Simmons v. DuBose Construction Company, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
DuBose Construction Company, L.L.C., petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Civil Appeals to vacate its order reversing a Montgomery Circuit Court ruling in the case. On February 14, 2005, James Simmons, an employee of DuBose Construction, sustained a medial meniscus tear in his right knee when he slipped and fell in a hole while working at a construction site. Simmons ultimately sued DuBose Construction in the Montgomery Circuit Court seeking workers' compensation benefits for his knee injury. The trial court entered a judgment in 2007, finding that Simmons had suffered a permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and a 15% permanent partial loss of his ability to earn and awarding benefits accordingly. However, the trial court dismissed Simmons' case, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. DuBose Construction subsequently appealed that judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals, arguing that the trial court had erred in awarding Simmons benefits. Upon review, the Supreme Court found DuBose Construction failed to establish that it had a clear legal right to the writ because the trial court's order dismissing Simmons's case was void as being outside the scope of the Court of Civil Appeals' remand order, and Simmons was accordingly entitled to a writ directing the trial court to enter a proper judgment in the case.
Download PDF
REL: 03/16/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1110239 Ex p a r t e DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, L.L.C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : James Simmons v. DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, L . L . C . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , Court of C i v i l Appeals, STUART, CV-05-2166; 2110005) Justice. DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, L . L . C . , p e t i t i o n s t h i s f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g Court the Court of C i v i l Appeals t o 1110239 vacate i t s order Montgomery ordered (Ala. issued Circuit on Court November to issue i n DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n C i v . App. Co. 2 0 0 8 ) , w i t h i n 28 8, a 2011, directing on the S i m m o n s , 989 v. ruling So. days. We deny the the remand 2d 1140 petition. I. On February 14, DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n , r i g h t k n e e when he a construction 2005, James sustained s l i p p e d and site. fell April p a i n and s w e l l i n g , a second surgery March 1, 2006, but work subsequently stating that the injury of body and that his to to he tear was at in of DuBose his at persistent January Construction May 9, on 24, 2006, a f f e c t e d other parts longer on of underwent r e q u i r e d on resigned no Simmons because h i s knee had could employee meniscus 2005, t e a r ; however, returned an i n a hole while working 18, to Simmons the a medial surgery 2006. repair On Simmons, perform physical labor. On the August Montgomery benefits the 23, Circuit Simmons Court f o r h i s knee i n j u r y . trial entered 2005, court heard ore sued seeking DuBose Construction workers' compensation Following a proceeding tenus a j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 1 3 , evidence, the at trial which court 2 0 0 7 , f i n d i n g t h a t Simmons 2 in had 1110239 s u f f e r e d a permanent p a r t i a l disability and loss a 1 5 % permanent awarding partial benefits subsequently Appeals, arguing that Simmons b e n e f i t s b a s e d DuBose of h i s a b i l i t y accordingly. appealed that DuBose judgment the t r i a l t o t h e body as a whole court t o earn and Construction to the Court had e r r e d on a l o s s o f e a r n i n g of Civil i n awarding capacity because, argued, Simmons was l i m i t e d t o r e c e i v i n g lesser benefits the Construction allowed f o r the loss forth i n the compensation of use of a l e g s e t s c h e d u l e i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. In that i t s opinion, the general the Court proposition o f u s e o f a member accordance also noted that rule (1968), 831 of with i n Bell this Addison Court Construction r e s u l t i n g i n the should had e s t a b l i s h e d be awarded i n to Drummond C o . , 837 S o . 2 d an u n s c h e d u l e d i timpacts Fabricators, an e x c e p t i o n 282 A l a . 6 4 0 , 2 1 3 S o . 2 d 806 i n Ex p a r t e "allowing such s e v e r i t y that Ex p a r t e o f t h e body v. D r i s k i l l , modified ( A l a . 2002), f o ri n j u r i e s recognized t h e s c h e d u l e s e t f o r t h i n § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( a ) -- b u t that later Appeals a d v o c a t e d b y DuBose was c o r r e c t -- t h a t c o m p e n s a t i o n loss of C i v i l a w a r d f o r an i n j u r y the claimant's entire body." I n c . , 989 S o . 2 d 4 9 8 , 503 ( A l a . 