Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cloud v. Cloud

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

June 19, 2015

Rickey Lynn Cloud
v.
Glenda Sue Cloud

         Released for Publication April 28, 2016.

          Appeal from Cullman Circuit Court. (DR-96-667). Trial Judge: Wells R. Turner III.

         Rickey Lynn Cloud, Appellant, Pro se.

         DONALDSON, Judge. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman and Moore, JJ., concur. Thomas, J., recuses herself.

          OPINION

          DONALDSON, Judge.

         Although there is no time limitation to file a motion under Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., seeking relief from a purportedly void judgment, a party who does not

Page 726

appeal from the denial of the motion cannot file a successive Rule 60(b)(4) motion seeking the same relief.

         Rickey Lynn Cloud (" the husband" ) appeals from the order of the Cullman Circuit Court (" the trial court" ) denying his Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a protection-from-abuse

Page 727

order entered against him in 1996 in favor of Glenda Sue Cloud (" the wife" ).[1] We dismiss the appeal.

         The wife filed a complaint for a divorce in the trial court on November 16, 1996. The divorce was assigned case no. DR-96-667. Contemporaneous with the filing of the complaint, the wife filed a request for injunctive relief to restrain the husband from physically abusing the wife and a petition for relief pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act (" the PFAA" ), § 30-5-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, as that act existed in 1996.[2] Both the request for injunctive relief and the petition for protection from abuse alleged that the husband had harassed and physically abused the wife in the presence of the parties' three minor children. On November 19, 1996, the trial court granted the wife's request for protection from abuse, stating in its order that the husband was:

" 1. Enjoined from threatening to commit or committing acts of abuse, as defined in the [PFAA] against the [wife] or the minor children, and any designated family or household member.
" 2. Prohibited from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating, directly or indirectly, with ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.