Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-13-607).
Michelle Croskey appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court entered in favor of James Crawford, a/k/a C&B Association Montgomery.
The record indicates the following. On February 27, 2013, Croskey filed, in the small-claims division of the Montgomery District Court ("the district court"), a complaint against Crawford asserting that he owed her $1, 500 based on Crawford's promise that Croskey would "get paid for training on how to fill out taxes." She alleged that she had attended 60 hours or more of training and that Crawford had not paid her for the training she had attended. Crawford answered the complaint on March 21, 2013. Following a nonjury trial, the district court entered a judgment in favor of Crawford on June 7, 2013.
On August 2, 2013, the district court received a letter, dated August 1, 2013, sent by Croskey to the district-court judge in which Croskey stated, in pertinent part:
"I am writing because I was not aware of the ruling on my case. My mailman has been putting mail in the wrong mailbox. ...
"I received a court document that was addressed to me but mistakenly placed in a neighbor's mail box by the U.S Postman by mistake. My neighbor stated that she had received several pieces of my mail in and around the 10th of June but claim she just kept forgetting to give it to me because she couldn't remember where she put it. On Tuesday July 23rd she finally bought [sic] the mail over to my house and when I opened the court document; I realized the deadline to respond had past.
"I had 14 days to respond to this document and because I was not given the chance through no fault of my own, I strongly feel the verdict to dismissed the case was not fair to me. Furthermore to my defense, if I had known about this letter on time, surely I would have responded and taken full advantage of the appeal process afforded to me. ... Please do me right and allow me to appeal my case."
On August 15, 2013, Croskey sent a second letter to the judge, the substance of which was identical to the first letter. Across the top of the second letter was typed: "This is my second notice please respond." On August 20, 2013, Croskey filed a "3rd Notice" in which she stated: "Please allow me an appeal due to I never received the notice the first time." She filed a similar notice on August 30, 2013, stating: "Please Please Please allow me to do an appeal due to I ... was late getting my letter that my neighbor gave to me." On September 3, 2013, the district court entered an order purporting to extend the time for Croskey to file her notice of appeal. Croskey filed her notice of appeal to the circuit court that same day.
Following a nonjury trial, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Crawford on March 6, 2014.
Although neither party has raised the issue of the timeliness of Croskey's appeal to the circuit court, "jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu." Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala. 1987). "[T]he timeliness of an appeal affects this Court's jurisdiction to consider the appeal." Moultrie v. Wall, 143 So.3d 128, 135 (Ala. 2013).
Section 12-12-70(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny party may appeal from a final judgment of the district court in a civil case by filing notice of appeal in the district court, within 14 days from the date of the judgment or the denial of a posttrial motion, whichever is later." Additionally, Rule M of the Alabama Small Claims Rules provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] judgment may be appealed to the circuit court by the filing of a notice of appeal in the office of the clerk of the small claims court within fourteen days from the date of the judgment ...." Thus, the original deadline for Croskey to file a notice of appeal to the circuit court from the district court's June 7, 2013, judgment was June 21, 2013.
On August 2, 2013, however, Croskey filed her first request seeking an extension of time to file her notice of appeal; we treat that request as seeking relief pursuant to Rule 77(d), Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 77(d) provides, in pertinent part:
"Lack of notice of the entry by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except that upon a showing of excusable neglect based on a failure of the party to learn of the entry of the judgment or order the circuit court in any action may extend the time for appeal not exceeding thirty (30) ...