3 1110239 2007). The C o u r t of C i v i l Appeals u l t i m a t e l y concluded that i t was u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h a t e x c e p t i o n should to d i d n o t make Simmons, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e findings concerning compensation outside whether further explained cause to the t r i a l concerning Simmons's the schedule." court findings "[t]he t r i a l that court i t was f o r that the extent court injury entitled apply him t o 989 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 4 3 . required court o f Simmons's t o remand t h e t o make specific injury, stating: " I n W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . v . G a r d n e r , 885 S o . 2 d 168 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003), t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e judgment o f a t r i a l c o u r t awarding t h e employee workers' compensation b e n e f i t s without specifically setting forth i t s reason f o r awarding benefits outside the schedule, stating: "'The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment c o n t a i n s mention of the s o - c a l l e d "Bell [v. no Driskill, 282 A l a . 6 4 0 , 2 1 3 S o . 2 d 806 (1968),] t e s t " or t h e r u l e a r t i c u l a t e d by our Supreme C o u r t i n [Ex p a r t e ] Drummond Co., [ 8 3 7 S o . 2 d 831 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ] ; t h e r e i s no d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the p r o v i s i o n s of § 25-5-57(a)(3)a. a n d d. I t i s n o t t h e r o l e o f t h i s c o u r t t o make t h e f i n d i n g s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Drummond C o . , or by those s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s ; t h a t i s the t a s k o f t h e t r i a l court. Ex p a r t e R.T.S. , 7 7 1 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 , 477 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . ' "885 So. 2d at 172. Similarly, i n Addison F a b r i c a t o r s , I n c . v . D a v i s , 8 92 S o . 2 d 440 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , t h i s c o u r t , r e l y i n g on o u r d e c i s i o n i n Wal-Mart, supra, r e v e r s e d t h e judgment of t h e trial court based on i t s failure t o make a 4 The 1110239 determination as to the applicability of § 25-5-57(a)(3)a. a n d d. I n so h o l d i n g , t h i s court concluded t h a t t h e ' " [ t ] h e t r i a l j u d g e s h o u l d make a f i n d i n g of every fact necessary to sustain the judgment of t h e c o u r t . " ' 892 S o . 2 d a t 443 ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d T e l . & T e l . C o . v . C u l i v e r , 2 7 1 A l a . 568 , 5 7 0 , 126 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 (1961)). "Given the t r i a l court's failure t o make findings concerning whether Simmons's injury entitled him to workers' compensation benefits o u t s i d e t h e s c h e d u l e , we m u s t r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and remand t h e cause f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion." DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n , The 17, case thus 2008, 989 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 4 3 . returned approximately four Court of C i v i l order d i s m i s s i n g the case. "The court Appeals' having this 2 0 0 8 , Simmons moved t h e t r i a l dismissal, opinion, court arguing reversed that court i s of the opinion and remanded an to set aside of C i v i l t h e above that the that i t i s hereby Three days l a t e r , "the Court of the entered case and d e t e r m i n i n g court on J u n e stated i n i t s entirety: Accordingly, that this matter i s dismissed." where, the release the t r i a l The o r d e r the court m a t t e r s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . court months a f t e r opinion, reviewed case appears concluded, to the t r i a l ordered on J u n e 2 0 , i t s order of Appeals, case this in f o r the i t s trial ' t o make f i n d i n g s w h e t h e r S i m m o n s ' s i n j u r y e n t i t l e d h i m 5 1110239 to workers' compensation Simmons's motion was hearing August 25, on following benefits considered 2008, exchange w i t h outside by at which the attorneys the the the schedule.'" trial trial court court at had f o r Simmons a n d a the DuBose Construction: " [ A t t o r n e y f o r DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n ] : One t h i n g y o u do n e e d t o do -- I'm n o t s u r e how t h i s happened. After the Court of [Civil] Appeals entered its o r d e r , i t came b a c k h e r e a n d t h e c a s e h a s actually been d i s m i s s e d . "[Court]: Who dismissed it? "[Attorney m o t i o n -- for Simmons]: You did. And I filed a " [ A t t o r n e y f o r DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n ] : The c a s e h a s been d i s m i s s e d . My w o r r y i s i f i t ' s a [workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n ] c a s e , t h e r e h a s t o be an o r d e r . We n e e d -"[Court]: I'm o r d e r r i g h t now going to set setting that " [ A t t o r n e y f o r DuBose a s i d e an o r d e r -- aside that. aside. Construction]: Do If me you an set "[Court]: Set a s i d e the o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g the case