Case Title: Ex parte Donald Ray Hicks. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Bona Faye Hicks v. Donald Ray Hicks)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1120227

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL:05/31/2013 
N o t i c e : 
T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1120227 
Ex parte Donald Ray Hicks 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
(In r e : Bona Faye Hicks 
v. 
Donald Ray Hicks) 
(DeKalb C i r c u i t Court, CV-09-4; 
Court of C i v i l Appeals, 2110408) 
PER CURIAM. 
The p e t i t i o n f o r 
t h e 
w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i i s d e n i e d . 
1120227 
In d e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r 
t h e w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , t h i s 
C o u r t does not w i s h t o be u n d e r s t o o d as a p p r o v i n g a l l t h e 
l a n g u a g e , r e a s o n s , o r s t a t e m e n t s o f 
l a w 
i n 
t h e 
C o u r t o f C i v i l 
A p p e a l s ' o p i n i o n . 
H o r s l e y v. H o r s l e y , 291 A l a . 782, 280 So. 
2d 155 (1973). 
WRIT DENIED. 
S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , Murdock, Main, and Wise, 
J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
Shaw, J . , 
c o n c u r s 
s p e c i a l l y . 
Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 
B r y a n , J . , 
r e c u s e s h i m s e l f . * 
* J u s t i c e Bryan was a member o f 
t h e 
C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s 
when t h a t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s case. 
2 
1120227 
SHAW, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y ) . 
I 
concur 
i n 
d e n y i n g 
the 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r 
the 
w r i t 
of 
c e r t i o r a r i . 
In 
the 
u n d e r l y i n g 
case, 
Bona Faye H i c k s 
and 
Dennis H i c k s
1 sued 
Donald Ray H i c k s r e g a r d i n g a d i s p u t e over 
the l o c a t i o n of a p r o p e r t y 
l i n e . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d 
a 
judgment i n 2009 r e q u i r i n g Donald t o r e l o c a t e a 
b o u n d a r y - l i n e 
f e n c e . 
In August 2010, Bona Faye f i l e d what i s d e s c r i b e d i n the 
C o u r t of 
C i v i l A p p e a l s ' 
o p i n i o n as a "motion f o r contempt, 
s a n c t i o n s , and 
s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e , " a s s e r t i n g t h a t Donald 
had 
f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 2009 judgment.
2 
H i c k s v. H i c k s , 
[Ms. 2110408, September 14, 2012] 
So. 
3d 
, 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2012) . 
On October 5, 2011, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t found t h a t Donald had 
i n f a c t c o m p l i e d 
w i t h 
the 
judgment and d e n i e d the m o t i o n . 
Bona Faye s u b s e q u e n t l y 
f i l e d 
a "motion t o 
a l t e r , amend, or v a c a t e , " 
a s s e r t i n g t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r i t s 
'Dennis d i e d w h i l e 
t h i s case was 
p e n d i n g i n the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
2 I t appears t h a t Bona Faye's motion was 
f i l e d under 
the 
case number 
of 
the 
o r i g i n a l 
a c t i o n - - C V - 0 
9-4--and was 
not 
a s s i g n e d a new 
case number, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t no "new" 
a c t i o n 
was 
f i l e d . 
3 
1120227 
October 5, 2011, d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g her m o t i o n because no 
f i l i n g 
fee had been p a i d upon the f i l i n g of the "motion f o r contempt, 
s a n c t i o n s , and s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e . " 
Donald, the nonmovant, 
a p p a r e n t l y t h e n p a i d the f i l i n g f e e . 
On 
a p p e a l t o the C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s , Bona 
Faye 
contended, 
as she had below, 
t h a t 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
l a c k e d 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
t o i s s u e i t s October 
5, 
2011, 
d e c i s i o n because no f i l i n g f e e had been p a i d when the "motion 
f o r 
contempt, 
s a n c t i o n s , 
and 
s p e c i f i c 
p e r f o r m a n c e " 
was 
i n i t i a l l y 
f i l e d . 
