source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ex parte Nancy BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, et al. (In re The matter of D.R.S., a minor child).
    2090692.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Sept. 24, 2010.
    Troy King, atty. gen., and Sharon E. Ficquette, gen. counsel, and James E. Long, deputy gen. counsel, Department of Human Resources, for petitioners Nancy T. Buckner and Terry Benton; Tamara R. Pharrams, dep’t counsel, Department of Mental Health, for petitioner John Houston; Larry E. Craven, gen. counsel, and Juliana T. Dean, assoc, gen. counsel, Department of Education, for petitioner Joseph B. Morton; Tori L. Adams, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner Donna Glass; T. Dudley Perry, gen. counsel, and Sancha O. Epi-phane, deputy gen. counsel, Department of Youth Services, Legal Division; and P. Brian Hall, asst. gen. counsel, Department of Public Health, for petitioner Donald E. Williamson, M.D.
    E. Berton Spence of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent National Deaf Academy, LLC.
    Thomas T. Gallion III and Constance C. Walker of Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Gallion, LLC, Montgomery, for respondent Montgomery County Commission.
   PER CURIAM.

Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources; Terry Benton, Director of the Montgomery County Department of Human Resources; John Houston, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health; Donald E. Williamson, M.D., State Health Officer and Director of the Alabama Department of Public Health; J. Walter Wood, Executive Director of the Alabama Department of Youth Services; Joseph Morton, State Superintendent of Education; and Donna Glass, Director of the Alabama Multi-Needs Child Office (collectively “the State agents”), petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile-court judge presiding over the consolidated actions below to comply with the mandate of this court’s decision in Ex parte Montgomery County Department of Human Resources, 10 So.3d 31 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (“D.R.S. /”), and to recuse herself. We grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part.

In D.R.S. I, we summarized the history of case no. JU-93-102 in the Montgomery Juvenile Court (“the juvenile-court action”), which involves the care of D.R.S., up to the time of that decision:

“D.R.S. is deaf and mentally retarded. She also suffers from diabetes, mental illness, and alopecia. The record indicates that the juvenile court has exercised jurisdiction over D.R.S. for a number of years. During some of those years, D.R.S. was in the legal custody of various relatives. The most recent proceedings involving D.R.S. began on May 23, 2007, when the [Montgomery County Department of Human Resources (‘the County DHR’) ] petitioned the juvenile court to find that D.R.S., who was then in the legal custody of her paternal aunt, was dependent and to award custody of D.R.S. to the County DHR. Upon the filing of the County DHR’s petition, the juvenile court appointed an attorney to serve as D.R.S.’s guardian ad litem. On May 30, 2007, following an expedited hearing, the juvenile court found that D.R.S. was dependent and granted the County DHR legal custody of D.R.S.
“The County DHR made arrangements for D.R.S. to reside temporarily at the [National Deaf Academy (‘the NDA’) ] while it sought joint-agency funding from the ‘State Multiple Needs Team’ for a long-term placement for D.R.S. On June 15, 2007, the juvenile court entered an order requiring the County DHR to give the juvenile court 30 days’ written notice of any proposed change in D.R.S.’s placement.
“On June 22, 2007, the [Alabama Department of Human Resources (‘the State DHR’) ], acting on behalf of the County DHR (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as ‘DHR’), notified the juvenile court in writing of the County DHR’s intent to change D.R.S.’s placement from the NDA to Baypointe Children’s Residential Services (‘Bay-pointe’) in Mobile, Alabama, and moved the juvenile court to amend its June 15, 2007, order to allow the change in placement immediately. As grounds for seeking the immediate change in placement, DHR alleged that Baypointe could provide services that were equivalent to the NDA; that the State Multiple Needs Team had approved joint-agency funding for residential placement of D.R.S. at Baypointe at a cost not to exceed $435 per day from the date of admission through September 30, 2007; and that Baypointe then had a space available for D.R.S. but that it might not have space available at a later date. The motion was accompanied by a brief asserting that the juvenile court lacked authority to condition placement of D.R.S. on the juvenile court’s prior approval; that the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers prohibited the juvenile court from preventing the placement of D.R.S. at Baypointe; that the juvenile court lacked the authority to control the expenditure of State funds by directing that State agencies place D.R.S. at a particular facility; that the juvenile court lacked authority to require State agencies to incur the cost of providing care for a child at a private facility; and that the counties of the State are statutorily responsible for the care of indigent children directed by a juvenile court.
“An entry made by the juvenile court . on the case-action summary on June 26, 2007, indicates that on that date the juvenile court held a hearing on DHR’s motion to amend the juvenile court’s June 15, 2007, order and made a finding that it was not in the best interest of D.R.S. to be moved from the NDA.
“On July 27, 2007, the guardian ad litem moved the juvenile court to find the County DHR in contempt. As grounds, the guardian ad litem alleged, among other things, (1) that the County DHR had moved D.R.S. to Baypointe on July 25, 2007; (2) that, contrary to DHR’s representations to the juvenile court, Baypointe did not provide services that were equivalent to those provided by the NDA; and (3) that Baypointe was an unsuitable placement for D.R.S. The County DHR denied the allegations in the guardian ad litem’s motion.
“Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court entered the November 13 order. That order found that D.R.S. had thrived while she was at the NDA and that she had been mistreated while she was at Baypointe. Based on those findings, the juvenile court in its November 13 order concluded, in pertinent part:
“ 1. That the Court specifically finds that the Alabama Department of Human Resources has not made reasonable efforts to assure the health, safety and educational and medical needs of [D.R.S.] by placing her at Baypointe. Despite DHR’s assertion that this Court cannot tell DHR where to place a child, the Court believes that when DHR fails or refuses to protect a child from harm or mistreatment, the Circuit Court must step in to stop the continued medical maltreatment, over-medication and personal violations of [D.R.S.]
“ ‘2. That [D.R.S.] shall be immediately transported to Mt. Dora, Florida to the National Deaf Academy (or other facility equivalent to the National Deaf Academy) where she shall remain at the expense of the State of Alabama until such time as she is able to function and communicate independently. It is undisputed that presently Alabama has no such facility within its borders.
“ ‘7. That the Court orders that Mrs. Liz Hill be reinstated as therapist for [D.R.S.] by [the Department], so as to allow her to continue her work with this multi-needs child. Ms. Hill has clearly made progress and has achieved a level of trust which cannot be duplicated quickly. It cannot be in this child’s best interest to have Ms. Hill summarily removed from interaction with [D.R.S.]’
“(Emphasis added.)
“.... DHR then petitioned this court to issue a writ of mandamus.”

10 So.3d at 33-35.

In D.R.S. I, we held that Montgomery County was responsible for paying for D.R.S.’s care:

“The petitioners first argue that they have a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to vacate its November 13 order insofar as that order required the State of Alabama to pay the expenses of D.R.S. at the NDA. The petitioners assert that § 12-15-10, Ala.Code 1975, and the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama Constitution mandate that Montgomery County rather than the State of Alabama is the entity responsible for the cost of D.R.S.’s care. We agree.
“Section 12-15-10, a part of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act, which deals with proceedings in the juvenile court, provides, in pertinent part:
“ ‘All expenses necessary or appropriate to the carrying out of the purposes and intent of this chapter and all expenses of maintenance and care of children that may be incurred by order of the court in carrying out the provisions and intent of this chapter, except costs paid by parents, guardians, or trustees, court costs as provided by law and attorney fees shall be valid charges and preferred claims against the county and shall be paid by the county treasurer when itemized and sworn to by the creditor or other persons knowing the facts in the case and approved by the court.’
“(Emphasis added.)

