Oct 4, 2013 - 1 In one paragraph of his postjudgment motion, the father quotes a portion of Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
Rel:
10/04/2013
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013
2120531
R.D.J. v. A.P.J. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-101.02 and DR-08-101.03) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . A.P.J.
("the m o t h e r " )
a n d R.D.J.
("the f a t h e r " )
were
d i v o r c e d b y a J u l y 24, 2009, j u d g m e n t o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court
("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) .
Pursuant t o t h e d i v o r c e judgment,
t h e p a r t i e s were a w a r d e d j o i n t
legal
custody of t h e i r
three
2120531 minor
children,
the
mother
was
awarded
primary
c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h e f a t h e r was visitation, In
including overnight
addition,
insurance
the
father
was
visitation ordered
awarded during
to
f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and t o p a y c h i l d
22, 2011, t h e t r i a l
court
liberal
t h e week.
provide
health
s u p p o r t and
h a l f o f any m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s n o t c o v e r e d by h e a l t h On A p r i l
physical
one-
insurance.
granted the mother's
r e q u e s t f o r e n f o r c e m e n t o f , and a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f , t h e d i v o r c e judgment.
In i t s A p r i l
22, 2011, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l
court
m o d i f i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and some o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of the d i v o r c e the t r i a l failure
court to
judgment.
In a d d i t i o n ,
found the f a t h e r i n contempt of c o u r t
pay The
judgment.
child trial
support court
as
ordered
determined the
in
forhis
the
divorce
father's
child-
s u p p o r t a r r e a r a g e and o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r i n c a r c e r a t e d u n t i l he purged himself
o f t h e c o n t e m p t by p a y i n g t h a t a r r e a r a g e .
r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e f o r what l e n g t h o f t i m e , father
was
incarcerated
pursuant
to
that
The
i f any, t h e
April
22,
2011,
contempt f i n d i n g . On A p r i l among o t h e r
19, 2012, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d
t h i n g s , to modify the e a r l i e r
2
a petition
seeking,
j u d g m e n t s t o award
2120531 c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o h i m a n d t o have t h e m o t h e r h e l d i n contempt
f o r her alleged
interference
with
his visitation
rights. Also
on A p r i l
modify
the e a r l i e r
sought
t o modify
attorney fee,
19, 2012, t h e m o t h e r f i l e d judgments.
I n h e r p e t i t i o n , t h e mother
the father's
visitation,
a n d t o have t h e f a t h e r h e l d
continued f a i l u r e
an a w a r d
o f an
i n contempt f o r h i s
t o make p a y m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g
o r d e r e d under t h e p r e v i o u s judgments.
child
support,
The m o t h e r a l s o
a pendente l i t e order suspending t h e f a t h e r ' s the
a petition to
sought
visitation
with
children. Allegations
by t h e p a r t i e s ' daughter t h a t h e r form
sexually
abused
dispute.
I t a l s o a p p e a r s o t h e r abuse a l l e g a t i o n s were made b y
the p a r t i e s ' sons.
o f t h e p a r t i e s ' 2012
A t the time the A p r i l
t o m o d i f y were f i l e d , was
the basis
the f a t h e r had
19, 2012, p e t i t i o n s
t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s
i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e abuse a l l e g a t i o n s .
Given the nature of
the a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e r e c o r d appointed court parties
a guardian
also by
ad l i t e m
consolidated the f i l i n g
f o r the children.
t h e two a c t i o n s of t h e i r
3
separate
s e a l e d and The
initiated April
trial
by t h e
19, 2012,
2120531 p e t i t i o n s t o modify.
The t r i a l
court also entered
a pendente
l i t e order modifying the f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n with the daughter to
daytime hours On
only.
September
4,
motion t o withdraw, the
2012, t h e f a t h e r ' s
stating
as a b a s i s
a t t o r n e y m i g h t be c a l l e d
attorney
filed
f o r that motion
as a c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s
that
f o r the
f a t h e r d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s , w h i c h , a t t h a t was s c h e d u l e d the
trial
withdraw.
f o r S e p t e m b e r 14, 2012.
court
entered
New c o u n s e l
an
order
time,
On S e p t e m b e r 6, 2012,
granting
then f i l e d
a
the motion
to
a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on
behalf of the father. Also
on
September
4,
2012,
the
parties
and
their
a t t o r n e y s s i g n e d an a g r e e m e n t ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e memorandum a g r e e m e n t " ) c o n c e r n i n g visitation
with
the
the f a t h e r ' s pendente
children.
