J.B.M. v. J.C.M.

Citations: 142 So. 3d 676; 2013 WL 5496260; 2013 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 225Docket: 2120165 and 2120166

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; October 4, 2013; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

J.B.M., the biological father of W.M. and B.M., appeals orders from the Cullman Probate Court related to his postjudgment motions aimed at overturning the court's July 18, 2012, adoption judgments that granted J.C.M., the children’s stepfather, the right to adopt them. The appeals are partially dismissed, while the order dismissing the father's second post-judgment motion is reversed and remanded for consideration. Following J.B.M. and M.M.'s divorce in April 2008, they shared joint legal custody, with M.M. receiving primary custody and J.B.M. granted visitation rights and ordered to pay child support. In August 2011, the custody arrangement was modified to grant M.M. sole legal custody. On April 17, 2012, J.C.M. filed adoption petitions, claiming J.B.M. had abandoned the children, which implied consent to the adoptions. J.B.M. was notified of the petitions but did not respond and failed to appear at the July 18, 2012, hearing when the adoption was finalized and his parental rights were terminated. Following the judgments, J.B.M. filed three postjudgment motions, beginning with a "Verified Motion to Amend, Alter or Vacate" on August 31, 2012, arguing lack of notice of the hearing and referencing his visitation rights from the divorce judgment. He did not claim fraud in this motion.

The father filed a post-judgment motion regarding adoption, accompanied by exhibits including a letter from his attorney stating he would not sign the consent-to-adoption forms. The stepfather responded, arguing that the father did not notify the court or his counsel of any objections, and asserted the motion was untimely per Rule 59 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. The father claimed relief under both Rule 59 and Rule 60. The probate court denied the father's first post-judgment motion without a hearing on September 17, 2012. Subsequently, on September 26, 2012, the father filed a second motion claiming the stepfather's adoption petitions included fraudulent statements, rendering the judgments void. The stepfather contended this was a successive Rule 60(b) motion, which the court could not consider, leading to the dismissal of the father's second motion on October 12, 2012, again without a hearing. 

On October 31, 2012, the father sought to amend the dismissal order, arguing the fraud claim was a new issue not addressed in the first motion. This request was denied on November 2, 2012. The father filed notices of appeal on November 16, 2012, which were consolidated by the court. He argued the probate court erred by not holding hearings on his motions and exceeded its discretion in denying them, seeking reversal or remand for a hearing. The stepfather countered that the father’s appeal was untimely since appeals from adoption rulings must be filed within 14 days of the final decree. Relevant Alabama statutes and rules governing the timeline and procedures for appeals in adoption cases were cited, emphasizing the application of civil procedure rules in probate court settings.

The great-uncle and great-aunt filed a postjudgment motion, which was denied by operation of law, leading to the timely filing of a notice of appeal under Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Civil Appeals has previously addressed appeals in adoption cases where postjudgment motions were filed and denied, recognizing that a postjudgment motion under Rule 60(b) does not toll the time for appeal from the underlying judgment but that its denial constitutes a final judgment that allows for an independent appeal. Specifically, under Alabama law, an aggrieved party has 14 days to appeal a final judgment of adoption, but the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in adoption cases is treated as a separate final judgment, extending the appeal period to 42 days as per Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P.

The stepfather argues that the father's three postjudgment motions were successive, which the probate court deemed as such, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to consider the second and third motions, thereby rendering the father's appeals untimely. The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that once a postjudgment motion under Rule 60(b) is denied, the trial court cannot entertain a successive motion that seeks to revisit that denial. Successive motions on the same grounds are generally not permitted under Rule 60(b), although new grounds in a subsequent motion can be valid. The father’s first postjudgment motion, filed on August 31, 2012, claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing, asserting that the adoption judgments from July 18, 2012, should be set aside under both Rule 59 and Rule 60(b).

The father argued on appeal that his first post-judgment motion could be interpreted as a motion to set aside default judgments under Rule 55(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, as he did not attend the hearing. However, both Rule 59(e) and Rule 55(c) require that such motions be filed within 30 days of the judgment. The father's motion was filed more than 30 days after the probate court's adoption judgments, rendering it untimely under both rules. Nonetheless, it could be construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from default, which applies after 30 days have elapsed since the judgment. The probate court denied this motion without a hearing or stated reasons on September 17, 2012. The father did not appeal the denial until November 16, 2012, exceeding the 42-day limit, thus the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal regarding the first motion, leading to its dismissal.

In his second post-judgment motion, the father introduced a new argument claiming that the stepfather committed fraud by stating there were no existing custody orders in the adoption petition. This motion was filed within the four-month period allowed by Rule 60(b) and was not merely a successive motion as it raised a new basis for setting aside the judgments. However, the probate court incorrectly classified it as a successive motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction on October 12, 2012, without addressing its merits or conducting a hearing. 

The father's third post-judgment motion sought to alter or vacate the October 12 dismissal, claiming it was based on a different ground than the first motion. This third motion was considered successive, and once a post-judgment motion under Rule 60(b) has been denied, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent motion to reconsider that denial. Consequently, the third motion did not extend the time for filing an appeal.

The father's appeals regarding his second postjudgment motion were timely filed within the 42-day window following the probate court's final order dismissing that motion on October 12, 2012. Specifically, the notices of appeal were submitted on November 16, 2012, which was 35 days post-order. The father contends that the probate court erred by not holding a hearing on his motion, but there is no obligation for a hearing on a Rule 60(b) motion unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated. The probate court dismissed the father's motion without review, citing a lack of jurisdiction, which was determined to be incorrect. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the probate court for consideration of the father's assertions and whether a hearing is warranted. The probate court must evaluate whether the father has shown extraordinary circumstances and diligence sufficient to justify a hearing on the Rule 60(b) motion. Additionally, the legal requirements regarding consent for adoption under Alabama law were highlighted, including that a presumed father must consent unless abandonment is established, which can occur if the father fails to provide support for six months prior to the child's birth. It was also noted that it is unclear if the father had legal representation during a specific period before filing his first postjudgment motion. The appellate court's decision included a dismissal of part of the appeal, reversal of the October 12, 2012 order, and remand for further proceedings.

A notice of appeal to the court must generally be filed within 42 days of the judgment entry, per Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P., with limited exceptions. Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a final judgment due to fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. However, mere misrepresentations do not qualify as 'fraud upon the court.' The Supreme Court of Alabama defines 'fraud upon the court' as actions that corrupt the court itself or are perpetrated by an officer of the court, not merely fraud among parties. Notable cases emphasize that 'fraud upon the court' involves severe misconduct that undermines judicial integrity, such as bribery or improper influence. Additionally, under Ala.Code 1975 § 26-10A-25(d), a final adoption decree cannot be challenged after one year from entry and completion of all appeals, except in cases of fraud or kidnapping.