Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court : Alabama Appellate Watch

Posted on October 30, 2010 by Madeline H. Haikala

Court Reviews Scope of Law of the Case Doctrine

In its second opinion in the Poole v. Prince litigation, the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the law of the case doctrine to determine whether its first opinion in this matter was dispositive of the issue before it in the second appeal. The Court concluded that because the facts on which its first summary judgment opinion was based were different from the facts relevant to the second summary judgment appeal, the law of the case doctrine did not apply. Poole v. Prince, 1090461 (Ala. Oct. 22, 2010)..

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on April 20, 2010 by Nikaa Jordan

Court of Civil Appeals Discusses Rule That Failure to Hold Hearing on Postjudgment Motions Is Reversible Error

In Wicks v. Wicks, released by the Court of Civil Appeals on April 16, 2010, the court discussed the ule that a trial court's failure to hold a hearing on postjudgment motions constitutes reversible error. It held that the harmless error exception to that rule was not applicable where the husband alleged the wife's fraudulent failure to list substantial assets in a divorce settlement agreement.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on April 19, 2010 by Nikaa Jordan

Trial Court's Oral Rendition of Judgment Insufficient to Dispose of Pending Post-Judgment Motion

In Ex parte Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., released by the Supreme Court of Alabama on April 16, 2010, the court issued a writ of mandamus voiding a trial court order that vacated a summary judgment in favor of petitioners. Because the summary judgment order had been pending for more than ninety days, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time it purported to vacate it and the oral rendition that ocurred within the 90 day period was not sufficient.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on February 10, 2010 by Craig N. Rosler

Successive 60(b) Motions Not Allowed

The circuit court denied a plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. The plaintiff then filed a second, “identical” Rule 60(b) motion. The circuit court correctly recognized that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the second motion. Barnes v. Alternative Capital Source, LLC, No. 2081103 (Ala. Civ. App. Jan. 29, 2010).

This concise opinion presents a string of postjudgment filing dates. Its upshot is that successive postjudgment motions under Rule 60(b), by the same party on the same grounds, are not allowed. This is the oft-repeated rule that “motions to reconsider” Rule 60(b) motions are not recognized; so that once a trial court denies a 60(b) plea, it cannot hear a second one by the same party. The circuit court in this case was affirmed for deciding, under Rule 60(b)(4), that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a repeat 60(b) motion.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 60(b), Rule 60(b)(4), motion to reconsider

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Rule 60(b) Used to Review a Costs Award

In Fenison v. Birmingham Spring Service, Inc., [Ms. 2080023, 2080036] (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 6, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals held that a costs award could be challenged in the trial court by way of a Rule 60(b) motion, but ultimately held that the trial court exceeded its discretion by granting relief.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 60(b), costs

Posted on November 10, 2009 by Craig N. Rosler

Action to Enforce Divorce Judgment Required New Filing Fee to Vest Jurisdiction

Six years after the parties were divorced, the wife filed a motion to amend a provision in the divorce judgment that awarded her a part of the husband’s retirement benefits. The Court of Civil Appeals deemed this an independent action to enforce the divorce judgment, which should have been accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Because the wife did not pay that fee, the circuit court never obtained jurisdiction over her action, and the orders it had entered in the case were void. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal and instructed the circuit court to vacate its relevant orders. Montgomery v. Montgomery, No. 2080400 (Ala. Civ. App. Oct. 30, 2009).

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, QDRO, divorce, filing fee, qualified domestic relations order

Posted on September 30, 2009 by Nikaa Jordan

Compensatory Damages Award Cannot Be Remitted Unless the Plaintiff is Given the Option of a New Trial

In Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton et al. v. Beiersdoerfer, No. 1071395, released by the Alabama Supreme Court on September 25, 2009, the court held that a compensatory damages award cannot be remitted unless the plaintiff is given the option of a new trial.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on September 25, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Rule 60(b) Motion May Only Be Granted Where Movant Alleges and Proves a Ground Set Forth in the Rule