P r o c e e d i n g under the p r e m i s e , as argued by 
the 
p a r t i e s , 
t h a t a 
f i l i n g 
fee was 
r e q u i r e d f o r the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o o b t a i n s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e upon t h a t 
m o t i o n , the C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s u n d e r t o o k t o d e t e r m i n e 
whether the presumed l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n a t 
the o u t s e t o f Bona Faye's m o t i o n , because she p a i d no 
f i l i n g 
f e e , c o u l d be c u r e d by Donald's subsequent payment o f 
t h a t 
f i l i n g f e e . That c o u r t , i n a p l u r a l i t y d e c i s i o n , d e c i d e d t h a t 
Donald's subsequent payment of the f i l i n g f e e d i d not a f f o r d 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
j u r i s d i c t i o n and d i s m i s s e d 
the a p p e a l 
w i t h 
i n s t r u c t i o n s 
f o r the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
" t o v a c a t e 
a l l o r d e r s 
4 
1120227 
stemming from the 
f i l i n g of Bona Faye's m o t i o n f o r contempt, 
s a n c t i o n s , and 
s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e . " 
So. 
3d a t 
. 
Donald p e t i t i o n s f o r c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w , c o n t e n d i n g 
t h a t 
the C o u r t of 
C i v i l A p p e a l s e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t the 
f i l i n g 
fee must be p a i d a t the o u t s e t of the case and 
c o u l d not 
be 
p a i d 
a t 
a 
l a t e r 
t i m e . 
I see 
no 
p r o b a b i l i t y of 
m e r i t 
i n 
Donald's p e t i t i o n . 
See R u l e 3 9 ( f ) , A l a . R. App. 
P. 
( p r o v i d i n g 
t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
may 
i s s u e 
the 
w r i t 
of 
c e r t i o r a r i 
i f i t 
" c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
i s 
a 
p r o b a b i l i t y of 
m e r i t 
i n 
the 
p e t i t i o n 
" ) . 
T h i s 
i s 
not 
because 
I agree 
w i t h 
the 
r a t i o n a l e of the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s , nor i s i t because I 
do not b e l i e v e t h a t the a l l e g a t i o n s i n the p e t i t i o n show no 
p o t e n t i a l m e r i t 
i n the 
i s s u e argued; i n s t e a d , 
I r e j e c t 
the 
p r e m i s e t h a t a f i l i n g fee was 
a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e d i n t h i s case. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
t r i a l c o u r t s r e t a i n " r e s i d u a l j u r i s d i c t i o n " 
t o 
e n f o r c e 
t h e i r p r e v i o u s , 
f i n a l judgments. 
George v. Sims, 
888 
So. 2d 1224, 
1227 
( A l a . 2004) ("[A] 
t r i a l c o u r t has 
' r e s i d u a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n or a u t h o r i t y t o t a k e c e r t a i n a c t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o 
e n f o r c e 
... 
a f i n a l judgment 
( q u o t i n g Helms v. Helms' 
K e n n e l s , I n c . , 
646 
So. 
2d 
1343, 
1347 
( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) ) . 
Here, 
Bona Faye's m o t i o n 
" f o r contempt, 
s a n c t i o n s , 
and 
s p e c i f i c 
5 
1120227 
p e r f o r m a n c e " a p p e a r s - - f r o m t h e l i m i t e d f a c t s b e f o r e u s - - t o be 
an 
attempt t o have t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n f o r c e 
i t s 
p r e v i o u s 
judgment r e q u i r i n g Donald t o 
move t h e 
b o u n d a r y - l i n e 
f e n c e . 
To 
the e x t e n t t h a t t h a t i s 
what Bona Faye r e q u e s t e d , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t r e t a i n e d " r e s i d u a l " j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e q u i r e Donald t o 
do 
what t h e c o u r t ' s 
f i n a l judgment r e q u i r e d o f 
him. 