and r e i n s t a t e and p u t [the mediator] i n t h e r e to mediate i t . " However, order event, i t appears dismissing an order the of that no case written was dismissal 6 ever was order setting prepared, never aside and, entered the in any into the 1110239 record. motion Pursuant to Rule 59.1, A l a . R. t o s e t a s i d e t h e J u n e 17, Civ. P., Simmons's 2008, o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l a c c o r d i n g l y d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on S e p t e m b e r 18, See Ex p a r t e Chamblee, take this 59.1 a trial 899 o p p o r t u n i t y to judge motion. (Ala. Ex 1990)]. entry Rule an o r a l of a judgment Civil 248 reaffirm that f o r purposes a ruling Appeals 59.1 [ A l a . R. or either Land m u s t be rendition On N o v e m b e r 1 2 , of 244, p a r t e Johnson harmony w i t h R u l e 58, recognize 2d Co., read C i v . P.,] denying or [561 2008. ( A l a . 2004) So. 2d Rule motion granting 506, 508 i n c o n j u n c t i o n and which 1 ("We of 'disposes of' a pending postjudgment o n l y by p r o p e r l y e n t e r i n g the So. was in s i m p l y does not o f a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r o r an oral order."). 2 0 0 9 , Simmons f i l e d a motion s e e k i n g to compel the t r i a l i n the Court court to enter a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' r u l i n g i n DuBose the Construction. trial court had In held that motion, hearings on Simmons this asserted case on that June 4, A t t h e t i m e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a c t i o n , R u l e 59.1 p r o v i d e d t h a t "[a] f a i l u r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d i s p o s e o f any p e n d i n g post-judgment motion w i t h i n the [90-day p e r i o d ] p e r m i t t e d h e r e u n d e r , o r any e x t e n s i o n t h e r e o f , s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of such motion as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e x p i r a t i o n of the period." R u l e 59.1 was a m e n d e d e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t o c h a n g e t h e w o r d " d i s p o s e " t o " r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g . " 1 7 1110239 2009, at and case October 7, last that on hearing the was closed writing that because reinstating the trial case without Appeals 2009; however, the court DuBose not have order indicated that entered Simmons an summarily On the order nevertheless d i r e c t e d by Construction. that in argued dismissed the Court of December 8, the Civil 2009, Simmons's m o t i o n w i t h o u t the stating rationale. Undaunted, court to S i m m o n s , on schedule thereafter sanction court's applied J u n e 17, was outside of Civil the a status response 18, 2010, conference. DuBose to 2010, reply to i f to his case, 2008, o r d e r scope of the Appeals DuBose he argued o f d i s m i s s a l was remand o r d e r that the i s s u e d by Construction. no evidence action on these The the court took 2011, Simmons p e t i t i o n e d t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l 8 Court materials the any contain trial v o i d because i t to O c t o b e r 3, Court but 18, submitted trial this in November the Construction court Simmons's moved trial trial In and moved t h e conceded t h a t h i s arguments were u n t i m e l y Simmons. 59.1 October a filed t h a t r e s p o n s e , he Rule had never case. Court of C i v i l Appeals denied its court i t had could e n t e r i n g the in trial Simmons a s s e r t e d indicating pleadings, and, that on Appeals 1110239 for a writ o f mandamus e n t e r an o r d e r s e t t i n g Civil Appeals initial 2008, not comply the t r i a l forth the findings had h e l d judgment, 17, directing were absent a n d he a r g u e d the case was v o i d with the Court of C i v i l Appeals' The Court of Civil Appeals and a r e q u e s t f o r damages 38, A l a . R. A p p . P. court "to rule of t h i s i t did directions ordered which i t 8, 2 0 1 1 , t h e C o u r t f o r damages, on t h e r e m a n d w i t h i n of 28 d a y s from [the] order." o f mandamus directing the Court to vacate i t s November 8, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t . s u b s e q u e n t l y o r d e r e d Simmons a n d t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l file answers petition Civil and d i r e c t i n g t h e f o r a writ Appeals Rule denying On N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , D u B o s e C o n s t r u c t i o n p e t i t i o n e d Court on DuBose appeal" under e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g Simmons's p e t i t i o n , DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n ' s r e q u e s t date because June to dismiss the p e t i t i o n f o ra "frivolous On N o v e m b e r court's court's an a n s w e r t o Simmons's p e t i t i o n , subsequently d i d , along w i t h a motion trial the t r i a l dismissing Construction to f i l e Appeals the t r i a l order remand. finally of fact the Court of from that court to and b r i e f s and g r a n t e d i n response DuBose of Civil This Court Appeals to