Ex parte Donald Ray Hicks. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Bona Faye Hicks v. Donald Ray Hicks)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:05/31/2013 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120227 Ex p a r t e Donald Ray Hicks PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In r e : Bona Faye Hicks v. Donald Ray H i c k s ) (DeKalb C i r c u i t Court, CV-09-4; Court o f C i v i l Appeals, 2110408) PER CURIAM. The p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i i s denied. 1120227 In d e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n Court does not wish f o r the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , t h i s t o be u n d e r s t o o d as a p p r o v i n g a l l the language, reasons, or statements of law i n the Court of C i v i l Appeals' opinion. H o r s l e y v . H o r s l e y , 291 A l a . 782, 280 So. 2d 155 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . WRIT DENIED. Stuart, concur. Bolin, Parker, Shaw, J . , c o n c u r s Murdock, Main, and Wise, J J . , specially. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . Bryan, J . , recuses himself.* * J u s t i c e B r y a n was a member o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l when t h a t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s c a s e . 2 Appeals 1120227 SHAW, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g I concur in certiorari. In Dennis H i c k s the denying the sued 1 specially). the petition underlying D o n a l d Ray l o c a t i o n of a p r o p e r t y case, Faye writ of Hicks and over The Bona the regarding a dispute Hicks line. for trial court entered j u d g m e n t i n 2009 r e q u i r i n g D o n a l d t o r e l o c a t e a a boundary-line fence. I n A u g u s t 2010, Court of Civil sanctions, Appeals' to failed opinion specific and had performance," comply w i t h H i c k s v. H i c k s , , trial [Ms. court "motion trial the as trial 2012) . f o u n d t h a t D o n a l d had to court 'Dennis court. alter, lacked died a "motion the motion. amend, or this contempt, court's On 2009 j u d g m e n t . 2012] So. O c t o b e r 5, in fact Donald complied vacate," case 2 3d 2011, the with the Bona Faye s u b s e q u e n t l y subject-matter while for asserting that 2110408, S e p t e m b e r 14, ( A l a . C i v . App. j u d g m e n t and d e n i e d a Bona Faye f i l e d what i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e asserting that filed the jurisdiction to enter i t s was i n the pending trial I t a p p e a r s t h a t Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n was f i l e d u n d e r t h e c a s e number o f t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n - - C V - 0 9-4--and was not a s s i g n e d a new c a s e number, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t no "new" action was filed. 2 3 1120227 O c t o b e r 5, 2011, d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h e r m o t i o n b e c a u s e no filing f e e h a d b e e n p a i d upon t h e f i l i n g o f t h e " m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t , s a n c t i o n s , and s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e . " apparently On then p a i d the f i l i n g appeal contended, as to the Court she had jurisdiction d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e no f i l i n g for contempt, initially the of Civil that to a and filing required be f i l i n g fee. the trial Appeals c u r e d by Donald's "motion was by trial to determine jurisdiction she p a i d no subsequent at filing payment o f that That c o u r t , i n a p l u r a l i t y d e c i s i o n , d e c i d e d t h a t s u b s e q u e n t payment o f t h e f i l i n g court instructions 2011, f o r the undertook o f Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n , b e c a u s e could 5, j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e upon t h a t the presumed l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r Donald's Civil lacked t h e p r e m i s e , as a r g u e d whether fee, court Faye performance" the outset Bona i t s October motion, the of trial specific f e e was court to obtain subject-matter Court the issue P r o c e e d i n g under that Appeals, f e e h a d b e e n p a i d when t h e sanctions, filed. parties, fee. below, subject-matter D o n a l d , t h e nonmovant, for jurisdiction the trial and dismissed court 4 fee d i d not "to the vacate afford appeal a l l with orders 1120227 stemming f r o m t h e sanctions, and filing o f Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t , s p e c i f i c performance." Donald p e t i t i o n s f o r c e r t i o r a r i the Court of C i v i l f e e must be paid at Appeals erred at the later a paid time. Donald's p e t i t i o n . that this may that petition I see not issue there "). believe potential the is This that merit a is the i n the premise that a f i l i n g Specifically, enforce So. that c a s e and issue t r i a l courts 1227 writ of could because of I A p p e a l s , nor argued; P. that filing not be merit in (providing certiorari probability not . the p r o b a b i l i t y of a l l e g a t i o n s i n the f e e was their previous, 2d 1224, no 3d a t contending in holding of the r a t i o n a l e of the Court of C i v i l do review, See R u l e 3 9 ( f ) , A l a . R. App. Court "concludes outset So. if i t merit in with agree the the i s i t because I petition instead, show I reject actually required i n this ( A l a . 