Jacqueline E. Austin v. James Maxwell Austin, Jr., and Dana Austin-LaFrance

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/17/2012 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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, 2012 2110151 J a c q u e l i n e E. A u s t i n v. James Maxwell A u s t i n , J r . , and Dana Austin-LaFrance Appeal from Elmore C i r c u i t Court (CV-05-363 and CV-08-900088) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Jacqueline E. Austin judgment awarding a t t o r n e y ("Jacqueline") appeals from a f e e s i n two a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e p a r t i t i o n of real property or, i nthe a l t e r n a t i v e , the sale by division of real property t h a t h a d b e e n owned b y Edna E r l e 2110151 Austin ("the m o t h e r " ) , who d i e d i n F e b r u a r y 2005. i n both cases are J a c q u e l i n e and h e r s i b l i n g s , James M a x w e l l A u s t i n , J r . ("James"), a n d Dana A u s t i n - L a F r a n c e f i r s t c a s e , no. CV-05-363 and Dana The p a r t i e s ("Dana"). The ("the 2005 a c t i o n " ) , f i l e d b y James i n the Elmore C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l court"), i n v o l v e d s e v e r a l p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y t h a t were i n c l u d e d i n t h e mother's estate. The real property at issue i n t h e 2005 a c t i o n i n c l u d e d 172 a c r e s n o r t h o f H i g h w a y 14 i n E l m o r e C o u n t y and approximately County. 600 acres I n t h e i r complaint, of a t t o r n e y south o f H i g h w a y 14 i n E l m o r e James a n d Dana r e q u e s t e d fees. Jacqueline f i l e d t h e s e c o n d c a s e , no. CV-08-900088 ("the 2008 a c t i o n " ) , i n t h e t r i a l real property court to resolve and action. over t h a t had been "deeded of the mother's e s t a t e t o her h e i r s , Dana. a dispute t h a t h a d n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e 2005 a c t i o n . The 2008 a c t i o n i n v o l v e d r e a l p r o p e r t y out" an a w a r d Jacqueline The t r i a l requested court Jacqueline, an a t t o r n e y James, f e e i n t h e 2008 c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a c t i o n s on J u l y 8, 2008. On A p r i l 29, 2011, t h e d a y t h e t r i a l was s c h e d u l e d i n t h e consolidated cases, the p a r t i e s 2 reached a settlement that 2110151 r e s o l v e d t h e d i s p u t e i n t h e 2008 a c t i o n b u t a d d r e s s e d o n l y 172 acres the of the property 172 acres settlement acres was of Highway The o f Highway into 14, w h i c h was the record, to reserve requested 14 the issue was and in the of approximately disposition has y e t t o be d e t e r m i n e d . read court north agreement. south action, a t i s s u e i n t h e 2005 a c t i o n ; t h a t i s , included 600 at issue The i n the settlement the p a r t i e s of a t t o r n e y i n t h e i r respective complaints. agreement asked the fees that 2005 trial had been Jacqueline d i d not object to the r e s e r v a t i o n . The t r i a l evidence Jacqueline in court allowed the p a r t i e s t o submit b r i e f s support requested of an their attorney-fee attorney-fee award of and requests. $54,774.31; James and Dana r e q u e s t e d an a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d o f $ 3 0 , 4 0 8 . 8 9 . On the t r i a l September 13, 2011, court held a hearing to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an a t t o r n e y f e e s h o u l d be a w a r d e d i n one o r b o t h o f t h e a c t i o n s and, i f s o , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e amount o f f e e s to be a w a r d e d . J a c q u e l i n e o b j e c t e d t o an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y h a d come a b o u t as t h e r e s u l t o f a s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t and n o t a c o u r t ordered p a r t i t i o n or sale f o r d i v i s i o n . 3 She a l s o a r g u e d t h a t 2110151 the settlement attorney probably would not have been reached i f f e e s h a d b e e n an i s s u e . On S e p t e m b e r 27, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended f i n a l judgment f i n d i n g t h a t t h e l e g a l s e r v i c e s of each s e t of a t t o r n e y s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n b o t h a c t i o n s had been p e r f o r m e d f o r t h e common b e n e f i t o f t h e p a r t i e s ; t h e r e f o r e , the p a r t i e s were their entitled respective actions. t o an award o f a t t o r n e y fees in F o r t h e i r w o r k i n t h e 2008 a c t i o n , J a c q u e l i n e ' s a t t o r n e y s were a w a r d e d a t o t a l f e e o f $ 8 , 1 0 0 . 