t o DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n ' s Construction's motion 9 this to stay 1110239 proceedings i n the t r i a l court pending the r e s o l u t i o n of i t s petition. II. " T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de n o v o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a w r i t o f mandamus b y t h e C o u r t of C i v i l Appeals. R u l e 2 1 ( e ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. Review of a w r i t of mandamus i s s u e d b y t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i s p r o p e r l y sought through a p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t of mandamus t o t h i s C o u r t . R u l e 2 1 ( e ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. '"'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r legal r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) a n imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court.'"' Ex p a r t e Sears, R o e b u c k & C o . , 895 S o . 2 d 2 6 5 [ , 2 68] ( A l a . 2004 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e M a r d i s , 628 S o . 2 d 6 0 5 , 606 ( A l a . 1 993) ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e B e n - A c a d i a , L t d . , 566 S o . 2 d 4 8 6 , 488 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) ) . 'The p e t i t i o n e r bears the burden of p r o v i n g each of these elements before the writ w i l l issue.' E x p a r t e G l o v e r , 801 So. 2d 1, 6 ( A l a . 2001 ) (citing Ex parte Consolidated Publ'g C o . , 601 S o . 2 d 423 ( A l a . 1992))." Ex parte Vance, 900 S o . 2 d 3 9 4 , 397 (Ala. 2004). III. In i t s petition Construction its argues discretion mandamus improper that for a writ the Court of mandamus, of C i v i l i n g r a n t i n g Simmons's p e t i t i o n because, i t s says, Simmons's and u n t i m e l y : 10 Appeals DuBose exceeded f o rthe writ of petition was both 1110239 "The petition for writ o f mandamus was not p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h r e e d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n s : 1) [ S i m m o n s ' s ] r e m e d y was t h r o u g h an a p p e a l a n d t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d [ S i m m o n s ] t o u t i l i z e mandamus a s a substitute for his untimely appeal; 2) the p e t i t i o n was u n t i m e l y f i l e d ; a n d 3) [ S i m m o n s ] d i d not comply w i t h the mandatory requirements of Rule 21 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e f o r t h e f i l i n g o f an u n t i m e l y p e t i t i o n . Because the p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e and was u n t i m e l y , Dubose [ s i c ] C o n s t r u c t i o n f i l e d a m o t i o n to d i s m i s s the p e t i t i o n which s h o u l d have been g r a n t e d by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . Dubose [ s i c ] C o n s t r u c t i o n a l s o f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r d a m a g e s a n d was e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f d a m a g e s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 38 of t h e Alabama R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . " (DuBose Construction's petition, DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n ' s a r g u m e n t , court e n t e r e d an 2008, and aside that, that indicated a grant the J u n e 17 18, had was not -- i s that June 20, subsequent motion, 17 order hearing the of on i t pursuant motion within 11 the never set 59.1 aside law because days the of court inclined to actually in writing; to Rule to 90 trial i t was court trial o p e r a t i o n of and that dismissal Simmons's d e n i e d by 2008, on trial set on Simmons's c a s e the of a l t h o u g h Simmons m o v e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o when ruled gravamen 17, o r d e r became f i n a l 20 08 order June The June Simmons's aside 13.) therefore, order dismissing order in p. thus, on the that September June trial i t s set 17 court filing. 1110239 Consequently, to file D u B o s e C o n s t r u c t i o n a r g u e s , when Simmons an a p p e a l b y O c t o b e r 42-day p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g App. P., his right extinguished. mandamus Construction apply, and statement to appeal Simmons of good the d i s m i s s a l of the of h i s case e v e n i f Simmons was e n t i t l e d instead argues, the e x p i r a t i o n an a p p e a l p r o v i d e d b y R u l e 4, A l a . R. Moreover, relief 30, 2008, failed of relief t h e same failed cause 42-day to in why t o seek appeal, period include explaining should not apply to h i s case. v i a an was DuBose i s presumed to his petition a that 42-day period S e e R u l e 2 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. DuBose the time correct; relate C o n s t r u c t i o n ' s arguments limits an Throughout arguments from argument this an Simmons litigation, i n h i s attempts of fact i t s original court's oral motion filing appeal however, they are u l t i m a t e l y to findings for order. statements are 59.1 and fundamentally i m m a t e r i a l because has essentially Simmons