Ex parte T.T.T.
T.T.T. In re: K.M.G.
Juvenile Court, CS-95-166.05
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
("the former husband") has petitioned this court
for a writ of mandamus directed to the Baldwin Juvenile Court
("the juvenile court") in postdivorce proceedings
between him and K.M.G. ("the former wife"). The
former husband and the former wife have been involved in
litigation for years, and their filings have created a
procedural quagmire. In his current lengthy petition to this
court, the former husband argues extensively about an
exhaustive number of issues arising from numerous cases.
Despite the inclusion of an extensive amount of extraneous
material, the focus of the current petition is a claim that
the juvenile court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction
to enter an order in a specific case on June 29, 2017. The
former husband seeks the writ of mandamus to compel the
juvenile court to vacate that order. The former husband made
factual assertions in support of his petition. The former
wife did not respond to the former husband's petition;
therefore, we are required to "consider the averments of
fact in [the] petition as true." Ex parte
Turner, 840 So.2d 132, 135 (Ala. 2002). Based on the
materials before us, we conclude that the juvenile court
lacked jurisdiction to enter the June 29, 2017, order, and,
thus, we are required to grant the former husband's
petition and issue the writ.
the third time the parties have been before this court in
relation to their postdivorce proceedings. In T.T.
v. K.M.G., 186 So.3d 472 (Ala. Civ. App.
2015)("T.T. I"), this court summarized the
relevant procedural history of the litigation between the
"In 1994, T.T. and K.M.G. were divorced by a judgment of
a Georgia court ('the Georgia judgment'). At the time
the Georgia judgment was entered, the parties had two minor
children. At some point thereafter, proceedings involving the
parties were commenced in the [juvenile court] involving the
Georgia judgment. Those proceedings were assigned case no.
CS-95-166. On June 30, 1995, the [juvenile] court entered an
order in case no. CS-95-166 directing T.T. to pay child
support in the amount of $370 per month beginning on July 1,
1995. In that order, the [juvenile] court also found T.T. to
be in arrears on his child-support obligation in the amount
of $328. On the same day, the [juvenile] court entered an
income-withholding order directing T.T.'s employer to
deduct the monthly amount of T.T.'s child-support
obligation from T.T.'s income.
"At some undetermined point thereafter, K.M.G.
apparently filed a petition for a finding of contempt against
T.T. based on his alleged failure to pay child support. The
proceedings arising from that petition were docketed as case
no. CS-95-166.02. On January 26, 2004, the [juvenile] court
entered an order in case no. CS-95-166.02 directing T.T. to
pay $3, 296.08 to purge himself of contempt of court.
"On April 14, 2004, K.M.G. filed a petition for a
finding of contempt against T.T. and for a modification of
the Georgia judgment. The proceedings arising from that
petition were docketed [as] case no. CS-95-166.03. A notation
in the record indicates that that case was voluntarily
dismissed by K.M.G. on July 20, 2004.
"K.M.G. apparently commenced another contempt action at
some later point, which was docketed as case no.
CS-95-166.04. On April 18, 2011, the [juvenile] court entered
a [default] judgment in case no. CS-95-166.04 stating as
"'1. Default Judgment is granted in favor of
[K.M.G.] and against [T.T.] in the amount of $171, 680.62,
which includes the following amounts: $170, 758.97 (child
support arrearage plus interest); $750.00 (reasonable
attorney's fees); and $171.65 (costs of court), for which
execution shall issue.'
"On April 21, 2014, T.T. filed an independent action in
the [juvenile] court seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P., from the April 18, 2011, judgment entered in
case no. CS-96-166.04, and the [juvenile]-court clerk
docketed that action as case no. CS-95-166.05. In his request
for relief, T.T. contended that he had been served with the
summons and the contempt petition filed by K.M.G. in case no.
CS-95-166.04 but that he did not receive notice of the final
hearing held on April 8, 2011. As a result of his failure to
appear, he contended, the [juvenile] court entered the
default judgment in the amount of $171, 680.62. ...
"... On [August 28, 2014, after a] hearing, the
[juvenile] court entered an order denying T.T.'s request
for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). T.T. filed a timely notice
of appeal to this court on September 9, 2014."
T.T. I, 186 So.3d at 473-75.
17, 2015, this court dismissed the former husband's
appeal, noting that the former husband had sought relief
under Rule 60(b)(6) and holding that the juvenile court
lacked jurisdiction to entertain the former husband's
independent Rule 60(b)(6) action, which was untimely