author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Kenneth Roy JOHNSON v. Vicki Marie IVES
    2150613
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    November 4, 2016

      Leston C. Stallworth, Jr., of The Stall-worth Law Firm, LLC, Monroeville, for appellant.
    Robert C. King, Monroeville, for appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Roy Johnson, who is represented by an attorney, appeals from an order of the Monroe Circuit Court (“the trial court”) denying his purported “motion to alter, amend, or vacate.” Johnson initially appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.

Johnson’s appellate brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court “had jurisdiction.” Johnson fails to state anywhere in his brief the type of case that is involved in this appeal, the procedural history of the case, any facts from the case, or any other information that would be relevant to this court’s determination of the issue presented. The summary of the argument, in its entirety, reads: “The Circuit Court was the original Court of jurisdiction, therefore, as a matter of law, retains jurisdiction in the enforcement and interpretation of all previous Orders.” The argument portion of Johnson’s brief, in its entirety, reads “THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION!;.]” In fact, the statement of the case, the statement of the issue, the statement of the facts, the statement of the standard of review, the summary of the argument, the argument, the conclusion, and the attorney's signature take up only two pages of Johnson’s brief.

There is nothing in Johnson’s brief that enables this court to determine whether the trial court properly denied Johnson’s purported postjudgment motion. “Rule 28(a)(10) requires that arguments in briefs contain discussions of facts and relevant legal authorities that support the party’s position. If they do not, the arguments are waived.” White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008). Because of Johnson’s utter failure to comply with Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P., his argument is waived and the order denying his purported postjudgment motion is due to be affirmed.

Pursuant to Rule 38, Ala. R. App. P., this court, ex mero motu, may determine that an appeal is frivolous and “award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” We have seldom, if ever, seen an appellate brief—especially one prepared by an attorney—that so completely failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P. Furthermore, the issue raised in Johnson’s brief is clearly contrary to well-settled, black-letter law. Upon a review of the record, we have determined that Johnson is actually appealing from the trial court’s order denying a “motion to amend and clarify settlement.” That motion was fled nearly six years after the entry of the judgment dismissing the underlying action with prejudice, pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal. Clearly, the trial court correctly determined that it no longer had jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Rules 59 and 60, Ala. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, we conclude that Johnson’s appeal is frivolous and that the appellee, Vicki Marie Ives, is entitled to recover damages pursuant to Rule 38, Ala. R. App. P. Thus, Ives is awarded $1,500. The cost is to be paid by Johnson’s attorney, Leston C. Stallworth, Jr., and is not to be charged to his client, Johnson.

AFFIRMED.

Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PITTMAN, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    EX PARTE Tami McGuirk DIAZ (In re: Renee David Velaquez Diaz v. Tami McGuirk Diaz)
    2160002
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    November 10, 2016
    Thomas E. Drake II, Cullman.
    Candace B. Peeples and Julia G. Williams, Birmingham.
   PITTMAN, Judge.

Tami McGuirk Diaz (“the former wife”) petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court (“the trial court”) to hold a hearing on the former wife’s request for a change of venue. We deny the petition.

From the materials before this court, it appears that the former wife and Renee David Yelaquez Diaz (“the former husband”) were divorced by a judgment of the trial court, which was entered in November 2012. Although the divorce judgment states that the parties were to share joint legal and physical custody of their minor children, the judgment also directs that the former wife “shall provide the primary residence for said children.”

In August 2015, the former husband filed a petition in which he alleged that the former wife had violated various provisions of the divorce judgment, including provisions relating to the former husband’s custodial rights. The former husband requested the trial court to hold the former wife in contempt of court and to modify the former husband’s child-support obligations. The former wife filed an answer to the former husband’s petition, denying its material allegations. Although she purported to reserve the right to amend or supplement her answer “as future discovery may dictate,” she did not object to venue being in the trial court.

In July 2016, the former wife, having obtained new counsel, filed a motion requesting the trial court to change the venue of all pending proceedings to the Blount Circuit Court, asserting that the former wife had resided continuously for the preceding three consecutive years in Blount County. The former wife pointed to § 30-3-6, Ala. Code 1975, which provides:

“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, venue of all proceedings for petitions or other actions seeking modification, interpretation, or enforcement of a final decree awarding custody of a child or children to a parent and/or granting visitation rights, and/or awarding child support, and/or awarding other expenses incident to the support of a minor child or children ... is changed so that venue will lie in: (1) the original circuit court rendering the final decree; or (2) in the circuit court of the county where both the current custodial parent ... and the child or children have resided for a period of at least three consecutive years immediately preceding the filing of the petition or other action. The current or most recent custodial parent shall be able to choose the particular venue as herein provided, regardless of which party flies the petition or other action,”

The former husband responded to the former wife’s motion, asserting that the former wife had waived any objection to venue by failing to timely object to venue and to seek a.change of venue. The next day, the former wife filed an amended answer to the former husband’s contempt petition, in which she purported to raise an objection to venue. The former wife’s amended answer, however, was eventually stricken upon motion by the former husband.

The trial court, without holding a hearing, denied the former wife’s motion for a change of venue. The former wife filed her petition for a writ of mandamus 42 days later.

Although the former wife provides in her mandamus petition a citation to § 30-3-6, Ala. Code 1975, and asserts that that Code provision is mandatory, she does not ask this court to direct the trial court to grant her motion to change venue. Rather, the only relief the former wife requests is that we direct the trial court to hold a hearing on her motion.

The former wife’s entire argument regarding the necessity of a hearing is as follows: “Petitioner complains that [the trial court’s] failure to hold/convene a hearing on the issue presented violated Due Process of Law.” The former wife provides a citation to Ex parte Russell, 911 So.2d 719 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), but she fails to provide any discussion of that case. We note that Russell involved the issue whether due-process considerations constrained a trial court’s authority to enter a pendente lite change of custody without affording the custodial parent an opportunity to be heard. Russell in no way suggests that a hearing must be held before a trial court may validly deny a request for a change of venue. Moreover, according to a leading treatise on civil procedure in Alabama, Rule 78, Ala. R. Civ. P., “authorizes the entry of orders on motions ‘not seeking final judgment’ without oral hearing and on brief written statements.” 2 Ally Windsor Howell, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated § 78.2, p. 888 (4th ed. 2004). Because the former wife has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the order she seeks, she is not entitled to the writ of mandamus. Russell, 911 So.2d at 722.

PETITION DENIED.

Thompson, P. J., and Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.

      . The former husband asserts in his answer to the former wife’s mandamus petition that the former wife later filed additional materials with the trial court, such as a first amended answer and counterclaim, a petition to modify the former husband’s visitation rights, and an answer to an amended request to modify the divorce judgment that had been filed by the former husband. Neither party, however, has provided this court with copies of those filings.


text:
    William G. SWINDALL v. Angela Marie Roddy EUSTICE
    2140147
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    James C. WILLIAMS and Crest Investments, LLC v. BRYANT BANK
    2140156
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Denise GEER v. Rena HARDT, as personal representative of the estate of Richard Ray Geer, deceased
    2140188
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Lana KELLEY v. Kevin KELLEY
    2140241
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Michael Allen BUTTS v. Tammie J. BUTTS
    2140345
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Anita McCURDY v. Verna MOLZ
    2140475
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Willard Ryan DRUMMOND, Ritchie Drummond, and Rendell Drummond v. Shela DRUMMOND and the Estate of Charlie A. Drummond, deceased
    2140476
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Marc PARKER and Melissa Parker v. AUTAUGA COUNTY HERITAGE ASSOCIATION
    2140477
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Dustin KNIGHT v. C.L. SMITH AUTO SALES, LLC, and Leisa Smith
    2140523
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gregory MOORE v. Johnnie SEALES, Carlos Rendell Kelly, and Safeway Insurance Co. of Alabama, Inc.
    2140525
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marcus D. WASHINGTON v. Steve MONEY
    2140526
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
    Reh. denied. 02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.L.S. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140555
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/15/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Monique NETTLES v. VAUGHAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al.
    2140567
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Appeal—Affirmed.

