Opinion ID: 1144435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of WCH's Supplemental Brief and Affidavit

Text: WCH argued in its supplemental brief and affidavit presented to the trial court after the hearing on the summary-judgment motions that the debt owed under the note included interest upon unpaid interest. Bockman argues that under § 6-8-103, Ala.Code 1975, WCH failed to timely raise the issue whether the debt secured by the first mortgage included interest upon unpaid interest. Section 6-8-103, Ala.Code 1975, provides: The court may, at its discretion, at any time before the conclusion of the argument, when it appears to be necessary to the due administration of justice, allow a party to supply an omission in the testimony on such terms and under such limitations as the court may prescribe. Bockman argues that the trial court's consideration of WCH's supplemental brief and affidavit violated § 6-8-103, Ala.Code 1975. However, Bockman never presented this argument to the trial court. Bockman did argue to the trial court that WCH argued for the first time after the hearings on the summary-judgment motion that the amount owed on the note should include interest upon unpaid interest. However, Bockman never argued to the trial court that it should not consider WCH's supplemental brief and affidavit because it was untimely, or because consideration of those materials violated § 6-8-103, Ala.Code 1975. Therefore, Bockman's argument was not preserved for review. See Halford v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, 921 So.2d 409, 416 (Ala.2005) (`This Court cannot consider arguments advanced for the purpose of reversing the judgment of a trial court when those arguments were never presented to the trial court for consideration or were raised for the first time on appeal.' (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So.2d 806, 821 (Ala.2005))). [5]