Frank Thomas Shumate, Jr. v. Berry Contracting, L.P., d/b/a Bay, Ltd.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the Baldwin Circuit Court’s denial of Frank Thomas Shumate, Jr.’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion seeking relief from a Texas judgment domesticated in Alabama. The court held that Shumate had not shown that Rule 60(b)(5) provided the proper basis for vacating the domesticated judgment after the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Texas case. Separate dissents argued that the reversed Texas judgment should no longer be enforceable in Alabama.

Holdings

1. Shumate did not demonstrate that the Baldwin Circuit Court exceeded its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b)(5) motion. The majority affirmed without deciding whether Rule 60(b)(5) is generally the proper procedural mechanism for addressing a domesticated judgment after reversal in the rendering state.
2. Once domesticated under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, a foreign judgment has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of an Alabama circuit court.
3. Shumate was not entitled to reversal under Rule 60(b)(4) or Rule 60(b)(6) because those grounds were not adequately developed in his motion or appellate argument, and the record did not establish that the domesticated judgment was void or that other grounds justified relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Shumate was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5) from the Alabama domestication of the Texas judgment after the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Texas appellate judgment and remanded for entry of a new judgment.
2. Whether the domesticated judgment could be challenged under Rule 60(b)(4) or Rule 60(b)(6) on appeal despite Shumate's reliance below primarily on Rule 60(b)(5).
3. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required relief from the domesticated judgment.

Disposition

affirmed