Cross-Appeal—Affirmed.


text:
    COFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. A.A.
    2140570
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dan GREEN v. Robin MACKINAW and Sherri Middleton
    2140585
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    ELLIOTT BUILDERS, INC., et al. v. TIMBERCREEK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION et al.
    2140593
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher Kyser WILSON v. Mary Ann WILSON
    2140595
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/15/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sabrina Gail WALKER v. Steve Allen WALKER
    2140610
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed (no-opinion order withdrawn 5/6/2016; see opinion at 216 So.3d 1262).


text:
    Patricia Glass MYLES and Edward M. Myles v. U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.
    2140613
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael ADCOCK v. Thomas L. TAYLOR et al.
    2140614
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard CARSON v. Pamela CARSON
    2140623
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    M. Lloyd ROEBUCK v. Rhonda D. ROEBUCK
    2140624
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jeremiah Maurice THOMPSON v. STATE
    2140638
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
    Reh. denied. 03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    William R. KOWALSKI v. HONDA MANUFACTURING OF ALABAMA, LLC
    2140656
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Douglas GURNEY et al. v. Honorable Todd STRANGE et al.
    2140671
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jimmy Dale JONES v. Glenda Sue JONES
    2140673
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Elroy ADAMS v. Daisy BUDCHANGAN
    2140679
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.B. v. S.S.
    2140689
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.J. v. ST. CLAIR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140692
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    George COX v. Betty COX
    2140697
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/11/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    B.S. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140711
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.T.A. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140712
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    K.H. v. K.N.
    2140724
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Thomas Adam HUTSON (In re: Ana Elsa Hutson v. Thomas Adam Hutson)
    2140728
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/02/2016
   Case reinstated.


text:
    M.S. v. E.G.C.
    2140729
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Katrina E. RIEGER v. James S. RIEGER
    2140731
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    MR. BURCH FORMAL WEAR, INC. v. INLAND WESTERN BIRMINGHAM EDGEMONT, LLC
    2140745
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alayna Ann HUBBARD v. Clifton Slade HUBBARD
    2140754
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    K.H. v. J.S. and Madison County Department of Human Resources
    2140755
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.H. v. S.H.
    2140769
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.H. v. S.H.
    2140770
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Edward BAKER v. STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
    2140775
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Darrell PIATT v. Terri PIATT
    2140785
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Haywood Jackson MIZELL v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
    2140791
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gabriel GEORGE v. Anna GEORGE
    2140794
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/11/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Harold KASSAW v. Connie M. KASSAW
    2140797
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Appeal—Affirmed.

Cross—Appeal—Affirmed.


text:
    Billie Jo GRIFFIN v. Samuel Hurd GRIFFIN
    2140800
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/03/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Heather Marie HUBBERT v. Saben Matthew ASHBY
    2140801
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
    Reh. denied. 03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nakia ECHOLS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
    2140803
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.W. v. B.M.
    2140805
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Steven M. HOLLAND v. Donya L. HOLLAND
    2140812
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michelle R. CLIFTON v. Wendell H. MERRELL
    2140814
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.G. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140817
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
    Reh. denied. 03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    H.L.H. III v. J.C.T.
    2140827
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
    Reh. denied 03/11/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    James A. CONNER v. Lori CONNER
    2140830
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/11/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher LEAGUE v. Matthew DEJESUS
    2140838
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/11/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    April Danyale CAMERON-MORIN (MILLER) v. Spencer William CAMERON-MORIN
    2140842
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cescely HENNINGS v. DOLGENCORP, LLC
    2140843
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jesse Edward ALBRIGHT, Jr. v. Bette Ann ALBRIGHT
    2140844
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.G. v. J.H.
    2140845
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rebecca CARTEE v. Allen LONG and Tonia Long
    2140847
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.H. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140848
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    S.H. v. LIMESTONE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140849
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/15/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony Lloyd THEVIS v. Robynn Leigh NICHOLS
    2140852
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    K.M. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140853
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    K.M. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140854
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.M.A. v. M.C.B.
    2140856
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed as to case no. JU-14-2452.01. Dismissed as to case no. JU-14-2451.01 and case no. JU-14-2453.01.


text:
    William Patrick TURNER v. Terri Moraglia TURNER
    2140862
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Don CARTEE, Rebecca Cartee, and Alan Cartee v. MSPC, INC., and Mike Madden
    2140868
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    The SOCK CO., and Doug Henderson v. GILDAN, INC., /V.I. Prewitt & Son
    2140871
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/16/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Richard Joseph WILLOUGHBY v. Jennifer CUMMINGS
    2140872
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.M. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140876
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.M. v. CALHOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140877
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.S. v. E.S.
    2140878
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Pamela K. WEBB v. Gary Wayne WEBB
    2140879
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/03/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.T.E. and M.A.E. v. F.L.D. and D.R.M.
    2140881
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raven ROBERTSON v. Eric ROBERTSON
    2140884
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Barbara DAVIS v. Justine HOWARD
    2140886
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/17/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael Shane NIX v. Lindsay Darlene NIX
    2140894
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Reginald BRADLEY v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC
    2140897
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kathy K. TORBERT v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
    2140900
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.D.B. v. J.H. and K.H.
    2140901
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lawanda MOSLEY v. NEXTRAN CORP.
    2140905
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/11/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marquies GUNN v. Sharetta RIGGINS
    2140906
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/30/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Vickie SCONYERS v. William C. OWENS and Margaret D. Owens
    2140909
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.W.S. v. MARSHALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140912
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.P. v. MARSHALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140913
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Stuart CASSINGHAM v. Jacqueline CASSINGHAM
    2140915
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.R.Y. v. J.S. and B.S.
    2140918
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
    Reh. denied. 03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.J.P.L.F., by and through his guardian ad litem, Allen K. Mitchell v. J.C.F.
    2140920
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.J.P.L.F., by and through his guardian ad litem, Allen K. Mitchell v. J.C.F.
    2140921
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sharon RAGSDALE v. George Elton RAGSDALE
    2140930
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Melissa P. PARKER v. Douglas R. PARKER III
    2140949
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.E.P. v. STATE EX REL. R.L.N.
    2140965
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dayna GRANT v. Lawrence BOWEN
    2140966
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/10/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    STOR’N LOK, INC., and Mary Gamble et al. v. SUNSOUTH BANK
    2140967
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/19/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kelly Elizabeth THOMPSON v. Jeffery Morris THOMPSON
    2140979
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Gordon McWHORTER v. Vicky PARSONS
    2140982
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/02/2016
   Dismissed (order amended 02/16/2016).