“In Ex parte Department of Mental Health, 511 So.2d 181 (Ala.1987), the Alabama Supreme Court held that an order of the Houston Juvenile Court directing the Department to place a child at Charter Woods Hospital, a private facility, for a psychiatric evaluation to be paid for by the Department violated § 12-15-10 and the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama Constitution. The court stated:

“ ‘[In § 12-15-10], the Legislature expressly designates the county as the entity responsible for maintenance and care. Therefore, according to our statutory scheme, the county, not the State or a department thereof, is responsible for any monies due Charter Woods Hospital.
“ ‘The Court of Civil Appeals’ judgment ordering [the Department] to pay for the child’s care and treatment not only runs afoul of § 12-15-10, but also violates §§ 42 and 43 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, which sections deal with the doctrine of separation of powers.
“ ‘Although the Legislature granted authority to the juvenile courts to commit children to the custody of [the Department] and authority to avail themselves of the facilities and personnel of [the Department], the Legislature did not confer upon the juvenile courts the authority to commit a child to the custody of [the Department] and then order that the child be placed in a private psychiatric facility. See Code of Alabama 1975, § 12-15-90. Had the Legislature intended to grant authority to juvenile courts to commit a child to the custody of [the Department] and then order that the child be placed in a private psychiatric facility at the expense of [the Department], it would have been a simple matter for the Legislature to so provide. The Legislature’s power to determine the appropriations for each state agency cannot be usurped by either of the other branches of government. [The Department] is mandated by the Legislature to act, through its commissioner, “in any prudent way to provide mental health services ... for the people of Alabama.” Code of Alabama 1975, § 22-50-1, et seq. [The Department] is therefore charged by the Legislature to accept minors alleged to be mentally ill and treat them by means of its various programs and facilities. Nowhere in any of these statutes does the Legislature state that anyone other than [the Department] is authorized to care for and treat these children.
“‘Furthermore, in In re McCain, 348 So.2d 780 (Ala.1977), this Court was presented with a situation substantially similar to the one sub judi-ce. There, the trial court had made McCain a ward of the court, placed him in an out-of-state mental health center, and required [the Department] to pay for McCain’s care and treatment. In striking down the court’s order, this Court stated:
“ ‘ “To allow this provision of Judge Davis’s order to stand would allow the unrecoverable expenditure of State funds from an appropriation not intended for child care and from which Judge Davis has no authority to direct expenditure of funds for child care.”
“ ‘348 So.2d at 782. The rationale behind this Court’s decision in McCain is equally sound in this case. We find no merit in the argument that the case before us is distinguishable from McCain because of the fact that in McCain, the Court labeled as “court costs” the amount to be paid by [the Department]. Whatever their designation, costs for care and treatment of a minor placed in a private institution cannot be charged to [the Department]. Therefore, that portion of the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion that held [the Department] responsible for the child’s expenses while he was in Charter Woods Hospital is erroneous and it is hereby reversed.’
511 So.2d at 183-84. See also In re N.D.M., 837 So.2d 316 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (holding that the county must pay the expenses of an indigent minor committed to the custody of the Department); In re D.M., 738 So.2d at 901 (plurality opinion) (stating that ‘[o]ur supreme court has held that neither § 12-15-71 (c)(4) nor § 12-15-70 authorizes the juvenile court to require a department of the state, as opposed to its counties, to pay for mental health treatment of the child when the parents or other persons legally obligated to care for the child cannot’); Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. State, 718 So.2d 74, 76 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (stating that ‘Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-10, requires the appropriate county to bear the expense for care and treatment of indigent juveniles’); Ex parte State Dep’t of Human Res., 716 So.2d 717, 718 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (stating that ‘if the child’s parents, guardians, or trustees are unable to pay the medical expenses, the county is obligated to do so’); Ex parte State Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 555 So.2d 1132, 1133 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) (stating that ‘if the child’s parents or others legally obligated are financially unable to pay such expenses, the county is statutorily obligated to do so’); and In re T.L.H., 607 So.2d 295 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (same).
“The petitioners have established their right to a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to vacate its November 13 order insofar as that order required the State of Alabama to pay the expense of placing D.R.S. at the NDA.”

10 So.3d at 35-37.

After this court issued its certificate of judgment in D.R.S. I, the Montgomery County Department of Human Resources (“the County DHR”), on March 18, 2009, moved the juvenile-court judge for an order directing the Montgomery County Commission to pay the bills submitted by the National Deaf Academy (“the NDA”) for its care of D.R.S. pursuant to § 12-15-108, Ala.Code 1975, and our holding in D.R.S. I. Attached to the County DHR’s motion were bills submitted by the NDA for the period December 1, 2007, through December 31, 2008. Those bills totaled $224,055.

On February 10, 2009, the Montgomery County Commission sued the State agents and the NDA in the Montgomery Circuit Court (“the circuit court”), seeking a judgment determining who was obligated to pay for the care of D.R.S. and the care of other residents of Montgomeiy County by the NDA. The circuit court docketed that action (“the county’s action”) as CV-09-204.

On March 19, 2009, the NDA sued the State agents and Montgomery County in the circuit court, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the State agents or, in the alternative, Montgomery County to pay the NDA for its care of D.R.S. The circuit court docketed that action (“the NDA’s action”) as CV-09-900341.

Motions to consolidate the county’s action and the NDA’s action with the juvenile-court action were filed. After the circuit-court judges presiding in the county’s action and the NDA’s action deferred to the juvenile-court judge with respect to those motions, the juvenile-court judge entered an order stating that the county’s action and the NDA’s action were “consolidated into the Juvenile Court case”; “[hjowever, so as to avoid confusion, the [county’s action and the NDA’s action] shall be heard separately from the ongoing juvenile[-court action].”

The State agents moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them by Montgomery County and the NDA on the ground that Montgomery County was the proper party to pay the NDA for its care of D.R.S.; however, the juvenile-court judge denied those motions. The juvenile-court judge also appointed the attorney she had designated as her campaign-finance coordinator to represent D.R.S. in the consolidated actions. Thereafter, the State agents moved for recusal of the juvenile-court judge. When no ruling on their motion seeking recusal was forthcoming, the State agents petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile-court judge to recuse herself and to comply with this court’s mandate in D.R.S. I insofar as we held that Montgomery County was the proper entity to pay the NDA for its care of D.R.S. While the mandamus petition was pending in this court, the attorney whom the juvenile-court judge had appointed to represent D.R.S. in these consolidated actions moved this court for leave to withdraw from that representation, and this court granted that motion.

The supreme court stated the standard for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala.1995):

“Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.”

In Ex parte Alabama Power Company, 431 So.2d 151, 155 (Ala.1983), the supreme court, quoting 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 991 (1962), stated:

“ ‘It is the duty of the trial court, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court. No judgment other than that directed or permitted by the reviewing court may be entered .... The appellate court’s decision is final as to all matters before it, becomes the law of the case, and must be executed according to the mandate, without granting a new trial or taking additional evidence....’”

In D.R.S. I, we made it clear that, under Alabama law, Montgomery County is the entity responsible for paying for the NDA’s care of D.R.S. Compliance with that mandate required that the juvenile-court judge grant the State agents’ motions to dismiss the claims asserted against them by Montgomery County and the NDA. Accordingly, we hold that the State agents have established a clear legal right to an order granting those motions to dismiss, an imperative duty on the part of the juvenile-court judge to grant those motions and a refusal to do so, the lack of another adequate remedy, and the properly invoked jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, we grant the State agents’ petition insofar as it seeks a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile-court judge to dismiss the claims asserted against them by Montgomery County and the NDA.

Because the State agents are entitled to have their motions seeking dismissal of the claims asserted against them by Montgomery County and the NDA granted, their petition is moot insofar as it seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the juvenile-court judge to recuse herself.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.

All the judges concur.


author: MAIN, Justice.

text:
    Ex parte MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMISSION. (In re Ex parte Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, et al. (In re The matter of D.R.S., a minor child)). Ex parte National Deaf Academy, LLC. (In re Ex parte Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, et al. (In re The matter of D.R.S., a minor child)).
    1100026 and 1100031.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 20, 2011.

      Thomas T. Gallion III and Constance C. Walker of Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Gallion, LLC, Montgomery, for petitioner Montgomery County Commission.
    E. Berton Spence of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner National Deaf Academy, LLC.
    Troy King, atty. gen., James E. Long, deputy atty. gen., and Sharon E. Fic-quette, chief legal counsel, Department of Human Resources, for petitioners Nancy T. Buckner and Terry Benton; Tamara R. Pharrams, department counsel, Department of Mental Health, for petitioner John Houston; Larry E. Craven, gen. counsel, and Juliana T. Dean, assoc, gen. counsel, Alabama Department of Education, for petitioner Joseph Morton; and T. Dudley Perry, gen. counsel, and Sancha 0. Howard, deputy gen. counsel, Alabama Department of Youth Services, for petitioners.
    Kendrick E. Webb and Jamie K. Hill of Webb & Eley, P.C., Montgomery, for ami-cus curiae Association of County Commissions of Alabama, in support of the petitioner Montgomery County Commission.
   MAIN, Justice.

The Montgomery County Commission (“the County”) and the National Deaf Academy, LLC (“the Academy”), the plaintiffs in separate actions pending in the Montgomery Juvenile Court, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Civil Appeals to quash the writ of mandamus issued to the juvenile court in Ex parte Buckner, 73 So.3d 686 (Ala.Civ.App.2010). We grant the petitions and issue the writs.

I. Factual Background

D.R.S. was born in 1990. She suffers from deafness, mental retardation, diabetes, mental illness, and alopecia. D.R.S. first became involved with the juvenile court system when she was charged with a criminal misdemeanor because of acting-out behavior in a placement arranged for her by the Montgomery County Department of Human Resources (“MCDHR”). On May 23, 2007, MCDHR petitioned the Montgomery Juvenile Court to have D.R.S. placed in a mental-health facility that served deaf clients. On May 30, the juvenile court awarded legal custody of D.R.S. to MCDHR, and MCDHR created an individualized service plan, or “ISP,” for her. The Alabama Children’s Services Facilitation Team (“the State Team”) agreed that the Alabama Department of Human Resources (“State DHR”) was to fund D.R.S.’s placement at the Academy’s facility in Florida until the State Team could allocate the financial responsibility for her.

The executive council of the State Team consists of the heads of the Department of Education, the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Public Health, and the Department of Youth Services. § 12-15-504, Ala.Code 1975. The legislature established the executive council to exercise general supervision over the State Team, which consists of a representative appointed by each of the Department of Education, the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Youth Services, and the Chief Probation Officers Association. § 12-15-505(a), Ala.Code 1975. The State Team is responsible for developing and implementing interagency plans for statewide services for multiple-needs children and for allocating resources to implement those plans for services and treatment of those children with funds in the State Multiple Needs Children Fund established by § 12-15-508, Ala.Code 1975 (“the Fund”). § 12-15-505(e)(l) and (2), Ala.Code 1975. The Fund is used to provide services not otherwise provided by State departments or agencies for multiple-needs children. § 12-15-508(b). D.R.S. has been classified as a multiple-needs child.

Pursuant to § 12-15-503, Ala.Code 1975, a county children’s services facilitation team (“the county team”) is responsible for developing a plan of services addressing the requirements of a multiple-needs child and the respective financial responsibilities of agencies and departments constituting this team. Once a juvenile court has deemed a child to be a multiple-needs child, the county team is responsible for implementing any service plan ordered. § 12-15-503, Ala.Code 1975. When a county team makes a referral, the State Team is required to develop a plan for the multiple-needs child that is then binding on the county team. § 12-15-505(e)(4), Ala.Code 1975.

MCDHR made arrangements for D.R.S. to reside temporarily at the Academy’s facility while it sought funding from the State Team for a long-term placement for her. MCDHR placed D.R.S. at the Academy’s facility on June 1, 2007, and advised the juvenile court that she had been denied funding by the State Team because she had not received a comprehensive psychiatric and medical evaluation at The Children’s Hospital of Alabama in Birmingham. MCDHR further advised the juvenile court that D.R.S.’s guardian ad litem did not agree with the requirement that D.R.S. undergo a comprehensive psychiatric and medical evaluation because she had previously been evaluated at another hospital. MCDHR stated that it would coordinate with the Academy to obtain a comprehensive assessment of D.R.S. within the next 30 days and then request reconsideration by the State Team for funding to assist in D.R.S.’s care. On June 15, 2007, the juvenile court entered an order requiring MCDHR to give the juvenile court 30 days’ written notice of any proposed change in D.R.S.’s placement. On June 22, 2007, the State DHR, acting on behalf of MCDHR, notified the juvenile court that MCDHR intended to move D.R.S. to BayPointe Children’s Residential Services in Mobile. The State DHR reported that funding for D.R.S.’s placement at BayPointe had been approved by the State Team at a cost not to exceed $485 per day beginning on the date of admission through September 30, 2007, and that the costs would be shared equally between four agencies — the State DHR, the Department of Youth Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Mental Health. On June 26, 2007, the juvenile court found that it was not in D.R.S.’s best interests to be moved from the Academy’s facility to BayPointe. Nevertheless, on July 25, MCDHR removed D.R.S. from the Academy’s facility and placed her at BayPointe. On July 27, D.R.S.’s guardian ad litem objected and contended that BayPointe was not a suitable placement for D.R.S.

On September 5, 2007, MCDHR paid the Academy $26,250 for services the Academy had rendered to D.R.S. On September 16, MCDHR issued a letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” stating that MCDHR had temporary custody of D.R.S. and further stating that MCDHR would be “financially responsible for expenses which include but are not limited to clothing supplies, medical costs/medications, hygiene costs, travel/travel cost, etc., while [D.R.S.] is in out of state placement.” On September 26, MCDHR paid the Academy an additional $550 to satisfy the amount outstanding at that time for services it had rendered to D.R.S. On November 2, 2007, MCDHR contacted the Academy about readmitting D.R.S. On November 5, MCDHR requested a rate quote for D.R.S. from the Academy. In response, the Academy informed MCDHR that D.R.S. had been accepted into its residential-treatment program at a rate of $525 per day for room, board, and psychiatric services, plus an additional $150 per school day for educational services.

The juvenile court held a two-day evi-dentiary hearing in November 2007 on whether to relocate D.R.S. to the Academy’s facility in Florida. On November 13, the juvenile court ordered that D.R.S. was to be transported back to the Academy’s facility in Florida or another equivalent facility and that she was to remain at the Academy’s facility or the equivalent facility “at the expense of the State of Alabama until such time as she is able to function and communicate independently.” The juvenile court also ordered D.R.S.’s guardian ad litem and her probation officer to monitor her progress at the Academy’s facility and to report back to the court and ordered that D.R.S.’s former therapist be reinstated. MCDHR filed a motion with the juvenile court to authorize the court reporter to provide it with a transcript of the hearing, but the juvenile court denied the motion.

On November 15, 2007, the Alabama Multiple Needs Child Office notified the Academy that the State Team had approved funding for D.R.S.’s placement at the Academy’s facility from November 19, 2007, to February 28, 2008. On November 19, D.R.S. was readmitted to the Academy’s facility in Florida. On December 4, the State DHR issued an Interstate Compact Transmittal Memorandum, pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”), enclosing an ICPC Form 10OA, stating that the “Name of Agency or Person Financially Responsible for Child” was “Alabama State Department of Human Resources.” After D.R.S. was readmitted, the Academy initially submitted its monthly invoices to the Alabama Multiple Needs Child Office and later submitted those invoices to MCDHR.

On November 26, 2007, MCDHR and the State DHR (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the DHR petitioners”) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Civil Appeals, seeking review of the juvenile court’s order of November 13, 2007. Neither the County nor the Academy was a party to this proceeding. The DHR petitioners sought to have the November 13 order vacated insofar as it directed that D.R.S. be placed at the Academy’s facility in Florida or at an equivalent facility, that the State of Alabama pay the costs of D.R.S.’s placement, and that D.R.S.’s former therapist be reinstated. The DHR petitioners also sought to have the juvenile court’s order denying it a transcript of the evidentiary hearing vacated. On May 23, 2008, the Court of Civil Appeals granted the DHR petitioners’ petition in part and denied it in part. Ex parte Montgomery County Dep’t of Human Res., 10 So.3d 31, 38 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) {“MCDHR P’).

The Court of Civil Appeals in MCDHR I first held that the DHR petitioners established their right to a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to vacate its November 13 order insofar as the order required the State to pay D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility, citing § 12-15-10, Ala.Code 1975, which designates the county as the entity responsible for the maintenance and care of an indigent juvenile, and Ex parte Department of Mental Health, 511 So.2d 181 (Ala.1987), in which this Court held that a court order directing the Department of Mental Health to place a child at a private facility for a psychiatric evaluation to be paid for by the Department of Mental Health violated § 12-15-10 and the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. 10 So.3d at 35-36. The court next held that the DHR petitioners did not establish their right to a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to vacate its November 13 order insofar as the order required that D.R.S. be placed at the Academy’s facility and her former therapist be reinstated; it further held that the juvenile court did not dictate to the DHR petitioners how they were to care for D.R.S. without first giving them the opportunity to carry out their legislative mandate and noted that a juvenile court has the authority to review a State agency’s care of a child committed to its custody and to direct the agency to change a child’s care if the court finds that the care provided by the agency is not in the child’s best interests. 10 So.3d at 37-39. Finally, the court held that the DHR petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the juvenile court to vacate its order denying them a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. 10 So.3d at 39^0.

