Case Title: Hill v. Martinson, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC-2023-0182

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2023-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: September 15, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
SPECIAL TERM, 2023 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2023-0182 
_________________________ 
 
Elizabeth Cummings Hill, as attorney in fact for Brenda 
Cummings 
 
v.  
 
Douglas C. Martinson II and Caleb Ballew 
 
 
 
Appeal from Madison Probate Court 
(No. 75073) 
 
 
MITCHELL, Justice. 
SC-2023-0182 
2 
 
 
Douglas C. Martinson II and Caleb Ballew ("the lawyers") 
represented Lesley Hatch in the Madison Probate Court in a dispute over 
the guardianship of her aunt, Brenda Cummings.  During the 
proceedings, the lawyers withdrew from representing Hatch and filed a 
claim for attorney fees to be paid from Cummings's estate.  The probate 
court entered a judgment on the merits of the underlying case and denied 
the lawyers' claim for fees.  Over 30 days later, the lawyers moved the 
probate court to reconsider their claim.  After a hearing, the probate court 
reversed course and entered an order awarding them their fees.   
Elizabeth Cummings Hill, acting on behalf of Cummings under a 
power of attorney, has appealed.  She argues that the probate court did 
not have jurisdiction to grant the lawyers' motion because it was 
untimely.  We agree and dismiss the appeal, with instructions to vacate 
the order awarding attorney fees. 
Facts and Procedural History 
 
In April 2022, Hatch filed an emergency petition for letters of 
guardianship over Cummings.  Hatch alleged that Cummings's daughter, 
Hill, whom Cummings has previously granted power of attorney, had 
sent Cummings to a nursing home in Mexico against Cummings's wishes.  
SC-2023-0182 
3 
 
The probate court granted Hatch's petition, naming her temporary 
guardian of Cummings.   
 
Hatch then filed a petition for permanent letters of guardianship 
and conservatorship over Cummings.  Hill filed a counterpetition 
likewise 
seeking 
letters 
of 
guardianship 
and 
conservatorship.  
Eventually, Cummings returned to Alabama.  The parties then reached 
an agreement that she would remain here.  They also agreed that Chanda 
Crutcher would be appointed as a temporary guardian of Cummings.  But 
their petitions for permanent letters of guardianship and conservatorship 
remained before the probate court. 
 
On August 19, 2022, Hill filed a motion to extend Crutcher's 
temporary guardianship.  That same day, the lawyers filed a motion to 
withdraw from representing Hatch, which the probate court granted.  
They also filed a claim seeking attorney fees from Cummings's estate.   
 
About a month later, the probate court held a hearing on Hatch's 
and Hill's petitions.  On September 28, the probate court entered a 
judgment dismissing both petitions.   In a reasoned order, the probate 
court found that Cummings did not require a guardian or conservator 
and that Hill held a general durable power of attorney.  Therefore, it said, 
SC-2023-0182 
4 
 
"the petition and counter-petition in this matter are due to be, and they 
are hereby, dismissed."  
In the same order, the probate court "note[d] that a claim was filed 
by [the lawyers] … on or about September 1, 2022, seeking attorney fees, 
costs, and expenses in connection with [their] representation of [Hatch]."  
The court explained that the "claim sought to have those expenses taxed 
against the estate of [Cummings]."  It then denied the lawyers' claim, 
along with "[a]ll other claims for relief."     
On November 3, the lawyers filed a "motion to reconsider" asking 
the probate court "to reconsider the claim filed by [them] for 
reimbursement of attorneys fees from the Estate of [Cummings]."  Hill 
filed a response arguing that the motion was untimely because it was 
filed more than 30 days after the entry of the probate court's September 
28 order.  After a hearing, the probate court entered an order awarding 
the lawyers' fees.  Hill appealed. 
Standard of Review 
 
Our review of a probate court's jurisdiction is de novo.  State Dep't 
of Revenue v. Arnold, 909 So. 2d 192, 193 (Ala. 2005).   We likewise review 
SC-2023-0182 
5 
 
de novo a grant or denial of a claim for attorney fees.  SMM Gulf Coast, 
LLC v. Dade Cap. Corp., 311 So. 3d 736, 741 (Ala. 2020). 
Analysis 
Hill argues that the probate court's initial order denying the 
lawyers' claim for attorney fees was a final judgment on that issue.  
Accordingly, she says, the lawyers' postjudgment motion seeking 
attorney fees was a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment that, 
under Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., should have been filed within 30 days 
of the entry of the judgment.  She contends that, because the lawyers 
waited more than 30 days to file, the probate court did not have 
jurisdiction to grant their motion.  We agree. 
To begin, the probate court's order denying the lawyers' claim for 
attorney fees was a final judgment.  "'A final judgment is an order "that 
conclusively determines the issues before the court and ascertains and 
declares the rights of the parties involved."'"  George v. Sims, 888 So. 2d 
1224, 1226-27 (Ala. 2004) (citations omitted).  " 'It is well established that 
an order awarding [or denying] attorney fees in relation to an underlying 
case is, itself, an appealable [final] judgment.'"  Hutchinson v. State, 66 
So. 3d 220, 230 (Ala. 2010) (citation omitted).  Here, the lawyers filed a 
SC-2023-0182 
6 
 