text:
    Denny SEWELL v. COVINGTON HEAVY DUTY PARTS
    2140988
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/16/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Luther Johnson GILBERT, Jr. v. Perry BRUNER
    2140990
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.M. and J.S. v. ETOWAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2140992
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.M. v. R.C. and M.C.
    2140999
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.M. v. R.C. and M.C.
    2141000
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    SOUTHSIDE COURTYARD, LLC, and Michael Catanese v. Meredith LYEMANCE
    2141001
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    EX PARTE Terry McKELVY (In re: Terry McKelvy v. Goss Electric, Inc.)
    2141002
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Q.C.H., Sr. v. MORGAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141009
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.M. v. MORGAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141022
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Donnie Ray DeBOSE and D-Ray Automotive v. Thelma MOORER
    2141031
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kelly Jack MAYO v. Christopher GORDY et al.
    2141032
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.S.M. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141040
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lynn B. POPWELL and Brittany Ann Popwell Mann v. Wendy L. MANN
    2141044
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    John SYKES and Zedekiah Sykes v. EVERBANK
    2141046
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    P.H. v. TALLADEGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141048
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    P.H. v. TALLADEGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141049
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.Y.M. v. HENRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141053
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    S.M. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2141057
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/30/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    V.G. v. A.H.
    2141061
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Eugene RUTLEDGE and Sharon Lee Rutledge v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
    2141062
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Paul D. KENNAMER, Sr. v. BANKSTON MOTOR HOMES, INC.
    2141067
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/16/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kim GARNER (a/k/a Kim Chatham) v. SAFTZOF LTD, d/b/a Cayman Bay Mobile Home Park
    2141075
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/21/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Carl CHAMBLEE, Sr. v. Paul DUNCAN and Deborah Ann Duncan
    2141078
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/03/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.S. v. J.L.S.
    2150002
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/15/2016
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    K.S. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150012
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    G.H.J. v. CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150023
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    G.H.J. v. CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150024
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Davida DAVIDSON v. Johnny JOHNSON, Joyce Thomas, and Crestwood Condominium Association, Inc.
    2150029
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/15/2016
    Reh. denied. 02/05/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    David L. GOODRIDGE and Cabinets, Floors & More of Georgia, LLC v. MULLICAN FLOORING, LP
    2150033
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/15/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    NRP RESTORATION, LLC v. Robert F. CUTHBERTSON et al.
    2150048
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/29/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Michael T. CHAPPELL, Sr. v. Angela M. CHAPPELL
    2150054
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Madison TERRY v. JACKSON CONSTRUCTION CO. et al.
    2150055
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/25/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Karly HALL, a minor, by and through her mother, Latonya Hall Daniels, et al. v. CITY OF ABBEVILLE et al.
    2150059
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/01/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tarmeka COLE v. SOUTHERN GENTLEMEN’S LOUNGE, LLC
    2150064
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/11/2016
    Case reinstated 01/26/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    S.H. v. L.H.
    2150068
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.C.E. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150070
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    James H. MOSLEY v. MOBILE INFIRMARY MEDICAL CENTER
    2150074
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Cardie Mead BROWN v. Uvone BROWN
    2150080
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/24/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Levy Morris LAWSON v. Linda Ann CHARLESTON
    2150095
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/19/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Zhivago JOHNSON v. Michelle Barber JOHNSON
    2150098
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/18/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.K. and L.M. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150103
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/01/2016
   Transferred to Shelby Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    M.E. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150104
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed,


text:
    Joseph WOOD v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES
    2150105
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.L. v. CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150110
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Terrance YARBROUGH v. GASLIGHT TOWNHOME APARTMENTS
    2150117
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/22/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lakeisha ARMSTEAD v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BOARD OF APPEALS
    2150118
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/20/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Jimmy TWILLEY v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
    2150120
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Linda JOHNSON v. Michael JACKSON
    2150127
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/04/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Emmett Gary FROSOLONO and Linda Brewer Frosolono v. Glenn Edward JOHNSON et al.
    2150131
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/02/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Rebecca S. CAIN v. W. Jay SUGGS, M.D.
    2150135
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    C.B. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150144
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kristin CANTRELL v. Mark CANTRELL
    2150145
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/02/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Larry SMITH, Sr. v. June SPEARS
    2150146
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.D.J. and J.J. v. C.J. and A.D.J.
    2150150
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Affirmed.


text:
    Randall BUSH v. Dylan Taylor CANTU
    2150152
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/22/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Robert Lee SMITH v. WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY, LLC, and Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
    2150165
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Doris D. MARTIN v. Randall B. NELSON
    2150168
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/25/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    E.L.S. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150179
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/15/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    E.L.S. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150180
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/15/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    E.L.S. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150181
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/15/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Scott H. DERRICK and Joy A. McCarty v. UNIVERSITY PROPERTY, LLC
    2150183
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/07/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Triston Lee HARRIS v. STATE
    2150187
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/08/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Dinesh SASTRY v. Durvasula SASTRY and Lakshmi Sastry
    2150195
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/20/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kayla CARTER v. Robert JACKSON
    2150196
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/16/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    GENERAL ELECTRIC, INC. v. Kenneth Joe WATSON
    2150210
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/28/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.F. v. S.R.
    2150214
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/17/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    STATE EX REL. T.C.H. v. J.W.L.
    2150216
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/04/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Thomas Mark LAKE v. Sandra Newton LAKE
    2150217
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/08/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    R.C. v. E.M. and E.M.
    2150226
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Mary JOHNSON v. HOME WARRANTY OF AMERICA
    2150231
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.M.B. v. S.E.S.
    2150239
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/17/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.B. v. T.F.
    2150240
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/04/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tina BLAIR v. Richard WATKINS
    2150244
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    L.S. v. HOUSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150260
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/01/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA HOSPITAL v. UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA HOSPITAL
    2150263
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/13/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.N.S. v. S.O.
    2150264
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Benjamin D. MOXCEY (In re: Benjamin D. Moxcey v. Jamie D. Hammack)
    2150269
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/12/2016
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Broderick F. BLAIR v. ALABAMA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
    2150273
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/12/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.B. v. A.H.
    2150277
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/18/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Eleanor LAUDERDALE, Carolyn Jenkins, Frank Jenkins, and Mercedes Muller v. Brenda McCLAIN
    2150278
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/11/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Spud LASSETER v. Kari LASSETER
    2150280
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Patricia Smith NORVELL v. Shawn SMITH
    2150282
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/30/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Thomas B. HILL IV (In re: State v. Thomas B. Hill IV)
    2150287
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/04/2016
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    D.D. v. D.G.
    2150291
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/03/2016
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    J.M. v. D.C. and L.C.
    2150298
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/08/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lynette Mills (BROWN) and Brian Brown v. Laureen HOBBS
    2150299
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/29/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Alan G. NEWMAN v. Fredis E. NEWMAN
    2150305
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/18/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Timothy M. SAVELL and Teresa A. Savell v. FIVE STAR CREDIT UNION
    2150309
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/28/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Devon HEGLER, Jr. (In re: Takia Hegler v. Devon Hegler, Jr.)
    2150312
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/13/2016
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    FIRST FEDERAL LEASING v. SYLVER WHEELS, INC., d/b/a Pelham Performance, and Edward W. Carter
    2150322
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/01/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE K.G. and K.G. (In re: K.G. and K.G. v. K.S.G.)
    2150325
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/20/2016
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE L. Beasley LYKES, Jr. (In re: Cathy Renay Lykes v. L. Beasley Lykes, Jr.)
    2150326
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/01/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Aaron Lamont JOHNSON (In re Aaron Lamont Johnson v. Joseph L. Boohaker, Judge)
    2150327
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/25/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.K. v. N.M. and B.M., Jr.
    2150330
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/16/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Darryl MAYS v. Janel USSIN
    2150331
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/01/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Darrell J. McNEAL v. STATE
    2150333
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/26/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Raheem RAMSEY v. STATE
    2150336
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/29/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.K.P. v. In the matter of N.G.P., Minor Child
    2150344
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    01/21/2016
   Transferred to Chilton Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    Gardenia BRYANT v. Gartrell AGEE
    2150345
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/29/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Carchemish LEE v. MONTGOMERY HOUSING AUTHORITY et al.
    2150358
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/31/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Marx A. TRICE v. Belinda J. WHITE et al.
    2150374
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/31/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE John Hardy JORDAN, Jr. (In re: John Hardy Jordan, Jr. v. State et al.)
    2150380
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/22/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kaye-Lonnie HUFFMAN v. Laron Antavious JOHNSON, Jr.
    2150389
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/24/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Robert Lee GARDNER v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    2150404
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/08/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE A.O. (In re: A.O. v. State)
    2150418
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/10/2016
   Mand, pet. granted.


