H.B. v. P.N.

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: February 17, 2023
• Docket: CL-2022-0517
• Status: Published

Opinion

REL: February 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023 _________________________

CL-2022-0517 _________________________

H.B.

v.

P.N.

Appeal from Jefferson Juvenile Court (CS-18-308.00 & CS-18-308.01)

EDWARDS, Judge.

In July 2018, P.N. ("the mother") filed an action in the Jefferson

Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") against H.B. ("the father") seeking

to establish the paternity of F.R.T. ("the child"); that action was assigned

case number CS-18-308.00 ("the paternity action"). The father did not CL-2022-0517

appear in the paternity action, and, on November 20, 2019, the juvenile

court entered a judgment ("the paternity judgment") determining

paternity and ordering the father to pay $778 per month in child support.

The father did not appeal the paternity judgment.

In May 2021, the mother filed an action seeking to have the father

held in contempt for failing to pay child support as ordered in the

paternity judgment; that action was assigned case number CS-18-308.01

("the contempt action"). After two continuances, the juvenile court tried

the contempt action. On February 14, 2022, the juvenile court entered a

judgment ("the contempt judgment") finding the father to be in contempt,

determining the amount of the child-support arrearage, and ordering the

father to purge himself of his contempt by paying his monthly child-

support obligation and an additional $75 per month toward the

arrearage.

The father filed a timely postjudgment motion directed to the

contempt judgment on February 24, 2022. That motion, however, mainly

challenged, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., the validity of the

paternity judgment. The caption of the father's postjudgment motion

2 CL-2022-0517

contained the case numbers of both the paternity action and the contempt

action, but the case-action-summary sheet for the paternity action does

not reflect that the father's motion was electronically filed, or otherwise

docketed, in the paternity action. That portion of the postjudgment

motion directed to the contempt judgment was denied by operation of law

on March 10, 2022. 1 See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. ("A failure by the

juvenile court to render an order disposing of any pending postjudgment

motion within the time permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof,

shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of

the period."). However, the juvenile court did not enter any order in the

paternity action addressing a postjudgment motion. The father filed a

notice of appeal on March 25, 2022, in which he designated that he was

appealing from the February 24, 2022, judgment and the March 11, 2022,

1The juvenile court entered an order in the contempt action purporting to deny the father's postjudgment motion on March 11, 2022, but, because the postjudgment motion had been denied by operation of law on March 10, 2022, the March 11, 2022, order is a nullity. See, e.g., S.D.C. v. N.L., 864 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (explaining that a juvenile court's order on a postjudgment motion entered after that postjudgment motion is denied by operation of law is a nullity). 3 CL-2022-0517

order purportedly denying his Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., and Rule 60(b)(4)

motion in both the paternity and the contempt action. 2 We dismiss the

father's appeal.

First, we note that the appeal, to the extent that it arises from the

contempt judgment, is untimely and must be dismissed. The portion of

the father's February 24, 2022, postjudgment motion directed to the

contempt judgment was denied by operation of law on March 10, 2022.

See Rule 1(B). The father had 14 days after the denial of his

postjudgment motion by operation of law to file a notice of appeal from

the contempt judgment. See Rule 28(D), Ala. R. Juv. P. (indicating that

a party must file a notice of appeal directed to a judgment of a juvenile

court within 14 days of the entry of that judgment); Rules 4(a)(1)(E) and

4(a)(3), Ala. R. App. P. (indicating that a timely filed postjudgment

motion suspends the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal and

that the notice of appeal should be filed within 14 days of the denial of

2After the record in the contempt action was compiled and the appeal was submitted, this court realized that the appeal had been docketed as an appeal from solely the contempt action; we instructed the clerk to docket the appeal from the paternity action and ordered that a record of the paternity action be compiled and forwarded to this court. 4 CL-2022-0517

any such postjudgment motion). The father filed his notice of appeal on

March 25, 2022, 15 days after the denial of his postjudgment motion by

operation of law. Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P., provides that "[a]n appeal

shall be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed to invoke

the jurisdiction of the appellate court." We must therefore dismiss the

father's appeal insofar as it is taken from the contempt judgment.

The father's appeal, to the extent that it arises from the denial of

his Rule 60(b) motion in the paternity action, must also be dismissed,

albeit for a different reason. The case-action-summary sheet of the

paternity action does not reflect that the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion

was electronically filed, or otherwise docketed, in the paternity action

even though the caption of that motion reflects the case numbers for both

the contempt action and the paternity action and clearly reflects that the

father was seeking relief from the paternity judgment. Moreover, even if

we consider the Rule 60(b)(4) motion to have been filed in the paternity

action despite the lack of indicia that it was electronically filed in that

action, the juvenile court failed to enter an order in the paternity action

disposing of the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Thus, insofar as the record

5 CL-2022-0517

of the paternity action reflects, the father has not received an adverse

ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion, and, therefore, no judgment exists to

support his appeal. Ex parte Peake, [Ms. 2190952, Sept. 24, 2021] ___

So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) (dismissing an appeal and explaining

that because "no appealable order was entered in the contempt action,

[this court] lack[ed] jurisdiction as to th[e] appeal" from that action).

Accordingly, we dismiss the father's appeal insofar as it seeks review of

the purported denial of his Rule 60(b) motion directed to the November

2019 judgment in the paternity action.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.