Odom v. Odom
Decision Date | 25 February 2011 |
Docket Number | 2091101. |
Citation | 89 So.3d 121 |
Parties | James ODOM v. Renee ODOM. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Odom, pro se.
Submitted on appellant's brief only.
James Odom (“the former husband”) and Renee Odom (“the former wife”) were divorced by a judgment of the DeKalb Circuit Court in 1996; the record indicates that the former husband was directed to pay $200 per month in support for the parties' children. The trial court determined in a contempt proceeding brought by the former wife in 1998 that the former husband's support payments were in arrears, and it rendered an order for $3,453 plus interest in the former wife's favor; the case-action-summary sheet from that proceeding indicates that that proceeding ultimately terminated upon the rendering of a “bench verdict.” No postjudgment motions were filed, and no appeal was taken.
On July 20, 2010, the former husband filed what he styled as a “motion for modification” in which he sought a modification of the support provisions of the divorce judgment. In his “motion,” the former husband averred, in pertinent part, that a material change in circumstances had been “visited upon” him in the form of his incarceration by the Alabama Department of Corrections, in whose custody “he is now residing in service of consecutive 20–year sentences.” He further averred that he had no income or other means by which to comply with the support requirements of the divorce judgment. Based upon those averments, the former husband requested that his support obligation be suspended and that the trial court “forgive” all interest on any existing arrearages. The record does not reflect that the former husband paid a docket fee or that he filed a verified statement of substantial hardship seeking waiver of prepayment of any applicable docket fee. Nonetheless, the trial court purported to rule on the former husband's “motion” by affixing the word “Denied” on the face of that filing on July 28, 2010, and that ruling was entered on August 2, 2010.
The former husband filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the trial court, asserting that the trial court had erred in “summarily dismissing” his “motion.” However, because we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to act on the former husband's “motion,” we must dismiss this appeal ex mero motu as having been taken from a void judgment or order. See Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556, 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2008).
In Vann, a domestic-relations proceeding concluded in April 2005 with the entry of a final judgment of divorce based upon the father's failure to answer or defend; however, several months later, the parties to that proceeding submitted various papers to the trial court in which both parties sought enforcement of certain provisions of that judgment and injunctive relief and in which the father sought modification of the judgment. Although neither party filed a docketing fee or a statement of substantial hardship, those filings ultimately culminated in the trial court's purporting to alter the custody of the parties' minor child. 989 So.2d at 557–58. One of the parties, after having appealed from that ruling, suggested to this court the absence of the trial court's jurisdiction to act. In dismissing that appeal with instructions, we set forth the following reasoning that is similarly applicable in this case:
.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC (Ex parte Courtyard Citiflats, LLC)
...as the inability of an indigent plaintiff to pay a filing fee before the running of the limitations period.6 See, e.g., Odom v. Odom, 89 So.3d 121 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556 (Ala.Civ.App.2008), and Farmer v. Farmer, 842 So.2d 679 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).7 Consistent with the......
-
Hicks v. Hicks
...a motion to enforce a previous order or judgment of the court is a new action that requires the payment of such a fee. Odom v. Odom, [89 So.3d 121 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ]; Opinion of the Clerk [ No. 17 ], Supreme Court of Alabama, 363 So.2d 97 (Ala.1978). A jurisdictional defect cannot be waiv......
-
Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC (In re Courtyard Citiflats, LLC)
...the inability of an indigent plaintiff to pay a filing fee before the running of the limitations period. 6. See, e.g., Odom v. Odom, 89 So. 3d 121 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008), and Farmer v. Farmer, 842 So. 2d 679 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). 7. Consis......
-
Hicks v. Hicks
...a motion to enforce a previous order or judgment of the court is a new action that requires the payment of such a fee. Odom v. Odom, [89 So. 3d 121 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011)]; Opinion ofthe Clerk [No. 17], Supreme Court of Alabama, 363 So. 2d 97 (Ala. 1978). A jurisdictional defect cannot be wa......