t o have identified r e g a r d i n g Rule has the t r i a l relied they conceded. on two court enter the i n DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n as m i s s i n g First, he h a s a r g u e d at the August t o s e t a s i d e t h e June the trial 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , h e a r i n g on h i s 17, 2008, 12 that order dismissing his 1110239 case were, in reinstatement Simmons's fact, of case his has case. been s o u g h t mandamus r e l i e f refused to However, supra, be ably in simply or an i t s duty 17, 899 theory that time trial enter a of in the the and court case, Simmons has since i n the ruling DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n and recognize he Appeals' says, Court of Civil court on harmony oral 2d case. and explained a with rendition judgment or argued that also dismissing i t did court which a judgment not Appeals, the case was void comply with the or in Simmons DuBose lacked authority i n c l u d i n g d i s m i s s i n g the case. to Construction. The ordered whether and, take initio Civil the any trial Simmons's compensation b e n e f i t s Under t h i s 13 ab of argues, i n § 25-5-57(a) parte court's Court to workers' forth Ex trial his instructions i n j u r y e n t i t l e d him set of 58, order." r e m a n d t o make f i n d i n g s d e t a i l i n g schedule Rule must 248. at order remand an of Simmons h a s 2008, in entry So. because, trial since and resulted this o n l y because the a r g u e d by oral However, the Under pending conjunction does not Chamblee, June and t h i s a r g u m e n t l a c k s l e g a l m e r i t b e c a u s e " R u l e 59.1 read order fulfill as effective outside accordingly, other theory the action, of the case, 1110239 the June 17, 2008, Simmons's c a s e the has Construction; of the the in trial that be court " i f this Civil court's on Moreover, explain writ he to the effect, court aside remand. his first i t s order cognizant arguments argument t r i a l c o u r t , he to 59.1], the [Rule petition d i s m i s s a l was with the were that o f d i s m i s s a l when, then conceded i t would for e x c l u s i v e l y that comply the writ of in the Court of the v o i d as Court of trial court's a r e s u l t of Civil the Appeals' 2 the Court i t s rationale for granting o f mandamus i n t h e of s u c c e s s f u l l y pursued of although stronger since appeals i n the subject in for and i n DuBose presumably abandoned h i s filing argued 2008, o r d e r instructions set 2010, Simmons failure no trial limits S i m m o n s was have Indeed, that had i n the time was i s s u e was Appeals, J u n e 17, to orally untimely." mandamus and this appears a N o v e m b e r 18, that 59.1 never i m p l i c a t e d . he dismissal A p p e a l s remanded i t to t h a t c o u r t Rule fact because of remained pending Court of C i v i l therefore order N o v e m b e r 8, of Civil Appeals Simmons's p e t i t i o n 2011, order, did not for the i t has filed S i m m o n s d i d , h o w e v e r , as he h a s i n t h e b r i e f s f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t , s t a t e as f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e i n s t a t e d h i s c a s e a t t h e A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , h e a r i n g , a l t h o u g h he d o e s n o t make a n y f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t s b a s e d on t h a t a l l e g e d f a c t . 2 14 1110239 an answer in this Court petition f o r the w r i t of Appeals Civil Simmons's dismiss o f mandamus. confirms argument h i s case, responding that that the to DuBose In t h a t i t issued trial court Construction's answer, the the lacked writ Court based on authority to stating: "7. Pursuant to e s t a b l i s h e d Alabama caselaw, a l o w e r c o u r t must s t r i c t l y comply w i t h the remand o r d e r o f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . See E x p a r t e A l a b a m a P o w e r C o . , 431 So. 2d 1 5 1 , 155 ( A l a . 1983) (quoting 5 Am. J u r . 2d A p p e a l a n d E r r o r § 991 (1 9 6 2 ) ) . In L y n c h v . S t a t e , 587 So. 2 d 3 0 6 , 307 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a h e l d t h a t a l o w e r court a c t s b e y o n d i t s a u t h o r i t y i f i t t a k e s a n y a c t i o n on remand t h a t d i f f e r s from the e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s of the higher appellate court. In Anderson v. S t a t e , 796 So. 2d 1151 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , t h e Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals i n t e r p r e t e d Lynch a s h o l d i n g t h a t 'any a c t b y a t r i a l c o u r t b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s r e m a n d o r d e r i s v o i d for l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' 796 So. 2d a t 1156 ( c i t i n g E l l i s v . S t a t e , 705 So. 2d 8 4 3 , 847 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1996) ( s t a t i n g t h a t on r e m a n d , ' t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e o r i g i n a l o r b a s e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d