Carnes v. Carnes
| Decision Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 981 |
| Parties | Johnny T. CARNES v. Dora CARNES (Wedaman). Civ. 1621. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Fred Blanton, Birmingham, for appellant.
Roger A. Brown, Birmingham, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from an order entered by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, Jefferson County, declaring as void a previous order dated October 31, 1977. We affirm.
The parties to this appeal were divorced in 1970, and later entered into an agreement concerning child support payments, insurance, and payment of certain debts. After a hearing the circuit court entered an order on July 13, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "July order"), pertinent portions of which found defendant, Johnny T. Carnes, in arrears in child support payments and in default on payment of a certain debt which defendant had agreed to pay. The order also increased the amount of future child support payments.
Defendant filed a motion for new trial on July 28, 1977. Relevant portions of that motion, i. e. paragraphs number six and number seven, and exhibits attached thereto, tended to show that defendant's income was somewhat less than the amount stated in the July order, and that the amount of the debt which defendant had agreed to pay was less than the amount stated as outstanding in the July order.
Ninety-five days after defendant's motion for new trial had been filed, the court, without ordering a new trial or a rehearing, entered an order (dated October 31, 1977, and hereinafter referred to as the "October order") modifying and in substitution for the July order. The new amounts in the October order found to be owed by defendant represented a recalculation of the previously stated amounts based on the exhibits submitted with defendant's motion for new trial.
Following the October order defendant again moved for a new trial. On December 16, 1977 plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant's second motion for new trial and also to strike the October order. On December 22, 1977 plaintiff petitioned the court for a rule nisi directing defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to abide by the July order. On January 4, 1978 the court entered an order (hereinafter referred to as the "January order") which denied defendant's second motion for new trial and which, in effect, reaffirmed the October order. Plaintiff's motion to strike was never ruled on.
Finally, on June 28, 1978, during a hearing on plaintiff's petition for a rule nisi, the court entered an order (hereinafter referred to as the "June order") declaring that "the order dated October 31, 1977, amending or further modifying the Court's prior Order of July 31, 1977, be and the same is hereby declared a nullity and of no force or effect." The June order was based on ARCP 59.1 which provides in part:
No post-trial motion filed pursuant to Rules 50, 52 or 59 shall remain pending in the trial court for more than 90 days, unless with the express consent of all the parties, which consent shall appear of record, or unless extended by the appellate court to which an appeal of the judgment would lie, and such time may be further extended for good cause shown. A failure by the trial court to dispose of any pending post-trial motion within the time permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof, shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of the period.
On appeal defendant argues that the court erred in entering the June order which voided the October order. Defendant contends that paragraphs number six and number seven in his motion filed July 28, 1978 which was styled "Motion for New trial" were valid grounds for a motion under ARCP 60(b)(6), and that those portions of his motion should be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, thereby removing the motion from the strictures of Rule 59.1 and thus validating the October order. Defendant further contends that paragraphs number six and number seven may be properly viewed as grounds for a motion under ARCP 60(a), and that the October order was merely a correction of the July order which caused the July order "to speak the entire truth from the record," citing Mickle v. Mickle, Ala., 334 So.2d 900 (1976).
We believe these contentions are without merit and that the June order properly declared the October order void. It is abundantly clear from this record that the court failed to act on defendant's motion for new trial within ninety days of said motion's filing, and that defendant failed to obtain an extension of that time limit by securing either consent of all parties to the action or an extension granted by the appellate court. Under these circumstances defendant's motion for new trial was deemed denied at the expiration of the ninety day period, ARCP 59.1; and any order issued thereafter by the court was void and of no force or effect. See Sparks Construction Co. v. General Mutual Insurance Co., Ala., 334 So.2d 897 (1976).
After the expiration of that ninety day period defendant had several alternatives. He could have appealed from that denial of his motion, or he could have filed a motion under ARCP 60. However, he chose not to pursue these remedies.
The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure state that motions "shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and Shall set forth the relief or order sought." ARCP 7(b)(1) (emphasis supplied). The relief sought in defendant's motion of July 28, 1977 was a rehearing and a stay of the July order pending that rehearing. It does not appear either from that motion or from the entire record in this case that defendant intended the motion to be a motion for relief from judgment until this appeal was filed.
Defendant now attempts to escape the consequences of Rule 59.1 by asking this court to treat portions of his motion for new trial as a motion for relief from judgment under ARCP 60(b)(6) which provides:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Our cases hold that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to extend the time for appeal. Personnel Board for Mobile County v. Bronstein, Ala.Civ.App., 354 So.2d 8 (1977), Cert. den Ala., 354 So.2d 12 (1978); State v. Wall, Ala., 348 So.2d 482 (1977). Similarly, we do not believe that defendant should be allowed to argue now for the first time that his motion for new trial was in reality a Rule 60(b) motion simply to avoid the applicability of Rule 59.1. While our Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate a liberal construction of pleadings and motions, we do not think they envision the kind of construction defendant now urges.
Defendant argues that Rule 59.1 should be limited to those cases wherein a party improperly attempts to extend the time for filing notice of appeal, and that courts should be "particularly alert to the possibility that Rule 59.1 philosophy may find its way into Rule 60 and destroy to a large extent that rule." However, Rule 59.1 by its terms is not so limited, and our assent to defendant's contention that his motion for new trial should be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion would,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.M.V. v. State
...be corrected by way of a Rule 60(a) motion, but should be corrected by a motion under A.R.Civ.P. Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Carnes v. Carnes, 365 So.2d 981 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 985 (Ala.1979). A court may construe a motion as it is written rather than by the designation ass......
-
Ex parte Johnson
...of the intent of the Rules by substantially nullifying Rule 59.1 and rendering the provisions of Rule 59 uncertain. See Carnes v. Carnes, 365 So.2d 981 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); Ex parte Adams, supra; Simmons v. Simmons, Although we agree with Ms. Brown that "this Court is committed to the propos......
-
Continental Grain Co. v. Smallwood
...534 So.2d 626 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Ex parte Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 73 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); and Carnes v. Carnes, 365 So.2d 981 (Civ.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 985 The employer's motion specifically asked for relief pursuant to Rule 55 or Rule 60, and enumera......
-
Haynes v. Jason Williams ).
...534 So.2d 626 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Ex parte Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 73 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); and Carnes v. Carnes, 365 So.2d 981 (Civ.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 985 (Ala.1979). “ The employer's motion specifically asked for relief pursuant to Rule 55 or Rule 6......