Posted on September 18, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Non-Party lacks standing to appeal

In McCollum v. Keating, [Ms. 2061182], (Ala. Civ. App. Sept. 12, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dimissed an appeal by a non-party, finding that the non-party lacked standing.

Pursuant to a protective order entered by the trial court, non-party appellant McCollum was required to store a wrecked vehicle.  McCollum filed a "Statement of Mechanic Lien" in the action, claiming a lien against any settlement or judgment for the storage costs.  McCollum, however, did not intervene.   After some of the defendants were dismissed, McCollum sought to have the storage fees taxed as costs.  After the final defendant was dismissed, the trial court dismissed action taxing costs as paid.  McCollum appealed, claiming that the trial court erred by failing to tax the storage fees as costs.

The Court of Civil Appeals held that McCollum did not have standing to appeal, as it was not a party to the case.  McCollum had, on several occasions, stated in the trial court that it was not a party, and McCollum did not seek to intervene or take the necessary steps to become a party.  Thus, citing the rule that only a party to a judgment can appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal ex mero motu. 
Tags: ,
Posted on July 23, 2008 by Ivan B. Cooper

Lack of Standing Requires Dismissal of 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. In Marshall, a father filed suit seeking an accounting for a conservatorship established for his son.  During the pendency of the proceeding, the son reached the age of majority, and reached a settlement agreement with the conservators, even though there were funds still not accounted for.  The circut court approved the consent settlement, and the father appealed the order affirming the consent settlement.  Reviewing the issue of jurisdiction and standing sua sponte, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal.  The court found that the father had no interest in the outcome of the accounting or of any reimbursement to the estate.  Further, the father stated claims in his own name and not on behalf of his son.  Because the father had no standing, he could not appeal the entry of the consent settlement, and the appeal was dismissed. 
Tags: ,