The
September
memorandum a g r e e m e n t i s d a t e s t a m p e d as h a v i n g
4,
lite
2012,
been f i l e d i n
open c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 4, 2012, a n d t h a t memorandum a g r e e m e n t contains the n o t a t i o n : on
the case-action
that
the t r i a l
was
" T r i a l d a t e 11/14/2012."
summary d a t e d scheduled
S e p t e m b e r 6,
A notation 2012, s t a t e s
f o r November 14, 2012.
S e p t e m b e r 25, 2012, t h e t r i a l
court
4
entered
a written
On order
2120531 i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e t e r m s o f t h e memorandum a g r e e m e n t , and order the
specifically merits
was
included
a statement that
scheduled
memorandum a g r e e m e n t was
for
November
the
14,
that
hearing 2012.
a l s o f i l e d i n the t r i a l - c o u r t
on The
clerk's
o f f i c e and e n t e r e d on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary on S e p t e m b e r
25,
2012. On
November 5,
2012,
the mother again
f a t h e r h e l d i n contempt f o r h i s c o n t i n u e d support
and
for
failing
support arrearage.
The
court entered
f a i l u r e t o pay
t o make p a y m e n t s t o w a r d t h e mother r e q u e s t e d
i n c a r c e r a t e d as a s a n c t i o n the t r i a l
moved t o have
f o r the
an o r d e r
t h a t the
contempt.
scheduling
On
the
scheduled hearing
modification It
on
the
be
November
8,
merits
t h a t the mother, her
that
the
father
did
November
14,
2012,
the
father "of
2012,
of the
the
parties'
petitions.
i s undisputed
withdraw,
child-
i t s consideration
attorney,
f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y a p p e a r e d f o r t h e November 14, but
child
father
o f t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t f o r November 14, date of
the
stating
in
not
that
attend
that
father's
new
motion
that
hearing. attorney he
had
the matters c u r r e n t l y pending b e f o r e
5
2012,
and
the
hearing Also
on
moved
to
advised this
the
court."
2120531 The t r i a l
court granted
h e a r i n g began. contained
t h a t motion
t o withdraw before
the
A t r a n s c r i p t of the ore tenus h e a r i n g i s not
i n t h e r e c o r d on
appeal.
On November 15, 2012, t h e t r i a l
c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment
i n w h i c h i t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d e n i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n to
modify,
awarded
the mother
sole
legal
custody
of the
p a r t i e s ' t h r e e c h i l d r e n , and m o d i f i e d t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n with the c h i l d r e n . the
guardian
mother. willful
ad
The t r i a l litem's
c o u r t ordered the f a t h e r t o pay
f e e and
I n a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l
an
attorney
court
found
fee f o r the the father i n
contempt f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t ,
and i t
issued a w r i t of a r r e s t f o r the father. On November 20, 2012, t h e t r i a l
court entered
an
order
g r a n t i n g an o r a l m o t i o n b y t h e f a t h e r t o w i t h d r a w o r s e t a s i d e the
writ
of a r r e s t .
The
mother
represents
i n her
brief
submitted
t o t h i s c o u r t t h a t b y November 20, 2012, t h e f a t h e r
had
the child-support arrearage
paid
on w h i c h
t h e contempt
f i n d i n g s u p p o r t i n g t h e w r i t o f a r r e s t had been based. On December 14, 2012, t h e f a t h e r , a g a i n the
attorney
who
character witness
had
p r e v i o u s l y withdrawn
represented to
serve
as
by a
f o r the f a t h e r , f i l e d a postjudgment motion
6
2120531 p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.
1
I n t h a t December 14,
2012, m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s o u g h t t o s e t a s i d e t h e t r i a l November various
15, 2012, d e f a u l t arguments
court
hearing filed
2
The f a t h e r
asserted
i n t h a t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , b u t he d i d n o t
submit any s u p p o r t i n g trial
judgment.
court's
evidence i n support of that motion.
The
scheduled the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion f o r a
on J a n u a r y 30, 2 0 1 3 .
an o p p o s i t i o n
I n J a n u a r y 2013, t h e mother
t o t h e f a t h e r ' s postjudgment
motion.
