Lisa Michelle Blackledge v. Jamie L. Blackledge

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/21/2013 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 2110921 James Edward Jones v. C a r o l y n Demetriess Jones Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (DR-07-68.02) PITTMAN, Court Judge. James E d w a r d J o n e s ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s in a postdivorce proceeding e x p e n s e s . We a f f i r m . from a judgment regarding postminority educational 2110921 I n December 2 0 0 7 , t h e court") the entered father and a j u d g m e n t ("the Carolyn requiring of daughter"), the who parties, ("the mother"). subject to college daughter Howard U n i v e r s i t y ' s ("the School C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n A u g u s t 2007. A f t e r b o t h p a r t i e s f i l e d 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., clarifying As by the 2007 s e m e s t e r , t h e total expenses student tuition, that at p r o v i s i o n i n February 2008. 2008 order, the college- t h a t , f o r a l l semesters a f t e r the f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o pay two-thirds c o l l e g e e x p e n s e " ) c a l c u l a t e d by room and would be Rule order board, incurred required by a fees, full-time, and book in-state of Alabama U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama") and by s u b t r a c t i n g f r o m t h a t sum the a l l grants, scholarships, daughter that n e i t h e r she nor 2 in adding University amount o f the net of an February provision provided o f an amount ("the the motions, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d college-education clarified education fall the The certain f o r the 19-year-old entered trial college-education c o n d i t i o n s , t o pay parties' had Jones ("the judgment") d i v o r c i n g a p r o v i s i o n ("the the s p e c i f i e d l i m i t a t i o n s and education divorce Demetriess d i v o r c e judgment c o n t a i n e d provision") Madison C i r c u i t Court and the Tuscaloosa stipends p a r t i e s had ("the awarded to the to repay. 2110921 The college-education semesters was expense. The p a r t i e s ' o b l i g a t i o n s t o pay t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s h a r e s o f t h e net to the pay fall 2007 one-third of semester, that, for a l l mother required after provision further provided the net the college c o l l e g e e x p e n s e f o r a l l s e m e s t e r s a f t e r t h e f a l l 2007 s e m e s t e r were subject which is that the p a r t i e s ' o b l i g a t i o n s t o pay t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s h a r e s o f t h e net material to to several this conditions, appeal. That condition c o l l e g e expense would t e r m i n a t e to be a full-time student u n i v e r s i t y attended)." daughter had provision required already t h a t one the $13,318 that upon t h e (as the fall father of the the of i t s f u l l - t i m e , total of daughter's or 2007 s e m e s t e r , w h i c h the the pay by the "ceasing school college-education $6,660, which c o l l e g e expenses i n University of Alabama The not college-education r e q u i r e d t o pay was the estimated i n - s t a t e students would i n c u r 2007-2008 a c a d e m i c y e a r . s t a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was to one provided defined completed, the approximately one-half amount o f For only for provision a share of the d a u g h t e r ' s c o l l e g e e x p e n s e s f o r t h e f a l l 2007 s e m e s t e r b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r was not then employed. 3 2110921 S u b s e q u e n t t o F e b r u a r y 2008, t h e p a r t i e s were i n v o l v e d i n a postdivorce proceeding that resulted i n the t r i a l court's e n t e r i n g a j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 20, 2009. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , judgment that stated: "7. A t s u c h t i m e as t h e [ m o t h e r ] s h a l l p r e s e n t to the [ f a t h e r ] r e c e i p t s or c a n c e l l e d checks showing payment of college expenses owed to Howard U n i v e r s i t y on b e h a l f o f [ t h e d a u g h t e r ] f o r t h e S p r i n g S e m e s t e r o f 2008, f o r t h e s c h o o l y e a r 2008¬ 2009, and f o r s u b s e q u e n t s c h o o l y e a r s a t Howard U n i v e r s i t y , pursuant t o the p r e v i o u s orders of the C o u r t , t h e [ f a t h e r ] s h a l l p r o m p t l y pay h i s p o r t i o n due f o r t h e same, b e i n g t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e same, up t o and n o t e x c e e d i n g t h e sum o f $6,660.00 per semester." An o r d e r l a t e r 