130 So. 3d 184
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Bona Faye Hicks appeals a December 15, 2011 contempt/sanctions/specific-performance judgment and the related orders; the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- In 2009, Dennis Hicks and Bona Faye sued Donald Hicks over a boundary dispute; the 2009 trial court order required Donald to relocate a fence to the location of the former fence.
- In 2010, Bona Faye and Dennis filed a contempt/sanctions/specific-performance motion alleging Donald partially complied with the 2009 judgment.
- Dennis died in 2011 during the proceeding; Donald moved to dismiss alleging Dennis’s estate was indispensable; Bona Faye continued prosecution personally.
- Bona Faye moved to alter/amend/vacate in November 2011, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because no filing fee was paid for the contempt motion; the court ordered late payment could cure the defect and later accepted payment; Bona Faye appealed in January 2012.
- The supreme court’s and appellate cases govern whether filing fees must be paid to confer jurisdiction on contempt/enforcement actions; the appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding lack of filing fee rendered the court without jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to unpaid filing fee | Bona Faye argued no fee paid when contempt motion filed, making the action void | Donald argued the fee requirement, and post-hoc cure, uphold jurisdiction | Yes; lack of filing fee at filing deprived jurisdiction; appeal dismissed with instructions to vacate related orders |
Key Cases Cited
- De-Gas, Inc. v. Midland Res., 470 So.2d 1218 (Ala.1985) (filing fee payment is a jurisdictional prerequisite for statute-of-limitations purposes)
- Odom v. Odom, 89 So.3d 121 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (failure to pay docketing fee can render trial court without jurisdiction; appeal dismissed)
- Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (filing fee absence implicates subject-matter jurisdiction; orders void)
- Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So.3d 403 (Ala.2010) (late payment of filing fee may cure jurisdictional defect in some contexts)
- Bernals, Inc. v. Kessler-Greystone, LLC, 70 So.3d 315 (Ala.2011) (standing/jurisdiction principles; subject-matter issues cannot be cured by estoppel)
- Johnson v. Hetzel, 100 So.3d 1056 (Ala.2012) (supreme court on jurisdiction/filing-fee issues; precedent binding)