141 So. 3d 507
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff (Castaneda, later substituted by Frank Kruse as personal representative of David Velez’s estate) sued Dreding for wrongful death alleging negligence and wantonness; jury returned verdict for plaintiff and $5,000,000 damages; judgment entered Jan. 31, 2011.
- Dreding filed postjudgment motions: a motion to appeal, a Rule 59 motion (Feb. 17, 2011), which was denied May 5, 2011; he appealed but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for failure to file the record timely.
- Dreding filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion on Jan. 12, 2012 (challenging the original judgment as void); trial court denied it; Dreding appealed and this court affirmed by no-opinion order (certificate of judgment Aug. 23, 2012).
- Dreding filed a second Rule 60(b)(4) motion on Oct. 15, 2012, repeating the same arguments (standing of Castaneda and improper substitution of Kruse); the trial court denied it Jan. 15, 2013.
- Dreding appealed the denial; this court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because successive Rule 60(b) motions raising the same grounds are not permitted and a trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could entertain Dreding’s second Rule 60(b)(4) motion | The original judgment is void because Castaneda lacked standing and substitution of Kruse was improper; relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is proper | The motion reasserts previously rejected grounds and thus is a successive Rule 60(b) motion not authorized | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the second Rule 60(b)(4) motion and dismissed the appeal |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(4) relief is available where same grounds were urged in prior Rule 59/60(b) filings | Relief is available because of alleged voidness of judgment | Prior motions already raised the same claims; Alabama precedent bars reconsideration | Court applied precedent barring successive Rule 60(b) motions raising identical grounds |
| Whether an order denying a successive Rule 60(b) motion supports appeal | N/A (implicit: Dreding sought review) | Such orders are nullities if trial court lacked jurisdiction and thus cannot support appeal | Court held the denial was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction and appeal must be dismissed |
| Whether law-of-the-case bars relitigation of standing and jurisdiction issues | Dreding attempted to relitigate standing and substitution issues | These issues were already decided in prior postjudgment proceedings | Court noted law-of-the-case would bar relitigation even if jurisdiction existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Cowart, 68 So.3d 802 (Ala. 2011) (limits on Rule 60(b) relief where grounds previously asserted)
- McIntyre v. Satch Realty, Inc., 961 So.2d 185 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (procedural limits on successive postjudgment relief)
- Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala. 1998) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain successive Rule 60(b) motions seeking reconsideration)
- Wadsworth v. Market Ins. Co., 906 So.2d 179 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (successive Rule 60(b) motions on same grounds are improper)
- Williams v. Williams, 70 So.3d 332 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (successive Rule 60(b) motions treated as motions to reconsider and not authorized)
- Pinkerton Sec. & Investigations Servs., Inc. v. Chamblee, 934 So.2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (orders resolving jurisdictionally unauthorized successive Rule 60(b) motions are nullities)