¶2I concur with the majority opinion that the appeal was not timely filed and, therefore, was due to be dismissed. I write specially to note that even if the appeal had been timely filed, the agreement to extend the time for the hearing on the *141 postjudgment motion did not comply with Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., or Ex parte Bodenhamer, 904 So.2d 294 (Ala. 2004).
910 So. 2d 137
Moore v. Moore
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Decided December 30, 2004
This page is marked noindex.
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · decided 2004-12-30
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2010
3 state decisions
Relies on Ex Parte Bodenhamer
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2004-12-30
View the full empirical analysis of this case →