r y i s an intrinsic fraud which will not support r e l i e f f r o m j u d g m e n t t h r o u g h an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n . See United S t a t e s v. T h r o c k m o r t o n , 8 O t t o 61, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93 (18 7 8 ) ; see a l s o G r e a t C o a s t a l 35 2110621 Express [v_j International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America], 675 F.2d [1349] a t 1358 (4th C i r . 1982); Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 ( 9 t h Cir. 1981) . Under the Throckmorton d o c t r i n e , f o r f r a u d to lay a foundation for an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n , i t must be s u c h t h a t i t was n o t i n i s s u e i n the former a c t i o n nor c o u l d i t have b e e n p u t i n i s s u e by the reasonable diligence of the o p p o s i n g p a r t y . See T o l e d o S c a l e Co. v. C o m p u t i n g S c a l e Co., 2 61 U.S. 399, 425, 43 S.Ct. 458, 465, 67 L.Ed. 719 ( 1 9 2 3 ) . P e r j u r y by a p a r t y does n o t meet t h i s s t a n d a r d because the opposing p a r t y i s not p r e v e n t e d from f u l l y presenting h i s c a s e and r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e o f p e r j u r y i n the o r i g i n a l a c t i o n . "'"'Perjury and f a b r i c a t e d evidence are evils that can and should be exposed at trial, and the legal system encourages and expects litigants to r o o t them o u t as e a r l y as possible Fraud on the court is therefore limited to the more egregious forms of s u b v e r s i o n of the l e g a l p r o c e s s , ... those we cannot necessarily expect to be exposed by the n o r ma l a d ve r s a r y process.' 36 2110621 "'"Great Coastal F.2d a t 1357." Express, 675 " ' T r a v e l e r s I n d e m n i t y Co. v. G o r e , 761 1549, 1552 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) . ' " [ H a l l v. H a l l , ] 1991]." McGee v. B e v i l l , (Ala. C i v . App. The of 587 [Ms. So. 2101209, June 29, 1200-1201 [ A l a . 2012] So. fraud, A l l of misrepresentations, those l i m i t a t i o n s of the Adoption claims and were s u b j e c t I f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t any year before may adoption be w a i v e d by court under § misrepresentation not d e p r i v e petition 26-10A-28, improper to the requirement t h a t the a g r a n d p a r e n t f o r one an claims time Code a n d / o r R u l e 60(b) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. reside with file 3d a l l e g a t i o n s of the b i o l o g i c a l mother i n v o l v e d motivations. P. [1198], 2012). intrinsic Civ. 2d F.2d Ala. may Code 1975. a child grandparent the probate Therefore, on t h a t i s s u e i n t h e a d o p t i o n petition any did the p r o b a t e c o u r t of j u r i s d i c t i o n . In her c r o s s - a p p e a l , the b i o l o g i c a l mother contends t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d have v a c a t e d t h e a d o p t i o n j u d g m e n t on the basis lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e a d o p t i o n p e t i t i o n was n o t v e r i f i e d as r e q u i r e d by that the probate court § 26-10A-16, A l a . Code 1975. 37 I would h o l d that 2110621 t h e f a i l u r e t o v e r i f y t h e p e t i t i o n w o u l d have b e e n a g r o u n d to d i s m i s s the a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s or t o o t h e r w i s e c h a l l e n g e the adoption p e t i t i o n but i t d i d not jurisdiction. (Ala. 2010) b e f o r e the e n t r y of the a d o p t i o n judgment, d e p r i v e the probate See, e.g., (discussing Ex c o u r t of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r parte C o l l i e r , the requirement 64 So. 3d 1045 of v e r i f i c a t i o n for h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g s as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the court). The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n t h e w e l l - r e a s o n e d j u d g m e n t o f t h e circuit under c o u r t are the biological alleged s u p p o r t e d by legislative mother's within evidence requirements, consent one the year based of the on any presented. challenge those facts a d o p t i o n under to had § But the to be 26-10A-14. Any o t h e r c h a l l e n g e c o u l d have b e e n r a i s e d u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) through frames and ( 6 ) , A l a . R. p r o v i d e d by Rule 60(b) C i v . P, that would as a p p l i c a b l e , rule. And, permit a w i t h i n the time a l t h o u g h § 26-10A-25(d) challenge to the adoption j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon a " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t " i f t h e c h a l l e n g e i s f i l e d w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s of the e n t r y of the judgment, the e v i d e n c e h e r e does n o t s u f f i c e As noted i n the t h a t the adoptee t o v o i d the a d o p t i o n judgment. Comments t o § 26-10A-25, be a s s u r e d a s e c u r e and 38 " i t i s imperative stable environment 2110621 w i t h o u t an u n t i m e l y and u n f o u n d e d i n t e r r u p t i o n . " the legal legislature proceedings concept of a d o p t i o n intended for (unknown there and p r o v i d e d l i m i t e d a d o p t i o n judgment. to a t common l a w ) , t h e be finality the c i r c u i t raised in affirm the the Those g r o u n d s were n o t p u r s u e d i n a t i m e l y the i s s u e s r a i s e d reverse to g r o u n d s f o r o v e r t u r n i n g an manner by t h e b i o l o g i c a l m o t h e r i n t h i s c a s e . to In c r e a t i n g i n the grandparents' c o u r t ' s judgment, biological t h e judgment. mother's Therefore, Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . 39 A c c o r d i n g l y , as appeal, I would a n d as t o t h e i s s u e s cross-appeal, I respectfully I would dissent.

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.