Wilson v. Se. Ala. Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 24 July 2015
• Docket Number: 2140225.
• Citation: 187 So. 3d 1165
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Parties: Jaquala WILSON v. SOUTHEAST ALABAMA MEDICAL CENTER.

187 So.3d 1165

Jaquala WILSON

v.SOUTHEAST ALABAMA MEDICAL CENTER.

2140225.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 24, 2015.

Mitchell D. Dobbs of Legal Services Alabama, Inc., Dothan, for appellant.

Submitted on appellant's brief only.

PER CURIAM.

Southeast Alabama Medical Center ("SAMC") sued Jaquala Wilson in the Houston District Court, small-claims division, seeking a judgment for past-due medical bills Wilson had failed to pay.The district court entered a judgment in favor of SAMC, and Wilson filed a notice of appeal to the Houston Circuit Court, together with an affidavit of financial hardship seeking a waiver of the requirement of prepayment of the filing fee, also known as a request to proceed in forma pauperis("IFP request"), on July 23, 2014.¹Wilson also filed a demand for a trial by jury.The circuit court denied Wilson's IFP request on July 23, 2014, and it ordered that she pay the filing fee for her appeal within 14 days.Wilson paid what she characterized as the $100 jury-demand fee,² but, on August 7, 2014, she sought reconsideration of the circuit court's denial of her IFP request.The circuit court refused to reconsider its denial of Wilson's IFP request, and it ordered that Wilson pay the "balance" of the filing fee within 30 days.

SAMC filed a motion for a summary judgment on August 19, 2014.Wilson filed a second motion seeking reconsideration of the circuit court's denial of her IFP request on September 8, 2014.On the same date, the circuit court refused to reconsider its denial of Wilson's IFP request, but it granted Wilson an additional 14 days to pay the "remainder" of the filing fee.Wilson responded to SAMC's motion for a summary judgment on September 25, 2014, and the trial court entered an order on September 29, 2014, stating that it would consider the summary-judgment motion once Wilson paid the "remainder" of the filing fee.That same order required Wilson to pay the "remainder" of the filing fee within 30 days or face dismissal of her appeal.

On November 3, 2014, the circuit court entered an order dismissing Wilson's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, stating specifically that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because Wilson had not paid the required filing fee.Wilson timely appealed the dismissal of her appeal to the circuit court to this court, arguing that the circuit court erred in failing to grant her IFP request and in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over her appeal.We affirm.

We will first consider Wilson's argument that the circuit court erred by failing to grant Wilson's IFP request.A trial court's decision to deny an IFP request is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.SeeEx parte Wyre,74 So.3d 479(Ala.2011);Ex parte Holley,883 So.2d 266, 269(Ala.Crim.App.2003).

In her brief on appeal, Wilson first argues that the denial of her IFP request conflicts with former Ala.Code 1975, § 30–5–5(f), which, before its amendment in 2003, governed the determination of IFP status for plaintiffs seeking relief under the Protection from Abuse Act, codified at Ala.Code 1975, § 30–5–1 et seq. Former § 30–5–5(f) stated that receipt of "Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments, food stamps, or Supplemental Security Income shall serve as prima facie evidence demonstrating substantial hardship on the part of the plaintiff."Wilson acknowledges that § 30–5–5(f) has since been amended, but she argues that the former statute embodied a legislative policy "to be employed by courts when considering affidavits of substantial hardship and requests for waiver of filing fees.Receiving food stamps should serve as prima facie evidence demonstrating financial hardship."Section 30–5–5(f) no longer refers to food stamps or other aid as a benchmark for determining IFP status.³Even if § 30–5–5(f) read as it did before its 2003amendment, however, Wilson's argument would still be unconvincing.Section 30–5–5(f), before its amendment in 2003, governed the assessment of filing fees for petitions seeking protection from abuse.Wilson is pursuing an appeal from a debt-collection action, not a protection-from-abuse order.Thus, we cannot agree that former § 30–5–5(f) provides a basis for reversal of the circuit court's denial of Wilson's IFP request.

Wilson next argues that constitutional law provides a basis for reversal of the denial of her IFP request.She relies mainly on Boddie v. Connecticut,401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113(1971), in which the United States Supreme Court held that indigent litigants could not be foreclosed from pursuing divorce actions by the requirement that they prepay a filing fee.⁴Wilson's constitutional arguments were not raised in the circuit court; thus, we need not consider Wilson's constitutional arguments further.SeeRobinson v. State,587 So.2d 418, 419(Ala.Civ.App.1991)(stating that an appellate court will not consider a constitutional issue that was not first presented to the trial court).We note, however, that Wilson's argument is unavailing, in part because Wilson is not seeking a divorce and because Boddie does not provide a basis for reversing the circuit court's denial of Wilson's IFP request in an appeal from a debt-collection action.⁵

Neither of Wilson's arguments on appeal assail the circuit court's discretion in determining whether to grant or deny Wilson's IFP request.Her reliance on former § 30–5–5(f) is misplaced, and her constitutional argument was not raised in the trial court.Accordingly, because Wilson does not argue that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her IFP request, we affirm the circuit court's order denying that request without considering whether the circuit court properly exercised that discretion.SeeBoshell v. Keith,418 So.2d 89, 92(Ala.1982)("When an appellant fails to argue an issue in its brief, that issue is waived.").

We now turn to Wilson's argument that the trial court erred by dismissing her appeal from the district court because, she contends, the payment of a filing fee is not a jurisdictional requirement to perfect an appeal from the district court to the circuit court.Wilson relies chiefly on Finch v. Finch,468 So.2d 151(Ala.1985), in which our supreme court considered whether the payment of a filing fee within the applicable appeal period was required to perfect an appeal from the probate court to the circuit court.

"Rule 7,Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, provides that ‘Any filing for which there is no express cost under the consolidated fee structure shall be treated as an original filing for cost purposes.’The Court of Civil Appeals has held, and the Clerk of this Court has given the opinion, that the filing of an appeal in the circuit court from a district court judgment is an original filing within the meaning of Rule 7 and requires the filing fee prescribed in §§ 12–19–70 and –71.Hand v. Thornburg,425 So.2d 467(Ala.Civ.App.1982), cert. denied,425 So.2d 467(Ala.1983);Scott v. Kimerling,417 So.2d 204(Ala.Civ.App.1982), cert. quashed,417 So.2d 204(Ala.1982);Opinion of the Clerk No. 16,362 So.2d 1259(Ala.1978).

"The Clerk based his opinion on cases establishing that an appeal is a new statutory proceeding in the appellate court.Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gantt,256 Ala. 262, 54 So.2d 595(1951);Anders Bros. v. Latimer,198 Ala. 573, 73 So. 925(1917);Cook v. Adams,27 Ala. 294(1855);Mazange v. Slocum & Henderson,23 Ala. 668(1853).

"The Court of Civil Appeals has further held that appeals from district to circuit court require timely notice of appeal in the district court, payment of the filing fee in the circuit court, and security for costs or affidavit of hardship as provided in Rule 62(dc)(5), A[la].R. Civ. P. Gomillion v. Whatley Supply Co., 446 So.2d 52(Ala.Civ.App.1984);Hardeman v. Mayfield,429 So.2d 1097(Ala.Civ.App.1983);Hand v. Thornburg, supra;andScott v. Kimerling, supra.Section 12–12–70, which provides for such appeals, mentions only the notice of appeal and the security for costs.

"Gomillion and Hardeman involved the failure to file a bond for costs; Hand involved the adequacy of such a bond.Only in Scott does the payment of filing fees appear to have been at issue.In that case, the appellants‘refuse[d] to post any bond or pay any money to enjoy [the] right to trial by jury.’417 So.2d at 204.The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court committed no error in dismissing the appeal.

"The holding that appeals from district court to circuit court require a filing fee in the circuit court should be extended to appeals from probate court to circuit court.It does not necessarily follow, however, that the circuit court was correct in dismissing the appeal.Nothing in the above-cited authorities establishes that the payment of filing fees in the circuit court within the time allowed for appeal is a jurisdictional requirement for perfecting such an appeal.Section 12–22–25 requires security for costs in appeals such as this one, but specifically states that ‘the filing of security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.’By the same token, although payment of a filing fee is required, we do not find a jurisdictional defect in this case for failure to pay the fee within the time allowed for the appeal. "

Finch,468 So.2d at 153–54(footnote omitted; emphasis added).

The holding in Finch was reaffirmed in De–Gas, Inc. v. Midland Resources,470 So.2d 1218, 1222(Ala.1985).Although the De–Gas court determined that the payment of a filing fee at the time a complaint is filed is "a jurisdictional prerequisite to the commencement of an action for statute of limitations purposes,"De–Gas,470 So.2d at 1222, the court noted that the holding in Finch was not contrary to its decision.According to the De–Gas court, a main reason for requiring payment of the filing fee at the time the complaint is filed is to make certain that the defendant is provided judicial notice that an action has been filed against...