Trial court not required to hold hearing on 60(b) motion where no hearing was requested

In Kovakas v. Kovakas, Ms. 2050780, 2060228 (Ala. Civ. App. May 23, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals rejected an argument that the trial court had erred by not holding a hearing on a Rule 60(b) motion because no hearing was requested.  "When a party fails to request a hearing, ‘to deny his motiin without a hearing [is] not error.’ . . . Even when a hearing is requested, a hearing need not be held if the motion for relief ‘clearly is without substance and [is] merely an attempt to burden the court with frivolous contentions.’"  Slip Op. p. 21 (internal citations omitted).

The court ultimately affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion which was based on newly discovered evidence where there was no reason given as to why the new information could not have been introduced earlier, and the new information would not have changed the result.

Circuit Court Could Not Reconsider Denied Post-Judgment Motions; Appeal From Later Order Was Untimely

The circuit court lost jurisdiction once it denied an employer’s post-judgment motions under Rules 59 and 60. That denial triggered the 42 days in which the employer had to appeal. The circuit court had no power to reopen, reconsider, and again rule on the employer’s motions. An appeal taken 42 days after that second attempted ruling was dismissed as untimely. Attalla Health Care, Inc. v. Kimble, No. 2061007 (Ala. Civ. App. May 9, 2008).

Continue reading