claim for attorney fees while Hatch's and Hill's petitions were before the 
probate court.  Through a reasoned order, the probate court then entered 
a final judgment dismissing the petitions and denying "[a]ll other claims 
for relief."  The court also stated that the lawyers' claim "seeking attorney 
fees, costs and expenses in connection with [their] representation" of 
Hatch "is due to be, and is hereby, denied."  By expressly denying the 
lawyers' claim for attorney fees as part of its order on the merits, the 
court's denial was itself a final judgment.  
In this light, the lawyers' motion asking the probate court to grant 
"the claim filed by [the lawyers] for reimbursement of attorneys fees from 
the Estate of [Cummings]" -- which the probate court had already denied 
-- was plainly a "motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment" under 
Rule 59(e).  See Ex parte Alfa Mut. Gen. Ins. Co., 684 So. 2d 1281, 1282 
(Ala. 1996) ("[T]his Court looks to the essence of a motion, rather than its 
title, to determine how that motion is to be considered" under the 
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.).  The lawyers dispute this by pointing 
out that "a trial court has jurisdiction to award attorney fees and costs 
after entering a final judgment because such requests are collateral to 
the merits."  SMM, 311 So. 3d at 743.  Accordingly, they say, "parties who 
SC-2023-0182 
7 
 
petition for attorney fees are not required to make such requests by [a] 
Rule 59(e) … motion" and, therefore, "the 30-day … time limit … is 
inapplicable to requests and orders for attorney fees."  The lawyers' brief 
at 8.   
This argument is off base.  For one, it misapplies SMM by ignoring 
the fact that a court's judgment on attorney fees is a final judgment like 
any other.  See Hutchinson, 66 So. 3d at 230 ("'"[A]ttorney-fee matters 
are separate and distinct from matters going to the merits of a dispute 
and … an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to either aspect 
of a case."'" (citations omitted)).  It also discounts the fact that a trial 
court's ongoing jurisdiction over attorney fees derives from -- and 
depends on -- the collateral relationship of those fees to the final 
judgment on the merits.  SMM, 311 So. 3d at 743.  For example, in SMM, 
there had been no judgment entered regarding attorney fees -- the only 
judgment under consideration was on the merits.  See SMM, 311 So. 3d 
at 743.  Accordingly, the postjudgment motion for fees in SMM was 
collateral to the judgment on the merits.  Id.  Here, by contrast, the 
lawyers' postjudgment "motion to reconsider" sought to alter, amend, or 
vacate a final judgment denying attorney fees.  Their motion was not 
SC-2023-0182 
8 
 
collateral to that judgment and, thus, must be treated according to Rule 
59(e).  See Jim Parker Bldg. Co. v. G & S Glass & Supply Co., 69 So. 3d 
124, 128 n.2 (Ala. 2011) (explaining that the Court would "consider G&S's 
motion as a … Rule 59(e) motion" even though "[t]he Alabama Rules of 
Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a 'motion to reconsider'" 
because "[i]t is clear from the substance of G & S's motion … that [it] is a 
… motion to alter, amend, or vacate the trial court's order").   
Under Rule 59(e), "[a] motion to alter, amend, or vacate the 
judgment shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after entry of the 
judgment."  Without a timely motion, a court has "no jurisdiction to 
modify or amend [its] final order more than 30 days after the [final order] 
has been entered, except to correct clerical errors."  George, 888 So. 2d at 
1227.  To invoke the probate court's jurisdiction here, the lawyers were 
required to file the motion within 30 days of the entry of judgment -- that 
is, by October 28.  Because they did not file their motion until November 
3, the probate court no longer had jurisdiction to enter an order altering, 
amending, or vacating its original judgment denying the lawyers' claim 
for attorney fees.  Therefore, the order underlying this appeal is void.  See 
SC-2023-0182 
9 
 
Riley v. Hughes, 17 So. 3d 643, 649 (Ala. 2009) ("Any action taken by a 
trial court without subject-matter jurisdiction is void."). 
Conclusion 
The lawyers' postjudgment motion was untimely; thus, the probate 
court's order granting that motion was void.  "Because a void order or 
judgment will not support an appeal," we dismiss the appeal and instruct 
the probate court to vacate the order awarding the lawyers' fees.  
Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Phillips, 991 So. 2d 697, 701 (Ala. 2008).     
 
APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur.