Preview:

REL: 3/12/10

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
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010

APPEALS

2080527

Sherry Boykin Deal v. Randy H a r r i s o n Deal Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (DR-07-904) THOMAS, J u d g e . On A u g u s t 24, 2007, Randy H a r r i s o n D e a l f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t for a divorce, seeking t o terminate h i s marriage t o Sherry

2080527 Boykin Deal. Sherry answered
1

and

filed

a

counterclaim

a l l e g i n g a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y . On

S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, t h e t r i a l According the

court entered

a

final

d i v o r c e judgment. Randy was awarded the

to the t r i a l marital

c o u r t ' s judgment, residence. relating In to

parties' severed

addition,

trial

court

a l l issues

S h e r r y ' s a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y c l a i m , g r a n t e d Randy's demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l on t h a t c l a i m , and o r d e r e d t h a t S h e r r y ' s and-battery c l a i m be r e s o l v e d i n the c i v i l division assaultof the

Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t . motion,

Sherry f i l e d a t i m e l y postjudgment c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g Randy a

arguing t h a t the t r i a l residence.

the m a r i t a l petition

On November 1 4 , 2008, Randy f i l e d

f o r contempt, a l l e g i n g t h a t S h e r r y had not

complied Sherry On

w i t h t h e f i n a l d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , Randy a l l e g e d , had failed to vacate 18, 2008, motion. the p a r t i e s ' the In trial marital court to

residence. denied

December

Sherry's Sherry's

postjudgment

addition

denying

A c o p y o f S h e r r y ' s answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m does n o t appear i n t h e r e c o r d ; however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u c h a p l e a d i n g was f i l e d .
1

2

2080527 postjudgment motion, the t r i a l and ordered On Sherry t o pay court found Sherry i n contempt
2

Randy's a t t o r n e y ' s

fees.

December 23, that the

2008, Randy f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , trial court had modify i t s contempt order

requesting

b e c a u s e , Randy a l l e g e d , he due to Sherry's failure to

i n c u r r e d a d d i t i o n a l expenses the court order to

comply w i t h The

vacate the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e .

t r i a l court 2009. Randy

denied filed

Randy's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on J a n u a r y 30,

a second p e t i t i o n f o r contempt a l l e g i n g t h a t S h e r r y to occupy the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l residence damaged numerous items and and had that taken

continued she had

deliberately items that

various appear

i n v i o l a t i o n of the the trial court has

court's order. r u l e d on

I t does n o t second

Randy's

contempt appeal

petition. to this

On M a r c h 5, 2009, S h e r r y f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f

court. must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h i s c o u r t has over Sherry's appeal. subject-

F i r s t , we

matter j u r i s d i c t i o n

"Although n e i t h e r p a r t y to t h i s appeal has raised the issue of this court's appellate jurisdiction, we must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r we have

The t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r a l s o f i n e d S h e r r y ' s c o u n s e l f o r a l l e g e d l y a d v i s i n g Sherry to remain i n the p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e d e s p i t e the p r o v i s i o n s of the d i v o r c e judgment.
2

3

2080527 jurisdiction over this appeal, because ' " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are o f such magnitude t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero m o t u . W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . " Gullett 2008). In determining whether we have jurisdiction over an v. Gullett, 12 So. 3d 1211, 1212 (Ala. Civ. App.

a p p e a l , we or her

must e x a m i n e w h e t h e r a p a r t y has of appeal. Rule 4(a)(1),

timely f i l e d his A l a . R. App. P.,

notice

provides: " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d h e r e i n , i n a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h an a p p e a l i s p e r m i t t e d by l a w as o f r i g h t t o t h e supreme c o u r t o r t o a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s , t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e q u i r e d by R u l e 3 s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h i n 42 d a y s (6 weeks) o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r a p p e a l e d from " See a l s o B i c e v. SCI A l a b a m a F u n e r a l Home S e r v s . , 764 1281 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000)("A So. 2d

1280,

n o t i c e o f a p p e a l must be Gamble App.

filed within v. First

42 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t . " ) ; 404 So. 2d 688, 689

A l a b a m a Bank,

(Ala. Civ.

1981)("The to this on

f o r t y - t w o day p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c o u r t begins to run from court's final judgment the is

c o u r t w i t h the c i r c u i t which the circuit

date

entered.").
4

2080527 "However, the time f o r a p p e a l may be e x t e n d e d where a

p a r t y f i l e s a t i m e l y 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 50, 52, 55, o r 59, A l a . R. C i v . P." a party f i l e s days final App. B i c e , 764 So. 2d a t 1281. If 42

a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e p a r t y has

from the d e n i a l of the postjudgment motion t o a p p e a l a judgment. 2006). In the present case, following the e n t r y of the final K e e t o n v. K e e t o n , 959 So. 2d 114 (Ala. Civ.

d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t , Randy f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t Sherry.

against

F o l l o w i n g the d e n i a l of Sherry's postjudgment motion, f o r contempt. Because Randy's

Randy f i l e d a s e c o n d p e t i t i o n

p e t i t i o n s f o r c o n t e m p t were f i l e d a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e t r i a l court's final a divorce separate judgment, and each petition legal for contempt

initiated

independent

proceeding.

"[W]hen a p a r t y f i l e s of the provision of

a contempt a

motion a l l e g i n g a v i o l a t i o n entered final divorce

previously

j u d g m e n t , t h a t c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g i s s e p a r a t e and i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m t h e a c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e d i v o r c e judgment was e n t e r e d and does n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l i t y v. Decker, 984 So. 2d o f the d i v o r c e judgment." 1220 ( A l a . C i v . App. Decker 2007) .

1216,

5

2080527 T h e r e f o r e , n e i t h e r o f Randy's p e t i t i o n s f o r c o n t e m p t a f f e c t e d the f i n a l i t y On of the d i v o r c e judgment. 18, 2008, the trial court denied Sherry's

December

postjudgment she had

m o t i o n , t h u s b e g i n n i n g t h e 42-day p e r i o d i n w h i c h the t r i a l court's f i n a l d i v o r c e judgment.

to appeal

S h e r r y ha d u n t i l judgment. divorce

J a n u a r y 29, 2009, t o a p p e a l t h e f i n a l d i v o r c e final 42-day

However, S h e r r y d i d n o t f i l e an a p p e a l o f t h e until March 5, 2009, outside the

judgment

window t o a p p e a l t h e f i n a l

judgment. her n o t i c e of appeal within motion, we

Because S h e r r y d i d not f i l e

t h e 42-day p e r i o d a f t e r t h e d e n i a l o f h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t we lack jurisdiction to review her appeal.

Therefore,

d i s m i s s her appeal. Bd., 923 So. 2d 319,

See G u n n i s o n - M a c k v. A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s . 321 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005)("Because this

c o u r t cannot a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n over u n t i m e l y f i l e d a p p e a l s , we must dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate

jurisdiction."). Randy's r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s d e n i e d . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

6



Download 2080527.pdf

Alabama Law