Court Opinion

ID: 7527405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 05:05:13.453291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:23:39.215079
License: Public Domain

[EDITORS' NOTE: SEAL IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.]
Rule 44 (a)(1) entitled "Domestic" applies to official records kept within the United States or any state, etc. The rule requires that: "If the official record is kept without the state [of Alabama], the copy shall be accompanied by a certificate under oath of such person that he is the legal custodian of such record and that the laws of the state require the record to be kept."
Rule 44 (b) applies to the "Lack of Record" such as we have in the instant appeal. This rule states that: "A written statement that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records designated by the statement, authenticated as provided in subdivision (a)(1) of this rule in the case of a domestic record. . . ."
It is clear that the affidavits in question are "Domestic" records that fall within the purview of rule 44 (a)(1) via rule 44 (b). It is equally clear that the affidavits are in total compliance with the specific requirement of rule 44 (a)(1), to wit, they each have a certificate under oath of the legal custodian stating that the custodian is in fact the custodian and the appropriate law requires that the record be kept.
In view of the above, the trial court erred in failing to admit these crucial documents.
It appears that the trial court applied the requirement of rule 44 (a)(2) to the questioned affidavits. Rule 44 (a)(2) applies to "Foreign" documents; that is, documents of *Page 741 
some place other than those places enumerated in rule 44 (a)(1).
Rule 44 (a)(2) does require that the offered document bear the attestation of the "person authorized to make the attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (1) of the attesting person. . . ." As seen from the above, this rule is not applicable in the instant appeal.
We are constrained to comment further. Some confusion has arisen in the general area of the inquiry of this appeal as a result of dicta in the case of Sea Scaping Const. Co., Inc. v.McAtee, 402 So.2d 919 (Ala. 1981).
Sea Scaping involved a State of Alabama document. The Alabama Supreme Court in dicta stated:
 "It is clear that the letter in question, though bearing a signature purporting to be that of the Secretary of State, was not accompanied by any certificate verifying that signature and that person as the custodian. Accordingly, the letter was not self proving and was improper evidence for the purpose of summary judgment. . . ."
402 So.2d at 920.
With all due respect to our supreme court in general and with deference to the distinguished jurist who authored the opinion, we do not believe the above is a correct statement of the applicable law. Since the dicta of Sea Scaping is not applicable to the instant appeal (since we are not concerned with a State of Alabama document and clearly have the required verification certificate), we will not belabor this point. However, we refer interested parties to 2 C. Lyons, AlabamaPractice, Author's Comments, 44.1 Special Note, pp. 28-29, wherein Sea Scaping is discussed. We believe Lyons's comments to be correct.
As indicated, we are required to reverse this case. The error can hardly be considered harmless. See Rule 45, A.R.A.P. A reading of our prior opinion will clearly reveal why the error is not harmless; i.e., the offered evidence is the basis of the employer-appellant's "defense."
The employer-appellant has requested this court to reverse and render this case. We do not feel this can be done. However, on remand we would point out that while the employer has the burden of proving that the prior marriage was undissolved, seeCourtaulds North America, Inc. v. Lott, supra, such burden must not require the impossible.
The case is due to be reversed and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.
 ON REHEARING
In brief in support of his application for rehearing, plaintiff-appellee through able counsel indicates that the following sentence in our original opinion should be deleted: "However, on remand we would point out that while the employer has the burden of proving that the prior marriage was undissolved, see Courtaulds North America, Inc. v. Lott, supra, such burden must not require the impossible."
Plaintiff-appellee's concern is that the quoted sentence might be considered as a "mandate" from this court requiring certain action by the trial court. Suffice it to say, the quoted sentence was not and is not considered to necessarily "mandate" any specific action by the trial court.
OPINION EXTENDED; APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.
WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur. *Page 742