Both p a r t i e s ' arguments i n t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
were p r e m i s e d on a f i l i n g f e e 
b e i n g r e q u i r e d i n 
o r d e r t o 
move 
the t r i a l c o u r t t o e n f o r c e i t s 2009 judgment. I note t h a t t h e 
cases c i t e d i n 
t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l 
A p p e a l s ' o p i n i o n f o r t h a t 
p r o p o s i t i o n -- Odom v. Odom, 89 So. 3d 121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 
2011), and 
Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) 
-- a r e b o t h d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s 
c a s e s . 
As n o t e d i n b o t h o f 
t h o s e d e c i s i o n s , A l a . Code 1975, 
§ 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 7 ) , r e q u i r e s a 
f i l i n g 
f e e f o r p e t i t i o n s t o " e n f o r c e an e x i s t i n g 
d o m e s t i c  
r e l a t i o n s c o u r t o r d e r . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
That Code s e c t i o n 
would n o t a p p l y t o r e q u i r e a f i l i n g f e e 
i n t h i s case, which 
appears t o i n v o l v e an o r d e r i n 
a p r o p e r t y - l i n e d i s p u t e , n o t 
a 
d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s o r d e r .
3 
F u r t h e r , G.E.A. v. D.B.A., 920 
So. 
3 B o t h Bona Faye and Donald have t h e l a s t name 
" H i c k s , " 
r a i s i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y c o u l d be r e l a t e d and t h a t 
the 
d i s p u t e i n t h i s case might i n f a c t stem from a p r i o r 
d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s 
case. 
However, I note 
t h a t t h e 
t r i a l 
6 
1120227 
2d 1110 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2005), 
c i t e d i n the C o u r t of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s ' o p i n i o n , 
was a l s o a d o m e s t i c - r e l a t i o n s case, b u t i t 
c i t e d O p i n i o n by the C l e r k , 381 So. 2d 58, 59 ( A l a . 1980), f o r 
the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a f i l i n g f e e was r e q u i r e d . 
As the C o u r t 
of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
r e c e n t l y n o t e d , 
t h a t 
C l e r k ' s 
O p i n i o n 
was 
superseded, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , i n 1994 by the a d o p t i o n of R u l e 
70A, A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n i n g contempt i n c i v i l c a s e s . 
See 
A u s t i n v. A u s t i n , 
[Ms. 2120102, May 10, 2013] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 
C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) .
4 For a l l 
t h a t a p p e a r s , the a u t h o r i t i e s 
c i t e d f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a f i l i n g f e e was 
r e q u i r e d f o r 
Bona Faye's motion are i n a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. 
From the l i m i t e d m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e me, 
I would 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n Bona 
c o u r t ' s case d e s i g n a t i o n , c o n t a i n i n g a "CV" p r e f i x , i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n was a c i v i l a c t i o n , not a d o m e s t i c -
r e l a t i o n s case, which would have been g i v e n 
a "DR" 
p r e f i x . 
F u r t h e r , Bona Faye's a p p e a l was t r a n s f e r r e d from t h i s C o u r t t o 
the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-2-
7 ( 6 ) , which a u t h o r i z e s t h e t r a n s f e r of "any 
c i v i l c a s e . " 
4 I n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s , such as i f a contempt p r o c e e d i n g 
i s b r o u g h t i n the form o f a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
o r c r o s s - c l a i m , the 
payment of a f i l i n g f e e might be r e q u i r e d . 
See R u l e 7 0 A ( c ) ( 1 ) 
( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a p r o c e e d i n g based on c o n s t r u c t i v e contempt 
may be 
f i l e d i n the form of a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
o r a 
c r o s s - c l a i m ) 
and A l a . Code 1975, § 12-19-71(a)(8) 
( p r o v i d i n g f o r a 
f i l i n g 
fee t o be p a i d w i t h the f i l i n g o f a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
o r a c r o s s -
c l a i m ) . 
7 
1120227 
Faye's 
"motion 
f o r 
contempt, 
s a n c t i o n s , 
and 
s p e c i f i c 
p e r f o r m a n c e " 
and, 
t h u s , 
t h a t 
no 
f i l i n g 
fee 
was 
r e q u i r e d . 
However, I cannot r e v e r s e the judgment of the C o u r t of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s on t h i s ground, because i t i s not argued t o t h i s C o u r t 
i n the p e t i t i o n 
s t a t i n g 
the r e a s o n s t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d 
i s s u e 
the w r i t 
of c e r t i o r a r i . 
I t i s w e l l 
s e t t l e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t 
w i l l 
not 
r e v e r s e 
a lower 
c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on 
an 
i s s u e 
not 
r a i s e d 
on a p p e a l . 
H a r t v. Pugh, 878 So. 2d 1150, 
1157 
( A l a . 
2003) ("[W]hen we are asked t o r e v e r s e a lower c o u r t ' s 
r u l i n g , 
we a d d r e s s o n l y the i s s u e s and arguments the a p p e l l a n t chooses 
t o p r e s e n t . " ) , and Thompson v. S k i p p e r R e a l E s t a t e Co., 
729 
So. 
2d 287, 
289 
n.2 
( A l a . 1999) 
("Although t h i s C o u r t 
w i l l 
a f f i r m 
an o r d e r of the 
t r i a l c o u r t on a g r o u n d not 
a s s e r t e d 
below, 
... 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
w i l l 
not 
r e v e r s e 
a 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
judgment on a ground t h a t has never been r a i s e d . " ) . 
T h i s i s 
t r u e even i f the argument would s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t a lower 
c o u r t had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
C r u t c h e r v. W i l l i a m s , 
12 So. 3d 631, 635 
( A l a . 2008) ( " [ T ] h i s C o u r t i s not o b l i g a t e d 
t o embark on i t s own e x p e d i t i o n beyond the p a r t i e s ' 
arguments 
i n p u r s u i t of a r e a s o n t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . The burden of 
e s t a b l i s h i n g 
the 
e x i s t e n c e 
of 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
8 
1120227 
f a l l s on the p a r t y i n v o k i n g t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ) . 
T h i s C o u r t 
has 
no d u t y t o p e r f o r m a p a r t y ' s 
l e g a l r e s e a r c h 
and 
cannot 
advocate l e g a l arguments on any p a r t y ' s b e h a l f . 
S p r a d l i n v.  
Birmingham A i r p o r t A u t h . , 613 So. 2d 347, 
348 
( A l a . 1993); see 
a l s o S c h i e s z v. S c h i e s z , 
941 
So. 
2d 279, 
289 
( A l a . C i v . 
App. 
2006) 
("It i s not 
the 
f u n c t i o n of 
[an 
a p p e l l a t e ] 
c o u r t 
t o 
advocate a p o s i t i o n on b e h a l f of an a p p e l l a n t or t o c r e a t e 
a 
l e g a l argument 
f o r 
the 
a p p e l l a n t . " ) . 
The 
i s s u e 
a c t u a l l y 
r a i s e d i n Donald's c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n - - w h e t h e r 
a f i l i n g 
fee 
must be p a i d a t the i n i t i a t i o n of an a c t i o n or whether i t can 
be p a i d a t a l a t e r time f o r p u r p o s e s of b e s t o w i n g on a 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n - - i s 
an 
i n t e r e s t i n g 
one; 
however, because a r e s o l u t i o n of t h a t i s s u e would be 
of 
no 
consequence, 
any 
d i s c u s s i o n 
of 
i t by 
t h i s 
C o u r t would 
be 
d i c t u m . 
See 
B l a c k ' s 
Law 
D i c t i o n a r y 
454 
(6th 
ed. 
1990) 
( d e f i n i n g " d i c t u m " as " [ s ] t a t e m e n t s 
and comments i n an 
o p i n i o n 
c o n c e r n i n g 
some 
r u l e 
of 
law 
or 
l e g a l 
p r o p o s i t i o n 
not 
n e c e s s a r i l y 
i n v o l v e d nor 
e s s e n t i a l t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
of 
the 
case i n hand ... , [which] l a c k the f o r c e of an a d j u d i c a t i o n " ) . 
