Rodgers v. Rodgers

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Rodgers v. Rodgers

424 So. 2d 647

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedDecember 22, 1982

DocketCiv. 3420

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 424 So. 2d 647 (Rodgers v. Rodgers) 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

Rodgers v. Rodgers, 424 So. 2d 647 (Ala. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60 (b)(6), A.R.Civ.P. motion for relief from an order of divorce.

The trial court has wide discretion in its determination of whether to grant relief pursuant to Rule 60 (b), A.R.Civ.P., and its ruling will not be reversed except for an abuse of that discretion. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc. v. Edwards,374 So.2d 900 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979). Relief is justified under a Rule (60)(b) motion when a party is able to show exceptional circumstances sufficient to entitle him to relief. HartfordInsurance Co. v. Lagano, 394 So.2d 933 (Ala. 1981). In reviewing a ruling of a trial court on a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless it is determined that there is an absence of reasonable cause, that rights of others subsequently arising would be adversely affected or that it is unjust. Hartford Insurance Co. v.Lagano, supra. *Page 648

We have carefully read and considered the record and the respective briefs. It is the opinion of the court that to relate the evidence as to the respective positions of the parties would serve no meaningful purpose. It is sufficient to say that we find no abuse of the discretion given the trial judge in considering Rule 60 (b) motions. We consider our decision in the recent case of Nelson v. Nelson, 408 So.2d 101 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981) is sufficient authority for our judgment in this case. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

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

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60 (b)(6), A.R.Civ.P. motion for relief from an order of divorce.

The trial court has wide discretion in its determination of whether to grant relief pursuant to Rule 60 (b), A.R.Civ.P., and its ruling will not be reversed except for an abuse of that discretion. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc. v. Edwards,374 So.2d 900 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979). Relief is justified under a Rule (60)(b) motion when a party is able to show exceptional circumstances sufficient to entitle him to relief. HartfordInsurance Co. v. Lagano, 394 So.2d 933 (Ala. 1981). In reviewing a ruling of a trial court on a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless it is determined that there is an absence of reasonable cause, that rights of others subsequently arising would be adversely affected or that it is unjust. Hartford Insurance Co. v.Lagano, supra. *Page 648

We have carefully read and considered the record and the respective briefs. It is the opinion of the court that to relate the evidence as to the respective positions of the parties would serve no meaningful purpose. It is sufficient to say that we find no abuse of the discretion given the trial judge in considering Rule 60 (b) motions. We consider our decision in the recent case of Nelson v. Nelson, 408 So.2d 101 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981) is sufficient authority for our judgment in this case. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 So. 2d 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-rodgers-alacivapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack