Tommy Banks v. Bessie R. Hall

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/11/2010 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 2090081 Tommy Banks v. B e s s i e R. H a l l Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (DR-06-864) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Tommy B a n k s a n d B e s s i e a May 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , judgment common-law m a r r i a g e . postjudgment motion R. H a l l were d i v o r c e d of the t r i a l On J u n e i n which court 18, 2009, Hall she sought pursuant t o after a timely 13-year filed a to s e t aside the 2090081 divorce judgment postjudgment property court check that requested Hall a alleged new that hearing. I n her the t r i a l court's was i n e q u i t a b l e , a n d s h e c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e had f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f a $7,000 s h e a l l e g e d was p a y a b l e t o b o t h p a r t i e s . note disposition of motion, division trial We and that the t r i a l o f t h e $7,000 t h e May 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , court's check divorce does failure to address the not a f f e c t the f i n a l i t y judgment. "A f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y h a v e t o d i s p o s e o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t l y owned property. S e e F i t t s v . S t o k e s , 841 S o . 2 d 2 2 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; G a r r e t t v . G a r r e t t , 521 So. 2 d 1337 ( A l a . Civ. A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) ; a n d Hammock v . Hammock, 867 S o . 2 d 355 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003). R a t h e r , when a f i n a l judgment o f d i v o r c e does n o t r e f e r e n c e a s p e c i f i c asset, liability, or piece of personal or real p r o p e r t y , j o i n t l y owned b y t h e p a r t i e s , t h e p r o p e r t y remains unaffected by t h e judgment, and t h e ownership, along with the benefits and burdens t h e r e o f , r e m a i n s a s i t was b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment. R a d i o l a v . R a d i o l a , 380 S o . 2 d 817 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; M i l l e r v . M i l l e r , 3 9 1 S o . 2 d 119 (Ala. C i v . A p p . 1 98 0 ) ; a n d M c G u i r e v . H o r t o n , 5 8 6 So. 2 d 9 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Clements 2007); Civ. v. Clements, see a l s o 990 S o . 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 9 5 - 9 6 Hocutt ( A l a . C i v . App. v . H o c u t t , 491 So. 2 d 2 4 7 , 249 ( A l a . App. 1986) (same). Hall's denied June 18, by o p e r a t i o n 2009, postjudgment o f l a w on S e p t e m b e r 2 motion 16, 2009. was deemed See R u l e 2090081 59.1, may A l a . R. not remain October (providing pending to judgment. deny In equally between a $2,000 Hall's to Banks 15, timely 90 to 15, the t r i a l 2009, proceeds and A trial motion court was We is more filed, from Hilliard, 838 without than unless agreement of the p a r t i e s rule the a App. 2005) postjudgment divorce trial court $7,000 the check Banks to pay 2d ("A 15, motion. 2009, Banks Hall order argues to e n t e r the the jurisdiction 90 days record October 1062, trial motion to after rule the contains an 1063-64 court 90 days 3 motion. ( A l a . C i v . App. loses 906 So. 2 d 9 6 1 , jurisdiction after the filing on date a the express to extend the time i n which the a l s o Green v. G e o r g i a - P a c i f i c C o r p . , Civ. the October on t h e p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t So. the agree. motion c o u r t may of to require lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n court postjudgment on fee. appealed order. motion However, aside order, p u r p o r t i n g to grant H a l l ' s postjudgment that days). set 2009, the the p a r t i e s attorney than motion divide a postjudgment c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n w h i c h i t i t s October purported that f o r more 15, 2009, t h e t r i a l purported also C i v . P. trial Carter 2002); v. see 962 ( A l a . to rule of on that 2090081 motion."). In this the a g r e e d , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., t o parties extend the time Accordingly, case, for ruling the t r i a l filed court 2d motion; to The nullity). October jurisdiction, Roden v. (holding that order more rule on that the t r i a l motion after (an o r d e r e n t e r e d after on a p o s t j u d g m e n t 1 15, 2009, 937 So. the t r i a l than motion. t o e n t e r any i n o t h e r words, allowed for ruling and, t h e r e f o r e , Roden, postjudgment I d . ; s e e a l s o M o r a n g e v . M o r a n g e , 888 S o . e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 90 d a y s i s a indication 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e d a t e on w h i c h 1 2 8 0 , 1282 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2004) motion no lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n jurisdiction September 16, 2009. contains Hall's a f t e r June her postjudgment lacked on court o r d e r m o r e t h a n 90 d a y s Hall the record 90 d a y s 2d court order i s void f o r want of i t will n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . 83, 8 6 ( A l a . C i v . App. lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n after the f i l i n g of a 2006) t o e n t e r an postjudgment We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t , ex mero motu, m o d i f y t h e p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e d i v o r c e judgment. " P r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t s between the parties to a divorce action are not subject to m o d i f i c a t i o n a f t e r the e x p i r a t i o n of t h i r t y days." H o c u t t v. H o c u t t , 491 So. 2 d a t 248; s e e a l s o M c G i b o n e y v. M c G i b o n e y , 679 So. 2 d 1066, 1068 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) ("Property s e t t l e m e n t p r o v i s i o n s o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f d i v o r c e become f i n a l a n d c a n n o t be m o d i f i e d a f t e r t h i r t y d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e of the judgment."). 1 4 2090081 motion). trial Accordingly, court Roden, to vacate supra; APPEAL Pittman, we dismiss i t s October see a l s o this appeal 15, 2009, C a r t e r v. H i l l i a r d , and d i r e c t order. supra. DISMISSED. Bryan, Thomas, and M o o r e , 5 J J . , concur. Roden the v.

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.