I t i s t r u e t h a t the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' d e c i s i o n 
w i l l 
s t a n d 
i n 
t h i s 
case because 
the 
d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e 
was 
not 
9 
1120227 
p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t ; however, such a r e s u l t i s not 
u n i q u e . 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
i s 
r o u t i n e l y 
c o n s t r a i n e d 
t o 
a l l o w 
l o w e r - c o u r t 
d e c i s i o n s t o s t a n d because the p a r t i e s t o the a p p e a l have not 
p l a c e d b e f o r e 
us 
the 
p r o p e r 
argument, even when we 
might 
b e l i e v e t h o s e d e c i s i o n s t o be e r r o n e o u s . 
See, e.g., 
Ex p a r t e  
McKinney, 87 So. 
3d 502, 
509 
n.7 
( A l a . 2011) 
( c a l l i n g 
i n t o 
q u e s t i o n p r i o r c a s e l a w b u t r e f u s i n g t o o v e r r u l e t h a t c a s e l a w 
because " t h i s C o u r t has 
l o n g r e c o g n i z e d a d i s i n c l i n a t i o n 
t o 
o v e r r u l e e x i s t i n g c a s e l a w i n the absence of e i t h e r a s p e c i f i c 
r e q u e s t 
t o do so or an adequate argument a s k i n g t h a t we 
do 
s o " ) . 
10 
1120227 
MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
I d i s s e n t from the C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o deny the 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r the w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i i n t h i s case, because I c o n c l u d e 
t h a t Donald Ray H i c k s r a i s e d a v a l i d 
c o n f l i c t between 
p r i o r 
d e c i s i o n s and the C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' d e c i s i o n t h a t m e r i t s 
t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w . The 
i s s u e i n t h i s 
case i s whether the 
f a i l u r e 
t o 
pay 
a 
f i l i n g 
f e e 
i n 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i s 
a 
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t t h a t d e p r i v e s a c o u r t of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
The C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t the 
t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n because Bona 
Faye H i c k s d i d not pay a f i l i n g f e e when she 
f i l e d a motion 
f o r contempt. The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s d i s m i s s e d Bona Faye's 
a p p e a l on t h a t b a s i s . H i c k s v. H i c k s , [Ms. 2110408, September 
14, 2012] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2012). 
In h i s c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n 
t o t h i s C o u r t , Donald 
argues 
t h a t 
the 
C o u r t 
o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s ' 
d e c i s i o n 
c o n f l i c t s 
w i t h 
De-Gas, I n c . v. M i d l a n d R e s o u r c e s , 
470 
So. 
2d 
1218 
( A l a . 
1985), by i m p r o p e r l y expanding the h o l d i n g i n t h a t c a s e . 
The 
C o u r t i n De-Gas s t a t e d t h a t "the payment of the f e e s r e q u i r e d 
by 
§ 
12-19-70[, 
A l a . Code 
1975,] 
or 
the 
f i l i n g 
o f 
a 
c o u r t - a p p r o v e d v e r i f i e d s t a t e m e n t o f s u b s t a n t i a l h a r d s h i p i s 
11 
1120227 
a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e t o 
the commencement o f 
an a c t i o n 
f o r 
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s 
p u r p o s e s . " 470 So. 2d a t 1222 
(emphasis added). Donald argues i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e 
C o u r t 
of 
C i v i l A p p e a l s a p p l i e d an i n c o r r e c t l y 
expanded h o l d i n g i n 
De-Gas by h o l d i n g 
t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o pay a 
f i l i n g f e e 
d e p r i v e s t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . I n so 
d o i n g , t h e 
C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o l l o w e d a l i n e o f i t s own 
cases c o n s t r u i n g De-Gas w i t h s i m i l a r b r e a d t h . See, 
e.g., Odom  
v. Odom, 89 So. 3d 121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011), Vann v. Cook, 
989 So. 2d 556 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008), and Farmer v. Farmer, 
842 So. 2d 679 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002). Donald a l s o asks t h e 
C o u r t t o o v e r r u l e our d e c i s i o n i n 
Johnson v. H e t z e l , 100 
So. 
3d 1056 ( A l a . 2012), 
w h i c h 
f o l l o w e d t h e C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s ' e x p a n s i o n o f t h e 
h o l d i n g i n 
De-Gas. 
