244 So. 3d 987
Ala. Civ. App.2017Background
- Stepfather filed to adopt child (born Apr 2015); mother consented; probate court entered interlocutory custody and set final hearing.
- Putative father R.W.S. was identified; he filed an objection and contested the adoption; ore tenus hearing held Jan 13, 2017 (no transcript in record).
- Probate court entered final adoption judgment Jan 23, 2017, finding R.W.S. a "putative father" and denying his contest.
- R.W.S. filed a timely postjudgment motion Feb 3, 2017 (denied by operation of law 14 days later); he filed an amended postjudgment motion Feb 14, 2017 raising new theories (presumed father; Rule 59(e)).
- Probate court denied the amended motion; R.W.S. appealed. The appellate court consolidated two appeals and affirmed both judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.W.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Stepfather/Probate Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb 3, 2017 postjudgment motion was timely and whether denial by operation of law was handled correctly | Feb 3 motion was timely; court wrongly concluded it had already been denied before Feb 17 | Motion was timely; probate court failed to rule within 14 days so it was denied by operation of law on Feb 17 | Ruling: Feb 3 motion was timely; it was denied by operation of law when no ruling issued within 14 days; R.W.S.’s appeal was timely. |
| Whether the Feb 14, 2017 amended motion was properly treated as Rule 60(b) or Rule 59(e) and whether denial was erroneous | Argued the amended motion sought Rule 60(b) relief; court erred denying Rule 60(b) relief | Amended motion’s substance sought only Rule 59(e) relief; no proper Rule 60(b) grounds were presented | Ruling: The amended motion was properly treated as a Rule 59(e) postjudgment motion; denial of any asserted Rule 60(b) relief affirmed for lack of argument/support. |
| Whether R.W.S. (putative/presumed father) had to consent (express or implied) and whether probate court erred by not finding implied consent | R.W.S. contends record lacks finding that he did not consent and argues he should be treated as a presumed father entitled to consent protections and a new trial | Probate court found him a putative father; he did not timely register on the Putative Father Registry as required, so his consent was not required under §26-10A-7(a)(5) | Ruling: As a putative father who did not register, his consent was not required; court did not err in declining to find implied consent. |
| Whether denial of amended motion and refusal to hold a postjudgment hearing violated due process / required new trial | R.W.S. argued he was denied opportunity to litigate presumed-father claim and obtain a new trial or hearing on new evidence | Probate court had discretion to refuse belated new-theory and new-evidence claims; denial of hearing was harmless where motions lacked probable merit | Ruling: No due-process violation; probate court did not abuse discretion in denying belated relief or in not holding an evidentiary postjudgment hearing (error, if any, was harmless). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So.2d 1008 (Ala. 2008) (postjudgment motion timing in probate adoptions; 14-day rule)
- Ex parte W.L.K., 175 So.3d 652 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (denial by operation of law when court fails to rule within 14 days)
- Ex parte S.C.W., 826 So.2d 844 (Ala. 2001) (prior treatment of putative fathers before statutory amendment)
- Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Culverhouse, 149 So.3d 1072 (Ala. 2014) (trial court discretion to consider new legal arguments in postjudgment motions)
- Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So.2d 1082 (Ala. 1993) (failure to hold Rule 59 hearing may be harmless error depending on merits)
- Quick v. Burton, 960 So.2d 678 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (presumption that untranscribed ore tenus testimony supports trial court's judgment)