0 9 . The trial court ordered each of the three siblings-¬ J a c q u e l i n e , James, and D a n a - - t o p a y a t h i r d o f t h e t o t a l f e e , or $2, 700.03, w i t h i n 30 days o f the date Likewise, for their work attorneys f o r James and Dana $24,708. The t r i a l to date were court ordered o n e - t h i r d of the t o t a l o f t h e judgment. i n t h e 2005 awarded a a c t i o n , the total each of the s i b l i n g s fee of t o pay f e e , o r $8,236, w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e date of t h e judgment. In t h e judgment, t h e t r i a l court acknowledged t h a t the 2005 a c t i o n h a d n o t d i s p o s e d o f a l l t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e in t h a t case. jurisdiction Therefore, the t r i a l court stated, i t retained o v e r t h e 2005 a c t i o n , a d d i n g : 4 "The a w a r d o f an 2110151 attorney of fee i n connection with the i n s t a n t p a r t i t i o n p o r t i o n [ t h e 2005 a c t i o n ] does n o t p r e c l u d e a future attorney connection fee f o r l e g a l with the remaining The t r i a l the c o u r t from awarding work done lands o r t o be done i n i n [ t h e 2005 court s t a t e d that the settlement a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y a g r e e m e n t and f e e c o n s t i t u t e d an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f a l l t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e 2008 a c t i o n and e x p r e s s l y that there was action]." no j u s t reason f o r delay determined i n entering a final judgment i n t h a t a c t i o n ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d , i t entered 54(b), the a final j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2008 a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e A l a . R. C i v . P. The t r i a l court also stated that a l l i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e 172 a c r e s property included Therefore, i n 2005 the t r i a l north action--also had o f Highway been 14-- resolved. c o u r t s a i d , i t was a l s o e n t e r i n g a final j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 54(b) as t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e 172-acre parcel connection Alabama of land and the with that disposition. Supreme Court, attorney fee awarded in Jacqueline appealed to the which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o this c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. This i s the t h i r d this court. time these In the f i r s t appeal, 5 p a r t i e s have been t h i s court affirmed, before without 2110151 an opinion, partitioning the (No. Civ. 2009) affirmed, of the Elmore Circuit Court c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y among t h e s i b l i n g s . v. A u s t i n App. judgment 2080177, Aug. (table). without an 28, 2 0 0 9 0 ) , 58 In the opinion, So. 3d 856 (Ala. this court second appeal, the judgment Austin of the Elmore C i r c u i t Court d i v i d i n g a separate p a r c e l of p r o p e r t y t h a t p a r t of the mother's e s t a t e . A u s t i n v. A u s t i n Feb. ( A l a . C i v . App. 5, 2 0 1 0 ) , 75 So. In t h i s a p p e a l , 3d 707 fees the cases, litigated and awarded. Although 2010) i s due additional t o be may (table). the 2005 attorney court's r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e one action, f e e s may is be still of being requested and t h i s a r g u m e n t does n o t d i r e c t l y r a i s e the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h i s c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s "we 2080976, J a c q u e l i n e argues t h a t the t r i a l award of a t t o r n e y consolidated (No. was appeal, t a k e n o t i c e o f a l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu." L a n e y v. Garmon, 25 So. Generally, only to f i n a l this 3d 478, court's judgments. 480 ( A l a . C i v . App. appellate jurisdiction § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 2009) . extends 1975. "A judgment i s g e n e r a l l y not final unless a l l c l a i m s , or the r i g h t s or l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l p a r t i e s , have b e e n d e c i d e d . Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987). The only e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e o f f i n a l i t y i s when t h e t r i a l 6 2110151 c o u r t d i r e c t s t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P." L a n e y v. Garmon, 25 So. 3d a t 480. I n Hanner v. M e t r o Bank & P r o t e c t i v e L i f e I n s u r a n c e 952 So. judgment 2d 1056 ( A l a . 