REL:12/30/2003 EX PARTE JOHN CHARLES PIERCE
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2003-2004
_________________________
_________________________
Ex parte John Charles Pierce
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: John Charles Pierce
v.
(Mobile Circuit Court, DR-99-501348.01;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2010940)
HARWOOD, Justice.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
Houston, See, Brown, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Lyons and Johnstone, JJ., dissent.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for the writ of certiorari in this case. The Court of Civil Appeals apparently has misapplied Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., by holding that the trial court should have granted the mother's Rule 59 motion and should have vacated the custody judgment on the basis of the mother's postjudgment allegations of her postjudgment changes in her own living arrangements, not on the basis of the facts as they existed at the time of trial. Pierce v. Pierce, [Ms. 2010940, July 11, 2003] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).
A case must be decided on the basis of the facts as they exist at the time of the trial. While Rule 59 might be properly applied to accommodate newly discovered evidence of the facts as they existed at the time of trial, I respectfully submit that Rule 59 is not intended to accommodate new facts newly created by the moving party after trial. Moreover, even these newly created facts apparently were not established as such, as the trial court (according to the certiorari petition) did not reopen the evidence for the introduction of more evidence, and the Court of Civil Appeals has not instructed the trial court to reopen the evidence but instead has ordered the trial court to vacate its custody order apparently on no more basis than the mere allegations of the mother's Rule 59 motion. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that we should grant this petition and examine the record.