107 So. 3d 212
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Lowery sued Boswell in district court for unlawful detainer and unpaid rent; district court bench trial awarded Lowery possession and $4,000 on November 17, 2010.
- Boswell timely filed a Rule 59(e) postjudgment motion on November 24, 2010, which was denied by operation of law on December 8, 2010.
- Boswell filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court on December 20, 2010; the circuit later entered its own judgment in Lowery’s favor on November 28, 2011.
- Boswell and Lowery each filed Rule 59(e) motions in the circuit court; Boswell’s later motion was untimely and did not toll the appeal period.
- The question is whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain Boswell’s appeal from the district court judgment.
- This court holds that the circuit court’s jurisdiction is lacking because Boswell did not timely file a notice of appeal, rendering the district court judgment and subsequent circuit-court proceedings void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction due to a timely appeal. | Boswell contends the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the district judgment. | Lowery argues Boswell’s notice of appeal was untimely, depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction. | Untimely notice of appeal deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Rule 59(e) motions tolled the appeal period. | Boswell asserts timely Rule 59(e) tolled the appeal deadline. | Lowery contends only a timely Rule 59(e) tolls the period; Boswell’s December 6 motion was untimely. | Only the timely Rule 59(e) motion tolled the period; the later motion did not. |
| Whether the district court judgment’s entry date and Rule 58(e) timing affect appeal deadlines. | Boswell argues the district judgment was entered on November 29, 2010. | Lowery maintains the November 17, 2010 entry determines deadlines under Rule 58 and related rules. | Judgment entry date and timing rules dictate deadlines; the timely notice requirement was not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- MPQ, Inc. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 78 So.3d 391 (Ala.2011) (timeliness and tolling of appeal periods under 35-9A-461(d))
- Ex parte Brown, 83 So.3d 512 (Ala.2011) (rule for computing 7-day appeal period under §6-6-350 and §35-9A-461(d))
- Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711 (Ala.1987) (jurisdictional review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction ex mero motu)
- Williamson v. Fourth Ave. Supermarket, Inc., 12 So.3d 1200 (Ala.2009) (clarifies Rule 59.1 denial timing for postjudgment motions)
- Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766 (Ala.1983) (ex mero motu consideration of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)