2004) judgments. ("[A] G e o r g e v. S i m s , t r i a l c o u r t has the case. retain "residual jurisdiction" final no to 888 'residual j u r i s d i c t i o n or a u t h o r i t y to take c e r t a i n a c t i o n s necessary to enforce Kennels, Bona ... a final Inc., Faye's 646 motion judgment So. 2d "for (quoting 1343, 1347 contempt, 5 Helms v. (Ala. 1994))). sanctions, and Helms' Here, specific 1120227 p e r f o r m a n c e " a p p e a r s - - f r o m t h e l i m i t e d f a c t s b e f o r e u s - - t o be an attempt t o have the t r i a l court enforce its previous j u d g m e n t r e q u i r i n g D o n a l d t o move t h e b o u n d a r y - l i n e fence. the the t r i a l extent that that i s what Bona Faye r e q u e s t e d , To c o u r t r e t a i n e d " r e s i d u a l " j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e q u i r e D o n a l d t o do what t h e c o u r t ' s Both final parties' judgment r e q u i r e d o f him. arguments were p r e m i s e d on a f i l i n g i n the Court fee being the t r i a l c o u r t t o enforce of C i v i l required i n order i t s 2009 j u d g m e n t . cases c i t e d i n the Court of C i v i l proposition -- Odom v. Odom, Appeals' Appeals t o move I note t h a t t h e opinion f o r that 89 So. 3d 121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , a n d Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) -- are both domestic-relations cases. As n o t e d i n both of t h o s e d e c i s i o n s , A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , r e q u i r e s a filing fee f o r p e t i t i o n s r e l a t i o n s court order." would not apply t o "enforce (Emphasis added.) to require a p p e a r s t o i n v o l v e an o r d e r domestic-relations order. an e x i s t i n g 3 a filing domestic T h a t Code s e c t i o n fee i n this case, which i n a p r o p e r t y - l i n e dispute, not a F u r t h e r , G.E.A. v . D.B.A., 920 So. B o t h Bona F a y e a n d D o n a l d have t h e l a s t name " H i c k s , " r a i s i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y c o u l d be r e l a t e d a n d t h a t t h e d i s p u t e i n t h i s c a s e m i g h t i n f a c t stem f r o m a p r i o r domestic-relations c a s e . However, I n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l 3 6 1120227 2d 1110 ( A l a . C i v . App. Appeals' opinion, was 2005), cited i n the Court of also a domestic-relations c i t e d O p i n i o n by t h e C l e r k , 381 So. 2d 58, 59 the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a f i l i n g of Civil Appeals recently f e e was noted, case, but i t ( A l a . 1980), f o r required. that Civil Clerk's As t h e C o u r t Opinion was s u p e r s e d e d , a t l e a s t i n p a r t , i n 1994 by t h e a d o p t i o n o f R u l e 70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., A u s t i n v. A u s t i n , (Ala. C i v . App. g o v e r n i n g contempt i n c i v i l c a s e s . [Ms. 2120102, May 2013). 4 10, 2013] f e e was Bona F a y e ' s m o t i o n a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s t h a t the t r i a l limited court 3d For a l l t h a t appears, the a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that a f i l i n g From t h e So. See materials b e f o r e me, required for case. I would conclude r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n Bona c o u r t ' s c a s e d e s i g n a t i o n , c o n t a i n i n g a "CV" p r e f i x , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n was a c i v i l a c t i o n , n o t a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s c a s e , w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n g i v e n a "DR" prefix. F u r t h e r , Bona F a y e ' s a p p e a l was t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h i s C o u r t t o t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-27 ( 6 ) , w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s t h e t r a n s f e r o f "any c i v i l c a s e . " I n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s , s u c h as i f a c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g i s brought i n the form of a c o u n t e r c l a i m or c r o s s - c l a i m , the payment o f a f i l i n g f e e m i g h t be r e q u i r e d . See R u l e 7 0 A ( c ) ( 1 ) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a p r o c e e d i n g b a s e d on c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t e m p t may be f i l e d i n t h e f o r m o f a c o u n t e r c l a i m o r a c r o s s - c l a i m ) and A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( p r o v i d i n g f o r a f i l i n g f e e t o be p a i d w i t h t h e f i l i n g o f a c o u n t e r c l a i m o r a c r o s s claim). 