Evidence Must Show that Trial Court Ruling Injuriously Affected Substantial Rights
In Van Voorst v. Federal Express Corp., No. 105077 (Ala. October 3, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court refused to reverse a trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion without a hearing because the plaintiff did not present evidence that established that her substantial rights were injuriously affected.
The trial court did not comply with ARCP 59 when it denied the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion without conducting a hearing. Rule 59(g) states that a post-judgment motion “shall not be ruled upon until the parties have had opportunity to be heard.” Nevertheless, under ARAP 45, the error was harmless unless “it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.” Because the plaintiff did not present “evidence that shows that her substantial rights were injuriously affected by the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on her motion to vacate,” the “failure of the trial court to hold a hearing was harmless error.”
