Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority and Southern Structures Corporation

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 8/12/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama 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 ((334) 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100114 Diamond Concrete & Slabs, LLC v. Andalusia-Opp A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y and Southern S t r u c t u r e s Corporation Appeal from Covington C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-73) BRYAN, J u d g e . Diamond C o n c r e t e a judgment & S l a b s , L L C ("Diamond"), as a m a t t e r o f l a w ("JML") appeals i n favor from ofthe 2100114 A n d a l u s i a - O p p A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ("the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y " ) Southern Structures Corporation ("Southern") w i t h r e s p e c t t o Diamond's c l a i m u n d e r § 8-29-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 Prompt Pay A c t ) . In May 2 We 2005, r e v e r s e and the Airport and 1 ("the remand w i t h instructions. Authority, which owns Andalusia-Opp A i r p o r t , c o n t r a c t e d w i t h Southern t o a c t as general an the contractor modification EJM, a hangar in the ("the construction hangar") company t h a t m o d i f i e s responsible requested for that the Diamond b i d on f i n i s h the 26,000-square-foot leased Southern, subcontractors the aircraft- t h a t c o u l d be aircraft. selecting of which for subcontract the the to to was job, pour and c o n c r e t e f l o o r o f t h e h a n g a r . On J u l y 12, 2006, Diamond s u b m i t t e d a b i d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , f o r a t o t a l p r i c e of $35,161, i t would i n s t a l l p l a s t i c , w i r e mesh, and p o r o u s f i l l b e f o r e p o u r i n g t h e c o n c r e t e ; p o u r t h e concrete i n two p o u r s ; a p p l y one a p p l i c a t i o n of a shake-on hardener the and drying concrete; finish the concrete The A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y i s now known Alabama R e g i o n a l A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y . 1 as the The Prompt Pay A c t i s sometimes r e f e r r e d D e b o r a h K. M i l l e r A c t . See T o l a r C o n s t r . , LLC v. Co., 944 So. 2d 138, 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . 2 2 to after the South East t o as t h e Kean E l e c . 2100114 a p p l i c a t i o n of the s h a k e - o n h a r d e n e r . The Diamond w o u l d n o t p r o v i d e wire mesh, t h e hardener. porous I t also engineering and materials fill, the s u c h as concrete, indicated that testing bid indicated the p l a s t i c , and the Southern the shake-on Diamond w o u l d n o t services. that orally provide accepted Diamond's b i d . After accepting Diamond's b i d , S o u t h e r n i n f o r m e d Diamond t h a t t h e f l o o r w o u l d have t o be p o u r e d i n t h r e e p o u r s o f two and shake-on t h a t t h e r e w o u l d have t o be two hardener Diamond's president president that to change f r o m one increase would the Diamond's to drying testified change from a p p l i c a t i o n s of concrete that he two instead informed pours to be president expenses by compensated further one-third for the one. and that s t a t e d t h a t " [ a ] s l o n g as t h i r d day o f work i s ] i n l i n e w i t h t h e o t h e r be care of." that the would Diamond additional testified cost. Southern's [Diamond's c h a r g e f o r Southern's p r e s i d e n t two the Southern's three and president taken of a p p l i c a t i o n o f s h a k e - o n h a r d e n e r t o two Diamond's have the instead the days i t w i l l d e n i e d making that statement. I n J u l y 2006, Diamond p o u r e d t h e c o n c r e t e 3 i n three pours, 2100114 applied the finished the concrete a f t e r hardener. shake-on Other hardener parties in two applications, the a p p l i c a t i o n provided the and of the shake-on materials used by Diamond, i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n c r e t e and t h e s h a k e - o n h a r d e n e r . The concrete floor that resulted e v i d e n c e was i n c o n f l i c t was defective; however, the r e g a r d i n g the cause of the d e f e c t s . Southern employed another s u b c o n t r a c t o r t o c o r r e c t the d e f e c t s i n the f l o o r . On A u g u s t 31, 2006, Diamond s e n t S o u t h e r n a b i l l $56,416. Southern paid Diamond $35,161 and paid totaling another c o n c r e t e company $7,200. Diamond gave S o u t h e r n c r e d i t f o r t h e $7,200 payment made t o t h e o t h e r c o n c r e t e company b u t c l a i m e d that Southern s t i l l owed i t $14,055. S o u t h e r n r e f u s e d t o p a y Diamond t h e $14,055. On February Airport 27, Authority 2007, Diamond i n t h e Montgomery sued Southern Circuit Court. and the Diamond s t a t e d a c l a i m of breach of c o n t r a c t a g a i n s t Southern only, a claim of conversion against both Southern and the Airport Authority, and a c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o t h e Prompt Pay A c t ("the prompt-pay claim") Authority. Diamond s o u g h t against both Southern and the Airport t o r e c o v e r t h e $14,055 b a l a n c e o f 4 2100114 its August 3 1 , 2006, b i l l under each of those claims. In a d d i t i o n , i t sought t o recover " i n t e r e s t a p p l i e d i n accordance w i t h A l a . Code 1975, § 8 - 2 9 - 3 ( d ) , " fees, 3 and "reasonable attorney's c o u r t c o s t s and expenses" under t h e prompt-pay c l a i m . 