From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Health South v. Brookwood Health Ser

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Aug 18, 2000
814 So. 2d 267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)

Summary

holding that where one of three parties did not expressly consent to the extension of time, the postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law on the 90th day

Summary of this case from Ex Parte State

Opinion

No. 2990511.

Decided August 18, 2000. Rehearing Denied October 27, 2001. Certiorari Quashed August 31, 2001.

Appeals from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-99-122).

Peck Fox of Maynard, Cooper Gale, P.C., Montgomery; and Derrell Fancher of Fancher Gatch, Clanton, for appellant/cross appellee HealthSouth Corp.

John T. Mooresmith, John C. Morrow and Cary Tynes Walheim of Burr Forman, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellee/cross appellant Brookwood Health Services, Inc.


Brookwood Health Services, Inc., filed a petition for judicial review in the Montgomery Circuit Court, against the State Health Planning and Development Agency ("SHPDA") and Health South Corporation. The circuit court entered a judgment reversing SHPDA's decision on September 2, 1999. Health South filed a postjudgment motion on September 30, 1999. On December 29, 1999, pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala.R.Civ.P., Healthsouth filed a consent to extend the time for the circuit court to rule on Healthsouth's postjudgment motion, to January 17, 2000. On February 3, 2000, Brookwood filed a "Notice of Consent for Additional Time," stating that it had consented to the extension as stated by Health South on December 29, 1999. The trial court never ruled on the postjudgment motion, and Health South filed a notice of appeal on February 15, 2000. Brookwood filed a cross-appeal on March 1, 2000.

We conclude that the appeal and the cross-appeal are untimely. Rule 59.1 provides that a postjudgment motion will be denied by operation of law 90 days after it is filed "unless with the express consent of all the parties, which consent shall appear of record" (emphasis added). The record contains no consent by SHPDA to the extension. Also, Brookwood's consent did not "appear of record" until February 3, 2000, after the 90 days had elapsed.

Because SHPDA never consented to the extension and because Brookwood's consent was provided late, the trial court's judgment was denied by operation of law on December 29, 1999, the 90th day after the September 30, 1999, judgment. The time for Health South to file its notice of appeal expired on February 9, 2000, the 42nd day after December 29, 1999. See Rule 4(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P. Therefore, Health South's February 15, 2000, notice of appeal is untimely. Brookwood's March 1, 2000, cross-appeal is also untimely. See Rule 4(a)(2), Ala.R.App.P. (providing that a cross-appeal must be filed within 14 days of a timely notice of appeal, or within 42 days of the trial court's judgment).

APPEALS DISMISSED.

Robertson, P.J., and Monroe, J., concur.

Yates, J., concurs in the result.

Thompson, J., recuses himself.


Summaries of

Health South v. Brookwood Health Ser

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Aug 18, 2000
814 So. 2d 267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)

holding that where one of three parties did not expressly consent to the extension of time, the postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law on the 90th day

Summary of this case from Ex Parte State

construing Rule 4 as providing that a cross-appeal must be filed within 14 days of a timely notice of appeal, or within 42 days after the trial court's judgment becomes final, whichever is later

Summary of this case from Ala. State Pers. Bd. v. Hancock

construing Rule 4 as providing that a cross-appeal must be filed within 14 days of a timely notice of appeal, or within 42 days after the trial court's judgment becomes final, whichever is later

Summary of this case from Ala. State Pers. Bd. v. Hancock
Case details for

Health South v. Brookwood Health Ser

Case Details

Full title:Health South Corporation v. Brookwood Health Services, Inc

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Aug 18, 2000

Citations

814 So. 2d 267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Fulghum Fibres, Inc. v. C. Dwayne Stokes & Frisco Forest Prods., Llc.

In similar cases involving a failure of an appellate record to affirmatively demonstrate the consent of all…

State v. Redtop Market, Inc.

I suggest that this Court reexamine its decision in Harrison or amend Rule 59.1 to eliminate the trap. A…