Timeliness of Appeal – Requirement to Cite Supporting Authority on Appeal


Crowder v. Blevins, [Ms. SC-2023-0445, Mar. 22, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mendheim, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) affirms the Jefferson Probate Court’s order granting Blevins’s petition to redeem.

Crowder purchased property owned by Delores Blevins at a tax sale. Blevins then filed a petition for redemption of the property. The Jefferson Probate Court granted Blevins’s petition for redemption and denied Crowder’s post-judgment motions. Crowder appealed as to both the Probate Court’s May 17, 2022 judgment on the merits and the May 9, 2023 order denying his Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate.

The Court determines that Crowder’s appeal regarding the Probate Court’s judgment on the merits was untimely because it was filed more than 42 days after entry of the Probate Court’s order. The Court reiterates that a Rule 60(b)(4) motion does not toll the 42-day period to appeal. Ms. *20.

In support of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion, Crowder argues that the handwritten service receipt containing the name “C. Crowder” in block lettering did not constitute a signature. However, Crowder cited no authority that a signature on a service receipt must take a particular form, such as cursive writing. Ms. *24. In light of Ala. R. App. P. 28(a)(10), Crowder’s failure to cite supporting authority waived his argument. Ms. **24-25.

Further, the Court finds that Crowder’s testimony was insufficient to show that he did not sign the certified mail receipt. Ms. *26. The Court declines to consider Crowder’s argument that the signature on the service receipt differs from his other signatures because Crowder raised that argument for the first time on appeal. Ms. *27.

Related Document