In Morrison v. Morrison, Ms. 2070136 (Ala. Civ. App. July 18, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the order on appeal did not dispose of all claims in the case, and there was no Rule 54(b) certification. Applying the well settled rule that only appeals from final judgments can support an appeal, the court dismissed the appeal.
In Marshall v. Cook, Ms. 2070184 (Ala. Civ. App. July 18, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals sua sponte dismissed an appeal when it determined that the appellant lacked standing.
Continue Reading...The Court of Civil Appeals found that a Rule 54(b) certification was improper and thus dismissed the appeal in Owen v. Hopper, Ms. 2070016 (Ala. Civ. App, May 23, 2008) . In a property line dispute, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the judgment on the counterclaim which was certified as final was really a defense to the underlying tort claim. The court found that the claim and counterclaim were too intertwined to support a 54(b) certification, and, therefore, the appeal had to be dismissed.
In N.F.N. and L.C.N. v. J.M.M.J, released on May 2, 2008, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from a judgment awarding custody because the order appealed from purported to rule on a motion to reconsider the denial of a postjudgment motion.
Continue Reading...A voluntary dismissal left a would-be intervener with nothing to appeal from. Its motion to intervene was denied in action that was already “defunct”; and the appeal from that denial was consequently dismissed. Gallagher Basset Services, Inc. v. Phillips, No. 1070416 (Ala. Apr. 11, 2008).
Continue Reading...The Alabama Supreme Court quashed a writ of certiorari in Ex parte State of Alabama Dept. of Revenue, [Ms. 1061766] (Ala. March 21, 2008) because it could not reach the issue presented. On certiorari, the State of Alabama Department of Revenue filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to reverse a prior case involving the same parties. The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, however, was based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court found that the State did not challenge that finding in its cert petition. Because the issue of collateral estoppel would have to be addressed before reaching the issue of whether to overrule the prior case, and because the State did not seek review if the collateral estoppel issue, the Court held that it could not reach the issue presented in the cert petition and quashed the writ.
In a special concurrence, Justice See noted that the Alabama Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of certiorari ex mero motu. Therefore, in his opinion, quashing the writ was not required, but was appropriate.
In Posey v. Mollohan, [Ms. 2060500] (Ala. Civ. App. March 21, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal of a judgment for lack of jurisdiction due to the presence of pending counterclaims and defenses which sought affirmative relief.
Continue Reading...In Parris v. Prison Health Services, Inc., [Ms. 2061100] (Ala. Civ. App. March 21, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because of the presence of an amended complaint filed pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 78.
Continue Reading...A notice of appeal is not “filed” and effective if it is only faxed to the court clerk. L.M. v. Shelby County Dept. of Human Resources, No. 2060860 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 15, 2008). The Court of Civil Appeals ruled that a faxed notice of appeal, that was otherwise timely, did not invoke its jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.
Continue Reading...A writ of mandamus provides a party with extraordinary relief because it permits appellate relief from a trial court order before a final judgment. To obtain a writ of mandamus, a party must demonstrate that he has a “clear legal right” to the requested relief; the respondent has an imperative duty which the respondent has refused to perform; the petitioner lacks an alternative remedy; and the appellate court has jurisdiction over the matter. Ala. Code §12-3-10 (1975) supplies jurisdiction to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals to issue writs of mandamus in workers' compensation cases. Ex parte Steve Cagle Trucking Co., No. 2061105 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 8, 2008).
In K.R. v. D.H., [Ms. 2061119] (Ala. Civ. App. Jan. 25, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. The court held that "because a judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void . . ., and because a void judgment will not support an appeal . . . , we dismiss the appeal."
In Roper v. Rhodes, No. 1060331 (Ala. Jan 11, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from a trial court order in an election contest. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claim because the plaintiffs did not follow the procedure set forth in Ala. Code §17-16-70 through 89.
The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal in a worker’s comp case, holding that the trial court’s rule 54(b) certification was ineffective because it did not dispose of an entire claim in the case. SCI Alabama Funeral Services, Inc. v. Hester, No. 2060260 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 30, 2007).
Continue Reading...The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed as untimely a juvenile appeal where the appellants filed a post-judgment motion before, but their notice of appeal after, both the extended deadline the juvenile court had granted under Rule 77(d), and the maximum thirty-day extension that Rule 77(d) would have allowed. F.G. v. State Dept. of Human Resources, No. 2060613 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 16, 2007). The appellate court also overruled its previous decisions and held that the procedural aspects of an unopposed Rule 77(d) motion can be reviewed on appeal.