I n one p a r a g r a p h o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r q u o t e s a p o r t i o n o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, i n t h a t December 14, 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r made no a r g u m e n t p e r t a i n i n g t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) a n d d i d n o t s e e k r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o t h a t r u l e . The s u b s t a n c e o f a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n g o v e r n s t h e manner i n w h i c h i t i s c o n s t r u e d . Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 684 So. 2d 1 2 8 1 , 1282 ( A l a . 1996) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e f a t h e r ' s December 14, 2012, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i s c o n f i n e d t o s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e November 15, 2012, j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1
We a g r e e w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e November 15, 2012, j u d g m e n t a s one e n t e r e d b y d e f a u l t . " W h i l e a f a i l u r e t o answer a c o m p l a i n t i s a common b a s i s f o r t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t , a d e f a u l t may be e n t e r e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , i n c l u d i n g ... a f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r a t t r i a l . " Sumlin v. S u m l i n , 931 So. 2d 40, 46 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a l s o R u l e 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("[J]udgment b y d e f a u l t may be e n t e r e d b y t h e c o u r t on t h e d a y t h e c a s e i s s e t f o r t r i a l w i t h o u t [ t h e ] t h r e e (3) d a y s n o t i c e " r e q u i r e d when a p a r t y h a s n o t f i l e d an a p p e a r a n c e i n t h e a c t i o n . ) . 2
7
2120531 On F e b r u a r y 1, 2013, a f t e r t h e t r i a l the a
c o u r t had conducted
J a n u a r y 30, 2013, p o s t j u d g m e n t h e a r i n g , t h e f a t h e r supplement
that
t o h i s postjudgment
t h e copy
motion
o f t h e memorandum
i n which
agreement
filed
he a r g u e d
located
by h i s
attorney d i d not contain a notation concerning the scheduled trial by
date.
alleging
The m o t h e r that
responded t o t h a t supplemental f i l i n g
her
copy
of
t h e memorandum
agreement
c o n t a i n e d t h e n o t a t i o n s c h e d u l i n g t h e h e a r i n g f o r November 14, 2013;
t h e mother
also
alleged
that
during
r e s u l t e d i n t h e memorandum a g r e e m e n t , scheduled
after
the parties
the meeting
the t r i a l
had c o n s u l t e d
that
d a t e had been
with
the court's
staff. On
February
postjudgment
6,
order
2013, stating
the
trial
that
court
i t had
entered
considered
a
the
arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and the
mother's o p p o s i t i o n t o t h a t motion, t h e f a t h e r ' s F e b r u a r y
1,
2013, s u p p l e m e n t
official 193."
electronic
t o h i s postjudgment file
motion,
on A l a C o u r t P l u s ,
and " t h e
especially
page
I n i t s F e b r u a r y 6, 2013, p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r , t h e t r i a l
court denied the f a t h e r ' s postjudgment motion seeking t o s e t a s i d e t h e November 15, 2013, d e f a u l t
8
judgment.
2120531 On
March
"motion
11, 2013, t h e f a t h e r
to reconsider
judgment."
In that
extensive
argument
considering
among o t h e r court
[the father's] motion,
lacks
set forth
motion."
h i s own a f f i d a v i t .
jurisdiction
court's
by not
judgment.
In
to
However, " [ a ] t r i a l
entertain
a
successive
t h e same o r s i m i l a r
denial
r e l i e f as
reconsideration
of the o r i g i n a l
postjudgment
G r e e n v. G r e e n , 43 So. 3d 1242, 1244 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2009); see a l s o 627
relevant f o r
a default
the o r i g i n a l postjudgment motion o r r e q u e s t i n g the t r i a l
a more
11, 2013, m o t i o n , t h e f a t h e r s u b m i t t e d ,
postjudgment motion requesting
of
titled
to s e t aside
to the factors
a request to set aside
things,
a motion
motion
the father
pertaining
s u p p o r t o f h i s March
filed
Gold K i s t ,
I n c . v. G r i f f i n ,
659 So. 2d 626,
( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) ( " S u c c e s s i v e p o s t - j u d g m e n t t h e same p a r t y , allowed.").
seeking
Thus,
over t h i s matter a f t e r aside
the default
2013,
successive
essentially
the t r i a l
motions
t h e same r e l i e f , a r e
court had l o s t
jurisdiction
i t denied the f a t h e r ' s motion t o s e t
judgment.