text:
    EX PARTE Barry SWOPE, M.S., L.P.C. (In re: Brian Anton Dasinger v. Amy Yoho Dasinger)
    2150423
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/19/2016
    Reh. denied. 03/23/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    Aaron Lamont JOHNSON v. Roger C. APPELL
    2150434
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/25/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    The RIMPSEY AGENCY, INC. v. W.F. JOHNSON IV and William M. Lawrence
    2150461
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    02/29/2016
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE D.E.-B and T.G.-B. (In re: D.E. and T.G. v. Sidney Landreau, District Judge)
    2150478
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/09/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Dammuon EL-BEY and Tanya El-Bey (In re: Dammuon El-Bey and Tanya El-Bey v. David Johnson, District Judge)
    2150479
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/10/2016
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE L.T. (In re: L.B. III v. L.T.)
    2150485
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/11/2016
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Robert KITCHEN, Jr. (In re: Robert Kitchen, Jr. v. Charles Price, Circuit Judge)
    2150486
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/10/2016
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    The TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS OF the CITY OF ANNISTON v. The CITY OF ANNISTON
    2150499
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/30/2016
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE PT SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, LLC (In re: Laurie B. White v. PT Solutions Holdings, LLC)
    2150516
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    03/28/2016
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


author: DONALDSON, Judge.

text:
    BHARARA SEGAR, LLC v. STATE of Alabama
    2150663
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Nov. 4, 2016

      Joshua B. Sullivan of Knowles & Sullivan, LLC, Gadsden, for appellant.
    Joseph “Jody” Willoughby, dist. atty., Gadsden, for appellee.
   DONALDSON, Judge.

Bharara Segar, LLC (“the company”), appeals from an order of the Etowah Circuit Court (“the trial court”) denying its Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion for relief from a judgment entered pursuant to an agreement between the Etowah County District Attorney, on behalf of the State of Alabama, and Subeet Arora, who purportedly was a member of the company. The judgment, pursuant to § 20-2-93, Ala. Code 1975, had condemned and forfeited to the State certain funds and property seized by the Etowah County Drug Enforcement Unit (“the ECDEU”). For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Background

On November 4, 2015, the State, through the Etowah County District Attorney and on behalf the ECDEU, filed a complaint pursuant to § 20-2-93 seeking the condemnation and forfeiture of property seized during a search of a Jet Pep convenience store in Boaz. The property seized included $43,711 in cash and a 2003 Mercedes-Benz E320 (“the vehicle”). The State attached to its complaint the affidavit of Steve Guthrie, an agent with the ECDEU, in which he testified, in relevant part, as follows:

“Subeet Arora, is the manager of the Jet Pet [convenience store] located [in] Boaz .... On June 27, 2012, [Arora] asked a customer if he needed any ‘fake weed’ which is synthetic marijuana. This said customer, a Confidential Informant (C.I.), said that he did. The C.I. left [the] Jet Pet and informed ECDEU of [Aro-ra’s] offer. The C.I. went back to this same Jet Pet with buy money ($340.00) .... [Arora] told the C.I. that he expects a truck delivery the next day (June 28, 2012) and to come back. The C.I. did as [Arora] instructed. On June 28, the C.I. retrieved 12 (twelve) bags of synthetic marijuana.
“Agents with ECDEU executed a search warrant based upon said controlled buy. The search of the business resulted in the seizure of 53 (fifty-three) bags of synthetic marijuana, scales, a large quantity of pipes, and a total of $43,711.00 (Forty-Three Thousand Seven-Hundred Eleven U.S. Dollars). In addition, Agents recovered $240.00 (Two-Hundred Forty U.S. Dollars) of the buy money. ECDEU seized the [vehicle].”

On November 5, 2015, the trial court entered an order directing that notice of the forfeiture action be made by publication for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in Etowah County and stating that “all parties claiming any right in or to the said vehicle or currency shall answer the complaint within thirty (30) days of the last publication of the notice or the property may be condemned and forfeited to the [ECDEU].” Pursuant to the trial court’s order, the circuit-court clerk sent a request to The Gadsden Times to publish the notice of the forfeiture proceedings on November 11, 2015, November 18, 2015, November 25, 2015, and December 2, 2015. The notice ordered to be published stated that an answer must be filed by January 7, 2016. Theré is no affidavit from the publisher or the publisher’s agent in the record establishing that the notice was published in the newspaper. See Rule 4.3(d)(5), Ala. R. Civ. P. On November 19, 2015, Arora filed a motion to dismiss the State’s complaint. On December 15, 2015, the trial court rendered a judgment pursuant to an agreement between the Etowah County District Attorney, on behalf of the State, and Arora. The judgment ordered that $5,000 of the seized funds be forfeited to the ECDEU and that the balance of the funds, or $38,711, be returned to Arora. The judgment also directed that the vehicle be forfeited to the ECDEU. The judgment was entered into the State Judicial Information System on December 16, 2015.

On December 18, 2015, the company filed an answer in the trial court stating that it was the owner and operator of the Jet Pep convenience store where the funds and the vehicle were seized. The company stated that the members who possess a majority interest in the company were not participants in any of the alleged criminal activities that had been conducted by Aro-ra. The company stated that it was the owner of all the funds described in the State’s complaint except for $1,730 that was recovered from the vehicle and $158 that was found in a bag with, pills. The company contended that the funds belonging to it consisted of the operating cash of the convenience store, that those funds were “not used in furtherance of the alleged criminal operations or activities of Subeet Arora,” and that the' remaining members of the company “did not have any actual or constructive Knowledge of any of the alleged criminal actions of Su-beet Arora.”

On February 15, 2016, the company filed a motion to vacate or for relief from the December 16, 2015, judgment or, in the alternative, a motion to extend the time to appeal from the judgment pursuant to Rule 77(d), Ala. R. Civ. P. In that motion, which we construe to be, in relevant part, a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P.ythe company argued, among other things, that it had been denied due process because the trial court had entered the judgment before the expiration of the time for filing an answer as provided by the notice ordered to be published in The Gadsden Times. The company argued that, because the judgment had been entered without affording it due process, the judgment is void. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on March 3, 2016, at which counsel for the State and for the company presented arguments to the trial court. The parties have provided this court with a transcript of that hearing. No testimony was taken and no evidence was presented to the trial court at the hearing.

On March 18, 2016, the trial court entered an order denying the company’s motion. The company filed a timely notice of appeal to our supreme court. Our supreme court transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.

Discussion

On appeal, the company argues that the December 15, 2015, judgment is void because, it contends, the trial court entered the judgment in a manner that was inconsistent with due process by entering the judgment before the deadline for filing an answer had expired. The company also contends that the trial court erred by failing to add the company as a indispensable party to the case pursuant to Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P. See Hodge v. State, 643 So.2d 982, 984 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).