o r t o t a k e any a c t i o n b e y o n d t h e e x p r e s s m a n d a t e o f t h i s c o u r t ' ) ) ; see a l s o Hyde v . S t a t e , 894 So. 2 d 808 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d Moore v. S t a t e , 871 So. 2d 106 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (accord). "8. I n P e t e r s o n v . S t a t e , 842 So. 2 d 7 3 4 , 7 3 9 ¬ 40 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001), the Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s a p p l i e d L y n c h and A n d e r s o n t o h o l d that a c i r c u i t court lacked jurisdiction to set a s i d e a d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d t o r e i n s t a t e an indictment against the defendant because those a c t i o n s exceeded the scope of the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' remand o r d e r , which merely required the 15 1110239 c i r c u i t c o u r t t o e n t e r s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on a separate issue. Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t acted w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n , the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was 'void.' 842 So. 2 d a t 740. "9. In t h i s case, t h i s c o u r t , l i k e the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s i n P e t e r s o n , remanded the case f o r [the t r i a l c o u r t ] to e n t e r s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e g a r d i n g the i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the schedule. Like in Peterson, [the t r i a l c o u r t ] d i d not comply w i t h our mandate, but, instead, purported to enter a judgment exceeding the scope of our remand o r d e r , namely, d i s m i s s i n g the case. As i n P e t e r s o n , [the trial court's] judgment of d i s m i s s a l i s 'void.' Because i t i s v o i d , the judgment d i d not e f f e c t i v e l y d i s m i s s t h e c a s e , l e a v i n g t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e same p o s i t i o n as t h e y w e r e p r i o r t h e r e t o . Consequently, [the t r i a l judge] remained s u b j e c t to t h i s court's order to enter appropriate f i n d i n g s of fact to explain why he deviated from the schedule in a w a r d i n g Simmons c o m p e n s a t i o n . "10. Because [the t r i a l c o u r t ] d i d not act i n strict c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s c o u r t ' s remand o r d e r , Simmons was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling [the t r i a l court's] compliance. See, e.g., Ex p a r t e Q u e e n , 959 So. 2d 620, 621 (Ala. 2 0 0 6 ) ('A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e p r o p e r m e t h o d b y w h i c h t o b r i n g b e f o r e an a p p e l l a t e court the question whether the trial court, on remand, has complied with the appellate court's mandate.')." After the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s f i l e d Construction filed responded to the dismissal was void a reply argument and in which that the hence w i t h o u t 16 i t s answer, i t for June 17, effect. the first 2008, In DuBose order that time of reply, 1110239 DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n argued mandamus been relief denied move t h e P., to void, Court because trial set and 3 from that the Court (1) Simmons court pursuant aside Simmons's i t s June of Civil Appeals' instructions However, f o r the r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w , should have never did, Civ. order was the In Appeals not relief dismissal as c o n t r a r y to the i n DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n . these arguments s t i l l a clear legal do right i t seeks. support of i t s argument s h o u l d have d e n i e d first 3 but of not n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n has to seeking 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. 2008, (2) t h e o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l of C i v i l Appeals c o u l d have, to Rule 17, petition file Rule 60(b) a motion that the Court Simmons's p e t i t i o n invoking Rule provides, in pertinent of because 60(b)(4), Civil he did DuBose part: "On m o t i o n and upon s u c h terms as a r e j u s t , the court may relieve a p a r t y or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or p r o c e e d i n g f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : ... (4) t h e judgment i s v o i d .... The m o t i o n s h a l l be made w i t h i n a reasonable time " The C o m m i t t e e Comments on t h e 1973 A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 60 f u r t h e r make c l e a r t h a t t h e r e i s no s e t t i m e i n w h i c h a p a r t y m u s t c h a l l e n g e a v o i d judgment b e c a u s e "Alabama law has a l w a y s been t h a t a v o i d j u d g m e n t c o u l d be v a c a t e d a t a n y t i m e . " Committee 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. (citing S w e e n e y v . T r i t s c h , 151 A l a . 2 4 2 , 44 So. 184 ( 1 9 0 7 ) ) . 