Title: Wilson v. Cox

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

589 So. 2d 723 (1991)
Partlow WILSON and Imogene Wilson
v.
Howard COX and Parks Log Company, Inc.
1901230.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 11, 1991.
*724 William W. Tally of Tally & Tally, Scottsboro, for appellants.
Michael L. Fees and Curtis L. Whitmore of Watson, Gammons & Fees, P.C., Huntsville, for appellees.
SHORES, Justice.
This case is before us for the second time. The first appeal, Wilson v. Dukona Corp., N.V., 547 So. 2d 70 (Ala.1989), recites the facts of the case:
547 So. 2d  at 71. Partlow and Imogene Wilson then appealed from this judgment which awarded the plaintiffsW.S. Green, Jimmy W. Cochran, Mary F. Cochran, John M. Johns, and the Dukona Corporation, N.V.$20,127.60 in compensatory damages and $21,450 in punitive damages for the wrongful cutting of timber. The Wilsons appealed on the grounds that the punitive and compensatory damages found by the jury were excessive. This Court found the punitive damages to be excessive and affirmed the trial court, conditioned upon the plaintiffs' entering a remittitur in the amount of $21,450.
Prior to the submission of Wilson v. Dukona Corp. N.V. to the jury, the Wilsons entered into a settlement agreement with the Parks Log Company, Inc., and Howard Cox:
Id. at 71, n. 1. The judgment was entered against the Wilsons on January 12, 1987. On May 22, 1989, almost two and-one-half years later, the Wilsons filed a Rule 60(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., motion for relief from judgment. The Wilsons contend that during *725 the trial Cox and a representative of Parks testified that they had cut approximately $20,548 worth of timber, which should have left $30,000 worth of timber to be cut, making the $41,000 payment required by the settlement possible. However, the hardwood remaining to be cut was actually worth only $10,000.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion. Billy Matthews, a forester, testified as to how much timber had been cut from the Wilsons' property. Partlow Wilson testified that he had relied upon the testimony of Cox and of the representative of Parks at the original trial when he agreed to the settlement. On March 17, 1991, the trial court denied the Wilsons' Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The Wilsons appeal.
Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., provides as follows:
This Court has said that a strong presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion and that the decision whether to grant such a motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ex parte Dowling, 477 So. 2d 400, 402 (Ala.1985). The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Chambers County Comm'rs v. Walker, 459 So. 2d 861 (Ala.1984).
Reese v. Robinson, 523 So. 2d 398, 400 (Ala. 1988).
We have carefully examined the record in this case and find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. We affirm the decision of the trial court on the authority of Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., and Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. v. Boswell, 430 So. 2d 426 (Ala.1983); Textron, Inc. v. Whitfield, 380 So. 2d 259 (Ala. 1979); Smith v. Clark, 468 So. 2d 138, 140 (Ala.1985); and Combs v. Alabama Gas Corp., 577 So. 2d 1269, 1271 (Ala.1991).
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.