Casey v. Casey, 109 So. 3d 199

This is an appeal by Sean G. Casey from an order purportedly denying his Rule 60(b) relief from a default judgment in postdivorce proceedings with Jonice Dorriety Casey.
The underlying litigation has a history of consolidation among several DR-03-180 actions, including DR-03-180.01, DR-03-180.02, and related contempt and support matters.
A 2009 trial court judgment denied Casey’s Rule 60(b) motion and modified visitation, with additional rulings on mental-health evaluation and drug testing, among other issues.
Casey filed a January 2010 notice of appeal from DR-03-180.02, challenging the 2009 ruling; the court initially concluded some issues were untimely.
The appellate panel later determined the scope of Casey’s timely appeal was limited, and that the challenged September 30, 2009, order was to be treated as void for purposes of the appeal in light of consolidation.
The trial court’s November 30, 2011 order expressly stated it regarded the consolidation as addressing all issues in the consolidated actions, creating a jurisdictional defect that rendered the order void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appealing the Rule 60(b) denial	Casey contends the Rule 60(b) denial was timely appealed.	Wife contends the appeal was untimely and limited in scope by prior rulings.	Portion of appeal deemed untimely; limited scope sustained.
Validity of the September 30, 2009 judgment as a basis for appeal	Casey argues the judgment should be reviewable as entered.	Wife argues the judgment appropriately denied relief and addressed consolidated actions.	Judgment reviewed only to the extent timely; issues outside timely scope are dismissed.
Effect of consolidation on separate judgments and trial court jurisdiction	Casey posits consolidation did not destroy separate judgments or jurisdiction to enter later orders.	Wife contends consolidation merged proceedings and preserved separate entries as needed.	Order void for lack of jurisdiction due to consolidation-related inseparability of actions and timing defects.
Authority to issue a further order in 2011 concerning consolidated actions	Casey maintained the 2011 order had jurisdiction to resolve consolidated issues.	Wife asserts the 2011 action attempted to adjudicate matters beyond the court’s jurisdiction post-certificate of judgment.	Order void; dismissal with instructions to vacate the 2011 order.

Reneke v. Reneke, 920 So.2d 579 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005) (voidability and lack of jurisdiction principles in postjudgment proceedings)
Portis v. Alabama State Tenure Comm’n, 863 So.2d 1125 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008) (merger/consolidation issues impacting appellate jurisdiction)
Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala. 1998) (limits on jurisdiction to entertain successive postjudgment motions)
Green v. Green, 43 So.3d 1242 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009) (timeliness and scope of postjudgment appeals)