4 The Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d Diamond's a c t i o n t o 3 S e c t i o n 8-29-3(d) o f t h e Prompt Pay A c t p r o v i d e s : " I f t h e owner, c o n t r a c t o r , o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r d o e s n o t make payment i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e owner, c o n t r a c t o r , o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l be obligated to pay his or her contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor i n t e r e s t at the r a t e o f one p e r c e n t p e r month ( 1 2 % p e r annum) on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e due." (Emphasis added.) 4 Section 8-29-6 o f t h e Prompt Pay A c t p r o v i d e s : "A contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor may f i l e a c i v i l a c t i o n s o l e l y against the party c o n t r a c t u a l l y o b l i g a t e d f o r the payment o f t h e amount c l a i m e d t o r e c o v e r t h e amount due p l u s t h e i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s chapter. I f the court f i n d s i n the c i v i l a c t i o n t h a t t h e owner, c o n t r a c t o r , o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r h a s n o t made payment i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e c o u r t s h a l l award t h e i n t e r e s t s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e amount due. I n any s u c h c i v i l a c t i o n , t h e p a r t y i n whose f a v o r a j u d g e m e n t i s r e n d e r e d s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r payment o f reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and reasonable expenses from t h e other p a r t y . " (Emphasis added.) 5 2100114 the Covington C i r c u i t Southern and Court. the A i r p o r t A n s w e r i n g Diamond's Authority denied complaint, that they were l i a b l e t o Diamond. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y a s s e r t e d c o u n t e r c l a i m s negligence against Diamond. 5 The a c t i o n p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l b e f o r e of a l l the evidence, orally a j u r y . At the close the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s moved f o r a JML w i t h r e s p e c t attorney § 41-16-3, A l a . Code Ala. (1) t o Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m on t h e g r o u n d t h a t Diamond s h o u l d h a v e b a s e d t h a t on of 1975, i n s t e a d o f § 8-29-1 claim et seq., Code 1975, a n d (2) o r a l l y moved f o r a JML w i t h r e s p e c t t o Diamond's conversion claim on the ground that Diamond f a i l e d t o prove a prima f a c i e case of c o n v e r s i o n . had Southern's a t t o r n e y a l s o o r a l l y moved f o r a JML w i t h r e s p e c t t o Diamond's conversion respect claim; h o w e v e r , he d i d n o t move f o r a JML t o Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m , a l t h o u g h argument s u p p o r t i n g he with presented t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s m o t i o n f o r a JML w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t c l a i m . Diamond's a t t o r n e y moved f o r a JML i n f a v o r o f Diamond w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t s p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m . The The A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y a l s o a s s e r t e d claims against e n t i t i e s t h a t a r e n o t p a r t i e s t o t h i s a p p e a l ; however, the d i s p o s i t i o n of those claims i s not m a t e r i a l t o the issues i n t h i s appeal. 5 6 2100114 trial j u d g e d i d n o t f o r m a l l y r u l e on t h o s e m o t i o n s ; h o w e v e r , he i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e o n l y c l a i m s he w o u l d i n c l u d e i n h i s j u r y c h a r g e were a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m b y Diamond a g a i n s t b o t h S o u t h e r n and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y negligence Diamond. by He Southern further and that, Authority although he of against would not Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m , he w o u l d consider that attorney fee a f t e r the j u r y returned attorney indicated proposed j u r y charge regarding claim and t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s the A i r p o r t indicated charge the j u r y regarding 6 insofar that he as i t sought objected i n t e r e s t and an i t s v e r d i c t . Diamond's to the t r i a l i n s o f a r as i t d i d n o t c h a r g e court's the j u r y Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m . Thereafter, instructions the t r i a l regarding j u d g e gave t h e j u r y t h e f o l l o w i n g Diamond's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t claim: "Now i n this case the p l a i n t i f f , Diamond C o n c r e t e , has f i l e d a s u i t a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s , Southern Structures and the Andalusia Airport A u t h o r i t y -- A n d a l u s i a - O p p A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t . The p l a i n t i f f , Diamond C o n c r e t e , claims that the p l a i n t i f f entered i n t o a contract w i t h these d e f e n d a n t s whereby the p l a i n t i f f would pour or i n s t a l l a concrete f l o o r i n an a i r p o r t hangar a c c o r d i n g t o c e r t a i n plans f o r a c o n t r a c t price. Diamond's c o m p l a i n t h a d s t a t e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t against Southern only. 6 7 claim 2100114 "Diamond Concrete has alleged that the d e f e n d a n t s have b r e a c h e d t h a t a g r e e m e n t by f a i l i n g t o have p a i d t h e amount due t o Diamond, and t h a t as a r e s u l t of t h a t f a i l u r e or t h a t breach t h a t the plaintiff is entitled to damages from these defendants. "Now t h e p l a i n t i f f has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g [its] claims against the defendants to your r e a s o n a b l e s a t i s f a c t i o n . I n o r d e r t o r e c o v e r on i t s claim, Diamond Concrete must prove to your reasonable s a t i s f a c t i o n each of the f o l l o w i n