Posted on July 23, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Trial Court Erred By Not Setting Aside Default Where Party Missed Hearing Due to Hospitalization

In Stanfield v. Stanfield, Ms. 2061090 (Ala. Civ. App. July 18, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court erred by failing to set aside a default judgment where a party missed a final hearing due to hospitalization.

The default judgment was entered in this divorce proceeding after the husband's counsel withdrew and the husband missed the final hearing.  However, the husband moved to set aside the default on the basis that he missed the hearing due to his hospitalization for observation due to suicidal impulses and threats.  The trial court denied the motion to set aside, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed.  The court noted that cases should be heard on the merits whenever practicable, and this is especially true domestic relations cases.

Also, it is worth noting that the motion to set aside was styled as a Rule 55(c) motion.  The motion was filed 31 days after the entry of default.  This is untimely, as Rule 55 motions must be filed within 30 days.  However, Rule 60(b)(1) allows relief in some instances more than 30 days after the entry.  It is not clear from the opinion when the motion was converted to a Rule 60 motion, or if the court did so sua sponte.  But, the court considered the motion even though it was a Rule 55 motion filed more than 30 days after the entry of default. 
Tags: , , ,
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: ,
Posted on May 13, 2008 by Craig N. Rosler

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.”)
Tags: , , , , , ,