The trial court incorporated a “partial agreement” between the parties into its final divorce judgment. The record on appeal contained no written evidence of that agreement, however, and the trial court had not received evidence on any contested issue. The agreement thus was not valid. And, without evidence, the trial court had no discretion to adjudicate other issues. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Willis v. Willis, No. 2080876 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 26, 2010)
In Cantrell v. Holland, No. 2080494 (Ala. Civ. App. Sept. 11, 2009), the Alabama Circuit Court of Appeals held that it was without sufficient information to decide the jurisdictional issue that the appellant raised because the record on appeal contained only one pleading. It was the appellant’s responsibility to make certain that the record was complete.
In Cockerell v. Cockerell, [Ms. 2070793] (Ala. Civ. App. July 24, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a divorce judgment in part because the husband failed to put a record of the oral testimony in the record. Because the appellate courts will not presume error, the Court of Civil Appeals found that it was "conclusively presumed that the testimony [was] sufficient to support the error."
An interesting discussion of the requirement that a narrative summary of unsdisputed facts, as required by Ala. R. Civ. P. 56, must be before the trial court when it rules on a summary judgment motion is found in Kelmore, LLC v. Alabama Dynamics, Inc., [Ms. 1050479] (Ala. April 3, 2009).
In Beverly v. Beverly, [Ms. 2071085] (Ala. Civ. App. April 3, 2009), the Court of Civil Appeals found that a judgment was supported by the evidence because no transcript or statement of proceedings was in the record.
In Ex parte Allianz Ins. Co. of North America, [Ms. 1070114] (Ala. Dec. 5, 2008), the Court demonstrated the importance of attaching all necessary documents to a petition for writ of mandamus. The petitioners sought a writ of mandmus to have an order compelling discovery reversed. However, the petitioners did not attach to th epetition a copy of its response to the motion to compel or a copy of its motion for protective order. Because the petitioners did not show that they made the arguments to the trial court, and because they failed to present all necessary parts of the record to the Court, the petition was denied.
In Prescott v. Prescott, [Ms. 2070638] (Ala. Civ. App. Oct. 10, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on a child custody modification issue. The mother appeal, but, the record did not contain a transcript, a statement of the evidence under Ala. R. App. P. 10(d), or an agreed statement of the case under Ala. R. App. P. 10(e). "In the absence of a transcript of the evidence or an authorized substitute therfor, it is conclusively presumed that the trial court’s judgment is supported by the evidence." Slip Op. pp. 4-5. Thus, the judgment was presumed to be supported by the evidence and was affirmed.
The Court of Civil Appeals refused to find that a trial court had erred by supposedly failing to account for a document that was not included in the record on appeal. Beatty v. Beatty, No. 2060993 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 11, 2008). The trial court’s judgment, finding that a husband owed past-due alimony, was therefore affirmed.
In Crutcher v. Williams, No. 1050893 (Ala. March 14, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court remanded a case because the judgment from which the appeal was taken was not final. The Court asked the trial court, within fourteen days, either to certify the primary judgment as final under Rule 54(b) or to enter a judgment on the cross-claim in the case. In reaching its decision, the Court reviewed many tenets of procedural law.