Williams v. City of Northport

• Decision Date: 01 November 1989
• Citation: 557 So.2d 1272
• Parties: Howard E. WILLIAMS v. CITY OF NORTHPORT. Civ. 6990.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 1272

557 So.2d 1272

Howard E. WILLIAMS v. CITY OF NORTHPORT.

Civ. 6990.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 1, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1989.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 23, 1990

Alabama Supreme Court 89-428.

Julia McCain Lampkin Asam, Northport, for appellant.

Patricia K. Rea of Clark & Scott, Birmingham, for appellee.

RUSSELL, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of the employee's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

The employer and employee entered into a settlement agreement of a workmen's compensation claim, which was filed and approved by the trial court on April 26, 1988. The employee filed a motion to set aside the settlement pursuant to Rule 59, A.R.Civ.P., alleging the discovery of new evidence. Such motion was denied. Subsequently, the employee filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling and, in the alternative, a motion for relief from judgment as provided for in Rule 60(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., alleging that he was incompetent to enter into a settlement of his claims. An ore tenus hearing on the motion was held before the trial judge. The motion was denied on March 2, 1989.

The employee appeals. We affirm.

A review of a trial court's denial of a 60(b)(6) motion is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138 (Ala.1985). This court is further limited to a review of the grounds for which the Rule 60(b) relief is sought and the matters presented in support thereof. Turner v. Turner, 462 So.2d 734 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Also, as noted by the court in Reese v. Robinson, 523 So.2d 398, 399 (Ala.1988), "[a] strong presumption of correctness, however, attaches to the trial court's ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion."

We find that the trial court's denial of this motion did not amount to an abuse of discretion. The employee argues that, because expert testimony regarding the employee's alleged incompetence was uncontroverted, the trial court's denial of his motion constituted an abuse of discretion. An expert's opinion, however, is not conclusive on the trial court, even though uncontroverted. See Kroger Co. v. Millsap, 280 Ala. 531, 196 So.2d 380 (1967). Rather, a trial court must look to the entire evidence and its own observations in deciding factual issues. See, e.g., Blue Bell, Inc. v. Nichols, 479 So.2d 1264 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

In its order denying the motion, the trial court clearly found that the expert testimony concluding that the employee was incompetent at the time of settlement was outweighed by other evidence, including the court's own observation of the employee during the course of settlement. Furthermore, the court took the additional caution of advising the employee, who was not represented by counsel, of the nature and finality of the settlement proceedings. Consequently, we find no error.

Additionally, the employee appeals from the denial of his motion to correct or modify the record pursuant to Rule 10(f), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. The employee asserts that certain documents were "erroneously and...