205 So. 3d 1219
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Husband and wife separated in 2010 after child’s birth in 2006; child later adopted by paternal grandfather and wife in 2008.
- Wife filed counterclaim in divorce seeking to set aside the probate adoption judgment on fraud-on-the-court grounds.
- Grandparents intervened in the divorce action seeking pendente lite custody and defended the adoption’s validity.
- Circuit court allowed intervention and ultimately found fraud on the probate court; adopted judgment vacated.
- Grandparents appeal challenging circuit court jurisdiction, fraud-on-the-court theory, and the sufficiency of the evidence; wife cross-appeals on the petition’s verification issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Circuit court jurisdiction to set aside adoption | Wife–fraud-on-the-court independent action proper | Grandparents–probate court exclusive collateral attack; circuit court lacked jurisdiction | Circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain the independent action |
| Fraud on the court | Wife proved falsities to invoke probate court jurisdiction for adoption | Fraud was between parties; not the court | Yes, the circuit court could find fraud on the court and set aside the adoption |
| Effect of petition verification (26-10A-16) | Verification defect could void adoption | Verification defect did not deprive probate court of jurisdiction | Failure to verify did not deprive jurisdiction; validity of judgment sustained on other grounds |
| Cross-appeal mootness | Cross-appeal should be considered | Cross-appeal moot | Cross-appeal dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Nicholas, 689 So.2d 101 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (equitable relief under Rule 60(b) framed as independent action)
- Large v. Hayes, 534 So.2d 1101 (Ala.1988) (historical underpinnings of Rule 60(b) and independent actions)
- Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288, 140 So. 351 (1932) (fraud on the court defined and allowed notwithstanding intrinsic fraud)
- EB Invs., L.L.C. v. Atlantis Dev., Inc., 930 So.2d 502 (Ala.2005) (independent action permissible in a court other than that which rendered the judgment)
- Robinson v. Koto, 944 So.2d 965 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (committee comment on Rule 60 independent action procedural limits)
- Swigert v. Swigerb, 553 So.2d 607 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (recognition of independent action routing under Rule 60)
- Holcomb v. Bomar, 392 So.2d 1204 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) (earlier prohibition on circuit court authority to entertain adoption challenges)
- B.W.C. v. A.N.M., 590 So.2d 279 (Ala.Civ.App.1991) (revision of Holcomb in light of independent action jurisdiction)
- M.A.N. v. /.AN., 611 So.2d 1090 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (transfer of adoption proceedings only when juvenile jurisdiction exists)
- McGee v. Bevill, 111 So.3d 132 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (fraud-on-the-court analysis in adoption context)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (fraud-on-the-court public-importance rationale)
- Duncan v. Johnson, 338 So.2d 1243 (Ala.1976) (fraud on the court as a remedy for egregious schemes)
- Ex parte Owen, 860 So.2d 877 (Ala.2003) (residency-waiver context for adoption)
- Hays v. Hays, 946 So.2d 867 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (adoption statutory scheme and limitations)