# Traylor v. Traylor

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · June 15, 2007 · 976 So. 2d 447

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937816

## Case

- **Full name:** Pamela Brown Traylor v. Anthony Lee Traylor.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 15, 2007
- **Citations:** 976 So. 2d 447; 2007 WL 1722625
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thompson
- **Judges:** Bryan, Moore, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937816

## Opinion text

I respectfully dissent from the main opinion's finding that the parties' agreement *Page 451
in this case did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59.1, Ala.R.Civ.P. I believe that the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Ex parte Bodenhamer , 904 So.2d 294 (Ala. 2004), and Burge v. Hayes , 964 So.2d 672
(Ala.Civ.App. 2006). In Bodenhamer , the parties agreed only to extend "`the ninety (90) day period for the hearing. '" 904 So.2d at 295 . In Burge , one party's consent did not appear of record and what consent existed related only to "the hearing." 964 So.2d at 675 . Here, the parties expressly agreed, of record, to extend the time for the hearing "under Rule 59.1 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure." Rule 59.1 provides a means for the extension of the 90-day period that a postjudgment motion may remain pending before the trial court. By express reference to Rule 59.1, I believe that the parties clearly stated their consent and intent to extend the pendency of the postjudgment motion pursuant to that rule. I, therefore, dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937816. Public record. Not legal advice.