At page 1061 Jurisdiction over motions to reconsider rule 60(b) denials17 citing cases“the better practice is to file a rule 60(b) motion only when there is a final judgment in the case”
- Wright. v. City of Mobile, 192 So. 3d 7 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).publishedMr. Vaughan’s notice of appeal was filed on-February 25, 1988, more than 42 days from December 23, 1987, the date the trial court denied the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion.” Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989) (emphasis added…
- M.E.W. v. J.W., 142 So. 3d 1168 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).published Dep’t of Human Res., 75 So.3d 1195, 1205 (Ala.Civ.App.2011); and Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989).
- Edwards v. Johnson, 143 So. 3d 691 (Ala. 2013).publishedWe note that the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure do not necessarily preclude a defendant from filing alternative Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) motions with the trial court. “[T]he Rules do not, at the present time, preclude the filing of alte…
- Pakhomov v. Tuten, 110 So. 3d 384 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).publishedP.], motion.’ ” Ex parte Jordan, 779 So.2d 183, 184 (Ala.2000) (quoting Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989)).
- Smith v. Cowart, 68 So. 3d 802 (Ala. 2011).publishedThus, the court had jurisdiction of that motion at the time of its order granting the motion on December 3,1985.’ “[Ex parte Lang, 500 So.2d 3, 4-5 (Ala.1986).] “Lang involved successive Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) motions, but as the defend…
- Haynes v. Williams, 58 So. 3d 761 (Ala. 2010).publishedThus, the court had jurisdiction of that motion at the time of its order granting the motion on December 3,1985.” 4 Lang involved successive Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) motions, but as the defendants observe, this Court subsequently allowed…
- Williams v. Williams, 70 So. 3d 332 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).publishedEx parte Jordan, 779 So.2d 183, 184 (Ala.2000) (quoting Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989)) (“This Court has held that ‘[a] trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b…
- Se. Env't Infrastructure, L.L.C. v. Rivers, 12 So. 3d 32 (Ala. 2008).publishedCo., 741 So.2d 1066, 1070 (Ala.1999); see also Ex parte Jordan, 779 So.2d 183, 184 (Ala. 2000); Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989); [Ex parte] Dowling, 477 So.2d [400] at 404 [ (Ala.1985) ].
- Attalla Health Care, Inc. v. Kimble, 14 So. 3d 883 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).publishedHowever, under Alabama law, “[a] trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b) ... motion.” Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989); accord Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018, 1…
- Holmes v. Johnson, 964 So. 2d 58 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).publishedCo., 741 So.2d 1066, 1070 (Ala.1999); see also Ex parte Jordan, 779 So.2d 183,184 (Ala.2000); Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989); [Ex parte] Dowling, 477 So.2d [400,] 404 [ (Ala.1985) ].” Pinkerton Sec. & Investigation Servs…
Show 6 more citing cases
- Favors v. Skinner's Wholesale Nursery, Inc., 860 So. 2d 359 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).publishedAdditionally, our Supreme Court has stated that ‘the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure do not suspend the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal during the pen-dency of a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion…
- Richard v. State, 850 So. 2d 349 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).publishedWe note, as the Court of Civil Appeals has done on several occasions, that the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain any provision for a ‘motion to reconsider’ a ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion.” Accord Ex parte Jordan, 779 So.2d 1…
- Ex Parte King, 821 So. 2d 205 (Ala. 2001).publishedP.], motion.'") (quoting Ex parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989)).
- Cont'l Grain Co. v. Smallwood, 669 So. 2d 995 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).publishedEx parte Vaughan, 539 So.2d 1060, 1061 (Ala.1989).
- Levine v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 612 So. 2d 1218 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992).publishedAdditionally, our Supreme Court has stated that “the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure do not suspend the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal during the pendency of a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.…
- Suggs v. Gray, 265 So. 3d 226 (Ala. 2018).published (noting that, although the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure do not preclude the filing of alternative motions for relief from judgment, "the better practice is to file a Rule 60(b) motion only when there is a final judgm…)
Other citing cases
- Wood v. Wade, 853 So. 2d 909 (Ala. 2002).published
v.
Carolyn Marie Vaughan).
After an examination of the petition for writ of certiorari, it is our considered opinion that the writ is due to be denied. We note that Mr. Vaughan's appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals was not timely. A trial court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., motion. See Ex parte Dowling,477 So.2d 400 (Ala. 1985). Consequently, the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure do not suspend the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal during the pendency of a motion to reconsider the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. See SpriggsEnterprises, Inc. v. Malbis Plantation, Inc., 502 So.2d 374 (Ala. 1987). Mr. Vaughan's notice of appeal was filed on February 25, 1988, more than 42 days from December 23, 1987, the date the trial court denied the petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion.
We note also that Mr. Vaughan filed alternative Rule 55(c), A.R.Civ.P., and Rule 60(b) motions with the trial court. The trial court denied both motions. The Rules do not contemplate the filing of a Rule 60(b) motion during the pendency of a Rule 55(c) motion. As we pointed out in Ex parte Lang,500 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1986), although the Rules do not contemplate it, they do not preclude it, either. In Ex parte Lang, both a Rule 55(c) motion and a Rule 60(b) motion had been filed with the trial court to set aside a default judgment. The Rule 55(c) motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P. However, the trial court later granted the Rule 60(b) motion. In finding no abuse of discretion on the trial court's part in setting aside the default judgment, we stated:
500 So.2d at 4-5."Under Rule 59.1, the Rule 55(c) motion was denied as a matter of law on November 26, 1985 (90 days after August 28, 1985); upon that denial, the default judgment of August 12 became 'final' within the contemplation of Rule 60(b) —' [o]n motion . . . the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment' — and the court was free to consider the Rule 60(b) motion, which had been theretofore premature. We consider that the Rule 60(b) motion was quickened and became a pending motion as of November 27, 1985, without the necessity of a refiling. Thus, the court had jurisdiction of that motion at the time of its order granting the motion on December 3, 1985."
As the Court recognized in Ex parte Lang, the Rules do not, at the present time, preclude the filing of alternative Rule 55(c) and 60(b) motions; however, the better practice is to file a Rule 60(b) motion only when there is a final judgment in the case.
WRIT DENIED.
JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.