17 1110239 Construction 1142-43 quotes (Ala. Civ. Shamburger v. Lambert, 24 So. 3d 1139, App. 2009): "'"A w r i t o f mandamus w i l l i s s u e o n l y i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e o r i s i n a d e q u a t e , and i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a p p e a l . " ' Ex p a r t e M o o r e , 880 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e E m p i r e F i r e & M a r i n e I n s . C o . , 720 So. 2 d 8 9 3 , 894 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . " I n t h i s c a s e , [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] h a d a t l e a s t two other adequate remedies. First, [the p e t i t i o n e r ] could have r a i s e d l a c k o f s t a n d i n g i n a timely appeal to the c i r c u i t court. S e e E x p a r t e R.S.C., 853 S o . 2 d 228 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t p e t i t i o n e r had adequate remedy by a p p e a l t o a t t a c k p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g e d l a c k of s t a n d i n g and, t h e r e f o r e , petition f o r a w r i t o f mandamus was i n a p p r o p r i a t e means b y w h i c h t o seek relief). Second, [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] c o u l d have f i l e d a Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . In her p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on J u l y 21, 2008, [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] d i d n o t a s s e r t l a c k of standing as a jurisdictional defect. N e v e r t h e l e s s , R u l e 60 a l l o w s a p a r t y t o move t o s e t aside a judgment that i s void f o r lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a t any time. See Ex p a r t e F u l l C i r c l e D i s t r i b u t i o n , L . L . C . , 883 S o . 2 d 638, 643 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e t o r u l e on s u c h a m o t i o n b e c a u s e , as e x p l a i n e d above, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d not a c q u i r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e a p p e a l because o f the u n t i m e l y f i l i n g of [ t h ep e t i t i o n e r ' s ] n o t i c e o f appeal. Because [the p e t i t i o n e r ] had adequate remedies a v a i l a b l e t o h e r , the c i r c u i t court erred i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus." However, case, we find the Court Shamburger of C i v i l t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . Appeals s p e c i f i c a l l y 18 In that stated that the 1110239 p e t i t i o n e r d i d not a s s e r t l a c k of s t a n d i n g defect i n the court, and, specific postjudgment for a l l that argument to motion she appears, the district as a filed she jurisdictional i n the never district that attention. court's did bring Id. H o w e v e r , i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , Simmons c l e a r l y articulated his argument that the 2008, dismissal was void mandate and of the Court that i t could trial court's because i t of C i v i l accordingly example i n a November Simmons 18, June failed Appeals be 2010, 17, to comply i n DuBose challenged filing of with the Construction a t any i n the order time. trial For court, stated: " I n L o o n e y v . S t a t e , 60 So. 3d 2 9 3 , 296 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t ' " [ a ] s a n u l l i t y , a v o i d j u d g m e n t h a s no e f f e c t and i s s u b j e c t t o a t t a c k a t any t i m e [A] m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m a v o i d j u d g m e n t i s n o t g o v e r n e d by t h e r e a s o n a b l e - t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 60(b)." [Ex p a r t e F u l l C i r c l e D i s t r i b u t i o n , L . L . C . , 883 So. 2 d 6 3 8 , 643 (Ala. 2003)].' A l s o on this issue, [Judge Moore of the Alabama C o u r t of C i v i l Appeals], concurring specially in Franklin v. C a t l e d g e , 59 So. 3d 7 3 8 , 742 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2010), w r o t e t h a t i n r e g a r d t o a v o i d j u d g m e n t , any p a r t y a g g r i e v e d b y t h e j u d g m e n t may f i l e a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o h a v e the judgment s e t a s i d e . " Although a "motion Simmons d i d n o t to set aside specifically entitle a judgment pursuant 19 that to Rule filing as 60(b)(4)," 1110239 it i s t h i s Court's longstanding policy that the "'character of a pleading i s determined substance, and n o t from parte Alfa M u t . G e n . I n s . C o . , 684 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 1 , 1996) (quoting Union Springs 117, and, that not i t s June obtaining relief to petition relief. See Ex p a r t e ("A p e t i t i o n which to b r i n g before trial court's court, i t argues, Construction. award (Ala. 285 A l a . 114, o f d i s m i s s a l was the trial of C i v i l o f mandamus court, Appeals void, he was f o r mandamus i s the proper an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t Construction instructions Civil 1282 Ex 959 S o . 