Case Title: Sundance Marina, Inc. v. Reach

Citation: 567 So. 2d 1322

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1990-09-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
567 So. 2d 1322 (1990)
SUNDANCE MARINA, INC.
v.
Harold REACH and Deborah Taft-Reach.
89-244.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 14, 1990.
Hugh E. Holladay of Hereford, Blair, Holladay and Parsons, Pell City, for appellant.
Charles E. Robinson of Church, Trussell & Robinson, Pell City, for appellees.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Sundance Marina, Inc. ("Sundance"), sued Harold Reach and Deborah Taft-Reach to recover possession of certain property that the Reaches occupied under an agreement between the parties dated December 22, 1982, and to recover $2,500, plus interest and attorney fees, for alleged past due rents, taxes, and water service. On March 23, 1989, the trial court, hearing ore tenus testimony, entered the following order:
On May 30, 1989, because the Reaches had failed to make any payments, Sundance filed the following motion to enforce the order:
On June 8, 1989, the trial court granted the motion to enforce. Thereafter, the Reaches filed a motion to stay the order to vacate. On June 29, 1989, the trial court, hearing ore tenus testimony, granted the Reaches' motion to stay the order to vacate, stating that it was treating that motion as a Rule 60(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., motion. In doing so, the trial court entered the following order:
Sundance appeals.
Under the ore tenus rule, the trial court's judgment, where supported by the evidence, is presumed correct and should be reversed only if the judgment is found to be plainly and palpably wrong, after a consideration of all the evidence and after drawing all inferences that can logically be drawn from the evidence. See American Casualty Co. v. Wright, 554 So. 2d 1015 (Ala.1989); City of Birmingham v. Sansing Sales of Birmingham, Inc., 547 So. 2d 464 (Ala.1989); King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 1023 (Ala. 1987); Robinson v. Hamilton, 496 So. 2d 8 (Ala.1986); see, also, Meeks v. Hill, 557 So. 2d 1238 (Ala.1990). Where a trial court does not make specific findings of fact concerning an issue, we will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings are clearly erroneous. Robinson v. Hamilton, supra.
The issue before us is whether the trial court's finding that the Reaches' failure to pay the sums of monies owed as called for under the original order was due to excusable neglect was plainly and palpably erroneous.
The trial court heard the following evidence:
The Reaches testified that pursuant to the trial court's original order of March 23, 1989, they planned to pay the monies due, including the monthly rental payments for the months of April and May, to the clerk of the court prior to the expiration of the 60-day period. However, they said, 3 or 4 days prior to the expiration of that period, they learned that, within 10 days from the date that the trial court entered its original order, Sundance had cashed certain of their checks that it had been holding since 1986 and that it had stated under oath that it did not intend to cash. The evidence reveals that Sundance at no time notified the Reaches or their attorney that it was negotiating those checks. The Reaches further testified that, because Sundance had negotiated those checks, they were confused as to the amount they still owed. Because of their confusion, the Reaches said, they tried to contact their attorney but were at first unsuccessful due to their attorney's busy court schedule and the Memorial Day weekend. They said they finally succeeded in reaching their attorney on June 2, 1989, and that, based on his advice, they deducted the amount of the checks that Sundance had negotiated and then mailed the balance *1325 due to the clerk of the court. The clerk returned the Reaches' checks, informing them that personal checks were unacceptable and that funds had to be in the form of money orders or cashier's checks. Consequently, on June 12, 1989, the Reaches submitted cashier's checks to the clerk.
Based on this evidence, the trial court treated the Reaches' motion to stay the order to vacate as a Rule 60(b), Ala.R. Civ.P., motion and found that the Reaches' failure to timely pay the monies owed within the 60-day period pursuant to the original order was a result of confusion over the additional amount to be paid, and that that confusion was due to Sundance's negotiation of certain checks subsequent to the trial court's order.
The nomenclature of a motion is not controlling; see Ex parte Hartford Ins. Co., 394 So. 2d 933 (Ala.1981). The label that one places on a motion is of little importance. See Rebel Oil Co. v. Pike, 473 So. 2d 529 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Although the Reaches did not label their motion as a Rule 60(b) motion, they definitely asserted in the body of the motion, and as support for the motion, that they were seeking relief from the original judgment by way of Rule 60(b), and they stated a proper ground for Rule 60(b) relief. Thus, the trial court correctly treated the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion.
This Court has written:
Ex parte Dowling, 477 So. 2d 400, 402-03 (Ala.1985). (Citations omitted.)
After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the trial court could have found from the evidence presented that, due to Sundance's actions in cashing certain checks previously given to Sundance by the Reaches, the Reaches were confused as to the amount they should pay in accordance with the original order, and could have concluded that the Reaches should be granted additional time to determine the exact amount of money they owed under the trial court's order of March 23, 1989. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Sundance's Rule 60(b) motion.
We note Sundance's argument concerning the additional time that the trial court gave the Reaches in which to make the monthly rental payments for April and May, which payments, Sundance contends, the Reaches were required to pay on the first of each month in accordance with the parties' original agreement and with the trial court's original order. Because the trial court, in the instant case, did not specifically address the issue of the monthly rental payments for April and May, we assume that it made those findings necessary to support its judgment. See Robinson v. Hamilton, supra.
The order granting the Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.