g : "First, t h a t t h e r e was an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n Diamond C o n c r e t e and t h e d e f e n d a n t s ; s e c o n d , t h a t the p l a i n t i f f f u l f i l l e d [ i t s ] o b l i g a t i o n s under t h a t a g r e e m e n t ; t h i r d , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s have f a i l e d t o f u l f i l l t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h a t a g r e e m e n t ; and f o u r t h , t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' f a i l u r e t o f u l f i l l t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s under the agreement the "Now i f a f t e r a c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e you f i n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f , Diamond C o n c r e t e , has s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o v e d i t s c l a i m f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , t h e n i t w o u l d be y o u r d u t y t o r e t u r n a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f Diamond C o n c r e t e and against Southern Structures and the Airport A u t h o r i t y on t h e b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m and t h e n a s s e s s t h e amount o f damages, i f any, you d e t e r m i n e t h a t Diamond i s e n t i t l e d t o . "On the other hand, i f after a careful c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e you f i n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f , Diamond C o n c r e t e , has n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o v e d i t s c l a i m a g a i n s t S o u t h e r n S t r u c t u r e s and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y on i t s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m , t h e n i t w o u l d be y o u r d u t y t o r e t u r n a v e r d i c t i n favor of Southern Structures and the Airport A u t h o r i t y on Diamond's b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m . "Now i n t h e e v e n t t h a t you do f i n d i n f a v o r 8 of 2100114 Diamond C o n c r e t e on i t s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m and d e t e r m i n e t o a w a r d Diamond C o n c r e t e damages on t h a t c l a i m , I w i l l t e l l you t h a t damages f o r t h e b r e a c h o f a c o n t r a c t i s t h a t amount o f money t h a t w o u l d p l a c e t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y i n t h e same s i t u a t i o n t h a t he w o u l d h a v e b e e n i n i f t h e c o n t r a c t h a d n o t b e e n breached. "And, o f c o u r s e , i f you do n o t f i n d that Southern Structures and the A i r p o r t Authority b r e a c h e d t h e a g r e e m e n t , t h e n Diamond C o n c r e t e w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o any damages u n d e r i t s b r e a c h o f contract claim. "Now i n a n s w e r t o Diamond C o n c r e t e ' s c o m p l a i n t , t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s have e a c h d e n i e d t h a t t h e y a r e l i a b l e t o Diamond C o n c r e t e f o r any a l l e g e d b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , and t h e y a s s e r t t h a t t h e y do n o t owe Diamond C o n c r e t e any more money t h a n t h a t w h i c h has a l r e a d y b e e n p a i d t o Diamond C o n c r e t e . " The trial Southern's and counterclaims regarding judge the against Diamond's also charged Airport Diamond. He in the event i t found i n favor indicate 7 the Section date when jury Authority's regarding negligence d i d not charge prompt-pay c l a i m , p r o v i s i o n on t h e b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t the the a l t h o u g h he d i d make v e r d i c t form f o r the j u r y , o f Diamond on t h a t c l a i m , t o Diamond should have been paid. 8-29-2 o f t h e Prompt Pay A c t p r o v i d e s : "Performance by a c o n t r a c t o r , s u b c o n t r a c t o r , o r sub-subcontractor i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s o f h i s o r h e r c o n t r a c t e n t i t l e s them t o payment f r o m t h e p a r t y w i t h whom t h e y c o n t r a c t . A l l c o n t r a c t s 9 jury 7 2100114 Moreover, the t r i a l judge charged the jury: "This [ b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t ] v e r d i c t form d i f f e r s f r o m t h e o t h e r two [ r e l a t i n g t o S o u t h e r n ' s and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m s ] i n t h i s way. I f i n f a c t you do come t o t h e p o i n t where you -- i f you f i n d from the evidence t h a t Diamond C o n c r e t e is e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r , t h e r e ' s one o t h e r t h i n g u n d e r t h a t t h a t s a y s : I f you f i n d i n f a v o r o f Diamond C o n c r e t e and a w a r d damages on i t s c l a i m , a n s w e r t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : 'On what d a t e do you f i n d t h a t Diamond C o n c r e t e s h o u l d have b e e n p a i d ? ' "So, o f c o u r s e , t h e o n l y t i m e you w o u l d a n s w e r t h a t i s i f , i n f a c t , you do f i n d t h a t Diamond C o n c r e t e s h o u l d have b e e n p a i d u n d e r t h e i r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m . And t h e r e ' s a l i n e t h e r e f o r you t o p u t t h e month, d a t e and y e a r . " A f t e r the t r i a l jury had retired attorney objected j u d g e had c h a r g e d t h e j u r y and b e f o r e to begin to the its trial deliberations, judge's omission the Diamond's of a charge r e g a r d i n g Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m , and t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y made t h e following objection: "Your Honor, o u r o n l y o b j e c t i o n w o u l d be f o r t h e same r e a s o n t h a t [Diamond's a t t o r n e y ] p u t h i s on t h e r e c o r d . We would o b j e c t to the Court's general c h a r g e where t h e o n l y o p t i o n g i v e n t o t h e j u r y was t h a t a u n i f i e d v e r d i c t be r e t u r n e d a g a i n s t b o t h d e f e n d a n t s . T h e r e was no o p t i o n g i v e n t o t h e j u r y t o s e l e c t among t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e f o r m o f S o u t h e r n S t r u c t u r e s o r t h e A i r p o r t [ A u t h o r i t y ] , and we t h i n k between p a r t i e s r e q u i r e a date (Emphasis added.) 10 o f payment." 2100114 t h a t makes i t an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e The jury trial began returned j u d g e d i d n o t c h a r g e t h e j u r y f u r t h e r , and i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . On the June following verdict with breach-of-contract X 24, 2010, respect to the the jury Diamond's claim: "As t o t h e C l a i m s o f Southern Structures and Authority. " law." Diamond C o n c r e t e the Andalusia against Airport We f i n d i n f a v o r o f D i a m o n d C o n c r e t e and a w a r d damages i n t h e amount o f $14,055. " I f you f i n d i n f a v o r o f Diamond C o n c r e t e and a w a r d damages on i t s c l a i m , a n s w e r t h e following question: "On what d a t e do you f i n d t h a t C o n c r e t e s h o u l d have b e e n p a i d ? "9 30 Diamond 06 Month/Date/Year" The jury respect also returned to the verdicts in negligence favor counterclaims of of Diamond with S o u t h e r n and the Airport Authority. On June determine entitled 2010, 30, the to 2010, Diamond interest, attorney recover the t r i a l under fee, for and i t s prompt-pay judge e n t e r e d judgment") t i t l e d moved a judgment a expenses c l a i m . On ("the to i t was July 1, J u l y 1, " F i n a l Judgment," w h i c h s t a t e d : 11 hearing 2010, 2100114 " T h i s c a u s e came on f o r t r i a l on t h e 2 1 s t t h r u [ s i c ] 2 4 t h days o f June, 2010, b e f o r e a good and l a w f u l j u r y ... who h e a r d t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e n r e t i r e d t o d e l i b e r a t e . Thereupon s a i d j u r y , b e i n g upon t h e i r o a t h s , r e t u r n e d t o open C o u r t w i t h a v e r d i c t which read: "'We f i n d i n f a v o r o f Diamond C o n c r e t e a n d a w a r d damages i n t h e amount o f $14,055.00.' " I t i s t h e r e f o r e t h e ORDER a n d JUDGMENT o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t judgment i s e n t e r e d f o r t h e P l a i n t i f f , Diamond C o n c r e t e , s e p a r a t e l y a n d s e v e r a l l y a g a i n s t the Andalusia-Opp A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y and Southern Structures. " I t i s f u r t h e r t h e ORDER a n d JUDGMENT o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e c o s t s o f t h i s cause a r e hereby t a x e d a g a i n s t the Defendants." (Emphasis On added.) July 9, Diamond moved t o a l t e r , J u l y 1, 2 0 1 0 , j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d a final trial t h a t i t p u r p o r t e d t o be judgment d e s p i t e i t s h a v i n g been e n t e r e d b e f o r e t h e j u d g e h a d made a d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r e s t , attorney its amend, o r v a c a t e t h e f e e , and expenses t o which Diamond was e n t i t l e d on p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m a n d i t s h a v i n g made no p r o v i s i o n subsequent d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h o s e i s s u e s . On J u l y 23, 2010, the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y f i l e d a motion Renew Motion Alternative for a f o r Judgment as a M a t t e r t i t l e d "Motion t o o f Law o r i n t h e f o r JNOV a n d f o r R e l i e f p u r s u a n t 12 t o Rule 59" i n 2100114 which i t s t a t e d : "COMES NOW t h e [ A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ] , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . R. C i v . P r o c e d u r e , R u l e 5 0 ( b ) a n d renews i t s M o t i o n f o r Judgment a s a M a t t e r o f Law f i l e d a t t h e conclusion of the evidence, p r i o r to submission of the i s s u e s t o t h e j u r y , and which t h i s C o u r t took under advisement a t t h a t t i m e , and p u r s u a n t t o A l a . R. C i v . P r o c e d u r e , R u l e 59, a n d a r g u e s t o t h e C o u r t as f o l l o w s : " 1 . Diamond C o n c r e t e f a i l e d t o o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f u n d e r A l a . Code § 8-29-6 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; "2. Diamond Concrete has f a i l e d to offer sufficient evidence, as a m a t t e r of law, t o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f under any o f t h e t h e o r i e s sued f o r , w i t h t h e p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n o f quantum m e r u i t , w h i c h was s u b m i t t e d t o a n d c h a r g e d to the j u r y . "WHEREFORE, f o r t h e above r e a s o n s , t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y renews i t s M o t i o n f o r Judgment as a M a t t e r o f Law w h i c h was p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r JNOV, a n d f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Judgment e n t e r e d i n t h i s c a s e t o r e f l e c t i t s r u l i n g on t h a t r e n e w e d m o t i o n . M o r e o v e r , t h e A i r p o r t [ A u t h o r i t y ] moves t h i s C o u r t , i f n e c e s s a r y , t o g r a n t a new t r i a l on t h e i s s u e s c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n , o r t o reopen t h e e v i d e n c e t o submit a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f these arguments." On August opposition 24, 2010, Diamond to the A i r p o r t Authority's p a r t , Diamond's r e s p o n s e filed a motion. response In pertinent stated: "Defendant Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority argues that