The DHR petitioners then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to have this Court review the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and the record from the Court of Civil Appeals and for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this Court review the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision in MCDHR I with the benefit of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing that was not before the Court of Civil Appeals. This Court denied the petition, holding that the DHR petitioners waived their argument that it was necessary for this Court to review the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, despite the absence of the transcript from the record when the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the merits of the juvenile court’s decision; the DHR petitioners did not argue that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reaching the merits without the transcript. Ex parte Montgomery County Dep’t of Human Res., 10 So.3d 41 (Ala.2008) (“MCDHR II”).

On February 10, 2009, the County filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Montgomery Circuit Court, naming as defendants officials of MCDHR, the State DHR, and the other agencies constituting the State Team (collectively “the State agents”). The County sought a determination as to which entity had the duty to pay D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility. MCDHR then filed a motion in the juvenile court requesting an order declaring that the County was responsible for the payment of D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility and ordering the County to pay those expenses. On March 19, 2009, the Academy filed a complaint in the Montgomery Circuit Court asserting several claims against the County and the State agents regarding the financial responsibility for D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility and seeking a judgment ordering the County to pay her expenses. The Academy’s action was consolidated with the County’s action before Judge Patricia Warner, the judge presiding over the then pending juvenile proceeding concerning D.R.S.

On June 26, 2009, MCDHR filed in the Court of Civil Appeals a motion to enforce the writ of mandamus issued by that court in MCDHR I. MCDHR contended in that motion that the court had already issued a writ of mandamus in its 2008 decision in MCDHR I “specifically holding that the Montgomery County Commission is responsible for payments for the cost of care of [D.R.S.].” On August 25, 2009, the Court of Civil Appeals entered an order denying MCDHR’s motion.

After the parties filed various motions in both declaratory-judgment actions, the State agents filed a joint motion requesting that Judge Warner recuse herself from the proceedings. They argued that Judge Warner was biased against them because she had not followed the mandate of the 2008 decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in MCDHR I by ordering the County to pay D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility and that one of the lawyers for D.R.S. was Judge Warner’s campaign coordinator in her circuit judgeship race. On April 27, 2010, MCDHR again filed a motion in the juvenile court asking the court to order the County to pay D.R.S.’s outstanding expenses at the Academy’s facility of $432,325. The County opposed the motion, arguing that it was not a party to the proceedings that resulted in the issuance of the opinion in MCDHR I in 2008 and, therefore, that the decision was not the law of the case in the County’s declaratory-judgment action. On April 29, the court entered an order continuing the final hearing originally set for May 10, establishing a briefing schedule on the motion to recuse, and setting a hearing for oral arguments on June 14. Also on April 29, the State agents filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Civil Appeals asking the court to direct Judge Warner to recuse herself. The State agents later amended the petition to seek a writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to order the County to pay D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility, payment the State agents argued was required by the Court of Civil Appeals in MCDHR I. On September 24, 2010, the Court of Civil Appeals granted the petition and issued the writ, directing the juvenile court to dismiss the declaratory-judgment actions filed by the County and the Academy. Ex parte Buckner, 73 So.3d 686 (Ala. Civ.App.2010). The court held that its decision in MCDHR I was the law of the case, and it directed the juvenile court to dismiss the County’s and the Academy’s actions against the State agents seeking a determination as to which entity is responsible for paying D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility. That court stated:

“In Ex parte Alabama Power Company, 431 So.2d 151, 155 (Ala.1983), the supreme court, quoting 5 Am. Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 991 (1962), stated:
“ ‘ “It is the duty of the trial court, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court. No judgment other than that directed or permitted by the reviewing court may be entered .... The appellate court’s decision is final as to all matters before it, becomes the law of the case, and must be executed according to the mandate, without granting a new trial or taking additional evidence....” ’
“In [MCDHR 7], we made it clear that, under Alabama law, Montgomery County is the entity responsible for paying for the [Academy’s] care of [D.R.SJ. Compliance with that mandate required that the juvenile-court judge grant the State agents’ motions to dismiss the claims asserted against them by [the] County and the [Academy]. Accordingly, we hold that the State agents have established a clear legal right to an order granting those motions to dismiss, an imperative duty on the part of the juvenile-court judge to grant those motions and a refusal to do so, the lack of another adequate remedy, and the properly invoked jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, we grant the State agents’ petition insofar as it seeks a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile-court judge to dismiss the claims asserted against them by [the] County and the [Academy].”

73 So.3d at 691-92. The Court of Civil Appeals also held that because the State agents were entitled to a dismissal of the actions filed by the County and the Academy, the State agents’ petition was moot insofar as it sought a writ of mandamus compelling the juvenile court judge to re-cuse herself.

II. Standard of Review

“This Court reviews de novo the issuance of a writ of mandamus by the Court of Civil Appeals. Rule 21(e), Ala. R.App. P. Review of a writ of mandamus issued by the Court of Civil Appeals is properly sought through a petition for the writ of mandamus to this Court. Rule 21(e), Ala. R.App. P. ‘ “ ‘Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.’ ” ’ Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., 895 So.2d 265[, 268] (Ala.2004) (quoting Ex parte Mardis, 628 So.2d 605, 606 (Ala.1993) (quoting in turn Ex parte Ben-Acadia, Ltd., 566 So.2d 486, 488 (Ala.1990))). ‘The petitioner bears the burden of proving each of these elements before the writ will issue.’ Ex parte Glover, 801 So.2d 1, 6 (Ala.2001) (citing Ex parte Consolidated Publ’g Co., 601 So.2d 423 (Ala.1992)).”

Ex parte Vance, 900 So.2d 394, 397 (Ala.2004).

III. Analysis

The dispositive issue presented by these petitions is whether the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that its decision in MCDHR I is the law of the case that governs all the parties in the three cases before us. The County and the Academy contend that the Court of Civil Appeals erred when it issued a writ of mandamus directing the juvenile court to dismiss the civil actions filed by the County and the Academy in which they sought to determine which entity is legally responsible for D.R.S.’s expenses at the Academy’s facility. In those civil actions, the County and the Academy assert various claims, arguments, and defenses that were never heard by the Court of Civil Appeals in MCDHR I because the County and the Academy were not parties to the 2008 mandamus proceeding before that court. Nevertheless, the Court of Civil Appeals held in Ex -parte Buckner that its decision in MCDHR I is the law of the case, binding the County and the Academy. If the writ of mandamus issued in Ex parte Buckner is not quashed, the County and the Academy argue, they will be denied the opportunity to present their cases and to develop a full record at the trial level on the issues raised in their actions, and they will be denied the opportunity for appellate review based on that record. In response, the State agents merely insist, without citation to any legal authority, that the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision in MCDHR I is the law of the case in these proceedings.

In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baldwin County Home Builders Ass’n, Inc., 823 So.2d 637, 639-40 (Ala.2001), this Court discussed well settled precedent regarding the law of the case.

“ ‘ “Under the doctrine of the ‘law of the case,’ whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case.” ’ Southern United Fire Ins. Co. v. Purma, 792 So.2d 1092 (Ala.2001), quoting Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala.1987).”

(Emphasis added.) Clearly, the parties to the actions filed by the County and the Academy are not the same parties as the parties to the juvenile action that was before the Court of Civil Appeals in MCDHR I. Therefore, the law of the case does not apply so as to require the County’s and the Academy’s actions to be dismissed. The County and Academy are entitled to present their claims, arguments, and defenses to the juvenile court for resolution and to seek appellate review from a final judgment if they so choose. The Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that its decision in MCDHR I is the law of the case as to the County’s and the Academy’s actions.

IV. Conclusion

The County’s and the Academy’s petitions for the writ of mandamus are granted; the Court of Civil Appeals is directed to quash the writ of mandamus it issued on September 24, 2010, in Ex parte Buckner, requiring the juvenile court dismiss the actions filed against the State agents by the County and the Academy. Because the Court of Civil Appeals held that the dismissals of the actions filed by the County and the Academy mooted that portion of the State agents’ petition arguing that the juvenile court judge should recuse herself, the Court of Civil Appeals is further directed to address the recusal issue before it disposes of the mandamus petition. This Court pretermits consideration of the other issues argued by the parties.

1100026 — PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

1100081 — PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

COBB, C.J., and WOODALL, STUART, BOLIN, PARKER, MURDOCK, SHAW, and WISE, JJ., concur.

      . The County and the Academy filed their actions in the Montgomery Circuit Court, but they were consolidated with a juvenile case pending in the Montgomery Juvenile Court— The matter of D.R.S., a minor child. All three cases are being heard by the juvenile court judge.

      . The Academy’s facility is located in Mt. Dora, Florida. It provides, among other services, educational and therapeutic services to hearing-impaired children.

      . Section 12-15-501(2), Ala.Code 1975, defines a multiple-needs child as follows:
      "A child coming to the attention of the juvenile court or one of the entities listed herein who is at imminent risk of out-of-home placement or a placement in a more restrictive environment, and whose needs require the services of two or more of the following entities: Department of Youth Services, public school system (services for exceptional needs), Department of Human Resources, Department of Public Health, juvenile probation officers, or Department of Mental Health.”

      . The Alabama Juvenile Justice Act provides for the creation of a county team in each county of the State. § 12-15-506(a), Ala. Code 1975.

      . The Department of Mental Health, then called the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, joined MCDHR and the State DHR in filing the petition in this Court seeking review of the juvenile court's order.

      . By the time the Court of Civil Appeals decided Ex parte Buckner, D.R.S.'s expenses at the Academy's facility exceeded $500,000. This amount remains outstanding, except for occasional reimbursements by MCDHR for clothing and personal items for D.R.S.


text:
    Ex parte Nancy BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, et al. (In re The matter of D.R.S., a minor child).
    2090692.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    July 22, 2011.
    Troy King and Luther Strange, attys. gen., and Sharon E. Ficquette, gen. counsel, and James E. Long, deputy gen. counsel, Department of Human Resources, for petitioners Nancy T. Buckner and Terry Benton; Tamara R. Pharrams, dep’t counsel, Department of Mental Health, for petitioner John Houston; Larry E. Craven, gen. counsel, and Juliana T. Dean, assoc, gen. counsel, Department of Education, for petitioner Joseph B. Morton; Tori L. Adams, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner Donna Glass; T. Dudley Perry, gen. counsel, and Sancha O. Epiphane, deputy gen. counsel, Department of Youth Services, Legal Division; and P. Brian Hall, asst, gen. counsel, Department of Public Health, for petitioner Donald E. Williamson, M.D.

      E. Berton Spence of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent National Deaf Academy, LLC.
    Thomas T. Gallion III and Constance C. Walker of Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Gallion, LLC, Montgomery, for respondent Montgomery County Commission.
   After Issuance of Writ of Mandamus by Alabama Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources; Terry Benton, Director of the Montgomery County Department of Human Resources; John Houston, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health; Donald E. Williamson, M.D., State Health Officer and Director of the Alabama Department of Public Health; J. Walter Wood, Executive Director of the Alabama Department of Youth Services; Joseph Morton, State Superintendent of Education; and Donna Glass, Director of the Alabama Multi-Needs Child Office (collectively “the state agents”), petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Patricia Warner, the juvenile-court judge presiding over case nos. JU-93-102.08, CV-09-204, and CV-09-900341 in the Montgomery Juvenile Court to grant the state agents’ motions to dismiss the claims against them in case nos. CV-09-204 and CV-09-900341 and to recuse herself. In Ex parte Buckner, 73 So.3d 686 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), this court granted the state agents’ petition insofar as it sought a writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to grant the state agents’ motions to dismiss the claims against them in case nos. CV-09-204 and CV-09-900341 and held that the state agents’ petition was moot insofar as it sought a writ directing Judge Warner to recuse herself.

In Ex parte Montgomery County Commission, 73 So.3d 692 (Ala.2011), the supreme court issued a writ of mandamus directing this court to quash the writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to grant the state agents’ motions to dismiss the claims against them in case nos. CV-09-204 and CV-09-900341 and ordered this court to consider the merits of the state agents’ petition insofar as it sought a writ directing Judge Warner to recuse herself.

However, subsequent to the deliverance of the supreme court’s decision on May 20, 2011, Judge Warner resigned, and the respondents, the Montgomery County Commission (“the commission”) and the National Deaf Academy (“the NDA”), have moved this court to dismiss the state agents’ petition insofar as it seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to re-cuse herself on the ground that her resignation has rendered that portion of the state agents’ petition moot. The state agents have responded by arguing that Judge Warner’s resignation has not rendered that portion of the state agents’ petition moot because, the state agents say, they were aggrieved by certain rulings made by Judge Warner before she resigned. However, that portion of the state agents’ petition for a writ of mandamus sought only a writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to recuse herself; that portion of the state agents’ petition did not seek relief from the rulings with respect to which they complain in their response to the motions to dismiss filed by the commission and the NDA. Therefore, we conclude that the state agents’ opposition to the motions to dismiss filed by the commission has no merit and that those motions are due to be granted.

Accordingly, in compliance with the supreme court’s decision in Ex parte Montgomery County Commission, we quash the writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to grant the state agents’ motions to dismiss in case nos. CV-09-204 and CV-09-900841. Moreover, we grant the commission’s and the NDA’s motions to dismiss the state agents’ petition insofar as it seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Warner to recuse herself on the ground that her resignation has rendered that portion of the state agents’ petition moot.

WRIT ISSUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2010, QUASHED; PETITION DISMISSED AS TO RECUSAL ISSUE.

All the judges concur.

      . John Houston is no longer the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health, and Joseph Morton is no longer the State Superintendent of Education. Rule 25(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., and Rule 43(b), Ala. R.App. P., provide that if a public officer is a party to an action or an appeal in an official capacity and the officer ceases to hold office during the pendency of the action or the appeal, the officer's successor is automatically substituted as a part.


text:
    Tyrone TOWNSEND v. Cameron L. HOGAN, as guardian ad litem for Alysha McCall, a minor.
    2100303.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 10, 2011.

      Tyrone Townsend, Birmingham, for appellant.
    Cameron L. Hogan of Lloyd & Hogan, Birmingham, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

In February 2009, Alysha McCall, a minor, was injured while in the care of Sunrise Child Care (“Sunrise”), a day-care center. In July 2010, McCall, by and through her legal guardian, Demetria Billings, sued Sunrise, seeking damages in the amount of $11,000 as a result of McCall’s injuries. Billings hired Tyrone Townsend to represent McCall in the action against Sunrise.

Sunrise and McCall settled the action for $11,000. Sunrise requested that the trial court appoint a guardian ad litem for McCall, as is required in pro ami actions. See Pate v. Perry’s Pride, Inc., 348 So.2d 1038, 1040 (Ala.1977) (citing Citizens Walgreen Drug Agency, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 282 Ala. 648, 213 So.2d 814 (1968)) (“It is the function of the trial court in pro ami suits to see that the injured infant receives a fair hearing and that the next friend or guardian ad litem is present and acting in the infant’s behalf.”). Sunrise agreed to assume responsibility for the guardian ad litem fee. The trial court appointed Cameron Hogan as McCall’s guardian ad litem. After Hogan submitted his recommendation, the trial court approved the pro ami settlement. In the August 31, 2010, judgment approving the settlement, the trial court set out the disbursements required to be made from the $11,000, including $500 in out-of-pocket expenses to Billings, $1,857.07 to discharge a Medicaid lien, $20 to pay off a medical bill, and $3,666.67 as an attorney fee for Townsend. After those disbursements from the settlement funds, McCall was to receive $4,956.26, which was to be held by the circuit clerk pending McCall’s reaching the age of majority.

On September 30, 2010, Townsend filed a Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to amend the August 31, 2010, judgment approving the pro ami settlement. In that motion, Townsend informed the court that he had learned that Medicaid had corrected and reduced its lien to $846.86, an amount $1,010.21 less than the amount the trial court had ordered disbursed to Medicaid in the August 31, 2010, judgment approving the pro ami settlement. Townsend sought a correction of the August 31, 2010, judgment to reflect the correct amount of the Medicaid lien. He further sought an award to himself of $333.36 as an additional attorney fee. On September 30, 2010, the trial court amended its August 31, 2010, judgment as requested by Townsend.

On October 4, 2010, Hogan filed a Rule 59 motion to amend the September 30, 2010, amended judgment. Hogan objected only to the redistribution of the settlement funds to award Townsend an additional attorney fee of $333.36. According to Hogan, Townsend had initially received a fee equal to one-third of the entire $11,000 settlement, which, Hogan argued, had been based on the contract that Townsend had entered into with Billings. Hogan contended that Townsend was due no further fee.