Continue Reading...The Alabama Supreme Court chose not to dismiss an appeal as taken from a non-final judgment, where other claims against other defendants remained pending below, instead remanding the case for a possible certification under Rule 54(b). ArvinMeritor, Inc.v . Handley, No. 2050951 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 16, 2007). The state’s high court also explained that, had the appealed claim been severed and recreated as its own civil action, it would have been correctly before the reviewing court.
Continue Reading...The rule that a judgment is not final so as to support an appeal unless it disposes of all claims against all parties caused the appeals to be dismissed in Dabbs v. Four Trees, Inc., Ms. 2060493, 2060494, 2060495 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 2, 2007).
Continue Reading...That the landowners claimed an amount exceeding the jurisdictional minimum was sufficient to give the Supreme Court of Alabama jurisdiction, even though a holding for the condemning authority would yield an award below the requisite amount. Ala. Dept. of Transp. v. Williams, No. 1060619 (Ala. Oct. 19, 2007).
Continue Reading...In Ex parte Hoyt , No. 2060858, released October 12, 2007, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed a mandamus petition seeking review of the trial court's discovery order because the petitioner failed to file it within the presumptively reasonable time period or to include a statement of reasons as to why the court should consider the petition notwithstanding its untimeliness.
Continue Reading...The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the wife's appeal from a divorce decree in Norman v. Norman, No. 2060587, released October 12, 2007. In that case, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce awarding custody of the parties' children and ordering the father to make child support payments. The mother filed a motion to modify the child support obligations and for contempt. The father answered and filed a motion to stay pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, claiming that he was engaged in active military service. The trial court granted the motion to stay. The mother filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's order granting a stay. The trial court denied that motion on February 22, 2007 and the mother appealed on March 29, 2007.
Continue Reading...
The rule that mandamus relief will be denied where other relief is available was the determining factor in Ex parte Wall, No. 1061381 (Ala. Oct. 5, 2007).
Continue Reading...In summary judgment proceedings, when an adjudicated claim and an unadjudicated counterclaim are so closely intertwined that separate resolution of the claims might produce inconsistent results, Rule 54(b) certification of an order resolving fewer than all of the claims is not proper. Moreover, “certification of a decision addressing only the type of damages recoverable on a certain claim is inappropriate.”
Where the issues certified for interlocutory appeal (under Ala. R. App. P. 5) proved not to be in dispute, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that permission to appeal had been improvidently granted. Carfax, Inc. v. Browning, No. 1050291 (Ala. Sept. 21, 2007). The Court thus dismissed the appeal.
Continue Reading...The Court of Civil Appeals could not directly review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Food World v. Carey, No. 2060329 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 24, 2007). The case did not meet the restricted criteria under which such direct review is allowed. The case was transferred to the circuit court for de novo review.
Continue Reading...The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal and cross appeal from the trial court's ruling on post-judgment motions because the ruling came more than ninety days after the post-judgment motions were filed. The judgment was void and therefore would not support an appeal. For a full copy of Hobbs v. Heisey, click here.
Continue Reading...The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from a visitation order that the trial court entered while an appeal was pending from the default divorce judgment previously issued in the case. Wannamaker v. Wannamaker, No. 2060390 (Ala. Civ. App. Aug. 3, 2007). “’Once an appeal is taken, the trial court loses jurisdiction to act except in matters entirely collateral to the appeal’ because ‘jurisdiction of a case can be in only one court at a time.’” Given the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction, the visitation order was a nullity. Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal ex mero moto.
Because the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional act, and because the defendants did not file their notice of appeal within 42 days of the trial court's disposition of their postjudgment motion, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed defendants' appeal ex mero moto. Holmes v. CitiFinancial Corp., L.L.C., No. 2060467 (Ala. Civ. App. August 3, 2007).
Continue Reading...A husband was turned aside where he appealed, not from the denial of his initial post-judgment motion, but from the denial of his (much later) motion to "reconsider” that initial post-judgment disposition. Rorex v. Rorex, No. 2060232 (Ala. Civ. App.) (July 27, 2007). The trial court’s acts after it denied the first post-judgment motion were “void” and would not support an appeal.
Continue Reading...A mother appealed from a judgment, trying to address a motion that had been left unresolved in an earlier suit. The current judgment did not address that unresolved motion. Nor did any other ruling. Lacking a final judgment adjudicating that earlier motion, the Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the case. Fielding v. Fielding, No. 2060243 (Ala. Civ. App.) (July 27, 2007).
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