We n o t e t h a t
postjudgment
a l t e r n a t i v e t o h i s arguments
motion,
i n h i s March 11,
the
father,
under Rule 5 5 ( c ) , a l s o
to seek r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o Rule 60(b),
9
as
an
purported
A l a . R. C i v . P.
Even
2120531 assuming t h a t the f a t h e r p r o p e r l y requested 60(b),
see
2010),
the
March
11,
Ex
parte
possible 2013,
Haynes ,
pendency
motion
n o n f i n a l so
as
court.
Rule
Ala.
subdivision
60(b), does
not
of
does
rulings
58
that
not
R.
Civ.
affect
the
judgment t h a t w i l l
761,
part
765-66
of
the
the
review
on
P.
motion
("A
finality
Therefore,
o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s December 14,
3d
render
to prevent
suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . " ) .
final
So.
r e l i e f under Rule
2012,
the
(Ala.
father's
trial
court's
a p p e a l by
of
a
this
under
this
judgment
February
6,
or
2013,
postjudgment motion i s a
s u p p o r t an
appeal,
and
the
father's
appeal i s timely. The in
denying h i s motion seeking
2012, in v.
f a t h e r c o n t e n d s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l
d e f a u l t judgment.
trial
the
Bailey, 909
determining
950
So.
So.
2d
2d
200,
c o u r t has b r o a d
practicable.
should
be
1152
202
whether to grant
a d e f a u l t judgment, the action
1149,
(Ala.
(Ala.
Civ.
Zeller
Rudolph
v.
2005) .
In
o r t o deny a m o t i o n t o s e t
trial
court
resolved
on
must f i r s t the
aside
presume
merits
that
whenever
J o n e s v. Hydro-Wave o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 524
10
15,
discretion
2006); App.
erred
November
r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t .
Philyaw,
the
The
to set aside
court
So.
2d
2120531 610,
613
against
(Ala. the
K i r t l a n d v. 600,
604
1988).
That
presumption
p o l i c y i n t e r e s t of F o r t Morgan A u t h .
(Ala.
1988).
Our
must
promoting
Sewer S e r v . , supreme
be
balanced
judicial
economy.
Inc.,
court
has
524
So.
2d
established
g u i d e l i n e s t o be f o l l o w e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining to set aside
w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r t o deny a m o t i o n
a d e f a u l t judgment:
"[A] t r i a l court's broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y u n d e r R u l e 5 5 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] s h o u l d n o t be e x e r c i s e d without c o n s i d e r i n g the f o l l o w i n g three f a c t o r s : 1) w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t has a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e ; 2) w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d i f t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t i s s e t a s i d e ; and 3) w h e t h e r t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s own c u l p a b l e c o n d u c t . " K i r t l a n d v. F o r t Morgan A u t h . Sewer S e r v . , I n c . , 524 605.
See
also T r i p l e D Trucking,
2d 869,
and
t h e b u r d e n o f t h e movant w i t h r e g a r d
On each
of
2d
I n c . v. T r i S a n d s , I n c . ,
So.
Kirtland
872-73
So.
( A l a . C i v . App.
2002)
( d i s c u s s i n g the to each of the
at 840 law
three
factors). appeal, the
the
three
father Kirtland
asserts
arguments
factors.
3
The
pertaining trial
to
court's
We n o t e t h a t , i n s u p p o r t o f h i s argument on a p p e a l , t h e f a t h e r c i t e s as s u p p o r t i n g f a c t s e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e a f f i d a v i t and o t h e r documents t h a t were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n his impermissible successive postjudgment motion that was 3
11
2120531 February
6, 2013, o r d e r
considered
the
expressly
arguments
of
s t a t e s t h a t the c o u r t had the
parties
during
p o s t j u d g m e n t h e a r i n g a n d a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' f i l i n g s made its
ruling.
The
trial
court
also
stated
considered
"the o f f i c i a l
electronic file
especially
page
Page
193."
