Ala. Dep. of Human Res. v. Ideal Truck Ser.

Decision Date23 March 2007
Docket Number2050625.
Citation999 So.2d 888
PartiesALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. IDEAL TRUCK SERVICE, INC.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Troy King, atty. gen., and Sharon E. Ficquette and Jennifer M. Bush, asst. attys. gen., for appellant Department of Human Resources.

Frances Hoit Hollinger, Mobile, for appellee.

BRYAN, Judge.

The Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR") appeals an injunction ordering it to recover $977.34 in child support that it paid to the wrong recipient as a result of an error made by Ideal Truck Service, Inc. ("Ideal"), when it paid the $977.34 to DHR. We affirm.

In January 2001, the Mobile Circuit Court divorced William J. Miller, an employee of Ideal, and his wife. The divorce judgment ordered Miller to pay child support, and the circuit court entered an income-withholding order directing Ideal to withhold the child support from Miller's wages and to pay the withheld funds to the Alabama Child Support Payment Center ("the payment center"), which DHR operates through an agent. Thereafter, Ideal withheld Miller's child support from his wages and paid the withheld funds to the payment center by check. Ideal identified the checks in payment of funds withheld from Miller's wages by writing the case number of his divorce action on the checks. Upon receipt of those checks from Ideal, the payment center credited Miller with the amounts of those checks and paid the proceeds of the checks to Miller's former wife.

In November 2005, however, Ideal erroneously wrote the case number of the divorce action of Herman Leo Cobb III, a former employee of Ideal's, on two checks in payment of funds withheld from Miller's wages. The two checks totaled $977.34. Upon receipt of those two checks, the payment center credited the $977.34 to Herman Leo Cobb III and paid the $977.34 to Cobb's former wife.

After Ideal discovered its error, it filed, in Miller's divorce action, a motion seeking an instanter injunction ordering the payment center to credit Miller with the $977.34. Ideal served the motion on the payment center by regular mail. Two days later, on December 15, 2005, the trial court entered an injunction stating:

"1. The Alabama Child Support Payment Center shall recover immediately the funds in the amount of Nine hundred seventy-seven and 34/100 Dollars ($977.34) erroneously paid to the recipient Kathy J. Cobb, (Case number DR 1999-500831) and said funds shall be paid back to Ideal Truck Service, Inc. at 60 White Avenue, Fairhope, Alabama 36532.

"2. Ideal Truck Service, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay the sum of Nine hundred seventy-seven and 34/100 Dollars ($977.34) which it withheld from [Mr. Miller's] wages to Laurie Miller's account in the above referenced case."

On January 10, 2006, DHR filed a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to alter, amend, or vacate the injunction. As the grounds of its Rule 59(e) motion, DHR asserted (1) that it was entitled to absolute immunity pursuant to Article I, § 14, Alabama Constitution 1901, and (2) that the trial court could not issue an injunction to control an act of a State agency acting within its authority. DHR did not challenge the sufficiency of the process served upon it, the sufficiency of the service of that process, or the trial court's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over DHR. The trial court denied DHR's Rule 59(e) motion, and DHR timely appealed to this court.

On appeal, DHR challenges the sufficiency of the service of process effected upon it....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Human Resources
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 20, 2008
    ...disbursing child-support moneys withheld from the paycheck of an employee of Ideal Truck Service. Alabama Dep't of Human Res. v. Ideal Truck Serv., Inc., 999 So.2d 888 (Ala. Civ.App.2007). Because we conclude that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we vacate the trial court......
  • In re Berry
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 13, 2008
    ... ...   Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595, 604 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173, 176 ... See Ex parte Coffee County Dep't of Human Res., 771 So.2d 485 (Ala.Civ.App ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT