Source: http://alabamaappellatewatch.com/?m=200910
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:06:02+00:00

Document:
Herring-Malbis I, LLC v. TEMCO, Inc.
Miller et al. v. Governor Bob Riley et al.
CIT Communication Finance Corporation v. McFadden, Lyon & Rouse, L.L.C.
In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Boyles, released last week, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment denying a motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). The case was handled by Lightfoot, Franklin & White’s own Chips Pruet and Wes Gilchrist and provides a good recent statement of the standard of review governing a ruling on a motion to vacate a default judgment.
In Johnson v. Neal, released October 23, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Macon County Circuit Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction even though neither of the parties had raised that issue in the trial court.
State Department of Human Resources, on behalf of J.A.S.
Madison County Department of Human Resources v. T.S.
LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Boutwell et al.
Madaloni v. The City of Mobile et al.
Ordinarily, an appellate court will not consider an argument that a party presents to the court for the first time at oral argument, even though the party preserved the argument in the lower court. "Issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered abandoned." Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., No. 08-17006 (11th Cir. Oct. 14, 2009).
An appellate court must raise the absence of an indispensable party ex more moto and must dismiss an action without prejudice if the plaintiff has not joined an indispensable party. The failure to join an indispensible party could produce inconsistent verdicts and "impact the rights, duties, and liabilities of the litigants, members of the public, and the county." Wilson v. Berry, No. 2080615 (Ala. Civ. App. Oct. 16, 2009).
When the Court notices a possible jurisdictional defect in a case, it is incumbent upon the Court to examine the issue, even though no party has raised it. The question of whether a case is being prosecuted by the real party in interest is not a jurisdictional question. The real party in interest is the person who possesses the right that is sought to be enforced. For a defendant to challenge an action on the basis of the plaintiff’s inability to pursue the claim because the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the defendant must brief the issue in its mandamus petition. A petitioner waives arguments that it does not make in its petition. The Court will not "do independent research to determine whether a petitioner for a writ of mandamus has established a clear legal right." Ex parte Simpson, No. 1080981 (Ala. Oct. 16, 2009).
H.J.T. v. State of Alabama ex rel. M.S.M.

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