Ex parte K. R., [Ms. 1141274, May 27, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2016). The Court denies an application for rehearing, noting that Rule 40(b), Ala. R. App. P., provides: “The application for rehearing must state with particularity the points of law or the facts the applicant believes the court overlooked or misapprehended. The brief in support of the application must contain any arguments in support of the application the petitioner desires to present.” Also, Rule 21(a)(1)(E), Ala. R. App. P., imposes upon an applicant for rehearing the “obligation to attach to her petition ‘copies of any order or opinion or parts of the record that would be essential to an understanding of the matter set forth in the petition.’” Because the applicant in this case failed to comply with the requirements of the rules, the application for rehearing was denied.
In dicta, the Court apparently disproves of the practice of the Mobile Probate Court to allow the clerk of the probate court to pick from a list of twelve pre-approved substitute probate judges when the Judge of Probate of Mobile County becomes incompetent from any cause, incapacitated, absent, or otherwise disqualified. The Court instead directs the probate judge or the clerk to certify the fact of the probate judge’s inability to serve to the presiding judge of the circuit court for that judge to then appoint substitute probate judges.
Related Documents: Ex parte KR