McWhorter v. Parsons, 215 So. 3d 577

Background

District Court (Elmore) entered judgment for McWhorter in an unlawful-detainer action on Sept. 2, 2014, certified as final and set an appeal bond (initially $4,760, later reduced to $680).
Parsons filed a motion in district court to reduce the appeal bond; the court treated it as a Rule 59 motion and reduced the bond on Sept. 9, 2014.
Parsons filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court on Sept. 10, 2014 (eight days after the Sept. 2 judgment).
Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing and entered judgment for Parsons on Apr. 14, 2015; McWhorter filed a postjudgment motion and appealed to this court (appeal later dismissed as untimely).
This court determined Parsons’s district-to-circuit appeal was untimely under Ala. Code §35-9A-461(d) (which defines the appeal period in days and overrides Rule 6), held the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and reversed the circuit court’s denial of McWhorter’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion, ordering the circuit court to vacate its judgments and dismiss Parsons’s appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McWhorter)	Defendant's Argument (Parsons)	Held
Was Parsons’s notice of appeal from district to circuit timely under §35-9A-461(d)?	Notice was untimely (filed Sept. 10, eight days after Sept. 2); appeal period is seven days.	She timely appealed because the district court’s postjudgment motion tolled the period / Rule 6 extended the deadline to Sept. 11.	Held: Untimely. The appeal period is seven calendar days under the Act; her notice did not comply.
Did Parsons’s motion to reduce the appeal bond toll the 7-day appeal period?	Tolling did not occur because the bond-reduction motion is not a qualifying postjudgment motion under the Act/Rule 4(a)(3).	The bond-reduction motion was a Rule 59 postjudgment motion and should have suspended the appeal clock.	Held: Motion did not toll the statutory 7-day period; it did not render the appeal timely.
Does Rule 6 Ala. R. Civ. P. extend the statutory "day" computation for appeals under the Act?	Rule 6 does not apply; the Act defines "day" as calendar day and overrides Rule 6.	Circuit court relied on Rule 6 to allow filing through Sept. 11.	Held: Rule 6 is displaced by the Act’s statutory definition; Rule 6 cannot extend the seven-day period.
Is mandamus appropriate to review denial of Rule 60(b)(4) or should the denial be appealed?	Sought mandamus to vacate circuit judgments as void for lack of jurisdiction.	Circuit court denied relief; parties contested procedure.	Held: Denial of Rule 60(b) is normally reviewable by appeal, but the court treated McWhorter’s filing as an appeal and reached merits; relief granted on merits (vacatur and dismissal).

Key Cases Cited

Thomas v. Merritt, 167 So.3d 283 (Ala. 2013) (appellate courts may notice jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
Boswell v. Lowery, 107 So.3d 212 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (untimely appeal deprives trial court of jurisdiction)
MPQ, Inc. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 78 So.3d 391 (Ala. 2011) (appeal-timeliness jurisdictional rule)
K.C.G. v. S.J.R., 46 So.3d 499 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (judgment void where trial court lacked jurisdiction due to untimely appeal)
Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497 (Ala. 1995) (standards for issuing mandamus)
Image Auto, Inc. v. Mike Kelley Enters., Inc., 823 So.2d 655 (Ala. 2001) (denial of Rule 60(b) is reviewable on appeal)
Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018 (Ala. 1998) (postjudgment relief reviewable by appeal)
Ex parte Burch, 730 So.2d 143 (Ala. 1999) (no bright-line rule distinguishing mandamus from appeal filings)
Wix Corp. v. Davis, 945 So.2d 1040 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (treating filings as appeals to advance appellate policy)
Jones v. DeRamus, 199 So.3d 74 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (statutory definition of "day" in landlord-tenant statute overrides Rule 6)