Elliott Builders, Inc., et al. v. Timbercreek Property Owners Association et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/17/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090754 E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s , Inc., e t a l . v. Timbercreek Property Owners A s s o c i a t i o n e t a l . Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900412) PITTMAN, Judge. This appeal, t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6), seeks court pursuant t o A l a . review o f an o r d e r of the B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t g r a n t i n g a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t f i l e d b y t h e T i m b e r c r e e k P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n ("TPOA"), 2090754 the board of directors of TPOA, and the Timbercreek A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w B o a r d ("TARB") i n one o f two consolidated cases i n the Baldwin C i r c u i t Court i n v o l v i n g c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y owners i n a r e s i d e n t i a l subdivision i n B a l d w i n County. We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a v o i d o r d e r . In June 2007, E l l i o t t Builders, a g a i n s t TPOA and TARB i n t h e t r i a l I n c . , b r o u g h t an action c o u r t , w h i c h was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. CV-07-900390 ("the 2007 a c t i o n " ) , s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y relief and damages a r i s i n g out of those d e f e n d a n t s ' a l l e g e d w r o n g f u l conduct w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r f a i l u r e t o approve the construction the of a retaining wall on a l o t located s u b d i v i s i o n ; t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d an answer d e n y i n g in liability and a s s e r t e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e relief against Elliott Builders and Chris i n d i v i d u a l owner o f a l o t i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n who an a d d i t i o n a l defendant i n the c o u n t e r c l a i m . Elliott, was an named as In J u l y 2008, E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n ; i n S e p t e m b e r 2008, an amended c o m p l a i n t was i n which C h r i s E l l i o t t in the 2007 action. filed asserted claims against the defendants TPOA and TARB filed a motion summary j u d g m e n t as t o a l l c l a i m s i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n . 2 for a Both of 2090754 t h o s e summary-judgment m o t i o n s were d e n i e d i n November 2008. In April 2009, Elliott Builders and Chris Elliott filed, w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , a s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t i n t h e 2007 action adding new tort claims, adding a claim under A l a b a m a L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , A l a . Code 1975, 19-270 et seq., presented; TPOA counterclaim second and and restating TARB challenging amended plaintiffs' filed the and claims an restating 12¬ answer propriety asserting § previously amended procedural complaint, claims, other the defenses and of the to the against the d i r e c t o r s , and TARB claims plaintiffs. In July 2009, TPOA, i t s board of f i l e d a "motion to c o n s o l i d a t e " i n which they averred April 2009, f o u r o t h e r Brutkiewicz, L u c i l l e M. plaintiffs Dean, and a separate c i v i l a c t i o n seeking i n the t r i a l ( R o b e r t M. P a u l C. Hoover, John D a v i s ) had injunctive relief ("the brought case 2009 a c t i o n " ) ; t h e m o v a n t s r e q u e s t e d t h e 2007 a c t i o n and 2009 a c t i o n be c o n s o l i d a t e d b e c a u s e o f purported The trial existence court of common l e g a l apparently granted 3 and the C. a g a i n s t them c o u r t , an a c t i o n t h a t had b e e n a s s i g n e d CV-09-900412 that, i n no. that the factual questions. relief requested 2090754 because the r e c o r d in the two plaintiffs entered contains actions a m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e seeking acknowledge t h a t i n t h e 2009 separate trials a consolidation action. I t also plaintiffs i n which order had appears t h a t , the been i n an amended c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n i n J u l y 2009, C h r i s Elliott, Elliott plaintiffs contain board B u i l d e r s , and S t e r l i n g H e r s h i s e r i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d t h a t amended p l e a d i n g . o f d i r e c t o r s , and counterclaims declaratory relief, and pleading TARB f i l e d damages stated an answer alleged claims apparently against, i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ) and h i s w i f e among dropped