Green v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 09 September 1983 |
| Citation | 437 So.2d 1259 |
| Parties | Oscar H. GREEN and Brenda Green v. George Timothy TAYLOR. 82-422. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Larry R. Grissett of Prestwood, Prestwood & Grissett, Andalusia, for appellants.
Richard W. Vollmer, Jr. and Patricia K. Olney, of Reams, Wood, Vollmer, Philips, Killion & Brooks, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a dismissal "with prejudice" of an action filed by Oscar and Brenda Green after they failed to appear to give depositions. We affirm.
The Greens filed a complaint charging the J & E Development Company, Inc., acting through and with its agent, George Taylor, wantonly caused a truck to collide with an automobile occupied by Brenda Green. J & E Development moved to dismiss on the grounds that any action the Greens could bring against it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The order granting that motion is uncontested on appeal.
The Greens continued to pursue their cause of action against Taylor, but had difficulty in obtaining service of process. The trial court originally granted their motion for service of Taylor by publication. It was, however, later denied when Taylor's insuror, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), as a real party in interest, requested the trial court's reconsideration. State Farm alleged the Greens had not made a proper attempt at personal service.
Because an appearance had been made by State Farm, the Greens moved for a default judgment against Taylor, alleging he, through State Farm, had made a general appearance which subjected him to the jurisdiction of the court. This motion was denied. Taylor was then served by publication and filed an answer to the Greens' complaint.
Taylor then noticed the oral depositions of Oscar and Brenda Green. When they failed to appear, Taylor filed his motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action. The motion was granted and the action dismissed "with prejudice." The Greens appealed and present three issues for our review. The dispositive one is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Greens' action against Taylor because of their failure to appear for the scheduled depositions.
The trial court clearly had the authority to dismiss under Rule 37(d), ARCP; the Greens do not contest that authority. However, they do contend the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing under the circumstances. We are precluded from review of this issue because the Greens did not present a timely motion, under Rule 60(b), ARCP, to set aside the judgment of dismissal. Neither did they request a rehearing under Rule 59(a)(2), ARCP. Because the trial court did not have an opportunity to review its own decision, we are foreclosed from reviewing it.
This holding is premised upon Wade v. Pridmore, 361 So.2d 511 (Ala.1978). There we held that where a default judgment was taken against the defendant for failure to attend trial, this court could not review the decision to grant a default where no request had been made that the trial court set aside its judgment. There, we stated:
The rationale behind the Wade decision and the general rules regarding the necessity for post-trial motions is that, ordinarily, issues not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Hutchins v. Shepard, 370 So.2d 275 (Ala.1979). This principle assures proper development of the record in the court below and places the primary responsibility on the trial judge to determine whether the sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is merited. The procedure affords the trial court, which has a feel of the case, an opportunity to correct its own errors and prevent the hardships of an appeal. Cf. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979); State v. Long, 344 So.2d 754 (Ala.1977).
Because the Greens...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Alabama Power Co.
...before the trial court. It is well settled that issues not raised in the trial court may not later be raised on appeal. Green v. Taylor, 437 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1983). Because of our holding that the trial court did not err in holding that Campbell was contributorily negligent as a matter of la......
-
McKenzie v. Killian
...the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Hutchins v. Shepard, 370 So.2d 275 (Ala.1979),'" quoting Green v. Taylor, 437 So.2d 1259, 1260 (Ala.1983) (emphasis In its statement in its Rule 54(b) certification order, the trial court cited Myers v. Baker, 24 Ala.App. 387, ......
-
Star Freight, Inc. v. Sheffield
...review. See, e.g., Gotlieb v. Collat, 567 So.2d 1302 (Ala.1990); Campbell v. Alabama Power Co., 567 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1990); Green v. Taylor, 437 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1983). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's AFFIRMED. MADDOX, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., ......
-
Patterson v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...of the jury, with respect to which the trial court had made adverse rulings, on the other. Liberty National also cites Green v. Taylor, 437 So.2d 1259 (Ala.1983), for the proposition that "[f]ailure to make a motion [for a new trial] to [the] trial court preclude[s] [an] appellate court's r......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...construction of the word'distinctly.'").58. Ne. Ala. Reg'l Med. Ctr v. Owens, 584 So. 2d 1360, 1364 (Ala. 1991).59. See Green v. Taylor, 437 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Ala. 1983) (stating that "[b]ecause the Greens did not timely file a motion to set aside the dismissal of their action, the questio......