Burgett v. Porter, 180 So. 3d 20

Background

Parents divorced in 1997; mother later filed in Fayette County (2012) to modify father’s child-support obligation and seek postminority educational support.
Trial in January 2013 produced a modification judgment; father filed postjudgment motion (partly granted) but did not appeal the modification judgment.
In April 2014 father moved under Rule 60(b)(4), arguing the modification judgment was void because mother had not paid the full required docket/filing fee when she filed her complaint.
Fayette Circuit Clerk’s employee testified mother paid a fee at filing (total $209 collected locally; clerk thought SJIS required $302 for modification or $154 was collected as a base), and the clerk’s office charged the fee shown in SJIS and assigned a new case number.
Trial court denied Rule 60(b)(4) motion, reasoning mother paid the fee the clerk requested, parties reasonably relied on clerk, and father delayed his challenge; father appealed.
Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo, concluded the timeliness argument was incorrect (Rule 60(b)(4) may be filed anytime) but affirmed because the evidence showed the fee required by SJIS was paid and the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Burgett (father) Argument	Porter (mother) / Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether failure to pay the statutory docket/filing fee at commencement renders a domestic-relations modification judgment void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Mother failed to pay the statutorily required fee, so court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and judgment is void	Mother paid the fee demanded by the circuit clerk (per SJIS); clerk’s collection conferred jurisdiction; parties reasonably relied on clerk	Court held judgment not void: evidence showed the fee required by SJIS was paid, so court had jurisdiction
Whether father’s Rule 60(b)(4) challenge was untimely	Father waited too long to challenge after judgment entered	Rule 60(b)(4) may be filed at any time; timeliness is not a bar	Court: trial court erred to the extent it relied on untimeliness; Rule 60(b)(4) is not time-barred
Whether estoppel or reliance on clerk can cure a statutory jurisdictional defect	Payment is jurisdictional; estoppel cannot create jurisdiction	Reliance on clerk’s representation and payment of the fee the clerk charged supports jurisdiction	Court accepted reliance/evidence that fee shown in SJIS was paid and therefore jurisdiction existed
Applicability of prior decisions holding unpaid fees void (Johnson, Hicks, Odom, Vann)	Those cases require strict fee payment; thus invalidate judgments where fee unpaid	This case differs because a fee (the SJIS-assigned fee) was paid at filing; prior cases involved no payment	Court distinguished prior cases: here fee shown in SJIS was paid, so prior holdings did not control

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Hetzel, 100 So.3d 1056 (Ala. 2012) (held failure to pay filing fee at commencement deprived court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
De-Gas, Inc. v. Midland Resources, 470 So.2d 1218 (Ala. 1985) (treated fee-payment defect as jurisdictional in statute-of-limitations context)
Hicks v. Hicks, 130 So.3d 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (court lacked jurisdiction where no filing fee was paid at commencement)
Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (failure to pay docketing fees rendered judgment void)
Odom v. Odom, 89 So.3d 121 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (fee payment or approved hardship statement required before court acquires jurisdiction)
Sparks v. Alabama Power Co., 679 So.2d 678 (Ala. 1996) (parties may reasonably rely on information provided by clerk’s office)
Campbell v. Taylor, 159 So.3d 4 (Ala. 2014) (motions to set aside for lack of jurisdiction are properly analyzed under Rule 60(b)(4))