2009 ("the e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l November 4, 2009, order"), c o u r t on November 4, indicates that the f a t h e r t i m e l y f i l e d a R u l e 59 m o t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e M a r c h 20, 2009, judgment on April 20, 2009; motion i s n o t i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . On J u l y 20, 2009, t h e 1 however, that Rule 59 l a s t day o f t h e 90-day p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. Civ. P., a l l o w e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n must be f i l e d n o t l a t e r t h a n 30 d a y 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 . See R u l e s 59(b) and ( e ) . A l t h o u g h t h e 3 0 t h day a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e M a r c h 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t was April 19, 2009, that day was a Sunday. C o n s e q u e n t l y , R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., e x t e n d e d t h e 30-day p e r i o d f o r t h e f a t h e r t o f i l e h i s R u l e 59 m o t i o n u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e n e x t b u s i n e s s d a y , w h i c h was Monday, A p r i l 20, 2009. 1 A Rule 4 2110921 59 m o t i o n , 59.1 2 ("the consent father's the t r i a l Rule 59.1 to extend Rule order i t s e l f c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r p u r s u a n t t o R u l e order") memorializing t h e 90-day p e r i o d 59 m o t i o n by 45 d a y s . the parties' f o r i t to rule Although the Rule i s n o t i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , t h e t r i a l r e c i t e d t h e t e x t o f t h a t o r d e r on t h e r e c o r d a t t r i a l u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g to the t r i a l t h e R u l e 59.1 o r d e r on t h e 59.1 court i n the court's recitation, stated: " T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on a M o t i o n and e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o f t h e [ f a t h e r ] and t h e [ m o t h e r ] to e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r t h e C o u r t t o r u l e on a p o s t - t r i a l M o t i o n and a M o t i o n t o s e t h e a r i n g . "The p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n t h a t was f i l e d on A p r i l 20[, 2009,] s h a l l remain pending i n the t r i a l Court for an additional forty-five days from the e x p i r a t i o n of the n i n e t y days." The l a s t day o f t h a t 45-day e x t e n s i o n was and the t r i a l court d i d not enter an S e p t e m b e r 3, 2009, order ruling on the f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n on o r b e f o r e t h a t d a t e . However, w e l l a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h a t 45-day e x t e n s i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e November 4, 2009, o r d e r , w h i c h stated: T h e 9 0 t h day a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n was J u l y 19, 2 0 0 9 ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e J u l y 19, 2009, was a Sunday, R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., e x t e n d e d t h e 90-day p e r i o d u n t i l t h e end o f t h e n e x t b u s i n e s s day, w h i c h was Monday, J u l y 20, 2009. 2 5 2110921 "The [ f a t h e r ] f i l e d h i s Motion to A l t e r or Amend, seeking to correct a typographical or c l e r i c a l error contained i n t h i s C o u r t ' s Judgment d a t e d M a r c h 20, 2009. The f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n s o u g h t t o correct that Judgment t o s t a t e accurately the [ f a t h e r ' s ] yearly o b l i g a t i o n to provide financial support t o h i s daughter's e f f o r t s to obtain a college education. "The Court finds that the Motion Amend i s due t o be g r a n t e d . to Alter or "The Court modifies and c o r r e c t s paragraph number[] 7 o f t h e Judgment r e n d e r e d on M a r c h 20, 2009, t o s t a t e t h a t t h e [ f a t h e r ' s ] o b l i g a t i o n t o help provide h i s daughter w i t h a c o l l e g e education will n o t e x c e e d t h e sum o f $8, 923.00 p e r s c h o o l y e a r . The [ f a t h e r ' s ] o b l i g a t i o n i s t o p a y t w o - t h i r d s of t h e y e a r l y c o s t o f o b t a i n i n g a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n , up t o a n d n o t e x c e e d i n g t h e sum o f $8,923.00 p e r year. " A l l other matters contained w i t h i n the previous Judgment o f t h e C o u r t s h a l l r e m a i n i n f u l l f o r c e a n d effect." In 2011, t h e f a t h e r sued t h e mother, daughter had ceased b e i n g a f u l l - t i m e 2009 and seeking obligated fall a judgment had that t o pay a share o f t h e n e t c o l l e g e 2009 semester o r any p e r i o d presided postdivorce action in the divorce involving trial he was not expense f o r t h e thereafter. The father's j u d g e t h a n t h e one action the p a r t i e s . 