In Jefferson County Board of Health v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow Company, Inc., [Ms. 1080847] (Ala. Sept. 11, 2009), the Supreme Court reversed the granting of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The motion in the trial court neither specified which subsection of the rule the motion was made, nor did it explain why relief was justified under the rule. The Supreme Court held that the movant must offer evidence supporting a ground under Rule 60 and, because the movant failed to do so, the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting the motion.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on September 2, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Another Appeal Dismissed For Failure To Comply With Rules For Appeals From Arbitration Awards

Yet another appeal was dismissed for failure to follow the rules for appealing arbitration awards. In Lindsey v. Deep South Properties, LLC, [Ms. 1080701] (Ala. Aug. 21, 2009), Deep South Properties obtain an arbitration award against Lindsey. Deep South filed a copy of the award with the circuit court and moved the court to enter judgment on the award, which it did. Lindsey then filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. However, under Horton Homes, Inc. v. Shaner, 999 So. 2d 462 (Ala. 2008), and now Ala. R. Civ. P. 71B and 71C, Lindsey was required to file a motion to vacate the award in the trial court within 30 days of the entry of the judgment. The motion to vacate in the trial court is a necessary prerequisite to filing an appeal,and the failure to file the motion prior to the appeal required that the appeal be dismissed.

Tags: Arbitration, Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on September 2, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Party Cannot Amend Complaint After Final Judgment Entered

In Ex parte Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., [Ms. 1080366] (Ala. Aug. 21, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the trial court strike an amendment purporting to add new claims and new parties made after final judgment was entered. Once the trial court enters a final judgment, the trial court loses jurisdiction to allow amendments to pleadings: "a trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend a complaint to add new claims or new parties after a final judgment has been entered, unless that 'judgment is first set aside or vacates' pursuant to the state's rules of civil procedure." Slip Op. pp. 9-10, quoting Faith Properties, LLC v. First Commercial Bank, 988 So. 2d 485, 490 (Ala. 2008). Here, there was no post-judgment motion, so the trial court was without jurisdiction to accept any amendments to the pleadings after the judgment was entered.

Tags: Final Judgment, Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Worth Noting

Posted on August 17, 2009 by Craig N. Rosler

Lower Court Could Not Refuse to Tax Appellate Costs

The juvenile court could not refuse to order a losing appellee to pay the costs of appeal: The appellate court had ordered, and the governing rule mandated, that the appellee pay those costs when its original judgment was reversed. The Court of Civil Appeals directed the juvenile court to enter an order taxing the costs of appeal against the losing appellee. M.B. v. S.B., No. 2080464 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 7, 2009).

This custody modification suit was before the Court of Civil Appeals for a second time. In the previous appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals had reversed a custody modification, and taxed the costs of the appeal against the mother, as the losing appellee. When the case returned to the juvenile court, the appellants (the children’s grandparents) moved to recover the costs of appeal, pursuant to the appellate court’s mandate. The juvenile court denied that motion.

Tags: "Rule, 35(a), Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, costs

Posted on July 21, 2009 by Craig N. Rosler

Circuit Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Award Post-Judgment Attorney Fees - Should Have Vacated Void Order Under Rule 60(b)(4)

Well after the deadline had passed for filing post-judgment motions, the circuit court purported to grant a new motion to award the defendant attorney fees. This act was void for want of jurisdiction, and should have been vacated on the plaintiff’s motion. Palisades Collection, LLC v. Delaney, 2070532 (Ala. Civ. App. July 10, 2009).

Tags: ALAA, Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 60(b), Rule 60(b)(4), void

Posted on June 10, 2009 by Nikaa Jordan

Another Appeal Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 59's "Denied By Operation of Law" Language

Eight Mile Auto Sales, Inc. v. Fair, discussed below, is yet another appeal dismissed pursuant to Rule 59’s denied by operation of law language.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on June 10, 2009 by Nikaa Jordan

Trial Court's Failure To Hold Hearing on Post-Trial Motions Was Reversible Error

While a trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on post-trial motions is generally error, it rose to the level of reversible error in Cunningham v. Edwards, No. 2071214, released by the Court of Civil Appeals on June 5, 2009.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on June 5, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Successive Post-Judgment Motions Not Allowed; Court Will Not Review Order Entered In Another Case

After deciding the main issues in a divorce proceeding, the Court of Civil Appeals in Washington v. Washington, [Ms. 2070718] (Ala. Civ. App. May 29, 2009), addressed some interesting appellate issues regarding certain post-judgment orders of the trial court.

First, the court found that a second post-judgment motion filed by the wife was improper, as "successive post-judgment motions by the same party, seeking essentially the same relief, are not allowed." The trial court's entry of a judgment based on the second post-judgment motion was therefore void.

Second, the court refused to hear the husband's appeal of an order in a contempt action between the parties. The contempt order was in a separate action and was issued months after the notice of appeal was filed. Because no notice of appeal had been filed in the separate contempt action, the Court of Civil Appeals could not hear the appeal of that order in conjunction with this case.

Tags: Appellate Jurisdiction, Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on June 5, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Rule 60(b)(5) Motion Cannot Be Used As Substitute For Appeal

In NHS Management, LLC v. Wright, [Ms. 2071129] (May 29, 2006), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's granting of a Rule 60(b)(5) motion for relief from judgment due to an alleged change in the law because the Rule 60(b)(5) motion was being used as a substitute for an appeal.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Trial Court Has Discretion To Accept New Arguments On Rule 59 Motion

In Woodruff v. Woodruff, [Ms. 2070602] (Ala. Civ. App. May 8, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals noted the "well settled" rule that "a trial court has the discretion to consider a new legal argument in a post-judgment motion, but is not required to do so,' and that '[w]e will reverse only if the trial court abuses that discretion." Slip Op. p. 14, quoting Steele v. Rosenfeld, LLC, 936 So. 2d 488, 494 (Ala. 2005). Here, the trial court refused to consider a new argument raised for the first time in a Rule 59 motion, and there was no abuse of discretion.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

On Remand, Trial Court Must Follow Mandate Without Taking Additional Evidence

In Walding v. Walding, [Ms. 2080054] (Ala. Civ. App. May 8, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals noted the rule that "on remand, a trial court must comply strictly with the appellate court's mandate 'without granting a new trial or taking additional evidence.'"

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Trial Court Cannot Amend Judgment After 30 Days

In Capone v. Capone, [Ms. 2080147] (Ala. Civ. App. May 8, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals reversed a trial court's amendment of a judgment made more than 30 days after the judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on March 25, 2009 by Craig N. Rosler

Void Default Judgment Should Have Been Vacated Under Rule 60(b)(4)

Where a defendant was not served with process, a default judgment entered against her was void for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court should have granted her motion to vacate that judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the lower court and ordered the default judgment vacated. Dennis v. Still Waters Residential Ass'n, No. 2071064 (Ala. Civ. App. Mar. 20, 2009).

Tags: 60(b)(4), Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 60(b), service of process

Posted on March 16, 2009 by Nikaa Jordan

Untimely Filing of Notice of Appeal Results in Dismissal in Part

In Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Greenway Enterprises, Inc., released by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals on March 13, the court dismissed the appeal in part for failure to timely file a notice of appeal.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on February 10, 2009 by Ivan B. Cooper

Setting Aside of Default Judgment Affirmed

In Moore v. Welch, [Ms. 2070709] (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 6, 2009), an employee sued his co-employees for willfulness resulting in an on the job injury after he was seriously burned when two fire extinguishers malfunctioned and the flames could not be put out. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's setting aside of a default judgment which was entered. The opinion presents a good discussion of the requirements of Rule 55(c) and the Kirtland factors the courts are to consider in deciding Rule 55(c) motions to set aside defaults.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 55(c), default judgment, workers' compensation

Posted on December 18, 2008 by Nikaa Jordan

Alabama Supreme Court Holds that Exxon is Not Liable For Post-Judgment Interest on Declaratory Judgment Because the Judgment Was Not a Money Judgment

In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State Dep’t. of Conservation and Natural Res., No. 1070716, released December 12, 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a judgment ordering Exxon to compute royalties “according to the leases as interpreted by the jury,” was not a money judgment and therefore not subject to postjudgment interest.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on December 17, 2008 by Nikaa Jordan

Court of Civil Appeals Reverses Trial Court's Setting Aside of a Domesticated Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)

In Cambria v. Worldwide Custom Materials, Inc., No. 2070855, released by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the court reversed the trial court’s order setting aside a domesticated default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on December 9, 2008 by Craig N. Rosler

Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Tolls Appeal Deadline; Redundant Rule 59(e) Motion "Not Allowed"

The Court of Civil Appeals ordered the circuit court to set aside a default judgment. In doing so, the appellate court reviewed two less common points of post-judgment procedure. First, a motion to set aside a default judgment suspends the time for taking an appeal until the motion is ruled upon. Second, once a post-judgment motion is made, successive motions seeking the same relief are not allowed. Thibodeau v. Thibodeau, No. 2070924 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 5, 2008).

