Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200905
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:25:38+00:00

Document:
"’Where a trial court hears ore tenus testimony [in a boundary-line case], . . . its findings based upon that testimony are presumed correct, and its judgment based on those findings will be reversed only if, after a consideration of all the evidence and after making all inferences that can logically be drawn from the evidence, the judgment is found to be plainly and palpably erroneous.’ Bearden v. Ellison, 560 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Ala. 1990). The presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court’s findings based on evidence presented ore tenus `is particularly strong in boundary line disputes and adverse possession cases, and the presumption is further enhanced if the trial court personally views the property in dispute. Wallace v. Putman, 495 So. 2d 1072, 1075 (Ala. 1986).’ Bell v. Jackson, 530 So. 2d 42, 44 (Ala. 1988).’ Shirey v. Pittman, 985 So. 2d 484, 486 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)." Gilbreath v. Harbour, No. 2071242 (Ala. Civ. App. May 22, 2009). "However strong the ore tenus presumption in adverse-possession cases, ‘[t]he presumption . . . is inapplicable where the facts are undisputed and the issue is resolved simply by applying the relevant law to these undisputed facts.’ Lilly v. Palmer, 495 So. 2d 522, 526 (Ala. 1986)." Id.
In affirming the jury verdict in Live v. Ventura, No. 1070736 (Ala. May 22, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the standard for a claim of waiver or estoppel concerning a party’s prior inconsistent position. “’Any sort of judicial estoppel or waiver in the context of a prior inconsistent argument is available only when an argument has been made by the parties involved and relied upon by the courts. See, e.g., Greene v. Jefferson County Comm’n, [Ms. 1070300, Nov. 14, 2008] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2008)(discussing judicial estoppel), and Darnall v. Hughes, [Ms. 2070349, Oct. 17, 2008] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2008)(discussing principles of equitable estoppel)’”. The Court also summarized the standard of review for a new trial following a jury verdict.
Robinson v. Baptist Health System, Inc.
Byrne et al. v. Galliher et al.
Two trial courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over election disputes, where statutory criteria for jurisdiction were not met. The courts’ judgments were therefore void. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction in turn and the appeals were dismissed. Smith v. Burkhalter, No. 1080202 (Ala. May 15, 2009); Crouch v. Howard, No. 1080152 (Ala. May 15, 2009).
Posted in 11-46-69, Appellate Jurisdiction, election dispute	| Tagged "11-46-69" "election dispute"
The plaintiff mistakenly timed his appeal from the day on which the trial court, under Rule 60(a), corrected a clerical error in its final judgment. He should have measured from the day the original judgment was entered. Filed more than 42 days after the original judgment, his appeal was late and was dismissed. Barnes v. HMB, LLC, No. 2071241 (Ala. Civ. App. May 15, 2009).
Posted in 60(a), Appellate Jurisdiction, clerical errors, Rule 60(a)	| Tagged "Rule 60(a)" 60(a) "clerical errors"
Pischek et al. v. Baldwin Youth Services, Inc.
Carroll v. LJC Defense Contracting, Inc.
Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
QBE Insurance Corporation v. The Austin Company, Inc.
Bibb v. Center for Pain of Montgomery, P.C.
In Woodruff v. Woodruff, [Ms. 2070602] (Ala. Civ. App. May 8, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals noted the "well settled" rule that "a trial court has the discretion to consider a new legal argument in a post-judgment motion, but is not required to do so,’ and that ‘[w]e will reverse only if the trial court abuses that discretion." Slip Op. p. 14, quoting Steele v. Rosenfeld, LLC, 936 So. 2d 488, 494 (Ala. 2005). Here, the trial court refused to consider a new argument raised for the first time in a Rule 59 motion, and there was no abuse of discretion.
In McGugin v. McGugin, [Ms. 2071188] (Ala. Civ. App. May 8, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from being from a void judgment after the trial court held proceedings in a case after it failed to rule on a Rule 55(c) motion to set aside default judgment.
Posted in Appellate Jurisdiction, default judgment, Rule 55(c), Rule 59.1	| Tagged "Rule 55(c)" "Rule 59.1" "default judgment"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.