Title: Shelley Simons Ernstberger Lauterbach v. Gordan, Dana, Still, Knight & Gilmore, LLC

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Released:08/13/2010
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-
0649), 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, 2010
____________________
1090953
____________________
Shelley Simons Ernstberger Lauterbach
v.
Gordan, Dana, Still, Knight & Gilmore, LLC
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-09-900281)
COBB, Chief Justice.
This appeal is from a default judgment in an action
filed by the law firm Gordan, Dana, Still, Knight & Gilmore,
LLC ("GDSKG"), to recover attorney fees from its former
1090953
No 
default was 
entered before 
the judgment of default 
was
1
entered.  See Rule 55(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.
2
client, Shelley Simons Ernstberger Lauterbach.  We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Facts and Procedural History
On January 27, 2009, GDSKG sued Lauterbach, alleging that
Lauterbach had failed to pay GDSKG for legal services it had
rendered in conjunction with Lauterbach's divorce.  GDSKG
sought to recover based on breach of contract or, in the
alternative, under the equitable theories of "quantum meruit,
unjust enrichment, restitution, and the like."
On March 12, 2009, GDSKG filed an application for the
entry of default and a motion for a default judgment. On April
14, 2009, the trial court issued an order granting the motion
for a default judgment and entering a default judgment.  On
1
May 6, 2009, Lauterbach moved to set aside the default
judgment on the ground that the attorney fees she was charged
by GDSKG were excessive and unreasonable. The trial court held
a hearing on the motion on June 2, 2009. After the June 2,
2009, hearing, further filings and hearings ensued, none of
which reflected an agreement on the record by the parties to
extend the 90-day period prescribed by Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ.
1090953
3
P., for ruling on Lauterbach's motion to set aside the default
judgment. 
On November 13, 2009, the trial court entered an order
purporting to deny Lauterbach's motion to set aside the
default judgment. On December 15, 2009, Lauterbach filed a
notice of appeal from the trial court's November 13, 2009,
order.
Standard of Review
"On questions of subject-matter jurisdiction, this
Court is not limited by the parties' arguments or by
the legal conclusions of the trial and intermediate
appellate 
courts 
regarding 
the 
existence 
of
jurisdiction. Rather, we are obligated to dismiss an
appeal if, for any reason, jurisdiction does not
exist. See Ex parte Smith, 438 So. 2d 766, 768 (Ala.
1983) ('Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may not
be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an
appellate court to consider lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction 
ex 
mero 
motu.' 
(citing 
City 
of
Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688, 127 So. 2d
606, 608 (1958)))."
Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 999 So. 2d 891, 894-95
(Ala. 2008).
Analysis
Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., states:
     "No postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Rules
50, 52, 55, or 59 shall remain pending in the trial
court for more than ninety (90) days, unless with
the express consent of all the parties, which
1090953
See Rule 4(a)(1) and (3), Ala. R. App. P.:
2
    "(1) ... [I]n all cases in which an appeal is
permitted by law as of right to the supreme court or
to a court of appeals, the notice of appeal ...
shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court
within 42 days (6 weeks) of the date of the entry of
the judgment or order appealed from ....
     "....
     "(3) ... If such post-judgment motion is deemed
denied under the provisions of Rule 59.1 of the
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, then the time for
filing a notice of appeal shall be computed from the
date of denial of such motion by operation of law,
as provided for in Rule 59.1." 
4
consent shall appear of record, or unless extended
by the appellate court to which an appeal of the
judgment would lie, and such time may be further
extended for good cause shown."
Rule 59.1 "expressly places motions to set aside default
judgments under Rule 55(c) within this rule's policy of
automatic denial after 90 days." Committee Comments to
Amendment Effective March 1, 1984, to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ.
P.  Thus, Lauterbach's motion to set aside the judgment of
default was denied by operation of Rule 59.1 on August 4,
2009. Therefore, to be timely, Lauterbach's notice of appeal
would have to be filed within 42 days of August 4, 2009.2
1090953
5
Accordingly, September 15, 2009, was the last day on which
Lauterbach could have timely filed her notice of appeal.
Lauterbach's December 15, 2009, notice of appeal thus was
untimely.
"The 
filing 
of 
a timely notice of appeal is a
jurisdictional act." Painter v. McWane Cast Iron Pipe Co., 987
So. 2d 522, 529 (Ala. 2007) (citing Lewis v. State, 463 So. 2d
154, 155 (Ala. 1985)). "An appeal shall be dismissed if the
notice of appeal was not timely filed to invoke the
jurisdiction of the appellate court." Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R.
App. P. See also Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 999 So.
2d at 895 ("[W]e are obligated to dismiss an appeal if, for
any reason, [subject-matter] jurisdiction does not exist."
(citing Ex parte Smith, 438 So. 2d 766, 768 (Ala. 1983))).
Therefore, 
we 
dismiss 
this 
appeal 
for 
lack 
of
jurisdiction. See Rule 2(a), Ala. R. App. P. (mandating the
dismissal of any appeal when the notice of appeal is not
timely filed to invoke appellate jurisdiction); Williamson v.
Fourth Ave. Supermarket, Inc., 12 So. 3d 1200 (Ala. 2009)
(dismissing an appeal not filed within 42 days of the denial
1090953
6
of a postjudgment motion by operation of Rule 59.1, Ala. R.
Civ. P.).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
     Woodall, Smith, Parker, and Shaw, JJ., concur.