After a hearing on the motion, by an order dated October 28, 2010, the trial court “sustained” Hogan’s objection to the redistribution of the settlement funds to award Townsend an additional attorney fee. In that order, the trial court concluded that Townsend’s attorney fee should be limited to the $3,666.67 that he had been awarded in the August 31, 2010, judgment approving the pro ami settlement and ordered that Townsend repay the additional $333.36 attorney fee he had been awarded in the September 30, 2010, amended judgment to the circuit clerk to be held for McCall. The trial court further ordered that Townsend be responsible for payment of a guardian ad litem fee for Hogan’s legal services to McCall rendered during the postjudgment proceedings, which, at that time, had not yet been determined.

On November 21, 2010, Townsend filed a postjudgment motion seeking to alter or amend the October 28, 2010, order denying him an additional attorney fee of $333.36. Townsend argued that his due diligence in filing a motion to correct the amount of the Medicaid hen had created a common fund of $1,010.21 and that, as a result, he was due a portion of that amount as an attorney fee. Townsend also objected to the trial court’s order insofar as it required him to be responsible for Hogan’s guardian ad litem fee; Townsend argued that the only party liable for Hogan’s guardian ad litem fee under the settlement was Sunrise, the defendant. Townsend further requested yet another additional attorney fee of $1,000 for the time he had spent responding to Hogan’s postjudgment motion, which Townsend described as “meritless.”

The trial court entered an order on November 23, 2010, in which it denied Townsend’s postjudgment motion. The trial court explained that it had concluded that the common-fund doctrine, did not apply and that Townsend had been awarded his $3,666.67 fee based upon the entire settlement of $11,000 and was due no additional fee. The order further set Hogan’s guardian ad litem fee at $250 and taxed it as costs against Townsend. From that order, Townsend appeals, arguing, as he did in his postjudgment motion, that the trial court erred in failing to award him an additional attorney fee and in ordering him to be responsible for Hogan’s guardian ad litem fee.

We will first address whether the trial court erred by failing to award Townsend an additional attorney fee of $333.36 after the Medicaid lien was reduced by $1,010.21. As Townsend points out, “Alabama follows the ‘American rule,’ whereby attorney fees may be recovered if they are provided for by statute or by contract or if they are called for by special equity, such as in proceedings where the attorney’s efforts create a ‘common fund’ out of which fees may be paid.” Battle v. City of Birmingham, 656 So.2d 344, 347 (Ala.1995). Generally, the decision whether to award an attorney fee is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court’s decision on the issue may be reversed only if it has abused that discretion. Battle, 656 So.2d at 347. Townsend had a contingency-fee agreement with Billings, who had hired him to represent McCall in the action against Sunrise. However, he had been compensated for his role in that action by being awarded one-third of the entire settlement amount, or $3,666.67, in the judgment approving the pro ami settlement. He argues on appeal that his action in informing the trial court that Medicaid had reduced its hen created a “common fund” out of which he should have been awarded a fee. We agree with the trial court that the common-fund doctrine upon which Townsend relies does not apply in this circumstance.

The “common-fund doctrine” is “merely a particular instance of the ‘special equity1 exception to the rule that attorney fees may not ordinarily be recovered.” Mitchell v. Huntsville Hosp., 598 So.2d 1358, 1361 (Ala.1992). As explained by our supreme court over 60 years ago, “[t]he rule rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden and expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense.” Kimbrough v. Dickinson, 251 Ala. 677, 684, 39 So.2d 241, 246 (1949). Thus, in order for the doctrine to apply, the plaintiffs attorney must have expended effort that resulted in securing some benefit to other persons besides his client such that they, in good conscience, should bear a portion of the expense for the attorney’s services. See CNA Ins. Cos. v. Johnson Galleries of Opelika, Inc., 639 So.2d 1355, 1359 (Ala.1994). In CNA Insurance, our supreme court explained the common-fund doctrine thusly:

“If it [is] applied in a case like this one, it would permit a plaintiffs attorney to recover attorney fees from others who directly benefit from the attorney’s efforts in obtaining a recovery for his or her client. However, if the attorney is simply acting on behalf of his or her client, and a benefit only incidentally comes to others, the attorney is not entitled to a fee- from those receiving the incidental benefit.”

639 So.2d at 1359 (citation omitted).

Townsend was merely acting on behalf of his client, McCall, in informing the trial court that the Medicaid lien had been reduced to $846.86. As the trial court noted in its order, no evidence indicated that Townsend had performed any legal services to cause the reduction in the Medicaid lien. Townsend had a contract with Billings to represent McCall. He was awarded one-third of the settlement proceeds for his services. The change in the amount to be disbursed to cover the Medicaid lien out of the $11,000 settlement, although it did increase the portion of the settlement funds that would ultimately be awarded directly to McCall, did not create an additional fund above and beyond the $11,000 in settlement funds. Nor did Townsend’s actions provide a benefit to any party other than McCall. The common-fund doctrine has no application in this case, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of Townsend’s request for an additional attorney fee.

Townsend further argues that the trial court improperly assessed Hogan’s $250 guardian ad litem fee against Townsend. According to Townsend, there was no basis to award Hogan that fee. In addition, Townsend argues that, because he was not a party to the proceeding below, the trial court had no jurisdiction over him to order him to pay costs, including the guardian ad litem fee, associated with the post-judgment proceedings in the case. We disagree.

Rule 17(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., governs the use and compensation of guardians ad li-tem in civil cases. The rule, in pertinent part, reads:

“Whenever a guardian ad litem shall be necessary, the court in which the action is pending shall appoint to serve in that capacity some person who is qualified to represent the minor or incompetent person in the capacity of an attorney or solicitor.... In all cases in which a guardian ad litem is required, the court must ascertain a reasonable fee or compensation to be allowed and paid to such guardian ad litem for services rendered in such cause, to be taxed as a part of the costs in such action, and which is to be paid when collected as other costs in the action, to such guardian ad litem.”

“The matter of the guardian ad litem’s fee is within the discretion of the trial court, subject to correction only for abuse of discretion.” Englund v. First Nat'l Bank of Birmingham, 381 So.2d 8, 12 (Ala.1980) (citing Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. New Amsterdam. Cas. Co., 272 Ala. 357, 362, 131 So.2d 182, 186 (1961)). Likewise, the taxation of costs is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court; the trial court’s decision to tax costs will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So.2d 692, 710 (Ala.2008); Vulcan Oil Co. v. Gorman, 434 So.2d 760 (Ala.1983). Notably, “[i]n civil litigation, ‘the usual rule is to tax the costs in favor of the prevailing party.’ ” Ennis v. Kittle, 770 So.2d 1090, 1091 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Merchants Nat’l Bank v. Cowley, 265 Ala. 125, 135, 89 So.2d 616, 625 (1956)).

Rule 17(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., requires the assessment of a reasonable fee for the legal services rendered by a guardian ad litem. Thus, without question, Hogan was entitled to a fee for the post-judgment legal services he provided to McCall. By his actions, he prevented the award of an additional attorney fee to Townsend and thereby increased the amount of money to be disbursed from the settlement funds to the circuit clerk to be held for McCall. As Hogan points out, Sunrise was not involved in the determination of the actual disbursement of the settlement funds and did not participate in the postjudgment litigation, other than to respond to Townsend’s postjudgment motion insofar as it argued that Sunrise should be responsible for the guardian ad litem fee. Sunrise’s involvement in the litigation concluded when it paid the settlement funds into court and paid Hogan the guardian ad litem fee assessed for the legal services he had provided McCall during the prejudgment phase of the proceedings.

All postjudgment litigation in this action centered on Townsend’s desire to secure an additional attorney fee for himself, to the detriment of his client, McCall. He, and not Sunrise, was the party whose adversarial position to McCall required Hogan to take legal action to protect McCall’s interests. We therefore agree with Hogan that the trial court could not have equitably assessed costs against Sunrise for Hogan’s postjudgment legal services on behalf of McCall.

