Ex parte STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. .
Decision Date | 12 March 2010 |
Docket Number | 2081197. |
Citation | 47 So.3d 823 |
Parties | Ex parte STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. (In re The Matter of R.H.J. and In re The Matter of S.H.). |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Sharon E. Ficquette, chief legal counsel, and Jennifer M. Bush, legal counsel, Department of Human Resources.
J. Clay Benson, Jr., of Esco & Benson, LLC, Montgomery, guardian ad litem.
Joshua B. James, Montgomery, for C.H.
The State Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Patricia Warner of the Montgomery Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) to vacate those portions of an August 17, 2009, judgment in which the juvenile court ordered DHR to pay certain funds, collected by DHR from R.L.H. (“the father”) as a child-support arrearage and interest, to C.H., the legal custodian of R.H.J. and S.H. (“the children”). As grounds for the requested writ, DHR asserts that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to collaterally attack a May 2005 final judgment entered in favor of DHR and lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to order the State treasury to issue funds to an individual. Because we grant the petition and issue the writ on the first ground, we need not address the second ground.
In May 2005, DHR obtained a judgment against the father in case number CS-01-576 in the Montgomery Circuit Court, Child Support Division. On May 18, 2005, a juvenile-court referee evidently determined that DHR had proven its right to be reimbursed for benefits DHR had paid on behalf of the children, to whom the father owed a duty of support. The documents filed along with the petition for the writ of mandamus indicate that on May 19, 2005, Judge Anita Kelly, a Montgomery circuit-court judge, ratified and confirmed the referee's order, thereby requiring the father to pay DHR $11,347.71, along with accrued interest of $2,407.10. The clerk of the circuit court stamped the judgment “received” on that same date, indicating that it had been properly filed with the clerk's office.
In May 2008, the children became the subject of separate dependency actions in the juvenile court (case numbers JU-08-12.01 and JU-08-13.01). After determining that the children were dependent, the juvenile court awarded custody of the children to C.H., their aunt. At that time, DHR was still collecting on the May 2005 judgment against the father. As part of its collection efforts, on March 10, 2008, DHR had intercepted $6,178 payable to the father, allocating $4,760.77 to the judgment and the remainder to a separate judgment relating to another child-support case involving the father. When the juvenile court awarded custody of the children to C.H., the juvenile court entered the following handwritten notation on the case-action-summary sheets in both juvenile files:
On July 14, 2008, the State again intercepted $1,023 payable to the father, allocating $775 of that amount to the May 2005 judgment. On August 19, 2008, the juvenile court entered a handwritten notation on the case-action-summary sheets in both juvenile cases:
In November 2008, the juvenile court consolidated the pending juvenile cases with case number CS-01-576, and it set all pending issues for a hearing. After a hearing, the juvenile court entered a judgment on August 17, 2009. In that judgment, the juvenile court stated as follows:
“ ‘...
“Monies were paid to [C.H.] as of the last hearing on April 8, 2009.
“Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
[1] [2] [3] [4] Before proceeding to the merits of the petition, we must first resolve a dispute amongst the parties regarding the finality of the judgment.
“ ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
K.M.D. v. T.N.B.
...the court ...."). More to the point, in Ex parte DiGeronimo, 195 So.3d at 969, this court cited only Ex parte State Department of Human Resources, 47 So.3d 823, 830 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010), to support its holding, which does not address the authority of a trial court to vacate a judgment on i......
- KLAESER v. MILTON
-
Mixter v. M.E. Burton, LLC
...money judgment. See Kona, slip op. at 19. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addressed a similar issue in Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 47 So. 3d 823, 828 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). In that case, a juvenile court issued an order that the State Department of Human Resources ("DHR") pay $9,......
-
State v. Utley (Ex parte State)
...subject to attack at any time.” Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So.2d at 643.See also Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 47 So.3d 823 (Ala.Civ.App.2010). According to State v. Webber, 892 So.2d 869 (Ala.2004), the filing of a petition does not stay the case and the petitione......