James M. Kidd IV v. Andrea Stewart Wells Kidd

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: July 10, 2026
• Docket: CL-2026-0168
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: July 10, 2026

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 SPECIAL TERM, 2026 _________________________

CL-2026-0168 _________________________

James M. Kidd IV

v.

Andrea Stewart Wells Kidd

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (DR-25-900246)

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

James M. Kidd IV ("the husband") appeals from an order entered

by the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the circuit court") denying his motion to

set aside a default judgment in the underlying divorce proceedings

commenced against him by Andrea Stewart Wells Kidd ("the wife"). We

dismiss the appeal. CL-2026-0168

On February 5, 2025, the wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce

from the husband. The husband was personally served with the

complaint and summons on March 18, 2025, but he did not file an answer.

On April 18, 2025, the wife moved the circuit court for the entry of a

default judgment. On April 29, 2025, the circuit court granted the motion

in part and scheduled a hearing for June 9, 2025. After conducting the

hearing, the circuit court entered a default judgment divorcing the

parties on June 9, 2025.

On July 25, 2025, the husband filed a motion to set aside the default

judgment. In the motion, the husband argued that, throughout the

proceedings, he had been misled by the wife into believing that the

parties would attempt to reconcile or to reach a settlement agreement.

The husband claimed that he had not received notice of the motion for

the entry of the default judgment, notice of the June 9, 2025, hearing, or

notice of entry of the default judgment. The husband contended that he

had learned of the entry of the default judgment on July 9, 2025, but that

he had not had ample time to file a motion to set aside the default

judgment pursuant to Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., which must be filed

within 30 days of the entry of a default judgment. See Ex parte King,

2 CL-2026-0168

776 So. 2d 31, 35 (Ala. 2000). The husband, therefore, relied on Rule

60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., to seek relief from the default judgment. See

Campbell v. Campbell, 910 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)

(recognizing that "Rule 60(b) becomes available when more than 30 days

have passed since the entry of the judgment of default").

On October 14, 2025, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the

Rule 60(b) motion. During that hearing, the wife testified, and she filed

a verified affidavit summarizing her testimony. The wife testified that

at no point had she informed the husband that there was any hope of

reconciling. The wife also testified that she had told the husband that

she had obtained a default judgment in June 2025 and that she had

provided him with a copy of the default judgment on July 7, 2025. On

October 22, 2025, the circuit court entered an order denying the

husband's Rule 60(b) motion.

On November 18, 2025, the husband filed a motion to reconsider

the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, arguing that he had not been given

notice of the wife's testimony before the October 14, 2025, hearing and a

fair opportunity to rebut that testimony. On January 28, 2026, the circuit

court entered an order denying the motion to reconsider. The husband

3 CL-2026-0168

filed a notice of appeal on March 4, 2026. On appeal, he argues that the

circuit court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion.

An order denying a Rule 60(b) motion is an appealable order. Glenn

v. City of Wetumpka, 410 So. 3d 1135, 1137 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). In a

divorce case, a notice of appeal of an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion

must be filed within 42 days of the entry of the order; the time for appeal

is not tolled by the filing of a motion to reconsider because a circuit court

has no jurisdiction to reconsider the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. See

Adkins v. Adkins, 61 So. 3d 1071, 1074 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). In this case,

the husband did not file his notice of appeal within 42 days of the entry

of the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion; he filed it within 42 days of

the entry of the order purporting to deny his motion to reconsider, but

that order was a legal nullity that will not support an appeal. See

Dreding v. Kruse, 141 So. 3d 507, 510 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).

The untimely filing of a notice of appeal results in a jurisdictional

defect; when an appeal of an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion is not

timely, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the order. See

Favors v. Skinner's Wholesale Nursery, Inc., 860 So. 2d 359 (Ala. Civ.

4 CL-2026-0168

App. 2003). Because we lack appellate jurisdiction over this untimely

appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. Id.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.