A & S Bail Bonding Co. v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

A & S Bail Bonding Co. v. State

627 So. 2d 446, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 204, 1993 WL 133258

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedApril 30, 1993

DocketAV92000247

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 446 (A & S Bail Bonding Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A & S Bail Bonding Co. v. State, 627 So. 2d 446, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 204, 1993 WL 133258 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

A & S Bail Bonding Company, Inc. (A & S), filed a Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, motion on January 6, 1992, seeking relief from a 1987 forfeiture judgment.

After a hearing, the Rule 60(b) motion was denied by the trial court on March 20, 1992. Notice of appeal was filed on May 4, 1992, some 45 days after the trial court’s judgment. This appeal must be dismissed as untimely, having not been brought within the 42-day period as provided by Rule 4(a)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 2(a)(1), A.R.A.P., mandates that an appeal be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Asam v. City of Tuscaloosa, 585 So.2d 60 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

We note that A & S filed a motion to reconsider after the Rule 60(b) motion was denied. Again, we point out to the bench and the bar “that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a movant to file a motion to reconsider the trial judge’s ruling on his own post-judgment motion.” Ex parte Dowling, 477 So.2d 400, 404 (Ala.1985). A & S’s second post-judgment motion did not suspend the running of the time to appeal. Franklin v. Franklin, 582 So.2d 1146 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIGPEN and YATES, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

A & S Bail Bonding Company, Inc. (A & S), filed a Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, motion on January 6, 1992, seeking relief from a 1987 forfeiture judgment.

After a hearing, the Rule 60(b) motion was denied by the trial court on March 20, 1992. Notice of appeal was filed on May 4, 1992, some 45 days after the trial court’s judgment. This appeal must be dismissed as untimely, having not been brought within the 42-day period as provided by Rule 4(a)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 2(a)(1), A.R.A.P., mandates that an appeal be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Asam v. City of Tuscaloosa, 585 So.2d 60 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

We note that A & S filed a motion to reconsider after the Rule 60(b) motion was denied. Again, we point out to the bench and the bar “that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a movant to file a motion to reconsider the trial judge’s ruling on his own post-judgment motion.” Ex parte Dowling, 477 So.2d 400, 404 (Ala.1985). A & S’s second post-judgment motion did not suspend the running of the time to appeal. Franklin v. Franklin, 582 So.2d 1146 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIGPEN and YATES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 446, 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 204, 1993 WL 133258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-s-bail-bonding-co-v-state-alacivapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack