In Pike v. Reed, released by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals on July 25, the court held that a Rule 54(b) certification made after a notice of appeal was filed was a nullity.
Continue Reading...A father filed a post-judgment motion before the circuit court entered its judgment. This motion “quickened” and became effective when the trial court did enter judgment. Similarly, the father’s premature notice of appeal became effective when his post-judgment motion was denied. The father’s appeal was thus timely. T.T.T. v. R.H., No. 2070158 (Ala. Civ. App. Jun. 27, 2008).
Continue Reading...In Crutcher v. Williams, released May 30, 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court held that Rule 60(a) did not allow the trial court to simply "amend" a putative final judgment that failed to adjudicate cross claims.
Continue Reading...One appellant saw three appeals dismissed in a single decision from the Court of Civil Appeals. Busby v. Lewis, Nos. 2060998, 2060999, 2070151 (Ala. Civ. App. May 9, 2008). Two appeals were from nonfinal judgments that had left claims pending against other parties; while a third was from a void judgment entered after the first appeals were lodged — and thus after the trial court had lost jurisdiction of the case.
Continue Reading...A circuit court’s judgment was not final, and would not support an appeal, where the judgment did not address the husband’s request to end his obligation to maintain life insurance for his ex-wife’s benefit. Hennaing v. Hennaing, No. 2060530 (Ala. Civ. App. May 9, 2008). The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Continue Reading...In Crutcher v. Williams, No. 1050893 (Ala. March 14, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court remanded a case because the judgment from which the appeal was taken was not final. The Court asked the trial court, within fourteen days, either to certify the primary judgment as final under Rule 54(b) or to enter a judgment on the cross-claim in the case. In reaching its decision, the Court reviewed many tenets of procedural law.
Continue Reading...The trial court “bifurcated” and decided one issue in a property line dispute, but reserved other issues for later decision. This did not constitute a final judgment from which an appeal would lie. The defendants’ attempt to gain review of the partial order was dismissed. Day v. Davis, No. 2060787 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 15, 2008).
Continue Reading...A judgment does not lack finality simply because a trial court labels the judgment nonfinal. Trial court proceedings to enforce a judgment do not “disturb the finality of judgment.” Measures taken to enforce a judgment do not become “a vehicle to extend indefinitely the life of the lawsuit.” Thus, in Faith Properties, L. L. C. v. First Commercial Bank, No. 1061149 (Ala. January 11, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court found that in a breach of contract action, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a fraudulent conveyance claim in an amended complaint that the original plaintiff filed against a third party defendant six months after the final summary judgment in the contract action because the post-judgment enforcement proceedings in the contract action between the original parties did not open the door to attempts to add new parties or claims to the lawsuit, even if those parties or claims would have aided in the enforcement of the final judgment. The Court declared the judgment on the third-party claim void and dismissed the appeal from the judgment; “a void judgment will not support an appeal.”
Although an appellate court ordinarily will not review an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the trial court’s denial of Vulcan Lands’ motion for summary judgment in its attempt to obtain a franchise tax refund from the State of
The Court of Civil Appeals waded through a procedurally “convoluted” case to dismiss a mother’s appeal from a temporary custody order, while granting her a writ of mandamus to recuse the trial judge. Along the way, the court reminded readers that an appellate court’s decision is not final until the tribunal issues a certificate of judgment. S.J.R. v. F.M.R., No. 2060919 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 16, 2007).
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 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...
In Escolastico de Leon-Granados, Rene Villatoro-De Leon et al. v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc. et al., No. 06-15876 (11th Cir. August 31, 2007), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained that when it accepts an appeal of a class certification order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), it may review only the certification order, not other interlocutory orders that the district court issued.
Continue Reading...In McGough v. G&A, Inc., the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals addressed two issues of appellate interest. First, it applied two exceptions to the rule that a judgment is not final unless it disposes of all claims. Second, it discussed the effect of a notice of appeal that incorrectly named the parties to the appeal.
