McDonald v. Cannon
McDonald v. Cannon
Opinion of the Court
Robert David McDonald appeals from the trial court’s grant of a Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, motion for relief from judgment, and we affirm.
McDonald contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint, as well as the judgment, because, he claims, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction, and the judgment was not void. McDonald and Cannon agree that McDonald’s motion was a Rule 60(b)(1) motion which must be filed no more than four months after the judgment was entered. However, Cannon argues that, because of the untimely filing of the motion, the trial court lacked jurisdiction of the matter and, therefore, did not have the authority to reinstate it. We agree.
The dismissal of McDonald’s action occurred on March 11, 1987. McDonald did not appeal within the required time and did not file the Rule 60(b)(1) motion within the mandatory four month period; either action would have continued the trial court’s jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, we find that McDonald’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion came too late and that this case is due to be affirmed. See Hill v. Townsend, 491 So.2d 237 (Ala. 1986).
We pretermit a discussion of the other issue presented by McDonald as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Robert D. McDonald v. Edward Cannon.
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published