Post-Judgment Motions - Wynn v. Steger
Wynn v. Steger, [Ms. 2150789, Oct. 28, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). The Court of Civil Appeals reverses a judgment of the Madison Circuit Court transferring custody of children from the children's maternal grandmother to their mother based upon its failure to apply the correct standard of review provided by Ex parte McClendon, 455 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1984). Of significance is the court's treatment of the grandmother's successive post-judgment motions and their impact in establishing the deadline for filing her notice of appeal. The court notes that a valid and timely post-judgment motion operates to extend the Rule 59.1, Ala. Rule Civ. P. 90-day period in which a trial court may consider a post-judgment motion. Ms. *4, citing Curry v. Curry, 962 So. 2d 261 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). The court also notes that a second post-judgment motion is not precluded from consideration merely because a party previously filed an earlier post-judgment motion:
... Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haygood, 93 So. 3d 132, 140 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) ("[A] second postjudgment motion is not to be precluded from the trial court's consideration merely because a party already has filed one postjudgment motion. The trial court must look to the substance of the motion to see whether it constitutes an 'amendment' to the first postjudgment motion."); and Roden v. Roden, 937 So. 2d 83, 85 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ("Rule 59.1 has been held to apply separately to each distinct timely filed postjudgment motion so as to afford the trial court a full 90-day period to rule on each separate motion (see Spina v. Causey, 403 So. 2d 199, 201 (Ala. 1981)).").
Related Documents: Wynn v Steger