We are not convinced by Townsend’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to assess costs against Townsend because he was merely an attorney and not a party to the action. Because the issue of Townsend’s attorney fee arose out of the underlying pro ami settlement, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether to award Townsend the additional fee he requested. See Ex parte Peck, 572 So.2d 427, 428 (Ala.1990). As our supreme court explained in Ex parte Peck, the trial court’s authority to award, or even to reduce, an attorney fee based on a contingency-fee contract arises from the trial court’s jurisdiction over the underlying action; the trial court “ha[s] the authority to decide every question duly presented or arising in the case,” even the collateral matter of an attorney fee arising from the action. Ex parte Peck, 572 So.2d at 428. Thus, we conclude that, in addition to having the authority to consider the appropriate amount of the attorney fee to be awarded to Townsend, the trial court had the authority to allocate the costs arising from the postjudgment proceedings regarding Townsend’s request for an additional attorney fee. Because Townsend was, in essence, the party seeking affirmative relief during the postjudgment proceedings, the trial court was well within the bounds of its discretion in determining that he should bear the costs of that portion of the litigation. Certainly, requiring McCall to bear the cost of Hogan’s post-judgment legal services would defeat the purpose for which Hogan’s actions were taken, which was to maximize the portion of the $11,000 settlement funds actually disbursed to the circuit clerk for McCall. The trial court’s imposition of costs against Townsend comports with the general rule that costs are taxed in favor of the prevailing party, who, in this case, was Hogan, as guardian ad litem for McCall. See Ennis, 770 So.2d at 1091. Accordingly, the trial court’s order requiring Townsend to pay Hogan’s guardian ad litem fee is affirmed.

Townsend and Hogan both request the award of an attorney fee on appeal. We deny Townsend’s request. However, we agree with Hogan that he is entitled to be awarded a guardian ad litem fee for the legal services he provided to McCall in this appeal, and we award a fee of $2,000, which is to be taxed as part of the costs of this appeal. See Meriwether v. Crown, Inv. Corp., 289 Ala. 504, 513, 268 So.2d 780, 788 (1972) (awarding $1,200 as a guardian ad litem fee on appeal and taxing the fee as part of the costs of the appeal); Nathanson v. Key, 286 Ala. 486, 488, 242 So.2d 389, 392 (1970) (awarding a guardian ad litem fee on appeal and assessing the amount as part of the costs of the appeal).

AFFIRMED.

PITTMAN, THOMAS, and MOORE, JJ., concur.

THOMPSON, P.J., and BRYAN, J., concur in the result, without writings.

      . Townsend has stated that his fee agreement with Billings provided for a 40% contingency fee. Because the trial court properly exercised its discretion to set a reasonable attorney fee in the pro ami settlement, see Ex parte Peck, 572 So.2d 427, 428 (Ala.1990), discussed briefly infra, and because Townsend does not challenge the reduction of his contingency fee to one-third, this fact is not relevant to the issues on appeal.

      . Sunrise, who is not a party to this appeal, responded to Townsend's motion. In its response, Sunrise argued that the trial court had ample discretion when awarding a guardian ad litem fee and that it had properly taxed that fee as costs to Townsend because, it explained, Sunrise was a "mere bystander” to the dispute between Townsend and Hogan over Townsend’s request for an additional attorney fee.


author: MOORE, Judge. THOMAS, Judge,

text:
    K.M.G. v. B.A.
    2100060.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 10, 2011.

      Ruth M. Rogers, Gulf Shores, for appellant.
    Brad J. Latta, Birmingham, for appellee.
   MOORE, Judge.

K.M.G. appeals from a September 29, 2010, order, in which the Baldwin Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) purported to vacate its previous orders and judgments entered on and after June 10, 2010, and to set the matter for a new trial. We dismiss the appeal.

Background

On April 22, 2008, K.M.G. filed a petition with the juvenile court seeking a determination as to the paternity of “the child,” whom K.M.G. identified as K.T.A., and an award of custody of the child to K.M.G. K.M.G. identified the child’s date of birth as August 5, 2007, and he alleged that he and B.A. (“the mother”) had never married but that they had engaged in a sexual relationship around the presumed date of the child’s conception. K.M.G. further alleged that the mother had given birth to the child in Baldwin County but that she had since moved with the child to California.

The mother was served with the petition, and her attorney appeared for the sole purpose of quashing service of process. Additionally, the mother, acting pro se, notified the court that her son had been born in Canada, and she sought to have the action proceed in a court that properly had jurisdiction, which, she asserted, was a Canadian court. On July 1, 2009, the juvenile court held a hearing, at which the mother did not appear. As a result, the juvenile court entered a default judgment holding that K.M.G. was the natural and legal father of the child and awarding him custody of the child.

On July 15, 2009, the mother filed a notice of appeal from the July 6, 2009, judgment; this court assigned that appeal case no. 2080972. Also on July 15, 2009, the mother, through counsel, filed in the juvenile court a “Motion to Vacate Court’s Order,” which was addressed to the juvenile court’s July 6, 2009, judgment. In support of that motion, the mother submitted a child-custody affidavit attesting that she was a legal resident of California; that the child had been born in Canada while the mother was married to someone other than K.M.G.; that certain statements made by K.M.G. in an affidavit filed with the juvenile court were false; and that, in his affidavit, K.M.G. had identified the child by an incorrect name and an incorrect date of birth. The mother also submitted what she asserted was a copy of her marriage certificate to establish that she and T.P.S., who was deceased by the time of that filing, had been married on June 28, 2006, in the Dominican Republic. The juvenile court’s case-action-summary sheet indicates that the juvenile court scheduled a hearing on the mother’s motion for January 7, 2010.

On October 1, 2009, the mother moved this court to dismiss her pending appeal in case no. 2080972. On that same date, this court dismissed the mother’s pending appeal.

On January 7, 2010, after a hearing, the juvenile court entered a judgment dismissing KM.G.’s paternity action based on K.M.G.’s lack of standing; thus, the juvenile court granted the mother’s motion to vacate the July 6, 2009, judgment. On January 21, 2010, K.M.G. timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate that judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial. In that motion, he challenged the authenticity of the certifícate submitted by the mother as proof of her marriage.

On May 12, 2010, the juvenile court purported to enter a order denying K.M.G.’s postjudgment motion. On May 27, 2010, K.M.G. filed a subsequent postjudgment motion, seeking to alter, amend, or vacate the May 12, 2010, order or, alternatively, a new trial. On June 10, 2010, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on KM.G.’s second postjudgment motion and, according to the case-action-summary sheet, purported to grant that motion because the mother had failed to appear at the hearing.

On June 24, 2010, on K.M.G.’s motion, the juvenile court ordered the parties to submit to paternity testing. On June 29, 2010, K.M.G. moved the juvenile court to order the mother to submit to psychological testing; the juvenile court granted that motion on August 11, 2010. The juvenile court, on August 13, 2010, ordered that the child not be removed from Baldwin County pending further order of the court; that order also indicated that paternity testing was scheduled for September 3, 2010.

On August 31, 2010, the mother filed a “Motion to Vacate Court’s Order,” asserting that she was no longer in Alabama, that she had been unaware that the litigation had continued, and that she could not keep the child in Alabama without significant hardship on her family. On September 10, 2010, the juvenile court issued a writ of arrest for the mother for her failure to present the child for the court-ordered paternity testing.

On September 24, 2010, K.M.G. moved the juvenile court to hold the mother in contempt and to compel paternity testing. On September 29, 2010, K.M.G. attempted to engage in discovery with the mother, seeking a copy of the child’s birth certificate. According to the juvenile court’s case-action-summary sheet, it construed the mother’s August 31, 2010, motion as a motion to vacate all orders entered by the juvenile court on and after June 10, 2010; on September 29, 2010, the juvenile court granted that motion and scheduled a new trial for November 23, 2010.

On October 13, 2010, K.M.G. filed his notice of appeal to this court; he indicated that he was appealing from the juvenile court’s September 29, 2010, order, which, K.M.G. represented, had granted the mother’s August 31, 2010, postjudgment motion.

Analysis

On questions of subject-matter jurisdiction, this court is not limited by the parties’ arguments or by the legal conclusions of the lower court. Rather, “ ‘jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.’ Singleton v. Graham, 716 So.2d 224, 225 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (quoting Wallace v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 689 So.2d 210, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1997), quoting in turn Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)). “ ‘ “[S]ub-ject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived; a court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party and may even be raised by a court ex mero motu.’”” M.B.L. v. G.G.L., 1 So.3d 1048, 1050 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So.2d 452, 455 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), quoting in turn C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 868 So.2d 451, 458 (Ala.Civ.App.2003)). “[W]e are obligated to dismiss an appeal if, for any reason, [subject-matter] jurisdiction does not exist.” Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 999 So.2d 891, 895 (Ala.2008).