P r e s i d i n g Judge Thompson d i s s e n t e d below and s p e c i f i c a l l y 
u r g e d t h i s C o u r t t o reexamine our h o l d i n g i n 
H e t z e l and 
" t o c o n s i d e r whether, i n 
t h i s case, t h e 
main o p i n i o n 
a g a i n 
i m p r o p e r l y 
expands t h e h o l d i n g o f De-Gas t o 
h o l d t h a t , i n a l l c a s e s , a f a i l u r e t o 
pay a 
f i l i n g 
fee under § 12-19-70[, A l a . Code 1975,] d i v e s t s 
t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over an 
a c t i o n . " 
H i c k s , 
So. 
3d a t 
. Judge Thompson r a i s e d s e v e r a l 
v a l i d 
c o n c e r n s . 
F i r s t , 
he 
p o i n t e d 
o u t t h a t 
t h e s t a t u t e o f 
12 
1120227 
l i m i t a t i o n s i s 
an a f f i r m a t i v e defense t h a t does n o t 
i m p l i c a t e 
a t r i a l c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
Second, he n o t e d 
t h a t t h i s C o u r t i n 
De-Gas d i d n o t h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n because 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f had f a i l e d t o pay t h e f i l i n g 
f e e , o n l y t h a t t h e 
a c t i o n was b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . 
T h i r d , he 
p o i n t s o u t 
t h a t t h e f i l i n g - f e e s t a t u t e , § 12-19-70, A l a . Code 
1975, 
i n v o l v e s c o u r t f i n a n c e s and has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h a 
c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n .
5 
I agree w i t h Judge Thompson's concerns r e g a r d i n g De-Gas, 
H e t z e l , 
and cases 
t h a t 
have, i n my 
o p i n i o n , 
i m p r o p e r l y 
expanded t h e 
h o l d i n g i n 
De-Gas. T h i s C o u r t i n 
De-Gas used 
t h e 
f i l i n g - f e e r e q u i r e m e n t t o d e t e r m i n e whether a case had been 
"commenced" w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d and r e f e r r e d t o t h e 
fee as a 
" j u r i s d i c t i o n a l 
p r e r e q u i s i t e . "
6 T h e r e a f t e r , t h e 
Farmer, Odom, and 
Vann d e c i s i o n s expanded upon t h e 
h o l d i n g 
i n 
5Judge Thompson, w i t h a d m i r a b l e 
c o n t r i t i o n , 
n o t e d t h a t he 
had v o t e d w i t h t h e 
m a j o r i t y i n Odom, Vann, and 
Farmer b u t t h a t 
he now b e l i e v e s those o p i n i o n s t o 
be i n 
e r r o r . 
6The De-Gas C o u r t used t h e 
term " j u r i s d i c t i o n a l " i n t h i s 
one sentence o n l y and d i d n o t 
o t h e r w i s e d i s c u s s t h i s i s s u e 
i n 
terms o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . The 
i s o l a t e d use o f t h e term 
" j u r i s d i c t i o n a l " 
h e r e , 
t h e r e f o r e , 
appears anomalous and, 
a t most, 
d i c t a . 
13 
1120227 
De-Gas and made t h e f a i l u r e t o 
pay a f i l i n g f e e 
i n 
any case a 
b a r t o s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
T h i s C o u r t i n H e t z e l 
appeared t o endorse t h e e x p a n s i o n o f t h e h o l d i n g i n De-Gas. 
But see E s p i n o z a v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 ( A l a . 
2010) ( n o t i n g 
t h a t f a i l u r e t o pay a f i l i n g f e e w i t h c o u n t e r c l a i m s i s 
not 
a 
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may make such 
o r d e r s as r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y t o ensure payment). I j o i n 
Judge Thompson i n 
t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h i s C o u r t and t h e C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
have 
e r r o n e o u s l y 
c o n f u s e d 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n and f i l i n g - f e e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n 
cases a p p l y i n g t h e 
h o l d i n g i n 
De-Gas. I urge t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e i n 
a f u t u r e case. 
14