The case involved Lisa Michelle Hopper's appeal from the denial of her Rule 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from a civil-forfeiture judgment that awarded the State $16,000 in cash seized during a 2020 search of her vehicle along with controlled substances. The Blount Circuit Court had entered the forfeiture judgment after Hopper did not appear at trial, following purported personal service of the complaint nearly five years after it was filed. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial, holding the judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction because the return-on-service form failed to include the process server's address, telephone number, and qualification as a designated person under Rule 4(i)(1)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P., and the State presented no other evidence of proper service. The court reasoned that strict compliance with service rules is required and that actual notice does not excuse deficiencies or shift the burden from the State to prove valid service.
This case involved a dispute between Jessica Hall and Laddin Cole Mock over custody and visitation of their child, stemming from a 2019 judgment that awarded Hall sole physical custody. Mock filed a petition in 2023 seeking to hold Hall in contempt for interfering with visitation and to modify custody, which led to a March 2024 judgment addressing contempt but denying other claims including modification. The circuit court later entered a June 2024 order modifying custody as a sanction in a post-judgment contempt proceeding without requiring a new filing fee or petition. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed Hall's appeal, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to modify custody because the modification claim had already been adjudicated and no new action had been properly initiated. The court reasoned that a trial court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce its judgments through contempt does not extend to modifying custody without compliance with filing requirements for a new modification action.
In this case, a father appealed juvenile court judgments denying his petition to modify custody of his three children, who had been awarded to their maternal aunt in 2022 judgments that also granted the parents limited supervised visitation. The juvenile court proceeded to trial and denied the modification request despite the mother's absence after failed service attempts, without addressing her joinder. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the mother was a necessary party under Rule 19 whose parental rights could be affected by any custody change, requiring the juvenile court to determine whether joinder was feasible and, if not, whether the action could proceed in her absence after weighing the specified factors.
The case concerns a mother living in Guatemala who petitioned for a writ of mandamus to require the Marshall Juvenile Court to permit her to testify remotely via audiovisual technology at a dispositional hearing in a dependency proceeding involving her child. The juvenile court had denied her motion, relying on Rule 33(B), Ala. R. Juv. P., and prior precedent, believing it lacked authority to allow remote appearance. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals granted the petition in part, holding that the juvenile court must reconsider the motion under Rule 43(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., because the mother presented a prima facie case of compelling circumstances due to her immigration status and location, but denied the petition in part by declining to direct how the lower court should exercise its discretion. The court emphasized that the juvenile court had mistakenly concluded it had no authority to consider such requests and that mandamus could compel reconsideration but not control the outcome absent an abuse of discretion.
The case involved a breach-of-contract action by the Alabama State Employees Credit Union against Trevor Spencer, resulting in a default judgment awarding the credit union $24,086.85 plus court costs, with post-judgment interest set at 7.5%. The credit union moved to amend the judgment to reflect the 17.5% contract rate as required by Ala. Code § 8-8-10, but the motion was denied by operation of law, leading to an appeal. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that the circuit court erred by applying the statutory rate instead of the higher contract rate, reversing the judgment and remanding for correction, while ruling that the error did not render the judgment void due to lack of jurisdiction or due process issues.
This case involves a dependency proceeding in the Walker Juvenile Court concerning custody of a minor child, W.H., initiated by the maternal grandparents against the mother, with the father later involved through a consolidated paternity action. The juvenile court adjudicated the father as the legal parent, changed the child's surname, found the mother unable to parent, and awarded custody to the father with supervised visitation for the mother. The mother and maternal grandparents appealed, arguing issues including lack of jurisdiction, improper dependency adjudication, and failure to hold a hearing on a postjudgment motion. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the juvenile court had jurisdiction but erred by not properly adjudicating the child as dependent under state law, failing to dispose of custody pursuant to the relevant statute, and denying a hearing on the mother's postjudgment challenge to the surname change without sufficient evidence of the child's best interests.