Mickle v. Mickle
Citation | 334 So.2d 900 |
Parties | Alma H. MICKLE v. Darrol W. MICKLE. SC 1598. |
Decision Date | 09 July 1976 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Louis W. Scholl, Birmingham, for appellant.
Clifford W. Hardy Jr., Bessemer, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Alma H. Mickle from an amended judgment confirming sale of real estate for division of proceeds therefrom and directing the manner of payment of those proceeds to the parties. We affirm.
Darrol W. Mickle filed this action against his former wife, Alma, seeking sale, for division of proceeds between them, of two jointly owned parcels of real estate. Almost two years before this action was filed a decree of divorce was entered by the same trial court in which this action was filed. That divorce decree resolved questions of child custody and support, as well as division of personal property, but made no disposition of the jointly owned real property.
On 1 July 1975 after submission on the pleadings, oral testimony and stipulation of the parties a decree was entered which in part provided that the property be:
Pursuant to that decree a private sale was had at which Darrol Mickle bid five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the parcel known as the Wylam property; Alma Mickle bid nine thousand four hundred twenty-five dollars ($9,425) for that parcel known as the Midfield property. Darrol paid, to the Clerk and Register of the court, twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500); Alma paid forty-seven hundred twelve and 50/100 ($4,712.50). On 4 September 1975 the trial court entered a Final Decree confirming the report of the sale. In part it read:
'The said sale is hereby confirmed and the said J. B. Vines, Register, is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to make, execute and deliver a deed of Parcel #1 to Darrol W. Mickle and Parcel #2 to Alma H. Mickle of all of the right, title and interest of each of the parties to this cause in and to said described real estate situated in Jefferson County, Alabama.
On 12 November 1975, the trial court on its own initiative entered an Amended Final Decree. It altered the amount of payment to be made to each of the parties. In pertinent part it stated:
After expiration of thirty (30) days from 4 September 1975 did the trial court have jurisdiction to amend, alter or vacate the judgment of that date on its own initiative?
The determination of this issue depends upon whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Savage v. Booth
...may, on motion of any party, amend such judgment or decree according to the truth and justice of the case[.]"8 Citing Mickle v. Mickle, 334 So.2d 900 (Ala.1976); Luckes v. Luckes, 262 Ark. 770, 561 S.W.2d 300 (1989); Young v. Gardner-Denver Co., 244 Cal.App.2d 915, 53 Cal.Rptr. 522 (1966); ......
-
Spomer v. Spomer
...We find no merit in arguments to the contrary. The order appealed from is affirmed. 1 For cases factually similar see Mickle v. Mickle, Ala., 334 So.2d 900 (1976); Hayes v. Towles, 95 Idaho 208, 506 P.2d 105 (1973); Oman v. Oman, Colo.App., 477 P.2d 472 (1970), reh. den., cert. ...
-
Michael v. Michael
...ends of justice, some discretion must be allowed the courts in this regard. Gorum v. Samuel, 274 Ala. 690, 151 So.2d 393." Mickle v. Mickle, 334 So.2d 900 (Ala.1976). The rule contemplates the type of error associated with mistakes in transcription, alteration, or omission of any papers and......
-
PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MIN. CO. v. Rubley
...Rule 60(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., allows the correction of errors in calculation at any time after a final judgment is entered (Mickle v. Mickle, 334 So.2d 900 (Ala.1976)), our decision on the merits of the employer's appeal obviates any need to decide whether the trial court's "amended" judgmen......