The underlying proceedings involved forfeiture of money and a vehicle under § 20-2-93, Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act (“the Act”), § 20-2-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Section 20-2-93(h) provides:

“(h) An owner’s or bona fide lienholder’s interest in real property or fixtures shall not be forfeited-under this section for'any act or omission unless the state proves that that act or omission was committed or omitted with the knowledge or consent of that owner or lien-holder. An owner’s or bona fide lienholder’s interest in any type of property other than real property and fixtures shall be forfeited under this section unless the owner or bona fide lienholder proves both that the act or omission subjecting the property to forfeiture was committed or omitted without the owner’s or lienholder’s knowledge or consent and that the owner or lienholder could not have obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence knowledge of the intended illegal use of the property so as to have prevented such use. Except as specifically provided to the contrary in this section, the procedures for the condemnation and forfeiture of property seized under this section shall be governed by and shall conform to the procedures set out in Sections 28-4-286 through 28-4-290[, Ala. Code 1975,] except that: (1) the burden of proof and standard of proof shall be as set out in this subsection instead of as set out in the last three lines of Section 28-4-290; and (2) the official filing the complaint shall also serve a copy of it on any person, corporation, or other entity having a perfected security interest in the property that is known to that official or that can be discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

Section 28-4-286, Ala. Code 1975, provides:

“It shall be the duty of such officer in the county or the Attorney General of the state to institute at once or cause to be instituted condemnation proceedings in the circuit court by filing a complaint in the name of the state against the property seized, describing the same, or against the person or persons in possession of said vehicles of transportation, if known, to obtain a judgment enforcing the forfeiture. No replevin or detinue writ may be employed to retake possession of such seized property pending the forfeiture action, but any party claiming a superior right may intervene by motion in said action and have his claim adjudicated.
“The judge presiding in said circuit court or any division thereof may superintend and make all proper orders and orders of publication of notice to be published for all parties claiming the said vehicles to come in and assert their right thereto. The said court shall have authority to frame all orders of procedure so as to regulate the pi'oceedings that persons may have an opportunity to come in and propound their claim to the vehicles and conveyances sought to be condemned.”

Although § 28-4-286 contemplates that notice of the action may be made by publication, neither § 20-2-93(h) nor § 28-4-286 provide a specific procedure to be followed to provide notice by publication of a forfeiture action commenced under the Act. Rule 4.3, Ala. R. Civ. P., however, provides a procedure for service by publication in civil cases. Rule 4.3(d) provides, in pertinent part:

“(2) ... [T]he clerk shall direct that service of notice be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the complaint is filed; and, when publication is authorized under subdivision 4.3(c), also in the county of the defendant’s last known location or residence within the United States. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, then publication shall be in a newspaper of general circulation published in an adjoining county.
“(3) Contents of Publication. The publication shall (A) contain a summary statement of the object of the complaint and demand for relief; (B) notify the person to be served that that person is required to answer within thirty (30) days after the last publication on or before a date certain specified in the notice which said date shall be thirty (30) days after the last publication; and (C) be published at least once a week for four successive weeks. ...”

We conclude that the procedure for service by publication in Rule 4.3 is also applicable in forfeiture proceedings arising under the Act.

Pursuant to Rule 4.3(d)(4) service by publication is deemed “complete at the date of the last publication.” Rule 4.3(d)(5) provides that, “[a]fter the last publication, the publisher or the publisher’s agent shall file with the court an affidavit showing the fact of publication together with a copy of the notice of publication. The affidavit and copy of the notice shall constitute proof of service.” Rule 12(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in part, that “[a] defendant shall serve an answer within thirty (30) days after the service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant except when service is made by publication and a different time is prescribed under the applicable procedure.”

“ ‘A civil forfeiture proceeding is an action in rem against the property itself.’” Garrett v. State, 739 So.2d 49, 52 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (quoting City of Gadsden v. Jordan, 760 So.2d 873, 875 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 760 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1999) (citing in turn Wherry v. State ex rel. Brooks, 637 So.2d 1353, 1355 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994))). Forfeiture cases commenced under the Act are unique in that the State may file the complaint against the property seized, in lieu of naming an actual defendant. Publication of the notice of the action pursuant to § 28-4-286, however, serves to place those individuals who have an interest in the seized property on notice that the property in question is subject to forfeiture by the State and that a right exists for those persons to appear before the trial court to “propound their claim to the [property] sought to be condemned.” § 28-4-286. Those individuals should be afforded the process to which they are due under the Act, § 28^-286, and the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

In the present case, the trial court, pursuant to § 28-4-286, ordered service of the notice of the forfeiture action by publication. The clerk, thereafter, issued the notice to The Gadsden Times to be published for four consecutive weeks, with the last date of publication of the notice to be December 2, 2015. The notice stated that an answer to the complaint must be filed by January 7, 2016. Despite the absence in the record of the publisher’s affidavit required by Rule 4.3(d)(5), neither party disputes that the notice had last been published in The Gadsden Times on December 2, 2015. Additionally, the company does not allege any error on appeal regarding the absence of the publisher’s affidavit. On December 16, 2015, 22 days before the time for filing an answer expired, the trial court, upon an agreement of the State and Arora, entered the judgment. If not for the entry of the judgment, the company’s December 18, 2015, answer would have been timely filed.

The State cites § 10-5-3.03, Ala. Code 1975, for the proposition that Arora, as a purported member of the company, had actual and inherent authority to bind the company, a limited-liability company, to the settlement agreement with the State. The- State contends that Arora was the managing member of the company and that he managed the convenience store. Other than the arguments of counsel at the hearing on .the Rule 60(b)(4) motion, the trial court received no evidence relating to the company’s corporate structure, the percentage of ownership of the company by its members, or the company’s operating agreement.

“Operating agreements of limited liability companies serve as contracts that set forth the rights, duties, and relation-, ships of the parties to the agreement. See Love v. Fleetway Air Freight & Delivery Serv., L.L.C., 875 So.2d 285 (Ala. 2003). ‘[I]t is elementary that it is the terms of the written contract, not the mental operations of one of the parties, that control its interpretation.’ Kinmon v. J.P. King Auction Co., 290 Ala. 323, 325, 276 So.2d 569, 570 (1973)(citing Todd v. Devaney, 265 Ala. 486, 92 So.2d 24 (1957)).”

Harbison v. Strickland, 900 So.2d 385, 391 (Ala. 2004). Accordingly, we are unable to conclude from the record whether Arora had the authority to enter into the settlement agreement with the State on behalf of the company.

The State has attached to its appellate brief what it purports is a property-tax document from the Etowah County Revenue Commissioner showing Arora as the owner of the convenience store. The company filed a motion in this court to strike that attachment.

“‘As we have stated on many prior occasions, “[ajn appellate court is confined in its review to the appellate record, that record cannot be ‘changed, altered, or varied on appeal by statements in briefs of counsel,’- and the court may not ‘assume error or presume the existence of facts as to which the record is silent.’” Beverly v. Beverly, 28 So.3d 1, 4 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (quoting Quick v. Burton, 960 So.2d 678, 680-81 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)).’
“Dreading v. Dreading, 84 So.3d 935, 937 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). Further, ““[ajttachments to briefs are not considered part of the record and therefore cannot be considered on appeal.’”’ Roberts v. NASCO Equip. Co., 986 So.2d 379, 385 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Morrow v. State, 928 So.2d 315, 320 n.5 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004), quoting in turn Huff v. State, 596 So.2d 16, 19 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)).”

Jackson v. Davis, 153 So.3d 820, 829 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). The tax document is not in the record, and was not presented to the trial court. Therefore, the company’s motion to strike the attachment is granted, and the attachment has not been considered by this court in disposing of this appeal.

Although the trial court had been presented with an agreement between parties who asserted an interest in the cash and the vehicle, the.entry of the judgment was premature because it foreclosed the opportunity for any other party interested in the property seized by the State to file an answer before January 7, 2016. The record shows that the company was not afforded the process it was due under the Act, § 28-4-286, and the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure to file an answer to the complaint and to assert its claim to the seized property, Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment is void and that the company’s Rule 60(b) motion is due to be granted.

Because we have determined that the trial court’s-judgment is void and that the company’s Rule 60(b) motion is due to be granted, we pretermit consideration of whether the company should have been joined as an indispensable party to this appeal. The trial court’s order denying the company’s Rule 60(b) motion is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.


author: MOORE, Judge.

text:
    RANDOLPH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. A.H.
    2150752
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Nov. 4, 2016
    Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Sharon E. Ficquette, gen. counsel, and Elizabeth L. Hendrix, asst. atty. gen., Department of Hurhan Resources, for appellant.
    Hugh M. Farnsworth of Fuller Hampton, LLC, Roanoke, guardian ad litem.
   MOORE, Judge.