6 that the student i n the f a l l of declaring a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d t o a d i f f e r e n t who alleging and the Answering first the 2110921 father's ceased complaint, being a the mother d e n i e d full-time student t h a t the daughter i n the fall of had 2009. The mother a l s o a s s e r t e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h a t the f a t h e r had f a i l e d t o pay most o f h i s s h a r e o f t h e n e t c o l l e g e e x p e n s e and seeking arrearage a judgment the c o n t e m p t . The father (1) owed determining and (2) the amount finding the of the father in f a t h e r answered the c o u n t e r c l a i m w i t h a g e n e r a l denial. F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l a t which i t r e c e i v e d evidence ore t e n u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t (1) f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r had e n t e r e d Howard U n i v e r s i t y a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e fall 2007 University semester until s p r i n g 2011 and she semester; had continuously graduated (3) d e t e r m i n i n g jurisdiction therefore, f a t h e r ' s share c o n c l u s i o n of November 4, been t h a t the t r i a l 2009, c o u r t had 2009, o r d e r order was o f t h e n e t c o l l e g e e x p e n s e was void lacked and that, and not l i m i t e d $8,923 p e r y e a r ; (4) f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o his share of the net the t h e p e r i o d she a t t e n d e d Howard t o e n t e r t h e November 4, the the Howard (2) f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r had a f u l l - t i m e student throughout University; upon attended college 7 expense, after the to pay subtracting 2110921 amounts t h e m o t h e r owed t h e f a t h e r f o r j u d g m e n t s u n r e l a t e d t o the daughter's college education, had resulted in a net a r r e a r a g e i n t h e amount o f $34,726.21; (5) e n t e r i n g a j u d g m e n t in f a v o r o f t h e m o t h e r i n t h e amount o f $34,726.21; and denying filed a R u l e 59 m o t i o n . However, entered before 59.1 a l lother claims of the p a r t i e s . a ruling f o r the t r i a l father before the t r i a l regarding the f a t h e r ' s the e x p i r a t i o n The Rule o f t h e 90-day p e r i o d court to rule on (6) timely c o u r t had 59 m o t i o n a l l o w e d by the father's and Rule Rule 59 m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , w h i c h was h e l d i n abeyance p u r s u a n t t o R u l e the disposition 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. App. P., o f h i s R u l e 59 m o t i o n . The n o t i c e s u b s e q u e n t l y became e f f e c t i v e when t h e t r i a l pending of appeal court d i d not r u l e on t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n w i t h i n t h e 90-day p e r i o d a l l o w e d by R u l e 59.1. Because the t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, our r e v i e w i s governed by the f o l l o w i n g principles: "'"'[W]hen a t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y , i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s a r e p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t based on those findings will not be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e judgment i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 97 7 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g 8 2110921 F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , h o w e v e r , i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l c o u r t t o s u s t a i n i t s judgment."' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o n c l u s i o n s o f law o r t h e i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o t h e f a c t s . ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC Inc., 985 The So. 924, 929 Club, ( A l a . 2007). f a t h e r f i r s t argues t h a t the daughter ceased being full-time student therefore, owed a 2d v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f the share s e m e s t e r and argument on during trial of the the erred net fall 2009 i n s o f a r as college that, expense for the he fall 2009 f a t h e r bases this college-education provision p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e i r respective shares of the c o n d i t i o n i n the and i t determined that a l l s u b s e q u e n t s e m e s t e r s . The the semester a net daughter's "ceasing college t o be the school the daughter ceased being expense would t e r m i n a t e a full-time or u n i v e r s i t y a t t e n d e d ) . " a full-time 9 student The upon the (as d e f i n e d father s t u d e n t as argues defined by that by 2110921 Howard U n i v e r s i t y says, Howard s t u d e n t who semester d u r i n g the f a l l University was hours taking courses full-time because, student t h a t were w o r t h completed were w o r t h o n l y 6 c r e d i t It defined a of academic c r e d i t courses the daughter 2009 s e m e s t e r a 14 and t h e 2 2009 semester hours. i s undisputed that, at the beginning of the f a l l semester, as at least ( " c r e d i t hours") during the f a l l he 2009 t h e d a u g h t e r e n r o l l e d i n 6 c o u r s e s and t h a t t h o s e 6 c o u r s e s were w o r t h a t o t a l o f more t h a n 14 c r e d i t h o u r s . I t i s also undisputed that, a week b e f o r e f i n a l examinations that semester, t h e d a u g h t e r w i t h d r e w from f o u r o f t h o s e c o u r s e s and t h a t t h e two c o u r s e s she c o m p l e t e d t h a t s e m e s t e r were w o r t h a total of only s i x credit hours. According to the father, a l t h o u g h t h e d a u g h t e r was a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e f a l l 2009 s e m e s t e r , she became a p a r t - t i m e s t u d e n t when she r e d u c e d h e r c o u r s e l o a d t o c o u r s e s w o r t h six credit In used by hours. order full-time a t o t a l of only t o prove Howard student, the father Howard University University's definition introduced a tuition ("the schedule"). The of a schedule schedule i n d i c a t e s t h a t a student i n the School of Communications, the 10 2110921 school i n which tuition the applicable daughter to a that a student enrolled, full-time e n r o l l e d i n courses worth and was was student charged i f the the student a total o f 14 o r more c r e d i t i n t h a t s c h o o l was charged the hours tuition a p p l i c a b l e to a p a r t - t i m e student i f the student e n r o l l e d i n c o u r s e s w o r t h a t o t a l o f f e w e r t h a n 14 c r e d i t h o u r s . Thus, t h e schedule indicates classifying determine student a student the and that amount Howard as of full-time the the semester, or tuition t h a t Howard U n i v e r s i t y f u l l - t i m e or p a r t - t i m e based reason part-time i t would classified student's e n r o l l i n g hours, classification The i t had classified 14 worth as subsequently changed course credit of the load to courses Thus, 11 the based 14 as on a the o r more student's student to t h a t of a d u r i n g the semester, hours. indication a student a total from t h a t of a f u l l - t i m e h i s or her than the student s c h e d u l e c o n t a i n s no i n courses part-time student i f , l a t e r fewer to charge a f u l l - t i m e student at the b e g i n n i n g of a semester reduced was on w h e t h e r , a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f once Howard U n i v e r s i t y credit for the student e n r o l l e d i n courses worth a t o t a l of 14 o r more c r e d i t h o u r s . that, University's worth trial the student a total court of could 2110921 r e a s o n a b l y have i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e s c h e d u l e t h a t , once Howard U n i v e r s i t y c l a s s i f i e d the daughter as a f u l l - t i m e student at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e f a l l 2009 s e m e s t e r b a s e d on h e r e n r o l l i n g in c o u r s e s w o r t h a t o t a l o f more t h a n 14 c r e d i t h o u r s , i t d i d not subsequently full-time later change student that to semester, her that she classification of from that a part-time student reduced her course of because, load to courses w o r t h a t o t a l o f f e w e r t h a n 14 c r e d i t h o u r s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , trial court's finding student throughout is supported by that the daughter was a substantial that i t i s erroneous. ( A l a . 2011) must a c c e p t there as full-time evidence, and, because that cannot See A l l s o p p v. B o l d i n g , 86 So. hold 3d 952, ("'Under t h e o r e t e n u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , true i s substantial the facts evidence found to by support the the trial trial court's ( q u o t i n g B e a s l e y v. M e l l o n F i n . S e r v s . C o r p . , So. 393 The father determining that we court i f findings.'" 