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...In Flores v. Flores, No. 2060408 (Ala. Civ. App. August 3, 2007), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from an order modifying a periodic alimony obligation because the trial court improperly certified the order as a final judgment pursuant to ARCP 54(b). “’[A] Rule 54(b) certification should not be entered if the issues in the claim being certified and a claim that will remain pending in the trial court ‘are so closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.’” (quoting Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 2006)).
Continue Reading...In Bagley v. Moeller, No. 2060249 (Ala. Civ. App. August 3, 2007), the Court of Civil Appeals reiterated the rule that, “an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless the trial court has entered a final judgment.”
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court of Alabama, citing the “unique posture” of the case, chose not to dismiss an appeal from a possibly non-final judgment. Instead, it remanded the case for thirty days, directing the circuit court to clarify its orders. McCutcheon v. McCutcheon, No. 1051294, 1051296 (Ala. July 27, 2007).
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...Where the circuit court resolved most but not all of a wife’s claims against her husband’s estate, the court’s judgment was not final. Montiel v. Estate of Montiel, No. 2060098 (Ala. Civ. App. June 29, 2007). An appeal and cross-appeal from that judgment were therefore both dismissed.
A judgment granting a right-of-way was not final where the path would be determined after a court-ordered survey. Greenwood v. Lindsey Harbor, LLC, No. 2060041 (Ala. Civ. App. June 29, 2007). The appeal from that judgment was consequently dismissed.
Continue Reading...By remanding a custody dispute to juvenile court, the circuit court did not enter a final judgment that would support an appeal. The juvenile court's assertion of jurisdiction, which did not adjudicate custody, moreover would not justify a writ of mandamus. E.E.K. v. Jefferson County Dept. of Human Resources, No. 2050733 (Ala. Civ. App. June 29, 2007).
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the circuit court’s order, though certified as final under Rule 54(b), reserved the issue of compensation for later determination. State of Alabama v. Brantley Land, L.L.C., No. 1050668 (Ala. June 29, 2007). Such a partial order could not be certified under Rule 54(b).
Continue Reading...The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal where the divorce judgment of the circuit court did not divide the parties’ marital property or adjudicate the wife’s claim for alimony. Blythe v. Blythe, No. 2050926 (Ala. Civ. App. June 29, 2007). The judgment was “nonfinal” and the appellate court consequently lacked jurisdiction to review the case.
Continue Reading...In Ex parte Baptist Health System, Inc., No. 1041914, released April 6, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court quashed a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals' no-opinion affirmance of the trial court, holding that the order appealed from was not a final judgment.
In the workers' compensation action below, the trial court entered an "order of judgment" requiring Baptist Health to (1)begin paying benefits to the employee based on permanent total disability; (2)pay the employee a lump sum representing accrued temporary and total-permanent disability benefits; (3)indemnify the employee from any subrogation interest asserted against her; and (4)to pay all past, present, and future medical expenses related to the employee's treatment. The order did not state a certain sum which Baptist was required to pay. Baptist appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals issued a no-opinion affirmance.
Although none of the parties or amici curiae questioned the existence of appellate jurisdiction, the Court did so without being prompted, noting the general rule that an appeal may only be taken from a final judgment and the specific principle that a judgment on a claim for damages which fails to fix the amount of damages is not considered final.
Turning to the case before it, the court pointed out that the trial court specified the amount of damages it was awarding to the employee for permanent total disability and for accrued temporary and permanent total disability. The trial court also clearly found that Baptist was liable for the employee's past medical expenses in that it ordered Baptist to pay for all of the employee's medical expenses incurred from the time of the accident until the time of the order. However, in failing to state a sum certain representing the amount of past medical expenses, the trial court stopped short of entering a final judgment. Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals was without jurisdiction to enter its no-opinion affirmance and the writ of certiorari was quashed.
Enter keywords:
