Preview:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010

2080693


M.H. and D.H.

v.

Jer. W. and Jes. W.


Appeal from Limestone Juvenile Court
(JU-07-322.01)

On Application for Rehearing

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

The opinion of January 15, 2010, is withdrawn, and the

following is substituted therefor.

M.H. and D.H. ("the maternal grandparents") appeal from
a judgment of the Limestone Juvenile Court modifying custody
of T.W. ("the child").  In the modification judgment, the
juvenile court found the child to be dependent while in the
custody of the maternal grandparents, and the maternal
grandparents' custody was terminated.  

In the maternal grandparents' application for rehearing,
they contend that their due-process rights were violated to
such an extent as to render the trial court's judgment void.
Specifically, they argue that they had no notice on the issue
of dependency.  We note that, in their postjudgment motion,
the maternal grandparents argued that they were not provided
notice that dependency was to be an issue in what they
believed was a custody-modification case and that, therefore,
they had not been prepared to litigate that issue.

"As a nullity, a void judgment has no effect and is
subject to attack at any time."  Ex parte Full Circle
Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638, 643 (Ala. 2003).  A void
judgment will not support an appeal, Hayes v. Hayes, 16 So. 3d
117, 120 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009); thus, if the maternal
grandparents are correct, this court does not have subject

Download 2080693.pdf

Alabama Law