Appellate Law

Absence of Rule 59 Motion Precludes Trial Court From Amending Judgment

In Pierce v. American General Finance, Inc., released by the Alabama Supreme Court on March 28, the court examined the trial court's ability to amend a previous judgment in the absence of a Rule 59 motion, holding that it was without jurisdiction to do so.  

On March 26, 2006, the circuit court dismissed American General's claims against Pierce due to Pierce's pending bankruptcy proceedings.  Nevertheless, on July 18, 2006, the circuit court entered an order setting the case for a bench trial.  Pierce failed to appear for the bench trial and the circuit court purported to enter a judgment in favor of American General. 

The issue on appeal was whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter after dismissing the case without prejudice.  The court concluded that it did not, noting that while Rule 59(e) allows a court, on the motion of a party, to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment if the motion is filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, no such motion appeared in the record. Furthermore, while Rule 59 likewise would allow the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment sua sponte, within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, no such order appeared in the record.  

Therefore, absent a Rule 59 motion or order, the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed after dismissing the case with prejudice.   

The court also rejected American General's argument that the dismissal order was based on a "mistake" pursuant to Rule 60(a) because Pierce was not actually involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.  The court pointed out the limits on the type of mistakes that Rule 60 allows for correction of, noting that the proper application of Rule 60 is to "make the judgment or the record speak the truth."  Therefore, only mistakes "associated with mistakes in transcription, alteration, or omission" can be corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a).  To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would be to allow "Rule 60(a) to be used to supply non-action by the court in the place of its action and to make its judgment say something other than what was originally announced."

Accordingly, because the circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the case which was never set aside, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hold a trial and then to enter a second judgment. 

Full post as published by Alabama Appellate Watch on April 01, 2008 (boomark / email).