Title: Washington v. Limerick
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1101201
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 9, 2011

REL: 12/09/11
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
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
_________________________
1101201
_________________________
Ex parte John Aldridge Limerick
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Pamela Washington and Robert Washington, Jr.
v.
John Aldridge Limerick et al.)
(Etowah Circuit Court, CV-08-182)
WOODALL, Justice.
For the second time, we are called upon to address the
validity of an order of the Etowah Circuit Court granting a
1101201
2
new trial on the motion of Pamela Washington and her husband,
Robert Washington, Jr. ("the Washingtons").  See Ex parte
Limerick, 66 So. 3d 755 (Ala. 2011), which sets out the
factual and procedural history of this action.  In Limerick,
we issued, on the petition of John Aldridge Limerick, a writ
of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order
granting the Washingtons' motion for a new trial, which they
filed pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P.  We issued the writ
on the ground that the trial court's order purporting to grant
the Washingtons' postjudgment motion was entered after "the
90-day period referred to in Rule 59.1[, Ala. R. Civ. P., had]
expired," thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction in
the case.  66 So. 3d at 757.  The basis of the Washingtons'
postjudgment 
motion 
was 
alleged 
juror 
misconduct.
Specifically, they averred that the foreperson in the trial of
their action had failed to respond honestly and accurately to
questions asked on voir dire, thereby concealing the fact that
she knew the Washingtons.  
On October 26, 2010, while this Court was considering the
validity of the trial court's new-trial order in Limerick, the
Washingtons filed in the trial court a motion for relief from
1101201
3
judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., on the
ground of "jury misconduct," incorporating "the facts as
asserted in prior motions and oral arguments."  On January 7,
2011, upon release of our opinion in Limerick, the trial court
entered an order vacating its order granting a new trial in
accordance with our instructions but simultaneously setting
the Washingtons' pending Rule 60(b) motion for a hearing.
Approximately six months later, on July 1, 2011, the trial
court once again ordered a new trial, purportedly based this
time on Rule 60(b).  Subsequently, Limerick petitioned this
Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to
vacate its second new-trial order.  Once again, we grant the
petition and issue the writ.
It is abundantly clear that "[a] Rule 60(b) motion to set
aside a judgment cannot be substituted for a Rule 59 motion so
as to avoid the operation of Rule 59.1."  Ex parte Johnson,
715 So. 2d 783, 785-86 (Ala. 1998) (emphasis added).  In that
respect, "'a Rule 60(b) motion "is not a substitute for appeal
and is not available to relieve a party from his failure to
exercise the right of appeal."'"  Washington Mut. Bank, F.A.
v. Campbell, 24 So. 3d 435, 442 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Wal-Mart
1101201
The trial court's untimely order purporting to grant the
1
Rule 59 motion was a nullity.  Limerick, 66 So. 3d at 757. 
4
Stores, Inc. v. Pitts, 900 So. 2d 1240, 1245 (Ala. Civ. App.
2004), quoting in turn Morgan v. Estate of Morgan, 688 So. 2d
862, 864 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)).  Thus, 
"'Rule 60(b) ... cannot serve as a basis for a
motion that, in effect, seeks a reconsideration of
matters already considered by the trial court in a
previous postjudgment motion when the facts alleged
in the Rule 60(b) motion "were known by the moving
party at the time of his original [postjudgment]
motion."'"
Ex parte Haynes, 58 So. 3d 761, 765 (Ala. 2010) (quoting
McIntyre v. Satch Realty, Inc., 961 So. 2d 135, 138-39 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2006), quoting in turn Ex parte Dowling, 477 So. 2d
400, 403 (Ala. 1985)).
In this case, the Washingtons' Rule 59 motion alleged
juror misconduct.  That motion was denied by operation of law
when the trial court failed to act on it within the time
prescribed by Rule 59.1.  The Washingtons failed to appeal
from the automatic denial of that motion.   Instead, they
1
filed a Rule 60(b) motion, which they concede "seek[s] the
same relief as set out in [their] Rule 59 motion."
Washingtons' brief, at 2 (emphasis added).  Their Rule 60(b)
motion 
sought, 
therefore, 
nothing 
more 
than 
a
1101201
5
"reconsideration" of the matters already deemed denied by the
trial court in their previous postjudgment motion and was an
improper use of Rule 60(b) as a substitute for appeal.  
Under 
these 
facts, 
relief 
under 
Rule 
60(b) 
was
unauthorized and improper.  The trial court is directed to
vacate its July 1, 2011, order granting the Washingtons'
motion for a new trial.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Malone, C.J., and Bolin, Murdock, and Main, JJ., concur.