, The Randolph County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) appeals from a judgment of the Randolph Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) denying its petition to have Aa,H. (“the child”) adjudicated dependent and placed in its custody. We affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

Procedural Background

The child was born in 2000 of the marriage of A.H. (“the father”) and G.H. (“the mother”). The mother and the father separated at some point after the birth of the child, with the father remaining in Alabama and the mother moving to Arizona. Not long thereafter the child’s maternal grandmother, who lived in California, obtained legal and physical custody of the child. In approximately 2012 or 2013, the child moved back to Alabama to reside with the father, who subsequently obtained an ex parte order giving him legal custody of the child.

On April 18, 2016, DHR filed a dependency petition, alleging, among other things, that the child had engaged in a physical altercation with. the father and that the child was currently receiving treatment in a mental-health facility because he was experiencing suicidal ideation. The juvenile court conducted a trial on the petition on May 24, 2016, at which the mother, the father, and a DHR social worker testified. On that same date, the juvenile court entered a judgment denying the petition. In that judgment, the juvenile court determined that the child “is not dependent as defined in Alabama Code [1975,] § 12-15-102(8),” and ordered that the child be returned to the custody of his parents. On May 25, 2016, DHR filed a notice of appeal, and the juvenile court entered an order staying enforcement of its judgment.

Analysis

In Ex parte L.E.O., 61 So.3d 1042 (Ala. 2010), the Madison Juvenile Court entered a judgment dismissing a dependency petition based on its determination that the child at issue in that case was not dependent. In reversing this court’s no-opinion affirmance of the Madison Juvenile Court’s judgment, our supreme court stated that “no credible evidence supported] the juvenile court’s conclusion.” 61 So.3d at 1048. In particular, the supreme court noted that the undisputed evidence in the record proved that the child had been abandoned by both parents to the care of nonrelatives who did not have legal custody of the child so that the child was, as a matter of law, a dependent child in need of care or supervision. This court has since relied on Ex parte L.E.O. to reverse a judgment declining to find a child dependent on the ground that it was not supported by “credible evidence.” See A.E. v. M.C., 100 So.3d 587, 599 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). In the present appeal, DHR argues that, like in the foregoing cases, the judgment of the juvenile court denying its dependency petition is not supported by sufficient evidence.

The judgment of the juvenile court does not contain any specific findings of fact. In New Properties, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 905 So.2d 797, 801-02 (Ala. 2004), our supreme court held: “[I]n a nonjury case in which the trial court makes no specific findings of fact, a party must move for a new trial or otherwise properly raise before the trial court the question relating to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence in order to preserve that question for appellate review.” That rule applies equally to juvenile-court cases. See L.M. v. Jefferson Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 68 So.3d 859, 861 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (“We note that New Properties, supra, relies on Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Although this case is a juvenile-court case, pursuant to Rule 1, Ala. R. Juv. P., Rule 52(b) is applicable.”). DHR did not move for a new trial in this case or otherwise argue that the judgment was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The juvenile court did explain its reasoning for its judgment in a colloquy at the end of the trial. In summary, the juvenile court explained that it was denying DHR’S dependency petition on the ground that the mother was “ready, willing, and able to take care of [the child]” so that the child was not without a capable parent to provide the child a suitable home and the mental-health care he required. That colloquy can be considered as a substitute for written findings of fact because “[t]he purpose of findings of fact is to allow the parties and the appellate court to understand the basis of the trial court’s order.” Weeks v. Herlong, 951 So.2d 670, 678 (Ala. 2006). Accordingly, DHR did not have to file a postjudgment motion in order to preserve for appeal any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the oral factual findings of the juvenile court. See Marshall Cty. Dep’t of Human Res. v. J.V., 203 So. 3d 1243, 1248 n.5 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).

On appeal, however, DHR does not argue that the factual determination that the mother is able to suitably care for the child is unsupported by the evidence. Instead, DHR argues that the juvenile court should have made a finding that the mother had abandoned the child. DHR did not complain in its petition that the mother had abandoned the child. At trial, the mother, who resides in Arizona, testified that she had actively participated in raising the child although the child’s maternal grandmother had obtained legal and physical custody of the child when the child was young and had raised the child in California. The mother testified that, in approximately 2012, she and the maternal grandmother had agreed to allow the child to move back to Alabama to live with the father. According to the mother, after the child began living with the father, she had monitored the progress of the child, but, she admitted, she did not know the school the child attended or the sports he played. The mother also testified that she had had little communication with the child during the three years the child had resided with the father until 2016 when the child contacted her to inform her that he had been admitted to a mental-health facility following an altercation with the father. The mother has since consistently communicated with the child and DHR, mainly in an effort to obtain custody of the child. DHR did not move the juvenile court to amend the pleadings to include an abandonment claim, see Rule 15(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., or otherwise notify the mother that it was using her testimony for the purpose of proving her abandonment of the child. See CVS/Caremark Corp. v. Washington, 121 So.3d 391, 398 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (party does not consent to amendment of pleadings by failing to object to evidence that relates to pleaded claim unless opponent has made it clear that a new issue is being injected).

At the end of the trial,, the juvenile court expressed concern about the mother’s lack of involvement with the child in the preceding three years, but it noted that her recent effort “goes a long way with [the court].” DHR did not argue at that point, or at any other point in the record, that the mother had abandoned the child; instead, it asserted at the outset of the trial only that it might take a prolonged period to obtain a placement report from Arizona’s DHR counterpart in order for DHR to approve the mother’s having custody of the child.

Based on the record, we conclude that DHR did not preserve for appeal its argument that the mother had abandoned the child. That claim was not properly pleaded, and the juvenile court did not adjudicate the issue. DHR also did not file a postjudgment motion raising the issue in order to obtain a ruling from the juvenile court. This court cannot consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal; “rather, appellate review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court.” Smith v. Smith, 196 So.3d 1191, 1198 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).

DHR also argues that the juvenile court should have found that the father was not capable of providing care for the child. Assuming the undisputed evidence shows that the father was not able to properly care for the child, .as DHR argues, it remains that the juvenile court determined that the child was not dependent because the mother could proyide the necessary care. Notably, DHR does not argue that the juvenile court erred as a matter of law in determining that a child is not dependent if the noncustodial parent can properly care for .the child. Cf. G.H. v. Cleburne Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 62 So.3d 540, 544 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (holding that “a child with a fit noncustodial parent .willing to assume custody can properly be declared dependent”). Accordingly, we do not address that issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Thomas, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.


author: THOMAS, Judge.

text:
    SPRINGHILL HOSPITALS, INC., Providence Hospital, and Infirmary Health System, Inc. v. STATE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Surgicare of Mobile, Ltd.
    2150705
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Nov. 10, 2016

      David E. Belser and Autumn A. Caudell of the Law Office of David E. Belser, LLC, Montgomery, for appellant Spring-hill Hospitals, Inc.; David M. Hunt of Har-buck Keith & Holmes, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant Providence Hospital; and James E. Williams of Melton, Espy & Williams, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant Infirmary Health System, Inc.
    Mark D. Wilkerson and Dana H. Bill-ingsley of Wilkerson & Bryan, P.C., Montgomery, for appellee State Health . Planning & Development Agency.
    Lenora W. Pate and Thomas A. Woodall of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee Surgicare of Mobile, Ltd.
   THOMAS, Judge.

Springhill Hospitals, Inc. (“Springhill”); Providence Hospital (“Providence”); and Infirmary Health. System, Inc. (“Infirmary”) (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the hospitals”), have filed a notice of appeal seeking this court’s review of a declaratory ruling issued by the. Certificate of Need Review Board (“the CONRB”) of the State Health Planning and Development Agency (“SHPDA”) regarding a letter of non-reviewability (“LNR”) that had been requested by Surgicare of Mobile, Ltd. (“Surgicare”). Because this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal of the CONRB’s declaratory ruling, we dismiss the appeal.