193
memorandum a g r e e m e n t t h a t c o n t a i n s
of
that
record
the notation
11/14/2012" a n d i s d a t e s t a m p e d as h a v i n g
before i t had
on A l a C o u r t
that
c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 4, 2012, a n d as h a v i n g
Plus, i s the
"Trial
been f i l e d been f i l e d
the
date
i n open i n the
t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2012. We c o n c l u d e that
that
finding
i n d i c a t e s that the t r i a l
the t h i r d K i r t l a n d f a c t o r ,
court
considered
i . e . , the c u l p a b l e conduct of the
f a t h e r , and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h a t K i r t l a n d f a c t o r against
the
regarding trial
However,
the p r o p r i e t y
court's
considered
father.
of that
j u d g m e n t does
the other
we
make
no
determination
determination
not demonstrate
because the
that
the court
two f a c t o r s u n d e r K i r t l a n d .
submitted t o the t r i a l c o u r t a f t e r i t had entered i t s February 6, 2013, p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r a n d h a d l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r this matter. Accordingly, t h a t e v i d e n c e h a s n o t been c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s c o u r t . 12
2120531 Although the
the t r i a l
arguments
before
court
of the p a r t i e s
i t s ruling,
the t r i a l
does n o t e x p l i c i t l y Specifically,
that
stated that
i t had
and a l l o f t h e i r
considered
filings
c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 6, 2013, o r d e r
r e f e r e n c e t h e o t h e r two K i r t l a n d order
made
contains
no
determination
factors. as t o
w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r h a d a m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e o r as t o w h e t h e r there
w o u l d be p r e j u d i c e t o t h e m o t h e r
and c h i l d r e n
i f the
November 15, 2012, j u d g m e n t was s e t a s i d e a n d t h e m o t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o a g a i n p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e on t h e m e r i t s . Westmoreland,
I n W h i t e v.
680 So. 2d 348, 349 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , t h i s
c o u r t h e l d t h a t when t h e r e c o r d does n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d each o f t h e t h r e e K i r t l a n d f a c t o r s , t h e judgment
must be r e v e r s e d
determination. (Ala.
a n d t h e c a u s e remanded
See a l s o J e n k i n s v . Moss,
f o r such a
66 So. 3d 803, 807
C i v . App. 2011) ( r e v e r s i n g a n d r e m a n d i n g f o r t h e t r i a l
c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r a p p l y i n g K i r t l a n d when i t a p p e a r e d t h e trial
court
had c o n s i d e r e d
only
one o f t h e t h r e e
Kirtland
factors). Accordingly,
we
reverse
the t r i a l
court's
2013, o r d e r a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e t r i a l
F e b r u a r y 6,
court to enter
an o r d e r c o n t a i n i n g f i n d i n g s p e r t a i n i n g t o a l l t h r e e
13
Kirtland
2120531 factors.
This
4
construed default Kirtland
to
mean t h a t
judgment,
only
holding, the
trial
that
the
however, court
trial
" i s not
must court
set
to
be
aside
the
must a p p l y
the
f a c t o r s i n d e c i d i n g whether to s e t a s i d e the d e f a u l t
judgment." The
court's
W h i t e v. W e s t m o r e l a n d , 680
appellee's
request
f o r an
So.
attorney
2d a t f e e on
349. appeal
is
denied. REVERSED AND Pittman,
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Thomas, Moore, and
Donaldson, J J . , concur.
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e f a t h e r a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have a f f o r d e d him r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , we c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h an argument i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s court. Even a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r p r o p e r l y s o u g h t r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60(b) i n h i s M a r c h 11, 2013, m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has n o t r u l e d on t h a t r e q u e s t . Therefore, there i s no a d v e r s e r u l i n g on t h e p u r p o r t e d R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , and t h i s c o u r t t h e r e f o r e does n o t a d d r e s s t h e f a t h e r ' s a r g u m e n t s b a s e d on R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e R.S.C., 853 So. 2d 228, 233-34 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ("A R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n does n o t b r i n g up f o r r e v i e w t h e m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g j u d g m e n t and i s i n s t e a d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on t h e j u d g m e n t . I t does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . " ) ; and Rhodes v. Rhodes, 38 So. 3d 54, 63 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( " [ B ] e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t has n o t yet e x p r e s s l y r u l e d on t h e h u s b a n d ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , i t i s s t i l l p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e r e has b e e n no f i n a l o r d e r on t h a t m o t i o n f r o m w h i c h t o a p p e a l . " ) . 4
14