Tags: 59(e), Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule, default judgment, set aside default judgment, successive post-judgment motions

Posted on November 14, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Rule 60(b) Motion Is Not A Substitute For An Appeal

In D.L.L. II v. B.J., [Ms. 2070891] (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 7, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. First, the Court reversed the denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion because the Court had previously held that the order was void for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Rule 60(b) motion also sought review of another order of the trial court. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that denial. Because a Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for an appeal, it does not bring the underlying judgment up for review. Rather, the only issues raised on the appeal of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is whether the trial court erred in denying the motion.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on November 11, 2008 by Craig N. Rosler

Recusal-Based 60(b)(6) Motion Late Where Moving Party Obtained Underlying Document Six Years Earlier

A defendant found no relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) where he had obtained the document supporting his plea for relief six years before he filed his motion. Price v. Clayton, Nos. 2070728, 2070755 (Ala. Civ. App. Oct. 31, 2008). The trial court’s denial of the recusal-based 60(b)(6) motion was affirmed.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 60(b), Timeliness, mandamus, recusal

Posted on October 9, 2008 by Madeline H. Haikala

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.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on September 30, 2008 by Craig N. Rosler

"No Bright Line" Determines When Mandamus Will Be Treated As Appeal; Late "Enlargement" of Judgment Was Not "Correction" Under Rule 60(a)

The Court of Civil Appeals treated a petition for mandamus as an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief from a void order. Weaver v. Weaver, No. 2070778 (Ala. Civ. App. Sept. 26, 2008). Moreover, the trial court’s late attempt to substantively revise its earlier judgment was not a clerical “correction” under Rule 60(a) that could be made after the time for ruling on post-judgment motions had expired.

Tags: 60(a), 60(b)(4), Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, clerical errors, divorce

Posted on September 18, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Motion to set aside default judgment may be denied by operation of law where motion is not properly supported

In Carroll v. Williams, [Ms. 1060832], (Ala. Sept. 12, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court held that "[b]ecause Carroll has failed to satisfy his initial burden under Kirtland, we wil not hold the trial court in error for allowing Carroll's motion to set aside the default judgment to be denied by operation of law without having applied the Kirtland analysis." Slip Op. p. 10.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 55, Rule 59.1, default judgment

Posted on August 29, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Claim for double-compensation penalty in workers' compensation is not subject to Rule 59

The Supreme Court answered the question of first impression of whether a claim for the double- compensation penalty of Ala. Code 25-5-8(e) is subject to the time restrictions of Rule 59. The Court held that, because it is a penalty distinct from the underlying judgment, it is not. Therefore, a request for the double-compensation penalty made more than 30 days after the entry of judgment is timely. Ex parte Ruggs, [Ms. 1061379] (Ala. Aug. 22, 2008).

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 59, workers' compensation

Posted on July 9, 2008 by Nikaa Jordan

Court of Civil Appeals Reaffirms that Rule 60(b) Is Not a Substitute for an Appeal

In Hobbs v. Heisey, No. 2070085, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reiterated the appropriate uses of Rule 60(b), noting that it cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal from a final judgment. Continue Reading...

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on July 1, 2008 by Craig N. Rosler

Trial Court Has No Jurisdiction to "Reconsider" Denial of Post-Judgment Motion; Must Hold Hearing on Motion for Remittitur

A circuit court loses jurisdiction after denying a post-judgment motion. The court thus cannot “reconsider” its denial. Moreover, a circuit court errs by not holding a hearing on a motion to reduce a punitive award. Southeast Environmental Infrastructure, L.L.C. v. Rivers, Nos. 1060615, 1060643, 1060876 (Ala. Jun. 27, 2008).

