Dec 2, 2016 | Appellate Update RULE 59.1, ALA. R. CIV. P. & DENIAL OF POST-JUDGMENT MOTION BY OPERATION OF LAW - EX PARTE GENESIS PITTMAN
Ex parte Genesis Pittman, [Ms. 1150947, Dec. 2, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2016). The Court unanimously (Shaw, J., and Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concurring) grants a petition for a writ of mandamus and directs the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order setting aside a prior summary judgment because the circuit court's order was entered on a date beyond the 90-day deadline imposed by Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. Noting (Ms. *3-4), Rule 59.1's provision that "[a] failure by the trial court to render an order disposing of any pending post-judgment motion within the time permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof, shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of the period," the Court holds there cannot be any implied consent to an extension of the 90-day period provided for in Rule 59.1. Citing Higgins v. Higgins, 952 So. 2d 1144 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006), Alabama Elect. Co. v. Dobbins, 744 So. 2d 928 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999), and Farmer v. Jackson, 553 So. 2d 550 (Ala. 1989), the Court reiterates (Ms. *6-7) that any extension of the 90-day deadline must be by express consent or by the grant of an extension of time by an appellate court. Because the circuit court's order purporting to set aside the earlier summary judgment was entered beyond the 90-day deadline imposed by Rule 59.1, that order was a nullity per Alabama Dep't of Indus. Relations v. Roberson, 97 So. 3d 176 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
Related Documents: Ex parte Genesis Pittman