4 7 1120227 Faye's "motion performance" for and, contempt, thus, that However, I c a n n o t r e v e r s e sanctions, was required. fee judgment of the C o u r t of Civil A p p e a l s on t h i s g r o u n d , b e c a u s e i t i s n o t a r g u e d t o t h i s Court in issue the p e t i t i o n stating the w r i t of will reverse not raised the specific filing no and the certiorari. a on a p p e a l . It i s well lower Hart reasons t h i s court's v. Court should settled that this d e c i s i o n on Pugh, 878 So. an Court issue 2d 1150, 1157 2003) ("[W]hen we a r e a s k e d t o r e v e r s e a l o w e r c o u r t ' s not (Ala. ruling, we a d d r e s s o n l y t h e i s s u e s and a r g u m e n t s t h e a p p e l l a n t c h o o s e s to So. present."), 2d affirm below, 287, an and 289 order ... Thompson v. n.2 ( A l a . 1999) of the this Skipper Court trial j u d g m e n t on a g r o u n d t h a t has not on 12 So. subject-matter 3d 631, 635 Co., 729 Court will a ground not reverse a trial n e v e r been r a i s e d . " ) . t r u e even i f the argument would s u p p o r t c o u r t had Estate ("Although t h i s court will Real jurisdiction. a finding asserted court's This i s that a lower C r u t c h e r v. W i l l i a m s , ( A l a . 2008) ( " [ T ] h i s C o u r t i s n o t o b l i g a t e d t o embark on i t s own e x p e d i t i o n beyond the p a r t i e s ' arguments i n p u r s u i t o f a r e a s o n t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . The b u r d e n o f establishing the existence of 8 subject-matter jurisdiction 1120227 f a l l s on t h e p a r t y i n v o k i n g t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ) . This has and no duty to perform a party's a d v o c a t e l e g a l a r g u m e n t s on any l e g a l research party's behalf. Court cannot Spradlin v. B i r m i n g h a m A i r p o r t A u t h . , 613 So. 2d 347, 348 (Ala. 1993); see also Schiesz So. 2d 279, 289 (Ala. Civ. App. function of [an 2006) ("It v. Schiesz, i s not the 941 a d v o c a t e a p o s i t i o n on b e h a l f legal argument for the o f an appellate] appellant appellant."). The court to or t o c r e a t e issue r a i s e d i n Donald's c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n - - w h e t h e r a actually a filing fee must be p a i d a t t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f an a c t i o n o r w h e t h e r i t can be p a i d a t a l a t e r t i m e f o r p u r p o s e s o f b e s t o w i n g on court subject-matter jurisdiction--is however, because a r e s o l u t i o n of consequence, discussion dictum. any See Black's Law of that i t by Dictionary ( d e f i n i n g " d i c t u m " as " [ s ] t a t e m e n t s concerning some rule necessarily involved nor of law an a interesting issue w o u l d be this Court 454 (6th legal e s s e n t i a l to one; of no would be ed. and comments i n an or trial 1990) opinion proposition determination of not the c a s e i n h a n d ... , [ w h i c h ] l a c k t h e f o r c e o f an a d j u d i c a t i o n " ) . I t i s t r u e t h a t the Court of C i v i l Appeals' d e c i s i o n stand in this case because the 9 d i s p o s i t i v e issue was will not 1120227 p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t ; however, such a r e s u l t i s not This Court is routinely constrained to allow unique. lower-court d e c i s i o n s t o s t a n d b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a p p e a l have placed before us the proper argument, even b e l i e v e t h o s e d e c i s i o n s t o be e r r o n e o u s . McKinney, 87 So. question p r i o r because "this 3d 502, 509 caselaw but Court has n.7 See, ( A l a . 2011) when e.g., r e f u s i n g to overrule that long recognized t o do so or an 10 Ex parte into caselaw a disinclination a d e q u a t e argument a s k i n g so"). might (calling o v e r r u l e e x i s t i n g caselaw i n the absence of e i t h e r a request we not to specific t h a t we do 1120227 MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e (dissenting). I d i s s e n t f r o m t h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o deny t h e for the w r i t t h a t Donald of c e r t i o r a r i Ray in this petition case, because I Hicks raised a v a l i d conflict conclude between prior d e c i s i o n s and t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s ' d e c i s i o n t h a t m e r i t s this Court's failure to review. pay jurisdictional jurisdiction. trial a The issue i n this filing fee in case the i s whether trial court the is a d e f e c t t h a t d e p r i v e s a c o u r t of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r The Court of C i v i l Appeals concluded court lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n Faye H i c k s d i d n o t pay a filing f e e when she that because filed a the Bona motion f o r c o n t e m p t . The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s d i s m i s s e d Bona F a y e ' s a p p e a l on t h a t b a s i s . H i c k s v. H i c k s , [Ms. 2110408, S e p t e m b e r 14, 2012] In that 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. his certiorari the De-Gas, So. Court Inc. v. of petition Civil Midland to t h i s Appeals' Court, Donald decision Resources, 1 9 8 5 ) , by i m p r o p e r l y e x p a n d i n g 2012). 