Terry A. Moore

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.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

immigrationfamily lawprocedure

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a party appealing a final judgment from an Alabama district court to the circuit court properly invoked appellate jurisdiction by transmitting a notice of appeal electronically through the AlaFile system rather than delivering a paper copy. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the appeal. The court held that § 12-12-70(a), Ala. Code 1975, requires the "filing" of a notice of appeal, which means physical delivery to the clerk, and that electronic filing is permitted only if authorized by a supreme court order or rule under Rule 5(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. Although the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure allow electronic notices of appeal in some contexts and Rule 44 addresses electronic filing in trial courts, neither provision authorizes electronic filing for district-to-circuit appeals, and the relevant policy manual and message-board warnings did not override that requirement.

procedure

In this workers' compensation case, Wesley Dean sued his employer, BISCO Refractories, Inc., seeking permanent-total-disability benefits after suffering fractures to his lumbar vertebrae and left heel in a 2019 work-related accident. The trial court awarded him those benefits, but the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment. The court reasoned that the undisputed evidence demonstrated Dean had secured and performed gainful employment, including part-time work as a forklift operator and brick mason, in the years following his injury, contrary to a finding of permanent total disability. The appellate court held that the trial court had misapplied the law by ignoring this evidence of the employee's ability to work.

labor & employment

Bay Town Bonding, Inc. appealed a final bond-forfeiture judgment of $4,000 plus costs entered by the Mobile Circuit Court after a defendant failed to appear for arraignment. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to discharge the bonding company from liability. The court held that Alabama statutes require service of the conditional bond-forfeiture notice by certified mail within 90 days, and the record contained no evidence that such service occurred, only an email from the clerk and a circuit court order that did not comply with the statutory requirements. Because the State failed to meet its burden to prove proper service, the final forfeiture could not stand.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns an appeal by Howard Ross from a Madison Circuit Court judgment in favor of West Wind Condominium Association regarding unpaid homeowners' dues and assessments. After an earlier appellate decision remanded the case for recalculation of amounts owed, the trial court entered an amended judgment before the appellate court had issued its certificate of judgment. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment or related orders, rendering them void, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction while directing the trial court to vacate those orders and requiring return of funds disbursed from Ross's cash bond.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether Alabama's Department of Public Health has statutory authority under the Hospital Act to license and regulate freestanding birth centers that provide midwifery-model care. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that such centers qualify as 'hospitals' under Ala. Code § 22-21-20(1) because they are health-care institutions primarily engaged in offering obstetrical care to the public generally. The court therefore reversed the circuit court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, ruling that the 2023 regulations are valid and that the centers must obtain hospital licenses to operate.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

In this case, the custodian of a child petitioned the Colbert Juvenile Court to terminate the parental rights of the child's father, and after unsuccessful attempts to serve the father at his last known address, the court granted a motion for service by publication under Alabama Code § 12-15-318. The father's appointed counsel later filed a notice of appearance and an answer without initially raising a service defense, leading the custodian to argue that any objection to service was waived, but the juvenile court ordered the custodian to complete the publication service before resetting the trial to ensure personal jurisdiction. The custodian then petitioned the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus to vacate that order. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that the juvenile court could properly require perfected service by publication because the father's attorney had not clearly waived the defense and personal jurisdiction had not been established.

family lawprocedure

This case involves consolidated appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the Baldwin Circuit Court that divided the parties' marital estate and awarded the wife periodic alimony of $2,500 per month. The husband appealed, arguing that the alimony award failed to comply with the requirements of Ala. Code § 30-2-57, while the wife cross-appealed on the ground that the award was inequitable. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the trial court did not make the express findings mandated by § 30-2-57(a) and (b) before awarding periodic alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony. Under the statute, a court must first find that one party lacks a sufficient separate estate to maintain the marital economic status quo, that the other party can pay without undue hardship, and that an award is equitable; it must then prioritize rehabilitative alimony for up to five years unless it expressly determines that option is not feasible. The appeals court concluded that neither the judgment nor statements at the postjudgment hearing satisfied these requirements.