2d 389, the t h e p e r i o d she a t t e n d e d Howard U n i v e r s i t y f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we 959 a 569 (Ala. 1990))). also argues i t had that lacked the trial jurisdiction court erred i n to enter November 4, 2009, o r d e r and t h a t , b e c a u s e t h a t o r d e r was 12 the void, 2110921 the f a t h e r ' s s h a r e o f t h e n e t c o l l e g e e x p e n s e was n o t l i m i t e d t o $8,923 p e r y e a r . A trial court loses j u r i s d i c t i o n to rule on a R u l e 59 m o t i o n i f i t does n o t r u l e on i t w i t h i n t h e 90day p e r i o d a l l o w e d by R u l e 59.1 o r an e x t e n s i o n properly effected i n accordance W a r h u r s t v. W a r h u r s t , 2010). A f t e r Rule a trial 59 m o t i o n , Rule loses ruling e.g., ( A l a . C i v . App. jurisdiction i t purports period 59.1. See, 64 So. 3d 664, 665-66 court any with of that t o r u l e on a to enter on such a m o t i o n i s v o i d . See, e.g., W a r h u r s t , 64 So. 3d a t 666. I t i s undisputed that the t r i a l court d i d n o t r u l e on t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e M a r c h 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t h e 90-day p e r i o d a l l o w e d by R u l e 59.1 o r t h e 45-day of that period Consequently, rule on the effected the t r i a l father's court Rule November 4, 2009, o r d e r . November 4, 2009, in order 59 accordance with d i d n o t have motion However, should extension Rule 59.1. jurisdiction when i t entered to the the f a t h e r argues t h a t the be treated as an order c o r r e c t i n g a mere c l e r i c a l e r r o r p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., jurisdiction and that, therefore, to enter i t . 13 the trial court had 2110921 A trial clerical court errors pertinent part, judgments, may, pursuant i n i t s orders Rule orders, 60(a) or to or 60(a), judgments provides: other Rule parts at of the of c o u r t a t any any party argument order t i m e o f i t s own (Emphasis that Rule 60(a) s o l e l y upon t h e applies to The the clerical o r on M a r c h 20, and the father errors 4, 4, 2009, clerical or mechanical judgment t o p r o v i d e e x p e n s e was per year. 2d 212, order does error not describing caused the March 20, semester i n s t e a d of I n P i e r c e v. A m e r i c a n G e n e r a l F i n a n c e , 216-17 state t h a t the f a t h e r ' s share of the net l i m i t e d t o $6,660 p e r (Ala. 2008), the supreme c o u r t Despite that stated: the a 2009, college $8,923 I n c . , 991 " ' " C h i e f J u s t i c e T o r b e r t e x p l a i n e d the p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f R u l e 60(a) in his s p e c i a l c o n c u r r e n c e i n Ex p a r t e C o n t i n e n t a l O i l Co., 370 So. 2d 953, 955-56 ( A l a . 1979) : 14 the "typographical 2009, j u d g m e n t . expressly his 2009, t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n , h o w e v e r , November by motion bases November statement i n that order e r r o r " i n the in be c o r r e c t e d f a t h e r ' s R u l e 59 m o t i o n as s e e k i n g t o c o r r e c t a or In record initiative added.) time. mistakes "Clerical t h e r e i n a r i s i n g f r o m o v e r s i g h t o r o m i s s i o n may the any correct So. 2110921 "'"'Although there i s no p r e c i s e d e l i n e a t i o n i n the cases construing Rule 60(a) o f t h e [Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure] or i t s federal counterpart as to what c o n s t i t u t e s a " c l e r i c a l mistake or e r r o r a r i s i n g from o v e r s i g h t o r o m i s s i o n , " g e n e r a l l y i t c a n be said that the rule allows the correction of errors of a m i n i s t e r i a l nature i n order to reflect what was actually intended a t the time o f e n t r y of t h e o r d e r . The r u l e c o n t e m p l a t e s the type of e r r o r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h mistakes in transcription, a l t e r a t i o n , o r o m i s s i o n o f any p a p e r s a n d documents a m i s t a k e m e c h a n i c a l i n n a t u r e w h i c h does not i n v o l v e a l e g a l d e c i s i o n or judgment. In re Merry Queen T r a n s f e r C o r p . , 266 F. Supp. 605 (E.D. N.Y. 1 9 6 7 ) . ... II I II I II II "'"'... C o r r e c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g an exercise of j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n or judgment modifying or e n l a r g i n g a judgment o r o r d e r a r e beyond t h e p u r v i e w o f R u l e 60(a) and s h o u l d p r o p e r l y be e f f e c t e d u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) o r 6 0 ( b ) . "Thus a motion under Rule 60(a) can o n l y be u s e d t o make t h e j u d g m e n t or r e c o r d speak t h e t r u t h and c a n n o t be u s e d t o make i t s a y something o t h e r t h a n what was o r i g i n a l l y pronounced." Wright & M i l