2 d 6 2 0 , 621 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) on remand, of d i s m i s s a l because, or t i t l e . ' " method the question has complied with by whether the appellate mandate."). DuBose order from Queen, essential Simmons a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l order the Court fora writ i t s T e l . Co. v . G r e e n , 17, 2008, entitled of i t s d e s c r i p t i v e name 2 2 9 S o . 2 d 5 0 3 , 505 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ) . court the and i n t e r p r e t e d from of Simmons entered the merely damages argues by the order Rather, Appeals next that t h e June 17, 2008, the t r i a l court i s not contrary Court of DuBose Construction held based Civil the t r i a l on loss 20 t o t h e remand Appeals that a i s not void in DuBose argues, the Court court could not of earning capacity 1110239 without knee first injury remanded the cause judgment a f i n d i n g that extended consistent with to other "for this trial the t r i a l o f h i s body court So. fact no findings of awarding him argues, e n t i r e l y court was Simmons b e n e f i t s to enter 989 without case Construction t h e e f f e c t s o f Simmons's parts opinion." containing Simmons's the making without making with that a at and damages consistent i n s t r u c t e d only 2d and judgment 1143. A dismissing i s , DuBose that holding i t could the supporting then -¬ n o t award findings. We disagree. In DuBose C o n s t r u c t i o n , that the t r i a l court the Court had f a i l e d of C i v i l t o make Appeals findings concerning w h e t h e r Simmons's i n j u r y e n t i t l e d h i m t o c o m p e n s a t i o n the schedule that every i n § 25-5-57(a), i t was t h e d u t y fact necessary 1143. Having findings that judgment, intended of the t r i a l to sustain identified required f o rthe t r i a l of whether that court i t was that court, those 1975, and outside explained t o make a f i n d i n g o f i t s judgment. the reversal i t i s evident regardless A l a . Code noted 989 S o . 2 d a t the absence of the Court the t r i a l such court's Civil Appeals on r e m a n d , t o make s u c h findings findings 21 of of supported the trial 1110239 court's initial judgment. 4 See H a r b i n v. U n i t e d States Steel C o r p . , 356 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 182 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) ( s t a t i n g the to trial court i n a workers' compensation make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t r e g a r d i n g evidence relevant judgment containing Court of C i v i l enter a failing conclusion findings Appeals' judgment judgment to disputed of fact i s buttressed Appeals has confirmed Accordingly, would i n s t r u c t i o n s that with so was, this i n fact, by t h e f a c t that comply trial void. involving supplementing the t r i a l court's court Id. This of Civil with this requiring findings of fact Appeals i n an order to address the i s s u e w h e t h e r an o n - t h e - j o b i n j u r y a f f e c t e d more t h a n the body p a r t parte Addison that suffered the direct any c o u r t s have i n t e r p r e t e d cases as a the and the Court remand l a n g u a g e u s e d by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l 25-5-57(a) with opinion," similar § only "the t r i a l i t s i n t e n t i n i t s answer f i l e d Court and by t h e f a c t t h a t other required the e x i s t e n c e o r absence of issue). consistent t o do c a s e was that injury. just See, e.g., Ex F a b r i c a t o r s , I n c . , 989 S o . 2 d a t 5 0 0 . DuBose T h e e n t i r e r e c o r d i s n o t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on mandamus r e v i e w ; h o w e v e r , t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e u s i n d i c a t e t h a t Simmons has a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e i n j u r y t o h i s r i g h t knee a l s o a f f e c t e d his back, h i s l e f t l e g , and h i s r i g h t elbow. The t r i a l c o u r t has a c c e s s t o t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d a n d c a n p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e whether those a s s e r t i o n s are grounded i n the evidence. 4 22 1110239 Construction's dismissal remand argument was that consistent the trial court's the Court of with i n s t r u c t i o n s i s without order Civil of Appeals' merit. IV. DuBose Construction mandamus directing November 8, writ 2011, o f mandamus petitioned this the Court order and granting directing ruling on t h e r e m a n d o r d e r e d days. However, that i t has trial was court's void Appeals' as a DuBose clear the right being outside remand o r d e r , the Appeals to vacate i t s trial i n DuBose Construction legal f o r a w r i t of Simmons's petition court has failed relief dismissing scope to Construction to that J u n e 17, 2008, o r d e r a writ directing the of C i v i l Court of f o r the issue a within 28 to e s t a b l i s h because the Simmons's the Court of case Civil a n d S i m m o n s was a c c o r d i n g l y e n t i t l e d t o the t r i a l court to enter a p r o p e r judgment i n case. PETITION Malone, DENIED. C . J . , and P a r k e r , Shaw, a n d W i s e , J J . , c o n c u r . 23
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.