470 So. argues conflicts 2d 1218 with (Ala. the h o l d i n g i n t h a t case. The C o u r t i n De-Gas s t a t e d t h a t " t h e payment o f t h e f e e s r e q u i r e d by § 12-19-70[, Ala. court-approved v e r i f i e d Code 1975,] statement 11 or the filing of a of s u b s t a n t i a l hardship i s 1120227 a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n for statute of limitations purposes." 470 So. 2d a t 1222 (emphasis added). Donald argues i n h i s p e t i t i o n of Civil De-Gas Appeals a p p l i e d an i n c o r r e c t l y by h o l d i n g that the f a i l u r e expanded h o l d i n g i n t o pay a deprives thet r i a l court of subject-matter doing, the Court of C i v i l f i l i n g fee jurisdiction. I n so A p p e a l s f o l l o w e d a l i n e o f i t s own c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g De-Gas w i t h s i m i l a r v. that the Court breadth. See, e . g . , Odom Odom, 89 So. 3 d 121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , Vann v . Cook, 989 So. 2d 556 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d F a r m e r v . F a r m e r , 842 So. 2d 679 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . Donald a l s o asks t h e C o u r t t o o v e r r u l e o u r d e c i s i o n i n J o h n s o n v . H e t z e l , 100 So. 3d 1056 (Ala. 2012), which followed Appeals' expansion of the holding the Court of Civil i n De-Gas. P r e s i d i n g Judge Thompson d i s s e n t e d b e l o w a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y urged t h i s Court t o reexamine our h o l d i n g i n H e t z e l and " t o c o n s i d e r whether, i n t h i s case, t h e main o p i n i o n a g a i n i m p r o p e r l y e x p a n d s t h e h o l d i n g o f De-Gas t o h o l d t h a t , i n a l l cases, a f a i l u r e t o pay a f i l i n g f e e u n d e r § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] d i v e s t s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t 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 o v e r an action." Hicks, So. 3d a t . Judge Thompson r a i s e d s e v e r a l concerns. First, pointed he 12 out that the valid statute of 1120227 limitations i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t does n o t i m p l i c a t e a t r i a l court's subject-matter that this jurisdiction. S e c o n d , he n o t e d C o u r t i n De-Gas d i d n o t h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l court lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n because t h e plaintiff t o pay t h e f i l i n g action had f a i l e d was b a r r e d fee, only by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . that the T h i r d , he p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e f i l i n g - f e e s t a t u t e , § 12-19-70, A l a . Code 1975, involves court finances court's subject-matter and has n o t h i n g jurisdiction. t o do w i t h a 5 I a g r e e w i t h Judge Thompson's c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g Hetzel, and cases that have, i n my opinion, De-Gas, improperly e x p a n d e d t h e h o l d i n g i n De-Gas. T h i s C o u r t i n De-Gas u s e d t h e filing-fee r e q u i r e m e n t t o d e t e r m i n e whether a case h a d been "commenced" w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s fee as a "jurisdictional p e r i o d and r e f e r r e d t o t h e prerequisite." 6 Thereafter, the F a r m e r , Odom, a n d Vann d e c i s i o n s e x p a n d e d upon t h e h o l d i n g i n J u d g e Thompson, w i t h a d m i r a b l e c o n t r i t i o n , n o t e d t h a t he had v o t e d w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y i n Odom, Vann, a n d F a r m e r b u t t h a t he now b e l i e v e s t h o s e o p i n i o n s t o be i n e r r o r . 5 The De-Gas C o u r t u s e d t h e t e r m " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l " i n t h i s one s e n t e n c e o n l y a n d d i d n o t o t h e r w i s e d i s c u s s t h i s i s s u e i n t e r m s o f 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 . The i s o l a t e d use o f t h e term " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l " here, t h e r e f o r e , a p p e a r s a n o m a l o u s a n d , a t most, d i c t a . 6 13 1120227 De-Gas a n d made t h e f a i l u r e bar t o pay a f i l i n g to subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . appeared t o endorse f e e i n any c a s e a This Court i n Hetzel the expansion of the holding i n De-Gas. B u t s e e E s p i n o z a v. R u d o l p h , 46 So. 3d 403 ( A l a . 2010) ( n o t i n g that f a i l u r e t o pay a f i l i n g jurisdictional fee with counterclaims i s not a d e f e c t a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may make s u c h o r d e r s as r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e p a y m e n t ) . I j o i n Judge Thompson i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h i s Civil Appeals have erroneously C o u r t and t h e C o u r t o f confused subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n and f i l i n g - f e e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n cases a p p l y i n g t h e h o l d i n g i n De-Gas. I u r g e t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e i n a future case. 14

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.