L.H. v. L.S., Sr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/16/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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, 2013 2120402 L.H. v. L.S., S r . Appeal from Montgomery J u v e n i l e Court (JU-07-91.03) THOMAS, J u d g e . L.H. parents ("the m o t h e r " ) a n d L.S., S r . ("the f a t h e r " ) , a r e t h e o f two c h i l d r e n . Juvenile Court I n August 2007, t h e Montgomery e n t e r e d a judgment awarding t h e p a r t i e s joint 2120402 custody of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . in the record on a p p e a l . I n F e b r u a r y 2010, a petition contempt. 1 The 2007 j u d g m e n t i s n o t c o n t a i n e d t o modify t h e mother f i l e d custody i n the j u v e n i l e and t o h o l d court the father in The c a s e was t r i e d i n September and November 2010, a f t e r w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on June 29, 2011, custody of the c h i l d r e n and awarding t h e f a t h e r generous v i s i t a t i o n rights; the awarding parties t h e mother continued children. On J u l y motion alter, to judgment. sole t o share physical joint legal 28, 2 0 1 1 , t h e f a t h e r amend, or vacate custody filed of the a purported the j u v e n i l e court's The f o l l o w i n g d a y , on J u l y 29, 2 0 1 1 , t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r t h e c h i l d r e n f i l e d what he e n t i t l e d a " M o t i o n f o r We n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e v e r s i o n o f § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) , Ala. Code 1975, t h a t was i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h e m o t h e r f i l e d her modification p e t i t i o n d i d not provide the j u v e n i l e court with j u r i s d i c t i o n over a custody-modification action a r i s i n g from a j u v e n i l e - c o u r t c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r i g i n a l l y made i n a p a t e r n i t y p r o c e e d i n g , s e e Ex p a r t e L.N.K., 64 So. 3d 656, 658 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , §§ 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 ( a ) a n d 12-151 1 5 ( a ) ( 7 ) were amended e f f e c t i v e May 2012 t o p r o v i d e f o r s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n . Our l e g i s l a t u r e , i n § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 1 7 . 1 ( a ) , e x p r e s s l y made t h o s e amendments r e t r o a c t i v e so t h a t a l l m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n s a r i s i n g from j u v e n i l e - c o u r t c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s made i n a p a t e r n i t y p r o c e e d i n g t h a t were f i l e d i n j u v e n i l e c o u r t b e t w e e n J a n u a r y 1, 2009, a n d May 13, 2012, " s h a l l be deemed v a l i d . " 1 2 2120402 New T r i a l , " w h i c h he d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60, A l a . R. C i v . P. In h i s motion, the guardian "new i n f o r m a t i o n " h a d come t o l i g h t ad litem that would alleged that support t h e g r a n t o f a new t r i a l ; some o f t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o an i n c i d e n t t h a t h a d a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r e d s i x months earlier, that b u t some o f t h e new i n f o r m a t i o n had o c c u r r e d judgment. 2 after the entry related t o events o f t h e June 29, 2 0 1 1 , B e c a u s e i t was f i l e d more t h a n 14 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e June 29, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t a n d b e c a u s e i t r e q u e s t e d that t h e judgment be set aside based, i n part, on newly We w o u l d be r e m i s s i f we d i d n o t p o i n t o u t t h a t R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t y may s e e k t o have a j u d g m e n t s e t a s i d e b a s e d on " n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h b y due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . " There i s a d i s t i n c t and i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e between newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence a n d new e v i d e n c e . As o u r supreme c o u r t h a s explained: 2 " T h e r e c a n be no R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) r e l i e f f o r e v i d e n c e w h i c h h a s come i n t o e x i s t e n c e a f t e r t h e t r i a l i s over simply because such a procedure would a l l o w a l l t r i a l s p e r p e t u a l l i f e . 'Newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence' means e v i d e n c e i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l o f w h i c h t h e movant was unaware. ... And f o r a l i t i g a n t t o o b t a i n a new t r i a l on t h e g r o u n d o f n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , i t must a p p e a r t h a t h i s reasonable d i l i g e n c e b e f o r e t r i a l w o u l d n o t have r e v e a l e d t h i s e v i d e n c e w h i c h he f a i l e d t o d i s c o v e r . " Moody v. S t a t e ex r e l . Payne , 344 So. 2d 160, 163 ( A l a . 1977) . 