Plaintiff Diamond failed to offer s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o e s t a b l i s h a claim f o r r e l i e f 13 in 2100114 u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 8-29-6. However, [the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s ] argument i n t h i s r e g a r d i s without merit. " C o n t r a r y t o [the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s ] p r e s e n t assertion, Plaintiff Diamond [did] present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting i t s c l a i m s under A l a . Code 1975, § 8-29-6. I n p a r t i c u l a r , C l a r k Dunn t e s t i f i e d e x t e n s i v e l y t h a t P l a i n t i f f Diamond e n t e r e d i n t o a s u b - c o n t r a c t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h [the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y and S o u t h e r n ] and t h a t P l a i n t i f f Diamond c o m p l e t e d c e r t a i n work f o r [ t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y and S o u t h e r n ] i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h a t s u b - c o n t r a c t . D u r i n g t h e week l o n g t r i a l , t h e j u r y i n t h i s c a u s e h e a r d r e p e t i t i v e t e s t i m o n y f r o m b o t h p l a i n t i f f and defense witnesses establishing that Defendant S o u t h e r n S t r u c t u r e s was t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r and t h a t D e f e n d a n t A n d a l u s i a - O p p A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y was t h e p r o p e r t y owner f o r t h e p r o j e c t i n q u e s t i o n . Mr. Dunn n o t o n l y t e s t i f i e d e x t e n s i v e l y r e g a r d i n g the b i d d i n g p r o c e s s t h a t [Diamond] went t h r o u g h , but also testified in detail about [the Airport A u t h o r i t y ' s and Southern's] agreement concerning payment o f [Diamond's] i n v o i c e s , [Diamond's] work performed on the project and [the Airport Authority's and Southern's] failure t o pay the i n v o i c e s i n q u e s t i o n . In f a c t , m u l t i p l e e x h i b i t s were m a r k e d e v i d e n c i n g [Diamond's] b i d on the p r o j e c t , [ t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s and S o u t h e r n ' s ] a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e b i d , [Diamond's] i n v o i c e and [ t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s and S o u t h e r n ' s ] f a i l u r e t o pay the i n v o i c e . Therefore. Defendant Andalusia-Opp A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s u n s u p p o r t e d c l a i m t h a t [Diamond] f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e can o n l y be s e e n as w h o l l y w i t h o u t m e r i t . "Next, w h i l e vague, Defendant A n d a l u s i a - O p p A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y seems t o a r g u e t h a t quantum m e r u i t was the only theory of l i a b i l i t y against [the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y and S o u t h e r n ] t h a t t h e j u r y was c h a r g e d on. I f t h i s i s [ t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s ] contention, this Court i s very aware t h a t i t s 14 2100114 c h a r g e s were much more b r o a d t h a n [the A i r p o r t Authority] suggests. In f a c t , t h i s Court should r e c a l l that t h i s Court s p e c i f i c a l l y ruled, over [Diamond's] p r e s e r v e d o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y w o u l d be charged on B r e a c h o f C o n t r a c t , among o t h e r charges, and t h a t [Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y ] c l a i m s w o u l d be a d d r e s s e d b y p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n . T h e r e a f t e r , t h i s C o u r t so i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y a n d t h e j u r y quickly returned a verdict for [Diamond]. Accordingly, Defendant Andalusia-Opp Airport Authority's contentions i n this regard are also erroneous. "WHEREFORE, f o r r e a s o n s set forth herein, [Diamond] r e s p e c t f u l l y s u g g e s t s t h a t [ t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s ] M o t i o n t o Renew M o t i o n f o r Judgment as a M a t t e r o f Law o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r JNOV a n d R e l i e f P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59 S h o u l d be DENIED." On motion August 3 1 , 2010, t h e t r i a l seeking a determination a t t o r n e y f e e , and expenses judge regarding heard Diamond's the interest, i t was e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r on i t s p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m ; Diamond's m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e the July 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t ; and t h e A i r p o r t Authority's " M o t i o n t o Renew M o t i o n f o r Judgment a s a M a t t e r o f Law o r i n t h e A l t e r n a t i v e f o r JNOV a n d f o r R e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 . " The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h a t h e a r i n g . On October 19, 2010, t h e t r i a l j u d g e e n t e r e d an o r d e r stating: "During the t r i a l of t h i s matter, [the A i r p o r t Authority and Southern] moved t h i s Court f o r Judgment a s a M a t t e r o f Law on Diamond C o n c r e t e ' s c l a i m s , [Diamond] o p p o s e d t h o s e M o t i o n s , a n d [ , ] b y agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e C o u r t w i t h h e l d f u l l 15 2100114 a d j u d i c a t i o n of those Motions u n t i l a date post v e r d i c t . Moreover, the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y renewed t h a t M o t i o n p o s t v e r d i c t , and a l l p a r t i e s a r g u e d t h e M o t i o n s p r e s e n t e d by [the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y and S o u t h e r