2006), disposing of the a l l the claims p a r t i e s i n a declaratory-judgment separate with court pending supreme court entered in concluded the declaratory-judgment related still b e c a u s e no action, the a c t i o n was n o n f i n a l . I n so h o l d i n g , "'According a c t i o n was that, the court between a the consolidated pending, judgment had order in our been the H a n n e r , 952 So. 2d explained: t o W r i g h t and M i l l e r : "'"Although f e d e r a l courts usually have said that c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s do n o t l o s e their separate identity, some c o u r t s have r e a s o n e d p e r s u a s i v e l y t h a t t h e y s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as a single a c t i o n f o r purposes of r e v i e w b y way o f R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , and that a judgment in the c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e t h a t does n o t dispose o f a l l c l a i m s and a l l parties i s appealable only i f c e r t i f i e d as t h a t r u l e r e q u i r e s . " 7 entered a c t i o n ; however, because a a c t i o n i n a r e l a t e d c a s e t h a t h a d been the declaratory-judgment a t 1060. trial Co., 2110151 "'9 C h a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t & A r t h u r F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e ed. 1995) (footnote omitted). S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r C i r c u i t has s a i d : R. M i l l e r , § 2386 (2d The U n i t e d the Ninth "'"In our view, the best approach i s to p e r m i t the appeal only when there is a final judgment t h a t r e s o l v e s a l l of the consolidated actions unless a 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s e n t e r e d by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t . This leaves the d i s c r e t i o n w i t h the court which i s best able to evaluate t h e [ e ] f f e c t o f an i n t e r i m a p p e a l on the parties and on the expeditious r e s o l u t i o n of the entire action." "'Huene v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 743 F.2d 703, 705 ( 9 t h C i r . 1984) . See, a l s o , T r i n i t y B r o a d . C o r p . v. E l l e r , 827 F.2d 673, 675 (10th C i r . 1987) ("To o b t a i n r e v i e w o f one p a r t o f a c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n , a p p e l l a n t must o b t a i n c e r t i f i c a t i o n u n d e r Fed. R. C i v . P. 5 4 ( b ) . " ) ; and S p r a y t e x , I n c . v. DJS & T, 96 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. C i r . 1996) ("We now e x t e n d t h i s a p p r o a c h t o j o i n t h e N i n t h and Tenth C i r c u i t s i n adopting the r u l e t h a t , a b s e n t R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n , t h e r e may be no a p p e a l o f a j u d g m e n t d i s p o s i n g o f fewer than a l l aspects of a c o n s o l i d a t e d case."). We f i n d p e r s u a s i v e t h e h o l d i n g s of these d e c i s i o n s i n t e r p r e t i n g the F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , on w h i c h o u r own Rules of Civil Procedure are based. A c c o r d i n g l y , we h o l d t h a t a t r i a l court must c e r t i f y a j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b e f o r e a 8 2110151 j u d g m e n t on f e w e r t h a n a l l t h e c l a i m s i n a c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n can be a p p e a l e d . " ' "Hanner, 952 So. 2d a t 1060-61 S m i t h v. B u t l e r - A u s t i n , , [Ms. 2110342, May ( A l a . C i v . App. In this from which 54(b). case, (emphasis added)." 18, 2012] So. 2012). the t r i a l J a c q u e l i n e now court d i d c e r t i f y appeals as final the judgment pursuant to Rule However, n o t e v e r y o r d e r has t h e r e q u i s i t e e l e m e n t finality 3d t h a t can t r i g g e r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . v. W i l l i a m s , 747 So. 2d 905 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) . of Moss Therefore, we must i n i t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t of September 27, 2011, was properly certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). A trial court should c e r t i f y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 54(b) o r d e r as final o n l y "where t h e f a i l u r e t o do so might have a h a r s h e f f e c t . " 681 So. 2d 226, grounds, 753 229 a nonfinal Brown v. W h i t a k e r ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) C o n t r a c t i n g Corp., ( o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r S c h n e i d e r N a t ' l C a r r i e r s , I n c . v. T i n n e y , 776 So. (Ala. 2000)). Rule and 54(b) certifications should be entered routinely cases. P a r r i s h v. B l a z e r F i n . S e r v s . , I n c . , 682 9 made only are not in to 2d be exceptional So. 2d 1383 2110151 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). "'Appellate review in a piecemeal f a s h i o n i s not f a v o r e d . ' " H a r p e r S a l e s Co. v. Brown, Richardson, 2d Inc., ( q u o t i n g Brown v. 229). 