History
  • No items yet
midpage
Burgess v. Burgess
2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 174
Ala. Civ. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Wife filed for divorce in 2010; marriage began in 1981; children reached majority before final hearing.
  • July 2011 settlement divided marital property; divorce judgment issued July 29, 2011 incorporating settlement.
  • Judgment awarded wife residence and rental properties, husband remaining real property, and autos.
  • August 11, 2011 husband filed postjudgment Rule 59(e) motion; August 30, 2011 wife filed untimely postjudgment motion.
  • October 24, 2011 amended final judgment denied husband’s motion and granted wife relief; portions were later deemed void for lack of jurisdiction.
  • November 14, 2011 husband sought reconsideration; December 20, 2011 denial; January 12, 2012 notice of appeal filed; this court dismisses portions for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness, with instructions to vacate void parts.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the appeal is timely and court has jurisdiction Husband argues timely postjudgment motion extended appeal deadline Wife asserts her motion was untimely and lacked jurisdiction Appeal limited; untimely postjudgment motion by wife voids pertinent relief; some issues dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the October 24, 2011 order improperly granted new relief Husband contends order complied with pending motion Wife sought relief beyond the scope of timely motion Void portions granting new relief cannot support appeal; must be vacated.
Whether void portions of the order can be reviewed on appeal N/A Void segments cannot support appellate review Void portions dismissed; appeal otherwise limited to timely, proper rulings.

Key Cases Cited

  • Henderson v. Koveleski, 717 So.2d 803 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (allows correction of judgment during pendency of Rule 59(e) motion when relief is contemplated)
  • Marsh v. Marsh, 852 So.2d 161 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (timeliness of postjudgment motions governs jurisdiction to amend)
  • Ex parte Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co., 765 So.2d 649 (Ala.1998) (review of denial of own postjudgment motion follows appeal)
  • Wallace v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 689 So.2d 210 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (jurisdictional matters can be raised sua sponte)
  • J.D.R. v. Etowah Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 86 So.3d 391 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (void portions cannot support appeal)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Burgess v. Burgess
Court Name: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Date Published: Jun 29, 2012
Citation: 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 174
Docket Number: 2110387
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Civ. App.