n ] a g a i n by a g r e e m e n t , b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t . The C o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d t h e a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l and the evidence b e f o r e the Court p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g trial, and after considering same, g r a n t s the M o t i o n s i n p a r t as f o l l o w s . "The M o t i o n s a r e g r a n t e d i n s o f a r as t h e y a r e d i r e c t e d t o Diamond C o n c r e t e ' s c l a i m s u n d e r A l a . Code § 8-29-1 e t s e q . ( i n c l u d i n g § 8-29-6) i n t h a t the evidence produced d u r i n g the t r i a l of this m a t t e r does n o t c r e a t e a q u e s t i o n f o r r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y on t h o s e i s s u e s . O t h e r w i s e , t h e C o u r t denies said Motions." Diamond t h e n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s court. N e i t h e r Southern nor the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y c r o s s - a p p e a l e d the judgment e n t e r e d on the jury verdict breach-of-contract a g a i n s t them w i t h r e s p e c t t o claim. "'The a p p e l l a t e s t a n d a r d f o r r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , a "JML," i s t h e same as the s t a n d a r d f o r t h e o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Palm H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v. C r a w f o r d , 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . "'JML i n f a v o r o f a movant who does not a s s e r t the c l a i m or a f f i r m a t i v e defense b u t who o n l y o p p o s e s i t , and who t h e r e f o r e does n o t b e a r t h e b u r d e n of proof, i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n e i t h e r o f two a l t e r n a t i v e c a s e s . One i s t h a t t h e c l a i m o r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i s i n v a l i d i n l e g a l t h e o r y . See 16 Diamond's 2100114 H a r k i n s & Co. v. L e w i s , 535 So. 2d 104 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . The o t h e r i s t h a t one o r more c o n t e s t e d e s s e n t i a l elements of the c l a i m o r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s i s u n s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . See B a n k s v. H a r b i n , 500 So. 2d 1027 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , and M c K e r l e y [v. E t o w a h - D e K a l b - C h e r o k e e Mental Health B o a r d , I n c . , 686 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 9 6 ) ] . I f e i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e be t r u e , JML i s a p p r o p r i a t e . See H a r k i n s , s u p r a , Banks, s u p r a , and M c K e r l e y , s u p r a . I f , however, the nonmovant's claim or affirmative defense is_ v a l i d in legal t h e o r y and i s s u p p o r t e d by substantial e v i d e n c e on e v e r y c o n t e s t e d e l e m e n t , JML i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e i r r e s p e c t i v e of the presence o r w e i g h t o f c o u n t e r v a i l i n g e v i d e n c e . See D r i v e r [v. N a t i o n a l Sec. F i r e & C a s . Co., 658 So. 2d 390 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ] , and First F i n a n c i a l [ I n s . Co. v. T i l l e r y , 626 So. 2d 1252 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ] . West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989), e x p l a i n s , " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " A t r i a l c o u r t d e c i d i n g a m o t i o n f o r JML and an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t r e v i e w i n g s u c h a r u l i n g must a c c e p t t h e t e n d e n c i e s o f t h e e v i d e n c e most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant, W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . v. M a n n i n g , 788 So. 2d 116 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . v. W a s h i n g t o n , 774 So. 2d 505 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , and Palm H a r b o r Homes, s u p r a , and must r e s o l v e a l l reasonable f a c t u a l doubts i n f a v o r of t h e nonmovant, W i l l i s v. P a r k e r , 814 So. 2d 857 ( A l a . 2001) .' -,11 "Ex parte ^ -^-Ul Helms, ^ -P-,^-l--,-,-,l 873 So. 17 ^^-.-.Vs-l-^ 2d A 1139, ^ -P-,TT^-,^ 1143-44 ^ -P (Ala. 2100114 2003)." Hill v. P r e m i e r B u i l d e r s & R e a l t y , (Ala. C i v . App. 2010). Diamond p r e s e n t s favor trial the four arguments c h a l l e n g i n g of the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y Diamond's LLC, 56 So. 3d 669, 676-77 prompt-pay c l a i m . First, judge e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g Airport Authority and S o u t h e r n w i t h failed t h e JML i n respect Diamond a r g u e s t h e JML b e c a u s e , to assert that Diamond insufficiency e v i d e n c e as a g r o u n d f o r i t s m o t i o n f o r a JML w i t h to the says, of the respect to Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e . Second, the Diamond a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l judge e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g JML i n f a v o r o f S o u t h e r n b e c a u s e , Diamond s a y s , Southern f a i l e d t o move f o r a JML a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e w i t h respect that t o Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m . T h i r d , Diamond the trial Diamond s a y s , its JML erred i t introduced prompt-pay c l a i m Fourth, the judge i n entering to withstand Diamond JML the motion says, the for a claim. 