Burnice T. Dreding, Jr. v. Frank Kruse, as personal representative of the estate of David Velez, deceased

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 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 Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120422 Burnice T. Dreding, J r . v. Frank Kruse, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f David V e l e z , deceased Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-08-900817) Court PER CURIAM. This i s t h e second time that these b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t . See D r e d i n g v. K r u s e 2012), background So. 3d parties have (No. 2110465, J u l y 13, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) ( t a b l e ) . f a c t s a r e as f o l l o w s . been On May 22, 2008, The Viviana 2120422 Castaneda, Velez as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f ("the estate"), filed a complaint against Burnice D r e d i n g , J r . , and o t h e r f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s , a wrongful-death v a r i o u s a c t s of negligence indicates and claim premised wantonness. that Frank on The Kruse was substituted as a jury verdict sitting against Dreding, representative premised further trial 31, i n the M o b i l e on of the Dreding's and estate, alleged on negligence the sheet the p e r s o n a l On t h e same Court i n f a v o r of Kruse, a s s e s s e d damages i n t h e returned a as p e r s o n a l wrongful-death and w a n t o n n e s s . claim The jury amount o f $ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . The c o u r t a l s o e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on t h e v e r d i c t on January 2011. Dreding f i l e d to a p p e a l . " a postjudgment trial motion s t y l e d as a "motion On F e b r u a r y 17, 2011, he f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e p u r s u a n t to Rule 59, A l a . R. C i v . P. c o u r t s c h e d u l e d a h e a r i n g on A p r i l 15, 2011, the postjudgment May Circuit T. asserting case-action-summary r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e on J a n u a r y 31, 2011. day, David motions. The trial to address c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r on 5, 2011, d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e reaffirming the amount of damages. 2 The Dreding then filed and a 2120422 timely appeal with t h i s court, which was transferred to the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . The Supreme C o u r t d i s m i s s e d D r e d i n g ' s a p p e a l on J u l y 20, for failure to file the r e c o r d on p r o v i d e d by R u l e 31, A l a . R. App. On January 12, 2012, P., denying a s k i n g the t r i a l the motion to a "motion to Rule 2012, alter, amend, o r for reconsideration which the t r i a l Dreding f i l e d with this court Dreding argued its discretion the for relief 60(b)(4), A l a . vacate. of the The Dreding next o r d e r " on February summarily 14, 2012. 1 In his that Rule 27, day. order appeal, c o u r t h a d e r r e d and h a d dismissing filed January c o u r t a g a i n d e n i e d on t h e same t h a t the t r i a l by R. trial an a p p e a l f r o m t h e J a n u a r y 27, 2012, on time c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e as v o i d t h e o r d e r c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n on t h e same day. a "motion within P. Dreding f i l e d from judgment or o r d e r " p u r s u a n t Civ. appeal 2011, abused 60(b)(4) m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t was v o i d . This c o u r t i s s u e d a n o - o p i n i o n o r d e r o f a f f i r m a n c e , c i t i n g S m i t h v. C o w a r t , 68 So. 3d 802, 810 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , and M c I n t y r e v. Satch T h i s c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h a t a p p e a l t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ; t h a t c o u r t then t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l b a c k t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 12-27 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 1 3 2120422 Realty, I n c . , 961 So. 2d 135, 138 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t D r e d i n g was n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f Rule 60(b)(4) because h i s Rule 60(b)(4) motion under had a s s e r t e d t h e same g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f a s s e r t e d i n h i s F e b r u a r y 17, 2 0 1 1 , motion to alter, certificate court a motion forrelief again previously In that Rule most of action again filed recent Rule the 59 s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t Castaneda a cause court issued i n the t r i a l same and Rule 60(b)(4) arguments motion, from 60(b)(4) d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g t o i n i t i a t e a g a i n s t him and t h a t Kruse court denied Dreding's J a n u a r y 15, 2013. supreme court his motions, was i m p r o p e r l y s u b s t i t u t e d as t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e . trial a from judgment o r o r d e r p u r s u a n t t o regurgitates filed This 23, 2012. 15, 2012, D r e d i n g 60(b)(4). Dreding or vacate. o f j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t On O c t o b e r Rule amend, second Rule 60(b)(4) motion The on Dreding f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal w i t h our on transferred to this February 19, 2013. The appeal was c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The b r i e f t h a t D r e d i n g has f i l e d on a p p e a l i s by no means a model of c l a r i t y . However, 4 because i t i s evident that 2120422 Dreding c o n t i n u e s t o espouse t h e same a r g u m e n t s t h a t he h a s r a i s e d i n a l l o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t we lack jurisdiction over Dreding's a p p e a l . 