Ex Parte Brown
Decision Date | 23 February 2007 |
Docket Number | 1051762. |
Citation | 963 So.2d 604 |
Parties | Ex parte William Worth BROWN III. (In re Ex parte Debra Denise Ratliff Brown (In re Debra Denise Ratliff Brown v. William Worth Brown III) ). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Scott A. Gilliland, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Carl E. Chanblee, Sr., Birmingham, for respondent.
William Worth Brown III, the father of Amanda Leigh, a minor child, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Civil Appeals to quash its writ of mandamus, issued on August 29, 2006; the Court of Civil Appeals, in an unpublished order, directed the trial court to vacate its order of June 29, 2006, which granted the father custody of the child and to reinstate the custody provisions of the original divorce judgment issued on April 18, 2006, which granted custody of the child to the mother, Debra Denise Ratliff Brown. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
The following facts are undisputed. On April 18, 2006, the trial court entered a final judgment divorcing the father and the mother. The written order awarded custody of the minor child, incorrectly referred to in the order as "Haley," to the mother; ordered the father to pay child support; set forth a visitation schedule for the father; and ordered the father to provide health insurance for the child. On May 24, 2006, the father filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment of divorce, stating:
The mother filed a response in which she argued that the father's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment was due to be denied by operation of law because it was filed more than 30 days after the entry of the judgment. See Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P.
On June 29, 2006, the trial court, in light of the father's motion to alter, amend, or vacate, amended the judgment of divorce it had entered on April 18, 2006. That amended judgment awarded custody of the child to the father, ordered the mother to pay child support to the father, provided a visitation schedule for the mother, and ordered the mother to provide medical insurance for the child.
The mother petitioned the Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its amended final judgment of divorce, dated June 29, 2006, and to reinstate the original final judgment of divorce, dated April 18, 2006. In her petition, she argued that the trial court's June 29, 2006, order was void and due to be denied by operation of law because the father's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment was untimely and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. While the petition for the writ of mandamus was before the Court of Civil Appeals, the trial court issued an "amended order," stating:
On August 29, 2006, the Court of Civil Appeals, by an unpublished order, granted the petition and directed the trial court to vacate its June 29, 2006, order and to enter an order reinstating the final judgment of divorce entered on April 18, 2006.
The father now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Civil Appeals to quash its writ.
The father contends that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in determining that the trial court had exceeded its discretion and in ordering the trial court to vacate its amended order, dated June 29, 2006, and to reinstate its original judgment of divorce, dated April 18, 2006. According to the father, although more than 30 days had passed since the final judgment was entered, the trial court nonetheless had jurisdiction to enter its June 29, 2006, order because, the father argues, the trial court was correcting a scrivener's error.
Rule 60(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:
In Higgins v. Higgins, 952 So.2d 1144, 1147-48 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), the Court of Civil Appeals provided an instructive discussion of the scope of a trial court's authority to correct a clerical mistake, stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC (Ex parte Courtyard Citiflats, LLC)
... ... See Ex parte Brown, 963 So.2d 604, 608 (Ala.2007) ( The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so ... ...
-
Schillaci v. Gentry (Ex parte Gentry)
... ... Ex parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So.2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001)." ' " Ex parte Brown, 963 So.2d 604, 60607 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Ex parte Rawls, 953 So.2d 374, 377 (Ala. 2006), quoting in turn Ex parte Antonucci, 917 So.2d 825, 830 (Ala. 2005) ). We begin our analysis of this issue with the excellent discussion in Holland:" Generally, trials are open to the public. However, public ... ...
-
S.S. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
... ... " ' " Ex parte Brown, 963 So.2d 604, 608 (Ala.2007) (quoting Higgins v. Higgins, 952 So.2d 1144, 114748 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), quoting in turn Ex parte ... ...
-
A.T. v. D.M.
... ... Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1984)."It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:"A. Custody and Placement: "1. The father ... is ... " " Pierce v. American Gen. Fin., Inc., 991 So.2d 212, 217 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Ex parte Brown, 963 So.2d 604, 608 (Ala. 2007), quoting in turn Higgins v. Higgins, 952 So.2d 1144, 1148 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006), quoting in turn Ex parte Continental ... ...