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...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).
Continue Reading...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.
Continue Reading...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.
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...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...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.
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...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...Enter keywords:
