Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So. 2d 1040 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So. 2d 1040 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 1999–2018 · …denial of a rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found. ✓ Topic ↗
15 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Freebeck v. Freebeck (alacivapp, 2018-02-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Freebeck v. Freebeck
Ala. Civ. App. · 2018 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
denial of a rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) J.S. v. L.M.
Ala. Civ. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
denial of a rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Robinson v. Arnold
Ala. Civ. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
denial of a rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Procise v. Marler
Ala. Civ. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
P., provides that a posttrial motion “shall not be ruled upon until the parties have had an opportunity to be heard thereon.” “ ‘Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found.’ ” Long v. Long, 752 So.2d 512, 513 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), quoting Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blackburn v. Blackburn
Ala. Civ. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Rule 59(g) provides that post-judgment motions “shall not be ruled upon until the parties have had opportunity to be heard thereon.” “ ‘Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible er ror if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found.’ ” Long v. Long, 752 So.2d 512, 513 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), quoting Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Jasper v. Waterworks & Sewer Board
Ala. Civ. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), citing Walls v. Bank of Prattville, 554 So.2d 381 (Ala.1989).
cited Cited "see" Long v. Long
Ala. Civ. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lowe , 631 So.2d 1040 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Davis v. Davis
Ala. Civ. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. 1996); see also Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala. Civ.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dubose v. Dubose
Ala. Civ. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. 1996); see also Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala. Civ.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kent v. Herchenhan
Ala. Civ. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Gibert v. Gibert, 709 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (‘A trial court errs by not granting a hearing when one has been requested pursu ant to Rule 59(g); however, that error is not necessarily reversible error.’). ‘On appeal, ... if an appellate court determines that there is no probable merit to the motion, it may affirm based on the harmless error rule.’ Palmer v. Hall, 680 So.2d 307, 307-08 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996); see also Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (‘Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weiss v. Nave
Ala. Civ. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Gibert v. Gibert, 709 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (‘A trial court errs by not granting a hearing when one has been requested pursuant to Rule 59(g); however, that error is not necessarily reversible error.’). ‘On appeal, ... if an appellate court determines that there is no probable merit to the motion, it may affirm based on the harmless error rule.’ Palmer v. Hall, 680 So.2d 307, 307-08 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (‘Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing an…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dana Kyle Whitman v. Larry Stephen Whitman II.
Ala. Civ. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Gibert v. Gibert, 709 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (‘A trial court errs by not granting a hearing when one has been requested pursuant to Rule 59(g); however, that error is not necessarily reversible error.’). ‘On appeal, ... if an appellate court determines that there is no probable merit to the motion, it may affirm based on the harmless error rule.’ Palmer v. Hall, 680 So.2d 307, 307-08 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (‘Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing an…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wicks v. Wicks
Ala. Civ. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“On appeal, ... if an appellate court determines that there is no probable merit to the motion, it may affirm based on the harmless error rule.” Palmer v. Hall, 680 So.2d 307, 307-08 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); see also Lowe v. Lowe, 631 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Ala.Civ.App.1993) (“Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harold Douglas Lowe
v.
Karen Lowe.
AV92000489.
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Dec 3, 1993.
631 So. 2d 1040
1993 WL 496014
Jack B. Weaver of Owens, Weaver Associates, P.C., Monroeville, for appellant. V. Wylynn Gilmore-Phillippi of Gilmore Law Office, Grove Hill, for appellee.
Thigpen.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: Court of Civil Appeals of Alab… (3)

In December 1992, the trial court divorced Karen Lowe (wife) and Harold Douglas Lowe (husband). The divorce judgment appeared to incorporate the terms of an agreement that the parties had reached at an ore tenus proceeding. In January 1993, the husband filed post-judgment motions alleging that the actual agreement of the parties conflicted with certain provisions of the agreement contained in the divorce judgment. He sought to have the divorce judgment set aside, requested a new trial, and requested a hearing. Although the wife objected to the husband's motion to set aside, she conceded to one inconsistency. A hearing was scheduled; however, the trial court ultimately denied the husband's motions without a hearing. Hence, this appeal. *Page 1041

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the husband's post-judgment motion without a hearing.

Rule 59(g), A.R. Civ. P., requires that motions pursuant to Rule 59 "shall not be ruled upon until the parties have had opportunity to be heard thereon." Denial of a Rule 59 motion without a hearing is reversible error if the movant requested a hearing and harmful error is found. Walls v. Bank ofPrattville, 554 So.2d 381 (Ala. 1989). See also Maples v.Maples, 599 So.2d 625 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992). As noted, the wife conceded to at least one conflict alleged by the husband. Additionally, we note that the wife's brief presents a copy of an order amending the divorce judgment that is not a part of the record on appeal. That order was apparently entered after the husband's motion was denied and his appeal was filed. Hence, that order is a nullity. Colburn v. Colburn,510 So.2d 266 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987).

Based upon the foregoing, the trial court's denial of the husband's motion without a hearing was contrary to Rule 59(g), A.R.Civ.P, and it must be set aside. The cause is remanded for proceedings in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The wife's request for attorney fees on appeal is denied.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, J., concur.