379 So.2d 590 (Ala. 1980), 78-707, Hill v. Cherry

• Date: 11 January 1980
• Citation: 379 So.2d 590
• Docket Number: 78-707.
• Parties: Cora HILL et al. v. Laura Lee CHERRY et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 590

379 So.2d 590 (Ala. 1980)

Cora HILL et al.

v.

Laura Lee CHERRY et al.

78-707.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 11, 1980

Page 591

F. Michael Ford of Ford, McElvy & Ford, Tuscaloosa, for appellants.

Demetrius C. Newton of Newton & Tucker, Birmingham, for appellees.

EMBRY, Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 59(a), ARCP, motion for new trial of defendants, Cora Hill, Bessie Hill and Mary Julia Hill, in an action for equitable partition of real property among joint owners in which there was a settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment. We affirm.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying defendants' Rule 59(a) motion for new trial?

Facts

Plaintiffs, Laura Lee Cherry and Jennie Hill, filed a bill for partition of real property. Defendants Cora Hill, Bessie Hill and Mary Julia Hill, filed an answer denying the necessity or the desirability of partitioning the property and alleging that Jennie Hill was mentally incompetent.

On the day set for trial, with all parties present together with their respective attorneys, a settlement agreement was reached. The trial court asked the parties if they understood that the agreement would be final and part of the court's decree. The parties did not respond, but their respective attorneys answered in the affirmative. Whereupon, defendants' attorney dictated the agreement into the record and later drafted the final judgment incorporating it. It is that judgment which defendants seek to set aside.

Defendants soon became dissatisfied and filed their 59(a) motion for new trial founded on these bases: (1) they did not understand or appreciate the legal ramifications of the agreement; (2) the agreement as stated in the decree works a hardship on them as well as an inequitable distribution of the property in question; and (3) they did not know and were not informed that the settlement agreement would be a final and conclusive settlement of the case.

Decision

Defendants contend that Rule 60(b), ARCP, required the trial court to set aside the final judgment and order a new trial because: (1) they were not familiar with legal terminology and thus did not understand the agreement dictated into the record; (2) the agreement dictated was not what they had agreed to; (3) their attorney entered into the agreement when it was contrary to what they had agreed to; and (4) they did not know the hearing they attended was to be a...