Unresolved Claims Against Estate Thwarted Cross-Appeals
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.
The circuit court entered an order ruling that the wife was not the beneficiary of her late husband’s deferred compensation plan, and ordering the husband’s estate to pay the wife for remodeling debts the couple had incurred while the husband was alive. The court did not address the wife’s claim for repayment of costs incurred for storing her late husband’s property. The wife appealed and the estate cross-appealed.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that the challenged judgment was not final. Though it had resolved “most of the issues between the parties,” the circuit court “did not settle the administration of the estate.” “Among the claims” left pending was the wife’s request regarding storage costs. The judgment therefore was not final, and no Rule 54(b) certification had been entered. The Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed both appeals.
The circuit court entered an order ruling that the wife was not the beneficiary of her late husband’s deferred compensation plan, and ordering the husband’s estate to pay the wife for remodeling debts the couple had incurred while the husband was alive. The court did not address the wife’s claim for repayment of costs incurred for storing her late husband’s property. The wife appealed and the estate cross-appealed.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that the challenged judgment was not final. Though it had resolved “most of the issues between the parties,” the circuit court “did not settle the administration of the estate.” “Among the claims” left pending was the wife’s request regarding storage costs. The judgment therefore was not final, and no Rule 54(b) certification had been entered. The Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed both appeals.