742 So. 190, 192 (Ala. 1993), our ( A l a . C i v . App. Whitaker C o n t r a c t i n g Corp., I n T a n n e r v. A l a b a m a Power Co., Stagner, 617 So. supreme c o u r t s a i d o f R u l e 681 So. 2d 656, 1999) 2d at 656-57 54(b): "The r u l e c o n f e r s a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an o r d e r o f j u d g m e n t o n l y where t h e t r i a l c o u r t 'has c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s e d o f one o f a number o f c l a i m s , o r one of m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s . ' Rule 54(b), committee comments ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . In o t h e r words, the ' t r i a l c o u r t cannot confer a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n upon t h i s c o u r t t h r o u g h d i r e c t i n g e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 54(b) i f t h e j u d g m e n t i s n o t otherwise "final."' R o b i n s o n v. Computer S e r v i c e n t e r s , I n c . , 360 So. 2d 299 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . " I t has b e e n n o t e d t h a t a " R u l e 54(b) authorize the claim; thus, allows the e n t r y of a f i n a l a judgment that judgment h o l d e r So. 2d 151, 154 A m e r i c a n C o r p . v. awards 1987))(emphasis added). Serv. C o r p . , 505 also t o p r o v e more F u l l i l o v e v. Home F i n . 1996) not single some damages b u t to return to court ( A l a . C i v . App. Leasing does j u d g m e n t on p a r t o f a damages i s n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " 678 certification Co., (citing Precision So. 2d 380 (Ala. M o r e o v e r , o u r supreme c o u r t has noted t h a t " ' [ o ] n l y a f u l l y a d j u d i c a t e d whole c l a i m a g a i n s t a p a r t y 10 2110151 may be c e r t i f i e d u n d e r R u l e Co. v. W e t z e l , L. Ed. 2d Equity, 424 U.S. 435 54 (b) . See L i b e r t y M u t u a l I n s . 737, 742-44, 96 S. C t . 1202, 1206, 47 (1976).'" James I n c . , 713 So. 2d 937, 942 v. Alabama ( A l a . 1997) Coalition (quoting for Sidag A k t i e n g e s e l l s c h a f t v. Smoked Foods P r o d s . Co., 813 F.2d 81, 84 (5th C i r . 1987)) (some e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) . In t h i s a p p e a l , propriety of consolidated the J a c q u e l i n e asks attorney a c t i o n ; however, "the a c t i o n i s s t i l l be r e v e r s e d . resolved clear awarded date in open," t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s this should that the settlement agreement o f t h e c l a i m made i n t h e 2005 action to or s e l l c e r t a i n r e a l property. that to she a l s o a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e I t i s undisputed only part partition fees t h i s court t o review the the t r i a l c o u r t may consider The j u d g m e n t makes awarding "a future a t t o r n e y f e e f o r l e g a l work done o r t o be done i n c o n n e c t i o n with the remaining" The p i e c e m e a l as stated piecemeal real property at issue. character of t h i s earlier, litigation. Richardson, the courts appeal of t h i s i s evident, state do not See H a r p e r S a l e s Co. v. Brown, Inc., supra. This court declines to and, favor Stagner, accept Jacqueline's i n v i t a t i o n to consider the p r o p r i e t y of attorney 11 2110151 fees awarded i n the m i d s t of t h i s litigation. To do so now w o u l d be t o open t h e d o o r t o a r e v i e w o f any a t t o r n e y f e e t h a t may o r may not be a w a r d e d as r e s o l u t i o n s are reached awards o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n p i e c e m e a l judicial In entering fees in this lack thereof, appeal. the judgment action. The f a s h i o n would not promote Therefore, awarding attorney we not proper fees, awarding a d d i t i o n a l p r o p r i e t y of those i s l i k e l y t o be c e r t i f i c a t i o n was taken of economy. t r i a l court c l e a r l y contemplated aside. to A review other d i s c r e t e p o r t i o n s of the p r o p e r t y at i s s u e . as the subject conclude that the attorney awards, or of an a the additional Rule i n t h i s c a s e and i s due 54(b) t o be set A c c o r d i n g l y , we must 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 from Recycling, a nonfinal I n c . , 84 So. judgment. 3d 867, 868, See Stephens 878-79 v. ( A l a . 2011). APPEAL DISMISSED. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 12 Fines

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.