Morris v. Lazzari, [Ms. CL-2025-0116, Oct. 17, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The court (Edwards, J.; Hanson and Fridy, JJ., concur; Moore, P.J., concurs specially, with opinion; Bowden, J., dissents, with opinion) affirms the Baldwin Circuit Court’s order granting Celeste and Cynthia Lazzari’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion and declaring that an August 2022 judgment requiring the Lazzaris “to take all necessary steps … to capture or prevent runoff water from flowing onto [the neighboring property” owned by Billy Ray Morris had been satisfied. Ms. **1-2.
The court first rejects Morris’s argument that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Lazzaris sought to hold Morris in contempt but had not paid a filing fee. “As we have already explained, the Lazzaris filed a Rule 60(b)(5) motion seeking to have the August 2022 judgment deemed to be ‘satisfied.’ Such a motion ‘must be directed to the judgment in the case in which the motion was filed,’ Hardy v. Johnson, 245 So. 3d 617, 621 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), and does not require the institution of a new action or the payment of a filing fee.” Ms. *8.
The court rejects Morris’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order declaring the judgment satisfied because he failed to order or provide “a transcript of the October 8, 2024, hearing. Nor has he provided a statement of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 10(d), Ala. R. App. P., in which he could have outlined the procedure followed at the hearing and established, as he contends in his brief, that the trial court did not take evidence. In situations when this court is not presented with a transcript or, in lieu of a transcript, a statement of the evidence or a statement of the proceedings indicating what transpired at a hearing, we have indicated that we cannot speculate regarding what transpired at the hearing.” Ms. *15.
Finally, as to Morris’s contention that he was denied due process, the court holds “[b]ecause we are affirming the trial court’s October 30, 2024, order granting the Rule 60(b)(5) motion based on Morris’s failure to present a record supporting his arguments for reversal, we have necessarily determined that Morris received the process that he was due during the proceedings on the Rule 60(b)(5) motion, and we have no basis on which to find that his due-process rights have been ‘wrongfully abrogated.’” Ms. *18.