Barbara Cantrell v. Tyson Holland
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 09/11/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080494 Barbara C a n t r e l l V. Tyson Holland Appeal from Marion Circuit Court (CV-07-164) THOMPSON, Presiding Judge. Barbara Cantrell appeals Circuit Court in which that previous order it had entered. from an order of the Marion court purported to amend a Because the record does not provide a basis on which this court can provide the relief 2080494 that Cantrell seeks by way of this appeal, we affirm the circuit court's judgment. The record on appeal reflects that Cantrell filed an action in the Marion District Court against Danny Weghorst and that, at some point during the proceedings in that court, Tyson Holland intervened in the action. The record does not contain a copy of Cantrell's complaint, Weghorst's answer, or Holland's pleading in intervention. Indeed, the record contains only a single document from the district court: the district court's order transferring the action to the Marion Circuit Court. In that order, which was entered in November 2007, the district court wrote, in part: "This matter came before this Court for trial on November 1, 2007, with all parties present with their respective counsel. The Plaintiff has filed an unlawful detainer complaint requesting possession of [certain real property located in Hamilton, Alabama]. The Court having been presented evidence that this case involves a dispute involving a potential lease sales contract and disputes over contingent interests in real estate, finds that the relief sought is not within this court's jurisdiction." The record reflects that on November 10, 2008, the circuit court entered an order requiring Cantrell to convey to Holland certain real property described in the order upon 2 2080494 Holland's payment of $5,800 to the Marion circuit clerk. The described property was conveyed to Holland by a clerk's deed that was entered into the record on the same day as the order. On January 14, 2009, the circuit court entered an amended order in which it ordered that title to a mobile home that was located on the property and in which Cantrell apparently held an interest be conveyed to Holland. Cantrell appeals from the January 14, 2009, order.^ Cantrell contends that the circuit court's order of November 10, 2008, resolved the issues in the action and that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the action for only 30 days following the entry of that order. She argues that the circuit court no longer had jurisdiction action on January 14, 2009, when it entered purporting to amend the November 10, 2008, order. its of the order Thus, she argues, the circuit court's January 14, 2009, order is void for lack of jurisdiction. ^In her appellate brief Cantrell provides slightly more factual and procedural background for this action. However, except for what is set forth above, none of Cantrell's factual statements are supported by the meager record before this court. "It is axiomatic that this court cannot consider anything that is not contained in the record." Davis v. Davis, 753 So. 2d 513, 514 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 3 2080494 Because the record does not contain the pleadings, this court has little circuit court. complaint, resolved as by knowledge well the as counterclaims, circuit for a determination November whether action 10, 2008, the circuit at the issues were before the For example, there may have been counts of the November 10, 2008, order. basis of what time order court that following remained the entry to of be its Simply put, the record provides no by this court as to whether constituted court maintained of the entry a final judgment jurisdiction of the the January over or the 14, 2009, order. Our supreme court has clearly stated that "[t]he party seeking to place the trial court in error must establish in the record an adequate predicate for our review." Elkus, 881 So. 2d 993, 1008 (Ala. 2003). Zaden v. Moreover, "[t]he law is settled that it is the appellant's duty to ensure that the appellate court has a record review." from which it can conduct a Id. at 1009. Cantrell has failed to establish in the record a basis on which this court could conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction when it entered the January 14, 2009, order. As 2080494 a result, this court is constrained to affirm the court's judgment. AFFIRMED. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur. circuit
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