of other as a (who h a d n e v e r b e e n motion (which i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n does not appear filed i n the E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s and C h r i s E l l i o t t moved i n A u g u s t f o r the entry as been breach round of d i s p o s i t i v e motions began. i n t h a t month, t h e p l a i n t i f f s summary-judgment favor had relief, i n either action). I n J u l y 2009, a new 2009 asserted f o r an plaintiff record). and injunctive Hoover a does n o t seeking parties, a plaintiff (who as I n S e p t e m b e r 2009, TPOA, i t s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n contract; that First, joined to various of a p a r t i a l claims and 4 summary j u d g m e n t counterclaims in their i n the 2007 2090754 action. TPOA, i t s board of directors, responses t o those motions and f i l e d and a motion TARB for a j u d g m e n t as t o t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint" (apparently, t h e amended complaint filed summary "amended filed i n the 2009 a c t i o n ) ; t h e m o t i o n d i d n o t s e e k a summary j u d g m e n t as t o any counterclaim. The plaintiffs i n both cases moved to s t r i k e v a r i o u s e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s t h a t were f i l e d i n s u p p o r t of t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n directors, filed by TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f a n d TARB, as w e l l as t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s ' f i l i n g s in o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e A u g u s t 2009 p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n filed by C h r i s appears that (Hoover, four of Brutkiewicz, September their Elliott 2009 claims by Builders. the p l a i n t i f f s Dean, and to voluntarily TPOA, Finally, i t i n the Davis) dismiss, i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ; a l t h o u g h those p a r t i e s ' request filed and E l l i o t t were 2009 action permitted without in prejudice, the order granting does n o t appear i n t h e r e c o r d , a m o t i o n i t s board of directors, and TARB sought amendment o f t h a t d i s m i s s a l o r d e r t o d i r e c t t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l be w i t h prejudice. 1 The r e c o r d d o e s n o t r e f l e c t on t h a t m o t i o n . 1 5 that the t r i a l court acted 2090754 On action, November 17, 2009, the simultaneously rendered trial and court, in the 2007 e n t e r e d , by t r a n s m i t t i n g e l e c t r o n i c documents t o t h e S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System ("SJIS"), four orders. Two of the orders denied motions s t r i k e t h a t had b e e n f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s ; one o r d e r to denied t h e p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s ( a n d C h r i s E l l i o t t ) ; and a f o u r t h order granted the j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by TPOA, i t s b o a r d , and TARB. summaryBecause t h e o r d e r s d i d n o t a d j u d i c a t e a l l c l a i m s as t o a l l p a r t i e s i n the 2007 a c t i o n , See Rule the 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. On December 18, moved t h e t r i a l of a orders final Civ. as to Hoover, et Defendants" to a motion appealable. the and E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s d i r e c t i o n of the d e n i a l of 2009 2007 action. On filed on b e h a l f of i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e s t y l e s o l e l y as " R o b e r t M. motion in the a l . " from the "Summary Judgment ( w h i c h , as we h a v e n o t e d , was d i r e c t e d to the their entry August 2009, a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was the " P l a i n t i f f s , " and P. court f o r the express judgment final 2009, C h r i s E l l i o t t partial-summary-judgment December 23, were n o t entered i n amended c o m p l a i n t a c t i o n , n o t t h e 2007 a c t i o n ) . in of response i n the That a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t 6 favor to § 2009 12- 2090754 2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975, it assigned was supplemental final, case briefs appealable was no. t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t , where 2090361. from the This parties court called regarding j u d g m e n t had b e e n e n t e r e d . for whether Replies to that o r d e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on J a n u a r y 29, 2010, d i r e c t e d the e n t r y of a f i n a l to the motion denial filed of by the Chris 2009 Elliott "Appellants/Plaintiffs" (listed as Davis, Elliott and v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s the appeal Elliott being Builders. Brutkiewicz, Builders) f i l e d i n c a s e no. o f an App. appellate court's certificate of proceedings P., provides order judgment i n a case w i l l to the 2090361, and finally not t h a t , i n the contrary, The Dean, a motion c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h a t m o t i o n on M a r c h 11, R u l e 41, A l a . R. as partial-summary-judgment and Chris E l l i o t t had j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n August a that terminating to this 2010. absence court's appellate i s s u e contemporaneously with t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t i n t h e c a s e , b u t w i l l be w i t h h e l d f o r either 18 days application or until and/or final whichever i s l a t e r . intermediate final disposition of a rehearing a c t i o n upon a c e r t i o r a r i petition, I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a judgment of appellate court in 7 this s t a t e " ' i s not an final 2090754 until that court parte Tiongson, issues i t scertificate 765 So. 2d 643, 643 o f judgment.'" ( A l a . 2000) (quoting J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 566 So. 2d 758, 759 n.2 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . court's issue certificate until plaintiffs a request over t h e case However, had before ceased, this counsel court's f o r the i n b o t h t h e 2007 a c t i o n a n d t h e 2009 a c t i o n f o r an " e x p e d i t e d " 2010, t o issue f u r t h e r orders 2010, again before this hearing i n t h e two c a s e s . court's filed t o be h e l d on M a r c h 23, certificate c a s e no. 2090361 h a d b e e n i s s u e d , t h e t r i a l order p u r p o r t i n g This o f j u d g m e n t i n c a s e no. 2090361 d i d n o t M a r c h 29, 2010. jurisdiction Ex (a) t o " g r a n t [ ] b y o r d e r On M a r c h 25, o f judgment i n court rendered an o f 11/16/09" ( s i c ; a c t u a l l y November 17, 2009) t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n filed by TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , a n d TARB i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ; (b) t o deny t h e S e p t e m b e r 2009 p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n filed by E l l i o t t action; and C h r i s Elliott i n t h e 2007 (c) t o deny t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d b y t h e plaintiffs motions Builders i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ; to defendants; strike (d) t o deny t h e evidentiary exhibits filed a n d (e) t o d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l t o t h e M a r c h 25, 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r . plaintiffs' by the judgment as The 2007 a c t i o n a n d 2009 a c t i o n 8 2090754 were a l s o o r d e r e d d e c o n s o l i d a t e d , a n d t h e t r i a l court stated t h a t t h e 2009 a c t i o n w o u l d r e m a i n on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d o c k e t . That o r d e r , i s s u e d on a s e p a r a t e p a p e r , was n o t i m m e d i a t e l y transmitted t o S J I S , b u t was entered four days later. See R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. On May 5, 2010, w i t h i n Ala. the time s p e c i f i e d i n Rule 4 ( a ) , R. App. P., f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d b y " P l a i n t i f f s , " in the style "Summary following solely Judgment as " R o b e r t M. H o o v e r , i n favor i t stransfer of to this again i d e n t i f i e d e t a l . , " as t o t h e Defendants." That appeal, c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , h a s b e e n a s s i g n e d c a s e no. 2090754 b y t h i s court. The s e c o n d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l d i f f e r s f r o m t h e n o t i c e o f appeal filed i n c a s e no. 2 0 9 0 3 6 1 , w h i c h number o f t h e 2007 a c t i o n (CV-07-900390), refers t o the case because the c u r r e n t n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e f e r s t o t h e c a s e number i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n (CV-09-900412). to incorporate However, a m o t i o n f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e s e e k i n g the record from case no. 2090361 into the r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e ( w h i c h t h i s c o u r t g r a n t e d on May 18, 2010) b e l i e s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h a t f a c i a l That m o t i o n identifies the appellants 9 distinction. as B r u t k i e w i c z , Dean, 2090754 Davis, Chris Hershiser, Elliott, who was and not Elliott listed Builders i n the (as well as voluntary-dismissal m o t i o n i n c a s e no. 2 0 9 0 3 6 1 ) , and t h e a p p e l l a n t s n o t a b l y admit i n t h a t m o t i o n t h a t t h e y " p r e v i o u s l