family law

This case involves cross-appeals from a Baldwin Circuit Court divorce judgment that divided the parties' marital estate and awarded the wife periodic alimony of $2,500 per month. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, determining that the trial court had not made the express findings mandated by Ala. Code 1975, § 30-2-57(a) and (b) before awarding periodic alimony. The statute requires the court to find that one party lacks a sufficient separate estate to maintain the marital economic status quo, that the other party can pay without undue hardship, and that an award is equitable, with rehabilitative alimony as the priority unless expressly found infeasible. The appeals court concluded that the trial court's judgment and postjudgment hearing statements did not satisfy these statutory requirements.

family lawprocedure

This case involves appeals by Neal G. Whatley from judgments in divorce and child support modification actions against Allison H. Whatley in the Montgomery Circuit Court. The appeals concern the division of marital property, award of alimony in the divorce, and the denial of a petition to modify child support. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed most of the divorce judgment but reversed on the issue of taxing costs from a prior appeal against the wife, and affirmed the denial of the modification petition, based on findings regarding the parties' incomes exceeding child support guidelines and compliance with discovery and procedural rules.

family lawproperty

This case involves appeals by Neal G. Whatley from judgments in a divorce action and a related child-support modification action against Allison H. Whatley in Montgomery Circuit Court. The divorce judgment divided marital property, awarded alimony to the wife, and addressed child custody and support on grounds of incompatibility, while the modification action denied the husband's request to reduce his child-support obligation. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the divorce judgment in most respects, including its handling of property division, alimony, custody, and child support (noting that the parties' income exceeded guideline limits), but reversed on the failure to tax costs from a prior appeal against the wife; it affirmed the denial of modification in full, based on the trial court's findings regarding income and compliance with procedural rules.

family lawproperty

The case involved an appeal by employer MMR Constructors, Inc. from a Mobile Circuit Court judgment that awarded temporary-total-disability compensation and medical benefits to employee Darrell Wayne Taylor under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Taylor sustained compensable personal injuries from a motor-vehicle accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment. The core reasoning centered on evidence that Taylor was performing his ordinary job duties driving a buggy on a private road at the work site when he lost consciousness, crashed, and suffered head injuries, satisfying the requirements for compensability despite his preexisting cough and medical conditions.

labor & employment

This case involves a dispute over child custody jurisdiction between Alabama and Ohio courts under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The mother sought to transfer an ongoing custody proceeding from an Ohio court to the Marshall Circuit Court after she and the child moved to Alabama, but the circuit court dismissed the case following an unre corded teleconference with the Ohio judge, concluding that Ohio retained jurisdiction. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the circuit court failed to create a record of the inter-court communication as required by Ala. Code § 30-3B-110 and to allow the mother an opportunity to respond before declining jurisdiction. The court remanded with instructions to document the communication, provide access to the mother, and permit her to present arguments on the jurisdictional issue prior to any final determination.

family lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by R.D. (the father) from a Mobile Juvenile Court judgment terminating his parental rights to his child L.D., along with the mother's rights (which she did not appeal). The juvenile court found that the mother had a mental illness rendering her unable to care for the child and that the father was emotionally dependent on the mother, living with her and unwilling to protect the child from her, making him unable to discharge his parental responsibilities under Ala. Code 1975, § 12-15-319(a)(2). The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the termination, concluding that the juvenile court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the mother's prior indicated findings of child abuse and neglect with her other children, and presuming the correctness of the ore tenus determinations regarding the father's lack of protective capacity.

family law

In S.A. v. Lee County Department of Human Resources, the mother and father appealed the Lee Juvenile Court's termination of their parental rights to two young children after DHR filed petitions in dependency cases. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgments, concluding that the juvenile court exceeded its discretion by failing to determine the mother's indigency or appoint counsel when she requested a continuance mid-trial due to inability to afford representation. The core reasoning was that the mother was entitled to appointed counsel upon a finding of indigency in termination proceedings, and the failure to do so before proceeding required a new trial with counsel; reversal for the father followed because proper representation for the mother could establish viable custody alternatives. The cases were remanded for retrial allowing the mother's appointed counsel and the father's participation.

family lawprocedure