The trial court lost jurisdiction to act at that point, rendering its later actions in conducting a trial on the contempt issues on May 27, 2008, and in entering a judgment on those issues on September 3, 2008, void for want of jurisdiction. Ex parte Caterpillar, Inc., 708 So.2d 142, 142 (Ala. 1997); Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). This court may take notice of a lack of jurisdiction ex mero motu.
74 payment away from the estate and to the father. E.g., Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999); see also Ex parte Allstate Life Ins. Co., 741 So.2d 1066, 1070-71 (Ala. 1999) (trial court cannot "reconsider" order denying motion filed pursuant to Rules 59 or 60, and aggrieved party's only remedy is via appeal). We conclude that to the extent the probate court's sua sponte order of January 2003, when considered together with its order of April 2003, can be interpreted as altering the substantive provisions of the December 2001 judgment on the final-settlement petition (as amended by the February 2002 postjudgment order) rather than enforcing them, the sua sponte order is void. A void order will not support an appeal and warrants dismissal.
See Green v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 906 So.2d 961, 962 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)(stating that "'[a]n appeal must be taken within 42 days from the entry of the judgment, or within 42 days of the denial of a postjudgment motion, whether by order or by operation of law.' Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (citing Rule 4(a)(1) and (3), Ala. R. App. P., and Wall v. Wall, 628 So.2d 881 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)).").
Although the circuit court purported to enter an order denying Holt's “amended” postjudgment motion on April 16, 2014, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter that order because it was entered more than 90 days after the date Holt filed his original postjudgment motion. Ex parte Caterpillar, Inc., 708 So.2d 142, 143 (Ala.1997); see also Ex parte Hornsby, 663 So.2d 966 (Ala.1995). In order to properly invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court, Holt was required to file his notice of appeal within 42 days of the date his original postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law. Rule 4(a)(1) and (3), Ala. R.App. P.; Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). Forty-two days from March 18, 2014, was April 29, 2014.
In order to properly invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court, Holt was required to file his notice of appeal within 42 days of April 7, 2014. See Rule 4(a)(1) and (3), Ala. R.App. P.; Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). Forty-two days from April 7, 2014, was May 19, 2014. Holt filed his notice of appeal on May 28, 2014, which is after the expiration of the period for the timely filing of a notice of appeal in this case.
An appeal must be filed within 42 days of the denial of a post-judgment motion. Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). The husband did not file his notice of appeal until October 3, 2005, which was more than 42 days after his postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law.
This is, in fact, the second appeal this court has addressed following the parties' divorce in 1997, and it is the second time we must dismiss the appeal — albeit for different reasons. We addressed the first appeal in Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). In this case the trial court evidently held a hearing on all pending motions on January 7, 2005. Six months after that hearing the ex-wife filed a motion requesting that the trial court enter an order based on the evidence presented at the January 7 hearing.
Id. (emphasis added); see also Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999); and Scheilzv. Scheilz, 579 So.2d 674, 675 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991).
1 " must be of record before the 90-day period expires, because any purported extension after the 90 days is a nullity." Id. (emphasis added); see also Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999); and Scheilz v. Scheilz, 579 So.2d 674, 675 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991). The mother's postjudgment motion was filed on July 3, 2003.
Further, "[a]n appeal must be taken within 42 days from the entry of the judgment, or within 42 days of the denial of a postjudgment motion, whether by order or by operation of law." Newman v. Newman, 773 So.2d 481, 483 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (citing Rule 4(a)(1) and (3), Ala. R.App. P., and Wall v. Wall, 628 So.2d 881 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993)). In this case, the 90th day after February 13, 2004, the date on which Green filed his postjudgment motion, was May 13, 2004. Although the trial court purported to enter an order denying Green's February 13, 2004, postjudgment motion on June 9, 2004, the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter that order because it was entered more than 90 days after the date Green filed his postjudgment motion.