3 2120402 discovered evidence, we construe m o t i o n as a R u l e 60(b) (2) m o t i o n . Med. C t r . , [Ms. 2111258, Feb. (Ala. Civ. App. "construe[s] a guardian 8, 2013] that by ad litem's Young v. S o u t h e a s t A l a b a m a (noting 2013) motion the So. an its the , appellate 'essence' denied 3d and not court by its nomenclature"). The juvenile court p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n by e n t r y State J u d i c i a l Information father's purported of the d e n i a l d i r e c t l y System i n t o the ("SJIS") on A u g u s t 3, 2011; the e n t r y s t a t e s t h a t the f a t h e r ' s motion i s "denied p u r s u a n t t o t h e 14-day r u l e , " w h i c h i s a r e f e r e n c e R. Juv. P., which requires filed that juvenile c a s e be within judgment to Rule 1(B), A l a . a postjudgment 14 days to which i t i s d i r e c t e d . motion of the entry on A u g u s t and The guardian ad the mother litem's to motion respond. was of the The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g directed in a continued 17, hearing at the 2011, on the mother's request. On A u g u s t parte order, 18, 2011, the f a t h e r filed a m o t i o n f o r an i n w h i c h he a l l e g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had refused t o t a k e t h e c h i l d r e n t o f o o t b a l l camp a t " h i g h s c h o o l A," 4 ex that 2120402 t h e f a t h e r had e n r o l l e d them a t f o o t b a l l camp a t " h i g h B," that the mother had child in high s c h o o l A d e s p i t e h i s d e s i r e t o a t t e n d h i g h s c h o o l B, and that to p l a y f o o t b a l l at high t h e o l d e r c h i l d w o u l d be s c h o o l A. him The 3 e n r o l l e d the ineligible father requested older school grant o f t h e c h i l d r e n and o r d e r l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t that t h e c h i l d r e n be e n r o l l e d i n h i g h s c h o o l B. entered an order on A u g u s t 23, l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y 2011, The j u v e n i l e court t h a t awarded of the c h i l d r e n to the o r d e r e d t h a t t h e y be e n r o l l e d i n h i g h s c h o o l B. temporary father and The j u v e n i l e c o u r t s e t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r S e p t e m b e r 14, 2011; and was At h o w e v e r , t h a t h e a r i n g was continued u l t i m a t e l y h e l d on November 21, the November 21, t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m had w i t h d r a w n h i s R u l e 60(b) motion the h e a r i n g , the the 4 agreed a w a r d o f ex p a r t e c u s t o d y hearing, times parties and t h a t t h e h e a r i n g was 2012, 2012. several t o p r o c e e d s o l e l y on t h e i s s u e o f t h e t o t h e f a t h e r i n A u g u s t 2011. j u v e n i l e court entered an order on After January He f a t h e r f i l e d t h e i d e n t i c a l m o t i o n as a v e r i f i e d m o t i o n on A u g u s t 22, 2011. 3 Two n o n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g s were a l s o h e l d ; one F e b r u a r y 29, 2012, and t h e o t h e r on November 7, 2012. 4 5 on 2120402 16, 2013, i n w h i c h children i t awarded the father and a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r specified mother t i m e l y f i l e d a postjudgment January court 2013 j u d g m e n t . rendered On an o r d e r 2013, t h e mother filed of the visitation. 8, 2013, t h e the mother's The i n the j u v e n i l e juvenile postjudgment m o t i o n , w h i c h was e n t e r e d on F e b r u a r y 13, 2013. 15, 5 motion d i r e c t e d toward the February denying custody On February c o u r t what she e n t i t l e d a " M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12(b) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d M o t i o n June 29, construed January 2011." as 29, voidness, a t o D i s s o l v e A l l Orders In that Rule 2013, motion, 60(b)(4) judgment t h e mother argued which Entered i s more p r o p e r l y motion seeking set aside on that the j u v e n i l e and t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s m o t i o n t o have the j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n the father's purported motion after ground the of court lacked postjudgment b e c a u s e t h e y were f i l e d more t h a n 14 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e June 29, 2 0 1 1 , judgment and further contended that a l l the orders and T h e o r d e r does n o t s p e c i f y w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r was a w a r d e d o n l y s o l e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y ( o r " p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y " as he r e q u e s t e d a t t r i a l ) o r i f he was a l s o a w a r d e d s o l e l e g a l custody of the c h i l d r e n . The o r d e r s t a t e s s i m p l y t h a t " [ t ] h e F a t h e r ' s V e r i f i e d M o t i o n f o r Ex P a r t e O r d e r i s g r a n t e d . " As noted i n the t e x t , the f a t h e r ' s motion requested t h a t the m o t h e r be o r d e r e d t o e n r o l l t h e c h i l d r e n i n h i g h s c h o o l B. 5 6 2120402 judgments June e n t e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e 29, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t were v o i d . n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on F e b r u a r y 15, The m o t h e r a l s o filed a 2013. On a p p e a l , t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t s t h e same g e n e r a l argument presented i n her "Motion t o Dismiss": that the j u v