Background

Surgicare owns an ambulatory surgery center (“ASC”) in Mobile, and each of the hospitals owns a facility in Mobile that provides the same services that Surgicare provides at its ASC. On August 4, 2014, Surgicare filed a request with SHPDA for an LNR pursuant to Ala. Admin. Code (SHPDA), Rule 410-1-7-.02, seeking a determination of whether a plan to expand its ASC was subject "to the review of the CONRB. Providence and Infirmary thereafter submitted letters to SHPDA opposing Surgicare’s request for an LNR. Springhill instead filed.a complaint in the Montgomery Circuit Court against SHPDA and Surgicare seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. In February 2015, the Montgomery Circuit Court entered an order dismissing Spring-hill’s complaint, specifically finding that it had not exhausted its administrative remedies, This court affirmed the Montgomery Circuit Court’s judgment, without an opinion, on August 21, 2015. Springhill Hosps., Inc., d/b/a Springhill Mem’l Hosp. v. Surgicare of Mobile, Ltd., et al. (No. 2140494, August 21, 2015), 217 So. 3d 861 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015)(table).

On March 16, 2016, SHPDA’s executive director, Alva Lambert, issued an LNR to Surgicare in which he stated that, “[a]c-cording to the facts that have been provided, a Certificate of Need'would not be required under Alabama law and the Alabama Certificate of Need Program Rules and Regulations for the proposed expansion.” On April 6, 2016, the hospitals, pursuant to Ala. Admin. Code (SHPDA), Rule 410-1-9-.01, petitioned the CONRB fqr a declaratory ruling “reversing] the review-ability determination dated March 16, 2016, issued by SHPDA’s Executive, Director regarding Surgicare’s proposed expansion of its ASC.”

On May 5, 2016, the CONRB issued a declaratory ruling denying the hospitals’ petition. On May 25, 2016, the hospitals filed a notice of appeal to the Montgomery Circuit Court in which they indicated that jurisdiction was proper in that court under §§ 41-22-11 and 41-22-20(a), Ala. Code 1975. That same day, the hospitals also filed a notice of appeal to this court in which they indicated that subject-matter jurisdiction was proper in this court under § 22-21-275(6), Ala. Code 1975. On September 12, 2016, the appeal to this court was submitted on the parties’ appellate briefs, and, on September 15, 2016, we issued an order requiring the parties to submit letter briefs “regarding the issue whether judicial review of the Certificate of Need Review Board’s May 5, 2016, ruling is proper in this court under § 22-21-275(6), Ala. Code 1975, or is proper in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County under § 41—22—11(b), Ala. Code 1975.” See C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 868 So.2d 451, 453 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003)(“[A] court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time ... and may even be raised by a court ex mero motu.”). The parties timely complied with the order. In their letter briefs, the parties explain that the hospitals’ appeal to the Montgomery Circuit Court has been stayed pending a disposition of their appeal to this court.

The hospitals argue that this court should dismiss their appeal because, they say, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction. SHPDA and Surgicare argue that the hospitals have properly appealed to this court and that we should therefore resolve what the parties contend is the dispositive inquiry regarding the CONRB’s declaratory ruling, namely, whether depreciation expenses should be treated as operating costs such that Surgicare’s new annual operating costs following the proposed expansion of its ASC would exceed the spending threshold described in § 22-21-263(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, thereby qualifying the ASC expansion as a “new institutional health service” for which Surgicare would be required to submit an application for a certificate of need (“CON application”) that would be subject to review by the CONRB. See § 22-21-263(a), Ala. Code 1975. Because we dismiss the hospitals’ appeal, we do not consider the issue argued by the parties in their appellate briefs.

Analysis

As our supreme court has explained:

“‘[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purpose sought to be obtained.’
“Ex parte Holladay, 466 So.2d 956, 960 (Ala. 1985). In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992), this Court further stated with regard to statutory construction:
“ Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly-expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.’
“It is a familiar principle of statutory interpretation that the Legislature, in enacting new legislation, is presumed to know the existing law. See Ex parte Louisville & N.R.R., 398 So.2d 291, 296 (Ala. 1981).”

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen, 714 So.2d 293, 296-97 (Ala. 1998).

The legislature established the subject-matter jurisdiction of this court in § 12-3-10, Ala. Code 1975, which states, in pertinent part: “The Court of Civil Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of ... all appeals from administrative agencies other than the Alabama Public Service Commission.” However, § 41-22-11(b), Ala. Code 1976, a portion of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (“the AAPA”), § 41-22-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, specifically states, in pertinent part:

“A declaratory ruling is binding on the agency and the person requesting it unless it is altered or set aside by a court in a proper proceeding. Such rulings are subject to review in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, unless otherwise specifically provided by the statute, in the manner provided in Section 41-22-20 for the review of decisions in contested cases.”

We note that

‘[statutes should be construed together so as to harmonize the provisions as far as practical.’ Ex parte Jones Mfg. Co., 589 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala. 1991). ‘In the event of a conflict between two statutes, a specific statute relating to a specific subject is regarded as an exception to, and will prevail over, a general statute relating to a broad subject.’ Id.”

Alabama Dep’t of Revenue v. National Peanut Festival Ass’n, Inc., 11 So.3d 821, 829-30 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Because § 41-22-11(b) specifically states that declaratory rulings of administrative agencies are subject to judicial review in the Montgomery Circuit Court, we do not construe the general language of § 12-3-10 to confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon this court to consider direct appeals of declaratory rulings of the CONRB.

SHPDA and Surgicare argue, however, that through Act No. 2012-294, Ala. Acts 2012, which, among other things, amended the language of § 22-21-275(6), Ala. Code 1975, the legislature intended for this court to consider direct ‘ appeals of declaratory rulings of the CONRB. Section 22-21-275 now states, in pertinent part:

“The SHPDA ... shall prescribe by rules and regulations the procedures for review of applications for certificates of need and for issuance of certificates of need. Rules and regulations governing review procedures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
“(6) Provisions and procedures for public hearings in the course of agency review on any application for the certificate of need for new institutional health service which requires substantive review. The SHPDA shall make provisions for a public hearing of any contested case before an administrative law judge .... SHPDA shall make provisions that if neither the applicant nor aggrieved party shall have requested the application be heard before an administrative law judge, the application shall be heard before SHPDA at a public hearing. Any aggrieved party to a final decision of SHPDA may appeal the final decision of SHPDA to the Court of Civil Appeals. .,. The Court of Civil Appeals shall have no discretion to refuse to hear appeals of the final decisions of SHPDA timely filed under this article,.., ” .

(Emphasis added.)

Thus, SHPDA and Surgieare argue that this court must consider direct appeals of SHPDA’s “final decisions.” We agree with their conclusion insofar as it relates to SHPDA’s final decisions regarding contested CON applications that require substantive review by an administrative-law judge or SHPDA; such is the plain meaning of the statute. However, to construe' the amended language of § 22-21-275(6) to also invest this court with subject-matter jurisdiction to consider direct appeals of the CONRB’s declaratory rulings would infer an appointment of greater judicial power than is conveyed by the plain meaning of the legislature’s chosen words. Because the legislature is presumed to have been aware of § 41-22-11(b)—a provision that squarely addresses judicial review of declaratory rulings issued by administrative agencies—when it adopted Act No. 2012-294, wé decline to make such an inference.

