Howard v. McMillian

480 So. 2d 1251
CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama
DecidedNovember 20, 1985
DocketCiv. 4948
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 480 So. 2d 1251 (Howard v. McMillian) 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
Howard v. McMillian, 480 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

This is a promissory note case.

The plaintiff's civil action was dismissed by the trial court for want of prosecution. The plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, and after ninety days from its filing, it was overruled by operation of rule 59.1 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part that a failure by a trial court to dispose of any pending postjudgment motion within ninety days of its filing shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of the period. *Page 1252

The plaintiff timely appealed and raises one issue: whether the trial court erred in inadvertently failing to timely rule on the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Rule 59.1 makes no distinction between an inadvertent failure, a deliberate failure, and any other type of failure by the trial court to dispose of a pending postjudgment motion within the prescribed ninety day period. Any type of failure to rule upon such a motion during such period of time is adequate to bring rule 59.1 into operation.

We will not place a trial court in error for its failure to rule upon a motion for a new trial within ninety days from its filing.

There being no merit as to the issue raised, we affirm.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by Retired Circuit Judge EDWARD N. SCRUGGS while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of section 12-18-10 (e), Code 1975, and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

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

Related

Honea v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc.
240 So. 3d 550 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2017)
Ex parte Genesis Pittman, D.M.D., P.C.
225 So. 3d 588 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2016)
Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Roberson
97 So. 3d 176 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2012)
Washington v. Limerick
66 So. 3d 755 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2011)
EIGHT MILE AUTO SALES, INC. v. Fair
25 So. 3d 459 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2009)
Smith v. Smith
4 So. 3d 1178 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2008)
Chamblee v. Pinkerton Security & Investigations Services, Inc.
899 So. 2d 244 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
Ex Parte Chamblee
899 So. 2d 244 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
Similton v. State
672 So. 2d 1363 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1995)
Ex Parte Johnson Land Co., Inc.
561 So. 2d 506 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1990)
Snow v. Snow
531 So. 2d 921 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
480 So. 2d 1251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-mcmillian-alacivapp-1985.