18 JML. judge e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g entry of the i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e j u d g m e n t i n Diamond's f a v o r w i t h to i t s breach-of-contract because, s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n support of Diamond a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l because, the argues JML is respect 2100114 The first, r e c o r d does n o t second, Therefore, we or i n d i c a t e t h a t Diamond p r e s e n t e d fourth arguments to the trial 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1992) cannot c o n s i d e r arguments r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t ("This C o u r t t i m e on r a t h e r , o u r r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and The by the trial trial 8-29-2 o f t h e appeal; arguments court."). r e c o r d does i n d i c a t e t h a t Diamond p r e s e n t e d argument t o the Section judge. c a n n o t c o n s i d e r t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., considered j u d g e ; t h e r e f o r e , we Prompt Pay Act will i t s third consider i t . provides: " P e r f o r m a n c e by a c o n t r a c t o r , s u b c o n t r a c t o r , o r s u b - s u b c o n t r a c t o r i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s o f h i s o r h e r c o n t r a c t e n t i t l e s them t o payment f r o m t h e p a r t y w i t h whom t h e y c o n t r a c t . A l l c o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n p a r t i e s r e q u i r e a d a t e o f payment." (Emphasis added.) Section its 8-29-3(b) o f t h e Prompt Pay Act provides: "When a s u b c o n t r a c t o r has p e r f o r m e d p u r s u a n t t o h i s o r h e r c o n t r a c t and s u b m i t s an a p p l i c a t i o n o r pay r e q u e s t f o r payment o r an i n v o i c e f o r m a t e r i a l s t o a contractor in sufficient time to allow the c o n t r a c t o r to i n c l u d e the a p p l i c a t i o n , request, or i n v o i c e i n h i s o r h e r own pay r e q u e s t s u b m i t t e d t o an owner, t h e c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l t i m e l y pay t o t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e payment t e r m s a g r e e d t o by t h e c o n t r a c t o r and s u b c o n t r a c t o r , but i f payment t e r m s a r e n o t a g r e e d t o , t h e n w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s o f r e c e i p t o f payment f r o m owner by mailing via f i r s t c l a s s m a i l or d e l i v e r i n g the 19 2100114 amount r e c e i v e d f o r t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ' s work a n d materials b a s e d on work completed or service p r o v i d e d under the c o n t r a c t . " (Emphasis added.) Section contractor 8-29-1(1) as " [ a ] n y of t h e Prompt person, Pay individual, Act defines firm, a corporation, p a r t n e r s h i p , o r o t h e r l e g a l e n t i t y who c o n t r a c t s w i t h an owner to improve r e a l p r o p e r t y o r perform c o n s t r u c t i o n s e r v i c e s f o r an owner." S e c t i o n 8-29-1(4) o f t h e Prompt Pay A c t d e f i n e s an owner as "[a]ny person, individual, firm, corporation, p a r t n e r s h i p , o r o t h e r l e g a l e n t i t y who h a s an i n t e r e s t real property who e i t h e r made." i m p r o v e d a n d f o r whom an i m p r o v e m e n t i s made, d i r e c t l y o r by agent o r d e r e d Section 8-29-1(6) furnish supplied or other labor legal or materials materials for a c o n t r a c t t o improve r e a l Accepting t h e i m p r o v e m e n t t o be o f t h e Prompt s u b c o n t r a c t o r as " [ a ] n y p e r s o n , partnership, i n the Pay A c t d e f i n e s a individual, firm, corporation, entity who has c o n t r a c t e d t o , o r has performed contractor i n connection labor with to or a property." the tendencies o f t h e e v i d e n c e most favorable t o Diamond, t h e nonmovant, o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the following. Diamond introduced 20 substantial evidence 2100114 establishing t h a t S o u t h e r n was defined the in subcontractor and as Prompt Act, that a subcontract the as t h a t term i s Diamond the drying concrete Diamond i n t r o d u c e d concrete was Prompt Pay w i t h Southern to pour f l o o r of the hangar i n t h r e e pours, to a p p l y hardener to the finish Pay t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d by t h a t Diamond had concrete a contractor i n two after applying the s u b s t a n t i a l , although Act, the shake-on a p p l i c a t i o n s , and shake-on not a to hardener. uncontradicted, e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t S o u t h e r n c h a n g e d t h e work r e q u i r e d o f Diamond a f t e r Diamond had $35,161 on J u l y 12, submitted 2006, and i t s b i d i n the amount o f t h a t S o u t h e r n a g r e e d t o pay the i n c r e a s e d c o s t t h a t r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e change i n t h e work t o be performed although by not performed Diamond. Diamond uncontradicted, i t s work under also introduced evidence the substantial, i n d i c a t i n g that subcontract in a good i t and w o r k m a n l i k e manner. M o r e o v e r , Diamond i n t r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence work on establishing that August 31, 2006, Diamond $14,055 o f t h e The was an i t sent and that amount Southern a bill Southern refused for i t s to pay billed. evidence tended to prove t h a t the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y owner rather than a contractor 21 as those terms are 2100114 d e f i n e d by t h e Prompt Pay A c t and t h a t Diamond d i d n o t have a contract with the Airport Authority. complaint stated a breach-of-contract only. However, the t r i a l breach-of-contract Southern, objected jury and, claim although judge Diamond's claim against submitted jury the and Airport to the Southern the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y against the Moreover, Authority's attorney t h a t the t r i a l judge's i n s t r u c t i o n s had n o t g i v e n the the option to return a verdict against