Circuit Court Could Not Reconsider Denied Post-Judgment Motions; Appeal From Later Order Was Untimely
The circuit court lost jurisdiction once it denied an employer’s post-judgment motions under Rules 59 and 60. That denial triggered the 42 days in which the employer had to appeal. The circuit court had no power to reopen, reconsider, and again rule on the employer’s motions. An appeal taken 42 days after that second attempted ruling was dismissed as untimely. Attalla Health Care, Inc. v. Kimble, No. 2061007 (Ala. Civ. App. May 9, 2008).
The circuit court awarded an employee workers’ compensation benefits. The employer challenged this decision by post-judgment motion, filing a “Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 50 and/or Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60.” The circuit court denied these motions on May 24. The next day, the circuit court purported to set aside this order, and scheduled the employer’s motions for a hearing. After that hearing, the circuit court again denied the employer’s motions. This was on June 21; 42 days later, the employer appealed from the June 21 order.
The Court of Civil Appeals, acting on its own motion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. The circuit court lacked authority to reconsider its initial denial of the Rule 59 and 60 motions. Once it denied those motions (on May 24), it lost jurisdiction of the case; the time to appeal then began to run. In the appellate court’s words:
[A] trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b) . . . motion. . . . Similarly, after a trial court denies a Rule 59 post-judgment motion, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case and the aggrieved party’s only remedy is to appeal.
(Quotation omitted).
A timely appeal thus must have come within 42 days of the May 24th denial — that is, by July 5. Because the employer did not appeal until August 2 (which was 42 days after the ineffective second denial), its appeal was late and was consequently dismissed.
(The Court of Civil Appeals made two subsidiary points along the way, which may be of interest. First, the court reminded readers that amended Rule 58(c) — which deems judgments “entered” on the “actual date” on which they are “input” to the State Judicial Information System — applies retroactively. Rule 58(c) was amended effective September 16, 2006, “but has been held to apply retroactively to all cases pending” on that date, “including cases ‘pending’ in an appellate court.”
Second, the court confirmed that “Alabama law allows a party to join a request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) with a request for post-judgment remedy,” such as a new trial, “although it frowns on the practice.” The “denial of a Rule 60(b) motion,” the court reminded us, “is itself appealable.”)