In the mother’s July 15, 2009, motion, the mother asserted, among other things, that the juvenile court’s July 6, 2009, judgment should be vacated because K.M.G. lacked standing to challenge the child’s paternity. Thus, the mother’s arguments in her motion to vacate the July 6, 2009, judgment were addressed to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court. See State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Ala.1999) (“When a party without standing purports to commence an action, the trial court acquires no subject-matter jurisdiction.”). See also Casey v. Casey, [Ms. 2090371, March 4, 2011] (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (treating the husband’s motion as having been filed pursuant to Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., rather than pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., because, in that motion, the husband alleged that the trial court’s judgment was void on due-process grounds); and Curry v. Curry, 962 So.2d 261, 263 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (recognizing that a motion seeking relief from a judgment must be construed according to its substance and not its descriptive name or title). Because of the grounds asserted in the mother’s July 15, 2009, motion, we construe that motion as one filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., rather than as a postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Rule 55 or Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P.

In its January 7, 2010, judgment, the juvenile court granted the mother’s Rule 60(b) motion and vacated the July 6, 2009, judgment, finding that K.M.G. lacked standing to challenge the child’s paternity because the mother had been married to another man at the time of the child’s birth. See Ala.Code 1975, § 26-17-204(a)(1) (presumption of paternity arises when a man and the mother of the child are married to each other at the time of the child’s birth). See also State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, supra (recognizing that a trial court cannot acquire subject-matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff lacks standing).

On January 21, 2010, K.M.G. timely filed a postjudgment motion seeking to alter, amend, or vacate the January 7, 2010, judgment; however, the juvenile court did not rule on that motion within the time allowed by the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure. See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. (“A postjudgment motion is deemed denied if not ruled on within 14 days of filing.”). Thus, KM.G.’s January 21, 2010, post-judgment motion was deemed denied as of February 4, 2010, and the juvenile court lost jurisdiction of the matter on that date. See, e.g., S.D.C. v. N.L., 864 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (recognizing that a juvenile court loses all jurisdiction to act on a party’s postjudgment motion after that motion is deemed denied by operation of law and that any action taken by the juvenile court after that time is a nullity).

After the juvenile court lost jurisdiction, that court could have acted further on the paternity and custody issues based only on a properly filed Rule 60 motion to set aside the judgment or on the filing of a new action. K.M.G. did not invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court through either type of action. Instead, the parties and the juvenile court mistakenly acted as if the original action remained pending based on the juvenile court’s untimely granting of KM.G.’s postjudgment motion. Because the juvenile court had lost jurisdiction to grant K.M.G.’s postjudgment motion, all orders and judgments entered by the juvenile court in this action after January 7, 2010, are void. See J.B. v. A.B., 888 So.2d 528, 582 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (“An order entered by a trial court without jurisdiction is a nullity.”).

K.M.G.’s notice of appeal was filed from the September 29, 2010, order; that order, however, is void. “A void judgment will not support an appeal, and ‘an appellate court must dismiss an attempted appeal from such a void judgment.’” Colburn v. Colburn, 14 So.3d 176, 179 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (quoting Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556, 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2008)). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, albeit with instructions to the juvenile court that it vacate all orders and judgments entered after January 7, 2010.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, J., concur.

BRYAN, J., concurs in the judgment of dismissal only, without writing.

THOMAS, J., concurs in the judgment of dismissal, but dissents from the rationale, with writing.

THOMAS, Judge,

concurring in the judgment of dismissal, but dissenting from the rationale.

I concur in the judgment of dismissal, but I respectfully dissent from the rationale of the main opinion. I would hold that the mother’s July 15, 2009, post-judgment motion was a motion filed pursuant Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, I would hold that the juvenile court’s January 7, 2010, order purportedly granting the mother’s postjudgment motion was void for lack of jurisdiction and that all the juvenile court’s orders and judgments following the entry of its July 6, 2009, judgment are void.

Nine days after the juvenile court entered its default judgment in favor of K.M.G., the mother filed a postjudgment motion, requesting that the juvenile court vacate its default judgment. A post-judgment motion filed in a juvenile court pursuant to Rule 55(c) must be filed within 14 days of the entry of the default judgment, see Rule 55(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P.; thus, the mother’s motion was timely filed. The juvenile court then had 14 days to rule on the mother’s motion. See Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. The juvenile court did not rule on the mother’s motion within the 14-day time limitation; therefore, the mother’s motion was deemed denied by the operation of law on July 29, 2009, and the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over the motion. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.; Rule 1(B), Ala. R. Juv. P. Consequently, because the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the mother after July 29, 2009, its order purporting to grant the mother’s motion, along with every subsequently entered order and judgment, was void. See City of Huntsville v. COLSA Corp., 71 So.3d 637, 642 (Ala.2011) (“[W]hen a trial court purports to exercise jurisdiction where it has none, every order and judgment entered pursuant thereto is void ab initio").

I disagree with the main opinion’s conclusion that the mother’s motion should be considered a Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion. A timely filed postjudgment motion cannot be converted into a Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion in order to avoid the time limitations of Rule 1(B), Aa. R. Juv. P. See Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d 783, 785-86 (Ala.1998) (“A Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a judgment cannot be substituted for a Rule 59 motion so as to avoid the operation of Rule 59.1.”). The mother’s motion did not mention Rule 60(b). The mother requested that the juvenile court “vacate” its judgment, language that is not inconsistent with a motion filed pursuant to Rule 55(c). See R.J.G. v. S.S.W., 42 So.3d 747, 753 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (holding that a motion styled as a motion to alter, amend, or vacate was, in substance, a Rule 55(c) motion to set aside a default judgment).

“Permitting a motion filed under Rule 59(e) to be subsequently construed as a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for the purpose of avoiding the operation of Rule 59.1 (which was designed to remedy the inequities arising from the failure of the trial court to dispose of postjudgment motions for unduly long periods), would run afoul of the intent of the Rules by substantially nullifying Rule 59.1 and rendering the provisions of Rule 59 uncertain.”

Ex parte Johnson, 715 So.2d at 786. The same logic applied by our supreme court in Ex parte Johnson to a postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Rule 59, Aa. R. Civ. P., and subject to the time limitations in Rule 59.1, Aa. R. Civ. P., applies equally in this case to the mother’s postjudgment motion, which was filed according to Rule 55(c), Aa. R. Civ. P., and is subject to the time limitations of Rule 1(B), Aa. R. Juv. P. Accordingly, I would hold that the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over the mother’s postjudgment motion before the date on which it purported to grant the motion. Therefore, the default judgment entered by the juvenile court on July 6, 2009, remains in effect, and all the orders entered by the juvenile court after that date are null and void. See City of Huntsville, 71 So.3d at 642.

Furthermore, if this court is to treat the mother’s postjudgment motion as a Rule 60(b) motion, then I see no reason why K.M.G.’s January 21, 2010, postjudgment motion should not receive similar treatment. In his postjudgment motion, K.M.G. alleged that the mother had submitted fraudulent documents to the court to support her claim that she had been married at the time of the child’s birth. The mother’s purported marriage is key to the argument that she had asserted in her previously filed postjudgment motion. Fraud is a ground for relief that is available under Rule 60(b)(3). Athough K.M.G. styled his motion as a motion to alter, amend, or vacate — language that is consistent with Rule 59 — as the main opinion notes, a postjudgment motion is construed according to its substance, not its title. See Curry v. Curry, 962 So.2d 261, 263 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). If this court treats the mother’s postjudgment motion, which was filed within the time allowed by Rule 1(B), Aa. R. Juv. P., and that sought relief available under Rule 55(c), Aa. R. Civ. P., as a Rule 60(b), Aa. R. Civ. P., motion to avoid the time limitations of Rule 1(B), then KM.G.’s postjudgment motion, which was filed within the time allowed by Rule 1(B) and which asserted a ground that is cognizable under Rule 60(b), should also be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion to avoid the time limitations of Rule 1(B).

      . That attorney notified the juvenile court that he had been retained to represent the mother only as to the issue of service of process.

      . The mother asserted that the child's name is B.T.S.-A. and that his date of birth is July 21, 2007.

       Note from the reporter of decisions: On July 29, 2011, the Court of Civil Appeals withdrew the March 4, 2011, opinion in Casey and substituted another one. The above reference was to note 1 in the March 4, 2011, opinion. The opinion substituted on July 29, 2011, contains the same note.

      . A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., is not subject to denial by operation of law. See R.L. v. J.E.R., 69 So.3d 898, 900 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (citing Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.; and Ex parte Keith, 771 So.2d 1018, 1021 (Ala.1998)).

      . The mother filed a notice of appeal to this court on the same day that she filed her postjudgment motion. When a party files a notice of appeal and a postjudgment motion on the same day, the notice of appeal is deemed to be held in abeyance during the pendency of the postjudgment motion. See Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R.App. P.