one of the defendants but not both, the A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y ' s attorney d i d not a s s e r t that the breach-of-contract claim should n o t have been s u b m i t t e d a g a i n s t t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y a t a l l . The j u r y returned a verdict against not only Southern but also A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y on Diamond's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t trial judge entered the h i s t o r y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y , case Authority Rogal & that The t h a t judgment. Given o f any e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t a c o n t r a c t Diamond claim. a j u d g m e n t on t h a t j u r y v e r d i c t , and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y has n o t c r o s s - a p p e a l e d this procedural the Diamond's as w e l l Hamilton as Co., i t has become t h e l a w o f subcontract Southern. 953 So. 22 e x i s t e d between was with the Cf. Beiersdoerfer 2d 1196, 1209 Airport v. Hilb, ( A l a . 2006) 2100114 ( " ' " U n c h a l l e n g e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s become t h e law o f t h e Louisville & (Ala.1983)." 1 9 9 3 ) . "The they are Nashville Clark R.R. v. v. Black, Atkins, 630 So. 435 2d So. 1012, case. 2d 1275 1017 (Ala. j u r y i s bound t o f o l l o w such i n s t r u c t i o n s , even i f e r r o n e o u s . Lee v. G i d l e y , 252 Ala. 156, 40 So. 2d (1949) ( e r r o n e o u s i n s t r u c t i o n s became t h e law o f t h e c a s e , 80 and a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t c o m p o r t i n g w i t h those i n s t r u c t i o n s w o u l d n o t be So. 2d 844 (Ala. 1017.'" ( q u o t i n g BIC r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l ) . " 630 C o r p . v. Bean, 669 So. 2d 840, at 1995))). Likewise, Authority the had jury found that breached t h e i r contract Diamond $14,055. M o r e o v e r , t h e have b e e n p a i d on Accordingly, introduction verdict, that 2006, Authority, 2006, 30 that, evidence become t h e i t had $14,055 f r o m S o u t h e r n and Airport Diamond and owed days a f t e r i t s e n t law of either or i t was the the entitled Airport 23 through through case, the the jury's to Diamond has S o u t h e r n and a subcontract with that the invoice. conclude substantial w h i c h has established Airport of we with and j u r y f o u n d t h a t Diamond s h o u l d S e p t e m b e r 30, S o u t h e r n i t s A u g u s t 31, Southern the the Authority payment of pursuant to 2100114 t h a t s u b c o n t r a c t , and t h a t S o u t h e r n and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y f a i l e d t o p a y Diamond t h e $14,055. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e the t r i a l that j u d g e e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a JML i n f a v o r o f S o u t h e r n and t h e A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o Diamond's p r o m p t - p a y claim. Consequently, for to the t r i a l recover we r e v e r s e t h a t JML a n d remand t h e c a u s e j u d g e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r Diamond i s e n t i t l e d interest, an a t t o r n e y f e e , a n d e x p e n s e s u n d e r i t s prompt-pay c l a i m . Diamond a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Diamond's m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e J u l y 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t . T h a t m o t i o n c h a l l e n g e d t h e J u l y 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t on the ground t h a t i t purported its having been determination entered t o be a f i n a l before regarding the t r i a l the i n t e r e s t , judgment d e s p i t e judge h a d made a attorney f e e , and e x p e n s e s t o w h i c h Diamond was e n t i t l e d on i t s p r o m p t - p a y c l a i m and i t s having determination made regarding no provision those for i s s u e s . Although a subsequent t h e J u l y 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t was t i t l e d " F i n a l Judgment," i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that the character substance of a judgment i s determined by i t s r a t h e r t h a n i t s d e s c r i p t i v e t i t l e . See J o s e p h v . MTS I n v . C o r p . , 964 So. 2d 642, 645 n.1 ( A l a . 2006) ( " [ T ] h i s 24 Court 2100114 has s t a t e d many t i m e s t h a t '[t]he character of a pleading, or of i s determined a judgment o r decree from i t s essential s u b s t a n c e , a n d n o t f r o m i t s d e s c r i p t i v e name o r t i t l e . ' v. P e t t i s , State 275 A l a . 450, 4 5 1 , 156 So. 2d 137, 138 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . " ) . Despite i t s t i t l e , t h e J u l y 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t was n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e i t d i s p o s e d o f f e w e r t h a n a l l t h e c l a i m s . See Heaston v. Nabors, 889 So. 2d 588, 590 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ("A f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one t h a t d i s p o s e s o f a l l t h e c l a i m s a n d c o n t r o v e r s i e s between t h e p a r t i e s . " ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , because a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59 a p p l i e s o n l y t o final judgments not a f i n a l and because judgment, the July, we f i n d no e r r o r d e n y i n g Diamond's m o t i o n t o a l t e r , 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t . 1, 2010, j u d g m e n t was i n the t r i a l judge's amend, o r v a c a t e t h e J u l y See Ex p a r t e T r o u t m a n S a n d e r s , L L P , 866 So. 2d 547, 550 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 25 Thomas, a n d Moore, JJ.,

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.