Daryl Eugene Noll v. Linda Noll

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080736 D a r y l Eugene N o l l v. Linda N o l l Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (DR-90-500066.12) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . I n 1991, D a r y l Eugene N o l l ("the m o t h e r " ) were C i r c u i t Court divorced ("the f a t h e r " ) a n d L i n d a Noll by a judgment o f t h e M o b i l e ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) . T h e r e was one c h i l d ("the c h i l d " ) born o f the p a r t i e s ' marriage, who was t h r e e y e a r s o l d 2080736 at the time t h e p a r t i e s were divorced. In July 2006, t h e m o t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r an a w a r d o f p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p o r t t o r e q u i r e the f a t h e r t o pay f o r a p o r t i o n of the c h i l d ' s c o l l e g e - e d u c a t i o n entered to expenses. court a j u d g m e n t on F e b r u a r y 15, 2007, o r d e r i n g t h e f a t h e r p a y $600 p e r month i n p o s t m i n o r i t y The The t r i a l father February timely moved 15, 2007, the t r i a l judgment, educational court arguing support. to s e t aside i t s that he d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n . April 16, 2007, 2007, judgment and s c h e d u l e d petition the t r i a l for postminority May 2007 h e a r i n g , 14, 2007, ordering the hold December the father 2007, i t s February a new h e a r i n g court entered father t o pay 15, on t h e m o t h e r ' s educational support. the t r i a l postminority educational In court s e t aside On Following a a j u d g m e n t on May $600 p e r month i n support. t h e m o t h e r moved i n contempt the t r i a l court to for failure t o pay the c o u r t - ordered postminority educational support. On M a r c h 10, 2008, t h e f a t h e r moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., to s e t aside t h e May 14, 2007, judgment. The f a t h e r a r g u e d i n h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y h a d 2 2080736 failed to n o t i f y 2008, t h e t r i a l set aside him of the May court granted i t s May 14, 2007 h e a r i n g . On July t h e f a t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) 2007, j u d g m e n t , o r d e r e d the 10, motion, father to pay $600 p e r month i n " p e n d e n t e l i t e " p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support, and c o n t e m p t and set a hearing to review date on the mother's motion for the f a t h e r ' s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h i t s award of "pendente l i t e " p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l Following a hearing, the trial support. court entered a judgment on J a n u a r y 13, 2009, o r d e r i n g t h e f a t h e r t o pay $300 p e r month i n p o s t m i n o r i t y e d u c a t i o n a l support beginning i n August 2005. m o t i o n ; the mother f i l e d for contempt. The mother's motions. The father filed a postjudgment a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and trial The f o r a p e r i o d o f 48 months, court denied the father subsequently a motion f a t h e r ' s and the appealed to this court. Neither party has jurisdiction over jurisdictional matters raised this are the issue appeal. of this However, such magnitude, t h i s permitted t o n o t i c e a l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n R e e v e s v. S t a t e , 882 So. of 2d 872, 3 874 court's because court ex mero motu. ( A l a . C i v . App. is See 2003). 2080736 The trial ordering the court father educational entered to support. pay On a judgment $600 p e r March 10, 2008, trial the t r i a l court, pursuant to Rule 60(b), 2007, judgment. In 2007 hearing. subsection had Although 1 o f R u l e 60(b) fall Rule he r e l i e d on, motion could only relief from a judgment f o r "mistake, o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t . " See 64 ( A l a . C i v . App. a motion a l l e g i n g the t r i a l 2d 933, a motion discover Credit t h a t the that 690 So. an the n o t i c e of the does not state which 60(b)(1), which inadvertence, allows surprise, So. 2d 63, have n o t i c e 394 of So. t h a t Rule 60(b)(1) a p p l i e d to 383, The f a t h e r ' s c o u n s e l a t t e n d e d father's interests. 4 May the a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s inadvertently been d i s m i s s e d ) , 1 father t h a t Rule 60(b)(1) a p p l i e d to attorney 2d months the a l s o Ex p a r t e H a r t f o r d I n s . Co., t h a t a c a s e had Corp., 10 f a t h e r moved motion, defendant d i d not (Ala. 1981)(holding alleging postminority D o b b i n s v. A n d e r s o n , 496 1986)(holding d a t e ) ; see 935 Rule 2007, t o s e t a s i d e i t s May 60(b) father 14, nearly not g i v e n him the under in i t s judgment, the his a l l e g e d that h i s counsel May month a f t e r the 14, court entered on 385-86 and failed to G o d a r d v. AT&T (Ala. t h e h e a r i n g and Civ. App. represented 2080736 1996)(holding t h a t Rule 60(b)(1) a p p l i e d to a motion alleging t h a t the defendant f a i l e d t o respond to a complaint because of confusion in the 60(b)(1) motion defendant's must be legal department). A brought within f o u r months e n t r y o f the judgment from w h i c h relief i s sought. Rule of See the Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( " T h e m o t i o n s h a l l be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , and f o r r e a s o n [ ] (1) the ... n o t more t h a n f o u r (4) months a f t e r j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was f a t h e r brought h i s Rule t h e e n t r y o f t h e May 60(b) 14, e n t e r e d or t a k e n . " ) . motion nearly 10 months 2007, j u d g m e n t , w e l l months a l l o w e d by R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . if o u t s i d e the 4 was motion. f a t h e r ' s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d t i m e l y the motion There after Thus, t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n u n t i m e l y i f i t i s c o n s t r u e d as a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) The The is no c o u l d be strict c o n s t r u e d as a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) time limitation for filing motion. a 2 motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) ; i t o n l y has t o be b r o u g h t w i t h i n a "reasonable exclusive through of time." the ( 5 ) , and Rule specific 60(b)(6) grounds a p a r t y may not " i s designed listed escape to i n Rule the time operate 60(b)(1) limits of R u l e 60(b)(6) p r o v i d e s f o r r e l i e f from a judgment f o r "any o t h e r r e a s o n j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f f r o m t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e judgment." 2 5 2080736 Rule 60(b)(1) 60(b)(6) 936. the m e r e l y b y c h a r a c t e r i z i n g h i s m o t i o n as a R u l e m o t i o n . " Ex p a r t e H a r t f o r d I n s . Co., 394 So. 2d a t Because the f a i l u r e of the father's attorney to n o t i f y father of the hearing i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e grounds i n Rule 60(b)(1), the father's motion from c o n s i d e r a t i o n under Rule would be excluded 60(b)(6). A l a b a m a c o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d when " i n t h e i n t e r e s t generally of justice, an e x c e p t i o n to this rule aggravating circumstances may be c o n s i d e r e d s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t r e a t what w o u l d o t h e r w i s e be a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) m o t i o n as w i t h i n R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) . " R.E. G r i l l s , I n c . v. D a v i s o n , (Ala. courts 1994). Alabama aggravating circumstances intentionally suffered from misled have existed his client psychological 641 So. 2d 225, 229 found when an o r when disorders that sufficient attorney the attorney or other had had personal p r o b l e m s . G o d a r d , 690 So. 2d a t 386 ( c i t i n g L e e v . T o l l e s o n , 502 So. 2d 354 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d Ex p a r t e Oden, 617 So. 2d 1020 (Ala. 1992)). However, t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n d i d n o t c o n t a i n any a l l e g a t i o n s o f a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s necessary f o r the trial 60(b)(6) motion. court Accordingly, t o t r e a t h i s motion the father's Rule 6 as a R u l e 60(b) motion cannot be 2080736 considered 230. a Rule 60(b)(6) Therefore, m o t i o n . See D a v i s o n , t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n c o u l d have b e e n made o n l y pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), A trial Rule and, as s u c h , i t was court lacks j u r i s d i c t i o n 60(b) m o t i o n . (Ala. 641 So. 2d a t C i v . App. t o c o n s i d e r an See H a r r i s v. Cook, 2006)(holding that untimely. untimely 944 So. 2d 977, the t r i a l court j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a Rule 60(b)(2) 981 lacked m o t i o n t h a t had been b r o u g h t 15 months a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t ) ; see a l s o Schneider (Ala. N a t ' l C a r r i e r s , I n c . v. T i n n e y , 776 So. 2d 753, 756 2000)(holding barred from McDonald that the t r i a l granting v. Cannon, an c o u r t was untimely 594 So. 2d Rule 128, jurisdictionally 60(b) 129 motion), and ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991)(holding that the t r i a l Rule 60(b)(1) m o t i o n t h a t h a d b e e n f i l e d more t h a n f o u r months after the entry court lacked court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the judgment). jurisdiction to grant 2008, R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n judgment. A judgment e n t e r e d R i l e y v. P a t e , Accordingly, the the March and t o s e t a s i d e without 3 So. 3d 835, 838 over a father's i t s May 14, jurisdiction ( A l a . 2008). trial 10, 2007, i s void. Therefore, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s J u l y 10, 2008, o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o s e t a s i d e i t s May 14, 2007, judgment i s v o i d . 7 Because the t r i a l court's 2080736 J u l y 10, 2008, o r d e r i s v o i d , i t s s u b s e q u e n t J a n u a r y 13, 2009, judgment, to the extent that that judgment J u l y 10, 2008, o r d e r , i s a l s o v o i d . 791 So. 2d 975, 977 ( A l a . C i v . App. i s b a s e d on i t s E n g l e b e r t v. E n g l e b e r t , 2001). B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t p u r p o r t e d l y s e t a s i d e t h e May 14, 2007, j u d g m e n t , i t d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e i n i t s J a n u a r y 13, 2009, judgment 2007, whether judgment, the or father had complied whether the father c o n t e m p t , as r e q u e s t e d by t h e m o t h e r . the trial 60(b) with should t h e May be B e c a u s e we 14, held hold in that court's order p u r p o r t i n g to grant the father's Rule motion i s void, and, therefore, because t h e May 14, 2007, j u d g m e n t r e m a i n s v a l i d , t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n f o r c o n t e m p t requires adjudication. judgment does The not dispose trial court's J a n u a r y 13, of a l l the issues 2009, i n controversy b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , and, as s u c h , i t i s n o t a f i n a l judgment. "An a p p e a l o r d i n a r i l y l i e s o n l y f r o m t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . A l a . Code 1975, § 12-22-2; Bean v. C r a i g , 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . A judgment i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l c l a i m s , o r t h e r i g h t s o r l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l p a r t i e s , have b e e n d e c i d e d . Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ." H e n n i n g v. H e n n i n g , 999 So. 2d 523, 525 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we must d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . 8 2080736 Because the t r i a l the father's Rule court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n 60(b) m o t i o n and because to entertain the father has a p p e a l e d f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s J u l y 10, 2008, o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o g r a n t t h e f a t h e r ' s M a r c h 10, 2008, Rule 60(b) m o t i o n , t o v a c a t e i t s J a n u a r y 13, 2009, j u d g m e n t , a n d t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n APPEAL DISMISSED WITH Thompson, P . J . , and f o r contempt. INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, concur. 9 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.