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.

Ex parte Dunbar

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

March 22, 2019

EX PARTE Kelsey A. DUNBAR
v.
Kelsey A. Dunbar In re: Robert Wood

Page 445

          PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (Elmore Circuit Court, DR-18-900280). Sibley G. Reynolds, Judge

         Jerry M. Blevins, Montgomery, for petitioner.

         Keith A. Howard, Wetumpka, for respondent.

         OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         A child was born in 2011 of the relationship between Kelsey A. Dunbar ("the mother") and Robert Wood ("the father"); the parties never married.[1] The materials before this court do not indicate that any order or judgment has awarded either party custody of the child. The parties agree that the child lived with the mother in Florida until the summer of 2017, when the child visited the father in Alabama. The child remained with the father in Alabama from approximately June 2017 through late November 2018. In late November 2018, the mother traveled from her home in Florida to Alabama, picked up the child from school without notifying the father, and did not return the child to the father.

          Thereafter, on November 26, 2018, the father filed in the Elmore Circuit Court ("the trial court") a petition seeking to establish the paternity of the child, seeking an award of custody of the child, and seeking an award of child support. The father also sought an ex parte order awarding him custody of the child pending the resolution of his custody action. On November 27, 2018, the trial court entered an ex parte order ordering the mother to "immediately return the child to the father," and to return the child to Alabama if the child had been removed from this state, and scheduling a pendente lite custody hearing for December 12, 2018.

          On December 4, 2018, an attorney filed a general notice of appearance on behalf of the mother. Also on December 4, 2018, the mother filed a motion to vacate the ex parte custody order. In that motion, the mother argued that a child-support action concerning the child had been filed previously in Florida. The mother also stated in a footnote in her motion that she had not been served with process and was appearing for the sole purpose of "challenging the ex parte order."

          On December 12, 2018, the mother’s attorney filed an amended notice of appearance in which he stated that his representation of the mother was limited "at the present time to challenging" the November 27, 2018, ex parte order.

         On December 13, 2018, the trial court entered an order finding that the father’s attorney had been present for a hearing on that date and that an attorney had filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the mother.[2] The trial court determined that, although the mother had not been personally served, the mother’s attorney had filed a general notice of appearance in the trial

Page 446

court, and, therefore, that the mother had waived service of process. The trial court denied the mother’s motion to vacate its November 27, 2018, ex parte custody order and directed that the father was to receive a pickup order for obtaining custody of the child.

         The mother has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court challenging the December 13, 2018, order. The mother, in part, relies on Rule 65, Ala. R. Civ. P., and characterizes that part of the December 13, 2018, order that continued the award of pendente lite custody in the father as an injunction. We agree. We construe that part of the December 13, 2018, order as granting the father interlocutory injunctive relief, i.e., a continuation of pendente lite custody and an order allowing him to regain custody of the child.

         An appeal is the appropriate method for reviewing the grant or denial of injunctive relief. Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P.; B.C. v. Cullman Cty. Dep’t of Human Res., 169 So.3d 1059, 1060 (Ala.Civ.App. 2015). "Rule 4(a)(1) requires appeals from an interlocutory order granting an injunction to be filed within 14 days of the date of the entry of the ...


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.