2 "'"Alabama caselaw has placed a significant limitation upon the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) where a movant h a s p r e v i o u s l y s o u g h t r e l i e f u n d e r t h a t r u l e . As s t a t e d b y t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018 (A a. ( A ll a . 1 9 9 8 ) , ' [ a ] f t e r a t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60(b) , t h a t c o u r t does n o t have jurisdiction to entertain a successive postjudgment motion to "reconsider" or otherwise review i t s order denying the Rule 60(b) m o t i o n . ' 771 So. 2d a t 1022 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a p a r t y who h a s p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d an u n s u c c e s s f u l m o t i o n s e e k i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) may n o t We n o t e t h a t , even i f t h i s c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a p p e a l , D r e d i n g ' s a t t e m p t s t o r e l i t i g a t e t h e same i s s u e s of Castaneda's s t a n d i n g and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e b a r r e d by t h e l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e . 2 "'Under t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e " l a w o f t h e c a s e , " whatever i s once e s t a b l i s h e d b e t w e e n t h e same p a r t i e s i n t h e same c a s e c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e l a w o f that case, whether or not correct on g e n e r a l principles, so l o n g as t h e f a c t s on w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e d i c a t e d c o n t i n u e t o be t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . ' B l u m b e r g v. Touche R o s s & Co., 514 So. 2d 922, 924 ( A l a . 1987) . The l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e i s ' d e s i g n e d t o a v o i d r e p e a t e d l i t i g a t i o n o v e r an i s s u e t h a t has a l r e a d y b e e n d e c i d e d . ' W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 91 So. 3d 56, 62 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . " D a v i s v. B l a c k s t o c k , [Ms. 2111244, A p r i l , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) . 5 5, 2013] So. 3d 2120422 p r o p e r l y f i l e a second motion i n the t r i a l court that, i n effect, requests the t r i a l court to r e v i s i t i t s d e n i a l of the f i r s t m o t i o n , s u c h as b y r e a s s e r t i n g t h e g r o u n d s relied upon i n t h e f i r s t motion. See Wadsworth v. M a r k e l I n s . Co., 906 So. 2d 179, 182 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( ' S u c c e s s i v e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n s on t h e same g r o u n d s a r e g e n e r a l l y considered motions t o r e c o n s i d e r the o r i g i n a l r u l i n g and a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d by R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . ' ) . " ' " W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d 332, 334 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g P i n k e r t o n S e c . & I n v e s t i g a t i o n s S e r v s . , I n c . v. C h a m b l e e, 934 So. 2d 386, 390-91 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005)) (second emphasis added i n Williams)." Young v. S o u t h e a s t A l a b a m a Med. C t r . , [Ms. 2111258, F e b . 8, 2013] So. 3d The trial Dreding's , court October ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) . lacked jurisdiction 15, 2012, R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , to entertain which merely a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t , once a g a i n , t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 59 m o t i o n . See Wadsworth v. M a r k e l I n s . Co., 906 So. 2d 179, 182 motions to ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) on t h e same g r o u n d s reconsider Rule 60(b)."); 334 the o r i g i n a l ("Successive R u l e 60(b) are generally considered ruling motions and a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d by s e e a l s o W i l l i a m s v . W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d 332, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . This court has p r e v i o u s l y held t h a t " [ b ] e c a u s e a t r i a l c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n 6 2120422 a s u c c e s s i v e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n b a s e d upon t h e same g r o u n d s as an earlier Rule 60(b) motion, such a s u c c e s s i v e motion an because most So. 2d 386, & Investigations 391 trial court lacked recent Rule 60(b) appeal m o t i o n , and, of or denying motion, the trial a c c o r d i n g l y , we S e r v s . , I n c . v. ( A l a . C i v . App. the Dreding's order granting ... i s a n u l l i t y and w i l l n o t s u p p o r t a p p e a l . " P i n k e r t o n Sec. Chamblee, 934 an jurisdiction we lack 2005). over Dreding's jurisdiction court's order Thus, denying over that d i s m i s s the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Donaldson, J J . , concur. 7 Thomas, Moore, and

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.