We next address some additional observations made by SHPDA and Surgieare in their letter briefs. First, SHPDA cites Florence Surgery Center, L.P. v. Eye Surgery Center of Florence, LLC, 121 So.3d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013), a case involving a direct appeal to this court from a declaratory ruling by the OONRB, in which we had issued an order requiring the parties to submit letter briefe regarding the issue “whether Act No. 2012-294 applies to this appeal. Stated differently, in light of Act No. 2012-294, should this appeal go the circuit court for trial de novo or should this appeal be directed to the Court of Civil Appeals?” We thereafter issued an order accepting the appeal and later published an opinion on November 30, 2012, pm-porting to reverse the CONRB’s declaratory ruling. SHPDA therefore implies that the issue whether this court has subject-matter jurisdiction to consider direct appeals of the CONRB’s declaratory rulings under § 22-21-275(6) has already been resolved by our opinion in Florence Surgery Center.

We note, however, that this court withdrew the opinion in Florence Surgery Center and later dismissed the appeal after, among other things, SHPDA argued on rehearing that the controversy giving rise to the appeal'had become moot; .

“Accordingly, this court hereby withdraws and vacates its opinion issued on November 30, 2012, and dismisses this appeal. To clarify, by withdrawing and vacating bur opinion issued on original' submission, we intend that that opinion will have no legal force and effect, as if it had never been issued. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co.[ v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 116 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) ].”

Id. at 390. Thus, SHPDA’s implication that the disposition of Florence Surgery Center should impact this court’s consideration of whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the hospitals’ appeal lacks merit, and we will consider it no further.

SHPDA also asserts that “the relevant sentence [of § 22-21-275(6)] applies, on its face, to all ‘final decisions’ of [SHPDA], and there are no contrary appellate provisions in the SHPDA statute.” (Emphasis added.) SHPDA’s assertion is misleading at best. The sentence of § 22-21-275(6) that SHPDA quotes actually contemplates “a final • decision of SHPDA” (emphasis added), indicating that it refers to dispositions of the proceedings described in the immediately preceding sentences, namely, SHPDA’s decisions regarding contested CON applications. “[C]ourts should not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence; instead, statutory interpretation is a holistic endeavor, and, at a mini-um, must account for a statute’s full text and language, as well as punctuation, structure, and subject matter.” 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 427 (2009). Our evaluation of § 22-21-275(6), in its entirety, compels the conclusion that the particular sentence relied upon by SHPDA specifically pertains to appellate review of its decisions regarding CON applications and should not be interpreted so expansively as to encompass all of its decisions.

Furthermore, at least one other section of § 22-21-275 discusses decisions reached by SHPDA:

“(14) Provisions that any adverse decision of the agency (SHPDA) (other than a SHPDA decision after first being heard as a contested case before an administrative law judge pursuant to the requirements of the -Alabama Administrative Procedures Act) may be appealed to an administrative law judge designated by the Governor for fair hearing which appeal shall be heard de novo as a contested case in accordance with Sections 41-22-12 and 41-22-13.... The decision of the administrative law judge in the fair hearing proceedings shall be considered the final decision of the state agency (SHPDA); provided, that any aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Court of Civil Appeals in accordance with the provisions of-subdivision (6).”

(Emphasis added.) Because § 22-21-275(14), on its face, contemplates intermediate appellate review of SHPDA’s decisions by an administrative-law judge, we also reject SHPDA’s contention that § 22-21-275(6) should be interpreted to mean that direct appeal to this court is the exclusive manner by which any of its decisions can be subjected to appellate review.

Citing Mobile Infirmary Ass’n v. Emfinger, 474 So.2d 731 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985), SHPDA. next argues that, because § 41-22-ll(b) states that judicial review of declaratory rulings is proper in the Montgomery Circuit Court “unless otherwise specifically provided by the statute,” it is superseded by § 22-21-275(6). First, as explained above, § 22-21-275(6) does not specifically provide for direct appeals of declaratory rulings; therefore, it does not supersede § 41-22-11(b). Second, SHPDA’s reliance upon Emfinger ⅛ misplaced. At the time Emfinger was decided, the procedure governing judicial review of SHPDA’s denials of CON applications was set forth in former § 22-21-275(14), which permitted, among other things, a CON applicant to appeal SHPDA’s denial of its CON application to the circuit court in which the CON applicant resided, the circuit court in which it was situated, or the circuit court in which the new institutional health service being applied for was located. In that ease, SHPDA had denied Mobile.- Infirmary Association’s CON application, and Mobile Infirmary Association appealed SHPDA’s decision to the Montgomery Circuit Court, pursuant to § 41-22-20(b), Ala. Code 1975. The Montgomery Circuit Court dismissed the action, and this court affirmed the dismissal, stating:

“Because judicial review of actions of SHPDA and the [CONRB] on CON applications is specifically governed by § 22-21-275(14), the only logical conclusion is that § 22-21-275(14), and not the AAPA, must govern the filing of a petition or complaint for judicial review in the present case.”

474 So.2d at 733 (emphasis added). In reaching that conclusion, however, this court also offered the following admonition:

“This court should not be misunderstood to say that, in all cases in which an agency has specific statutes, those statutes would supersede the AAPA. We hold only that the method for obtaining judicial review of SHPDA rulings on CON applications which is specifically set forth in § 22-21-275(14), Ala. Code 1975, must override the general provisions for obtaining judicial review of an agency’s adverse actions set forth in § 41-22-20(b). Such a result arises from the language of § 41-22-20(b) itself.”

Id. (emphasis added). The parties have not provided, and we have not discovered, any SHPDA-specific statute discussing judicial review of the CONRB’s declaratory rulings. Thus, § 41—22—11(b) controls judicial review of the declaratory ruling at issue in this case.

Finally, SHPDA argues that “[a]n interpretation of the statute permitting multiple appeals, in multiple courts, of final decisions of SHPDA would be unworkable, particularly in CON appeals involving multiple parties,” and Surgicare expresses similar concerns in its letter brief. We have not interpreted § 41—22—11(b) and § 22-21-275(6) in such a manner. The plain meaning of § 41—22—11(b) provides for judicial review of the CONRB’s declaratory rulings in the Montgomery Circuit Court. The plain meaning of § 22-21-275(6) provides for appellate review of SHPDA’s final decisions regarding contested CON applications in this court. In other words, the legislature has provided for different, but not concurrent, methods of judicial review for different types of final decisions reached by SHPDA. Consideration of the wisdom of such a scheme is not within the province of this court, but we note that whether a party’s CON application should be granted is a separate and different inquiry from whether a party should be required to submit a CON application or other types of questions that a party may petition the CONRB to resolve by way of a declaratory ruling.

The legislature has not invested this court with subject-matter jurisdiction to consider direct appeals of the CONRB’s declaratory rulings. Accordingly, we dismiss the hospitals’ appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.

      . Rule 410-1-7-.02 was amended effective October 7, 2016, while the appeal was pending before this court, The parties and the CONRB operated under the version of this rule in effect before the amendment.

      . The Alabama Secretary of State's records indicate that SHPDA submitted an amended version of Rule 410-1-9-.01 in June 2016.

      . Before the enactment of Act No. 2012-294, § 22-21-275(6) stated, in .pertinent part:
      "SHPDA shall make provisions that if neither the applicant nor aggrieved party shall have requested the -application be heard before an administrative law judge, the application shall be heard before SHPDA at a public hearing; Any aggrieved party to a final decision of SHPDA may appeal the final decision of SHPDA to the circuit court in the county in which the applicant resides or of the county in' which the applicant is situated or in which the new institutional health service being applied for is located."

      . For instance, the record before this court contains a copy of the CONRB’s “tentative agenda” for April 20, 2016,' the day on which it considered the hospitals’ petition for a declaratory ruling, styled DR-149. That document indicated that the CONRB would also consider, on that day, a different "Petition for Three Declaratory Rulings” to resolve issues such as whether a particular party should be required to make a specific witness available to testify at an upcoming administrative hearing and whether a particular party should be required to produce certain documents before an upcoming administrative hearing.