y a p p e a l e d [from] t h e t r i a l court's order granting [a] summary D e f e n d a n t s " and t h a t t h a t a p p e a l was After following a careful examination the submission of t h i s dismiss 206, 208 ( A l a . C i v . App. the favor case. of 2090361. record on appeal c a s e f o r d e c i s i o n , we i s no v a l i d final jurisdiction; support our a p p e l l a t e the appeal i n t h i s in c a s e no. of c o n c l u d e , ex mero motu, t h a t t h e r e that w i l l judgment thus, must judgment we must See B i b b v. B o y d , 417 So. 2d 1982). As we have noted, the r e m a i n i n g p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n , on December 23, 2009, attempted t o appeal from the t r i a l court's n o n f i n a l order November 17, 2009, g r a n t i n g t h e summary-judgment b y TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , c o m p l a i n t i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n . 11, (case This court granted, on M a r c h d i s m i s s a l of no. 2 0 9 0 3 6 1 ) ; h o w e v e r , t h e p l a i n t i f f s s o u g h t an " e x p e d i t e d " continued motion f i l e d and TARB as t o t h e amended 2010, t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n f o r a v o l u n t a r y that appeal hearing i n the t r i a l pendency of the f i r s t appeal, 10 of court during then the and, on M a r c h 25, t h e 2090754 trial court purported t o render an o r d e r 54(b) d i r e c t i n g the entry of a f i n a l pursuant t o Rule j u d g m e n t as t o t h e v e r y summary-judgment r u l i n g t h a t was s t i l l i n the breast of t h i s c o u r t , a w a i t i n g n o t i c e o f any p o t e n t i a l r e h e a r i n g a p p l i c a t i o n or c e r t i o r a r i petition. "It i s well settled that trial court loses '[o]nce jurisdiction an a p p e a l i s taken, the t o a c t except e n t i r e l y c o l l a t e r a l to the appeal.'" i n matters P o r t i s v. Alabama S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n, 863 So. 2d 1125, 1126 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ward v . U l l e r y , 1982)). On "finalize" make the date 412 So. 2d 796, 797 ( A l a . C i v . App. that the t r i a l i t s November 17, 2009, o r d e r final i t s order granting purported to i . e . , attempted t o t h e summary-judgment f i l e d b y TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , action court motion a n d TARB, i n t h e 2009 j u r i s d i c t i o n as t o t h a t November 17, 2009, o r d e r was not then i n t h a t c o u r t . See F o s t e r v. G r e e r & Sons, I n c . , 446 So. ( A l a . 1984) 2d 605, 607-09 (trial court cannot r e t r o a c t i v e l y c o n f e r f i n a l i t y upon a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h r o u g h use o f R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n a f t e r a p p e a l had a l r e a d y been taken from t h e n o n f i n a l judgment; o n l y t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can 11 2090754 r e s t o r e such j u r i s d i c t i o n though t h e " m i n i s t e r i a l Rule 54 (b) order via a limited remand). Thus, e v e n 2 a c t " of recording the t r i a l i n SJIS fortuitously occurred court's on t h e same date t h a t t h i s c o u r t i s s u e d i t s c e r t i f i c a t e o f judgment (March 29, 54(b) 2010), order took jurisdiction judgment the " j u d i c i a l place pronouncement when the trial o f " the Rule judge d i d not t o a c t as t o t h e November 17, 2009, order (see g e n e r a l l y Rule 58, A l a . R. have summaryC i v . P., C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n ) ; t h u s , t h a t o r d e r i s v o i d and w i l l not support For the reasons an a p p e a l . Bibb, supra. s t a t e d h e r e i n , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l b e i n g from a v o i d judgment. After t h i s court's c e r t i f i c a t e of judgment i n t h i s a p p e a l i s i s s u e d , t h e t r i a l have jurisdiction, whether to direct as pursuant the entry to Rule court w i l l 54(b), of a f i n a l to again determine judgment as t o any o r d e r a d j u d i c a t i n g l e s s than a l l c l a i m s as t o a l l p a r t i e s f o r which there may a p p e l l a t e review. be no just reason f o r delay in seeking I n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , we n e c e s s a r i l y F o s t e r was o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2d 507 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 2 12 grounds by Ex parte 2090754 r e j e c t t h e a p p e l l e e s ' v i e w t h a t t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d as h a v i n g b e e n u n t i m e l y filed. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 13 writing.

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.