e n i l e lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n for court t o e n t e r t a i n t h e f a t h e r ' s ex p a r t e motion c u s t o d y a n d t h a t i t s J a n u a r y 29, 2 0 1 3 , j u d g m e n t i s v o i d . We a g r e e . As e x p l a i n e d above, motion was filed jurisdiction the t h e f a t h e r ' s p u r p o r t e d postjudgment too late to invoke the juvenile t o r e v i s i t t h e June 29, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t . court's However, g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s m o t i o n , h a v i n g been b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , d i d n o t s u f f e r t h e same d e f e c t , b e c a u s e 60(b) m o t i o n i s n o t a p o s t j u d g m e n t within 14 days directed. of the entry m o t i o n t h a t must be o f t h e judgment t o w h i c h filed i t is See E.S.R. v. M a d i s o n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 11 So. 3 d 227, 231 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . litem's a Rule motion was w i t h d r a w n , j u d g m e n t was no l o n g e r s u b j e c t however, When t h e g u a r d i a n a d t h e June to a collateral 29, 2 0 1 1 , a t t a c k , and t h a t j u d g m e n t r e m a i n e d t h e u n c h a l l e n g e d f i n a l j u d g m e n t on t h e mother's modification petition. 7 2120402 Based custody of hearing. of a on the ex parte filed the mother action. of the i n the See was father mother process F a r m e r v. F a r m e r , 842 So. part the f e e was petition paid, instituting 2d 679, a invoked that filing or not no m o d i f i c a t i o n no with the awarded m o t i o n was proceeding juvenile court; served was to notice juvenile court, not the f a t h e r ' s ex p a r t e custody-modification was motion, children without However, t h e jurisdiction App. his 681 and a new (Ala. Civ. 2002). T h i s case i s s i m i l a r t o Farmer, i n t h a t the f a t h e r i n the p r e s e n t c a s e , l i k e t h e f a t h e r i n F a r m e r , had postjudgment judgment. motion See directed Farmer, 842 Farmer a t t e m p t e d t o c o n v e r t So. toward 2d his untimely to a p e t i t i o n to modify at a hearing The at the 680. f i l e d an untimely final The custody father postjudgment motion s e t on t h a t m o t i o n . f a t h e r i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e f i l e d h i s m o t i o n f o r ex o r d e r w i t h i n t h r e e weeks o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u v e n i l e order filed. denying h i s purported postjudgment motion as t h e a t t e m p t t o m o d i f y o r change t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Id. parte court's untimely In both s i t u a t i o n s , the c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n 8 in over earlier 2120402 final judgment w i t h o u t that purpose. the institution I d . a t 680-81. As we of a new action for e x p l a i n e d i n Farmer: "The father's petition t o m o d i f y was not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t f o r at l e a s t two reasons f a i l u r e t o pay a d o c k e t i n g o r f i l i n g f e e and failure to p r o p e r l y serve the mother. The f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y serve the mother d e p r i v e d the t r i a l c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , see Ex p a r t e P a t e , 673 So. 2d 427, 428-29 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , as d i d t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e c l e r k t o c o l l e c t a f i l i n g f e e . See Carpenter [v. S t a t e ] , 782 So. 2d [848,] 850 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ] . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was v o i d f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . " Id. a t 681. Thus, we not e n t e r t a i n the conclude t h a t the f a t h e r ' s motion f o r ex a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e June 29, 2011, no before custody a c t i o n was jurisdiction. parte could order filed f i n a l judgment, because i t over which i t had 6 Accordingly, judgment i s v o i d . a w a r d i n g ex p a r t e void pending j u v e n i l e court judgment will the In juvenile January a d d i t i o n , i t s August custody not court's to the support 23, father i s void. an appeal, we 16, 2013, 2011, order Because dismiss a the E v e n i f we were t o c o n s i d e r t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n as a counterclaim or a c r o s s - c l a i m f i l e d i n response t o the g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , once t h a t m o t i o n was w i t h d r a w n and t h e June 29, 2011, j u d g m e n t was no longer s u b j e c t t o b e i n g s e t a s i d e on c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k , t h e f a t h e r ' s ex p a r t e m o t i o n c o u l d n o t s t a n d on i t s own as a b a s i s f o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n . 6 9 2120402 mother's to vacate 2011, appeal. Furthermore, i t s January we i n s t r u c t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t 16, 2 0 1 3 , j u d g m e n t a n d i t s A u g u s t 23, order. The m o t h e r ' s request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , M o o r e , a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 10

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.