l e r & Kane, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & 15 2110921 P r o c e d u r e § 2854, a t 149 T h i s c o u r t has s t a t e d : (1973). "'"'"The o b j e c t o f a judgment nunc p r o tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the a s c e r t a i nme n t and determination of new rights, but i s one p l a c i n g i n p r o p e r form on the record, the j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d been p r e v i o u s l y rendered, t o make i t speak the t r u t h , so as t o make i t show what t h e j u d i c i a l a c t i o n r e a l l y was, n o t to correct judicial errors, such as to r e n d e r a judgment which t h e c o u r t o u g h t t o have rendered, i n the place of t h e one i t did erroneously render, nor to s u p p l y n o n - a c t i o n by the court, however e r r o n e o u s t h e judgment may have b e e n . " "'"'Wilmerding v. The Corbin B a n k i n g Co., 126 A l a . 268, 273, 28 So. 640, 641 ( 1 9 0 0 ) . "'"'Since a c o r r e c t i o n pursuant t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) may be made a t any t i m e a n d on the t r i a l court's i n i t i a t i v e , the rule s h o u l d be c a u t i o u s l y a p p l i e d t o p r e s e r v e the integrity of final judgments. O t h e r w i s e , t h e f i n a l i t y o f a judgment w o u l d o n l y be i l l u s o r y s i n c e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y 16 2110921 would e x i s t of substitution of a new j u d g m e n t f o r t h e o r i g i n a l one a t a l a t e r date. Therefore, i t i s e s s e n t i a l that there be s o m e t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d f r o m w h i c h t h e m i s t a k e o r e r r o r t o be c o r r e c t e d may be g l e a n e d . See Ex p a r t e ACK R a d i o S u p p l y o f G e o r g i a , 283 A l a . 630, 219 So. 2d 880 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; B u s b y v. P i e r s o n , 272 A l a . 59, 128 So. 2d 516 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; T o m b r e l l o C o a l Co. v. F o r t e n b e r r y , 248 A l a . 640, 29 So. 2d 125 (1947). S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , the f a c t of m i s t a k e o r e r r o r must be s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . See H a r r i s v. Harris, 256 A l a . 192, 54 So. 2d 291 (1951).'"' " [ E x p a r t e B r o w n ] , 963 So. 2d [604,] a t 607-08 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ] ( e m p h a s i s added) ( q u o t i n g [ H i g g i n s v.] H i g g i n s , 952 So. 2d [1144,] a t 1147-48 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ] ) . " As n o t e d by t h e supreme c o u r t i n P i e r c e , s u p r a , " ' " ' i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e r e be s o m e t h i n g mistake or e r r o r t o be i n the r e c o r d from which c o r r e c t e d may be gleaned.'"'" In present case, there i s n o t h i n g i n the r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g the trial share of court the net originally intended c o l l e g e expense t o t h a n $6,660 p e r s e m e s t e r to limit $8, 923 the per the the that father's year rather and t h a t i t s p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e latter i n s t e a d o f t h e f o r m e r i n t h e M a r c h 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t r e s u l t e d from a clerical, ministerial, a b s e n c e o f s u c h an i n d i c a t i o n or mechanical error. In i n t h e r e c o r d , t h e November the 4, 2009, o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e d a p u r p o r t e d m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e M a r c h 17 2110921 20, 2009, correction Pierce, judgment pursuant of a c l e r i c a l supra. jurisdiction However, to error Rule 59 pursuant because the rather than 60(a). to Rule trial the See had lost court t o m o d i f y t h e M a r c h 20, 2009, j u d g m e n t pursuant t o R u l e 59 b e f o r e i t e n t e r e d t h e November 4, 2009, o r d e r , t h a t o r d e r was court void. did not See W a r h u r s t , err in supra. A c c o r d i n g l y , the determining that i t had jurisdiction t o e n t e r t h e November 4, 2009, o r d e r and because o r d e r was that void, the f a t h e r ' s share trial lacked that, of the net c o l l e g e e x p e n s e was n o t l i m i t e d t o $8,923 p e r y e a r . T h e r e f o r e , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l The f a t h e r ' s court. r e q u e s t f o r t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e on a p p e a l i s d e n i e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas, M o o r e , concur. 18 and D o n a l d s o n , 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.