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, hammond, remittitur

Posted on June 25, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Alabama Supreme Court clarifies procedure for appealing decisions of an arbitrator

In Horton Homes, Inc. v. Shaner, Ms. 1061659, 1061741 (Ala. June 20, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court attempted to clarify the procedure for appealing an arbitrator's decision. Specifically, in its Per Curiam opinion, the Court "address[ed] two aspects of that procedure, namely: (1) the time period for filing an appeal of an arbitration award, and (2) the role of the circuit court in reviewing that arbitration award." Slip Op. p. 2-3.

In short, a party has 42 days from the date of receipt of notice to file an appeal of the arbitrator's award in the circuit court. Further, a party challenging an award is required to file a motion to vacate the award, and that motion is subject to the procedures of Ala. R. Civ. P. 59 and 59.1.

Tags: Arbitration, Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Timeliness

Posted on May 28, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Trial court not required to hold hearing on 60(b) motion where no hearing was requested

In Kovakas v. Kovakas, Ms. 2050780, 2060228 (Ala. Civ. App. May 23, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals rejected an argument that the trial court had erred by not holding a hearing on a Rule 60(b) motion because no hearing was requested. "When a party fails to request a hearing, 'to deny his motiin without a hearing [is] not error.' . . . Even when a hearing is requested, a hearing need not be held if the motion for relief 'clearly is without substance and [is] merely an attempt to burden the court with frivolous contentions.'" Slip Op. p. 21 (internal citations omitted).

The court ultimately affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion which was based on newly discovered evidence where there was no reason given as to why the new information could not have been introduced earlier, and the new information would not have changed the result.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Rule 60(b)

Posted on May 6, 2008 by Nikaa Jordan

Rule 59.1 Renders Appeal from Probate Court Untimely

In Morrison v. Phillips, released May 2, 2008, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from a probate court judgment as untimely filed by operation of Rule 59.1. Continue Reading...

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Timeliness

Posted on April 1, 2008 by Nikaa Jordan

Absence of Rule 59 Motion Precludes Trial Court From Amending Judgment

In Pierce v. American General Finance, Inc., released by the Alabama Supreme Court on March 28, the court examined the trial court's ability to amend a previous judgment in the absence of a Rule 59 motion, holding that it was without jurisdiction to do so. Continue Reading...

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court

Posted on February 26, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

A Post-Judgment Motion Which Has Become Moot Is Not Deemed Denied by Rule 59.1; Alternative Grounds for a Rule 59 Motion Are Not Waived if Not Asserted on Appeal

On February 22, 2008, the Supreme Court denied rehearing but issued a modified opinion in the case Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. v. Werner Beiersdoerfer, [Ms. 1060522] (Ala. Feb. 22, 2008) , originally released on December 14, 2007. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that post-judgment motions which have become mooted are not subject to denial by operation of Rule 59.1. The court also concluded, in a matter of first impression, that a party who fails to raise its remittitur arguments on appeal from the grant of a motion for a new trial in its favor does not waive those arguments.

Click here for a link to our earlier coverage of this opinion.

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, post judgment proceedings

Posted on February 4, 2008 by Nikaa Jordan

Motion for Award of Costs and Fees is Not a Post-Judgment Motion Pursuant to Rule 59

In Ford v. Jefferson County and Jefferson County Juvenile Services, No. 2060169 (Ala. Civ. App. February 2, 2008), the court held that a post-trial request for costs and fees is not a post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 59. Therefore, it was not subject to the 30-day time requirement set forth in Rule 59(e). Continue Reading...

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court, Timeliness, attorneys fees, fees and costs, post judgment proceedings

Posted on December 18, 2007 by Nikaa Jordan

A Post-Judgment Motion Which Has Become Moot Is Not Deemed Denied by Rule 59.1; Alternative Grounds for a Rule 59 Motion Are Not Waived if Not Asserted on Appeal

In HIlb, Rogal & Hamilton v. Beirsdoerfer, No. 1060522, released December 14, the Supreme Court held that post-judgment motions which have become mooted are not subject to denial by operation of Rule 59.1. The court also concluded, in a matter of first impression, that a party who fails to raise its remittitur arguments on appeal from the grant of a motion for a new trial in its favor does not waive those arguments. Continue Reading...

Tags: Post-Judgment Proceedings in the Trial Court