Kenneth Smith v. Connie Butler-Austin and John Reynolds

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/18/2012 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110342 Kenneth Smith v. Connie B u t l e r - A u s t i n and John Reynolds Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-11-900208) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On February complaint 2011, Kenneth i n the Baldwin Butler-Austin against 9, Smith filed a p r o se C i r c u i t Court seeking t o e j e c t Connie from c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y . B u t l e r - A u s t i n , Smith a l l e g e d t h a t I n his complaint John R e y n o l d s had 2110342 improperly leased action against 900208. the property to Butler-Austin. Smith's B u t l e r - A u s t i n was a s s i g n e d c a s e number CV-11- On F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, B u t l e r - A u s t i n a n s w e r e d Smith's c o m p l a i n t , denying t h a t Smith had t h e r i g h t t o e j e c t her from the property. Also on F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, B u t l e r - A u s t i n filed i n case number CV-11-900208 a t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t n a m i n g R e y n o l d s as a third-party defendant. In Butler-Austin asserted various event the t r i a l court owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y In support submitted of that a copy that third-party claims against Reynolds i n the determined that Reynolds Reynolds had c o n t r a c t e d third-party o f a May complaint, Butler-Austin document n a m i n g R e y n o l d s a n d B u t l e r - A u s t i n as p a r t i e s t o t h e l e a s e On M a r c h 14, 2011, t h e t r i a l c a s e number CV-11-900208 s c h e d u l i n g 2011. Butler-Austin CV-11-900208 against with Reynolds, a later a b e n c h t r i a l f o r J u l y 26, action she a l l e g e d Smith was i s hereinafter "the record action." The 2 on case had designated number CV-11-900209 a n d w h i c h Reynolds agreement. e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n moved t o c o n s o l i d a t e separate which court not the to lease to her. complaint, 16, 1997, l e a s e was number initiated as case r e f e r r e d t o as appeal contains no 2110342 pleadings or orders pertaining to However, i n a postjudgment opinion, S m i t h a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d f i l e d Reynolds when he discovered agreement p u r p o r t i n g On M a r c h motion the that to lease motion t o consolidate discussed Reynolds court later action. i n this that action the property 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l Reynolds against had e x e c u t e d an to Butler-Austin. granted Butler-Austin's t h e two a c t i o n s . On J u l y 26, 2011, t h e d a t e o f t h e s c h e d u l e d b e n c h trial, Butler-Austin f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e pursuant the to Alabama ("ALAA"), § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , Litigation Accountability Act A l a . Code 1975. As a b a s i s f o r h e r ALAA c l a i m , B u t l e r - A u s t i n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d s c h e d u l e d S m i t h ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r f o r a b e n c h t r i a l on J u l y 26, 2011, a n d t h a t S m i t h h a d f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a t t h e s c h e d u l e d trial. On J u l y 28, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court entered the f o l l o w i n g o r d e r ( h e r e i n a f t e r " t h e J u l y 28, 2011, o r d e r " ) i n c a s e number CV-11-900208: " T h i s m a t t e r comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t f o r b e n c h t r i a l f i n a l h e a r i n g [ s i c ] t h i s 2 6 t h day o f J u l y 2 0 1 1 ; p r e s e n t i n C o u r t was t h e d e f e n d a n t , C o n n i e B u t l e r - A u s t i n , r e p r e s e n t e d by her a t t o r n e y o f r e c o r d ... , a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t , J o h n R e y n o l d s , r e p r e s e n t e d by The p l a i n t i f f , K e n n e t h S m i t h , o r any 3 2110342 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on b e h a l f , f a i l e d t o a p p e a r . The C o u r t , upon [ B u t l e r - A u s t i n ' s ] o r a l m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s [ S m i t h ' s ] complaint against defendant Connie B u t l e r A u s t i n f o r h i s f a i l u r e to appear, together with [ B u t l e r - A u s t i n ' s ] m o t i o n f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e , made v e r b a l f i n d i n g s on t h e r e c o r d w h i c h a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h i n t h i s o r d e r by r e f e r e n c e ; and, f u r t h e r , t h e Court hereby does: "ORDER, ADJUDGE and DECREE as f o l l o w s : "1. T h a t [ S m i t h ' s ] c o m p l a i n t as t o d e f e n d a n t C o n n i e B u t l e r - A u s t i n i s h e r e b y due t o be, and i s , dismissed with prejudice. "2. That defendant Connie B u t l e r - A u s t i n ' s t h i r d - p a r t y complaint/cross-claim against defendant J o h n R e y n o l d s i s h e r e b y due t o be and i s d i s m i s s e d without prejudice. "3. That defendant Connie B u t l e r - A u s t i n ' s m o t i o n f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e p u r s u a n t t o t h e [ A L A A ] i s h e r e b y due t o be, and i s GRANTED. Judgment i s hereby entered i n f a v o r of defendant Connie B u t l e r A u s t i n , and a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f K e n n e t h S m i t h , f o r h e r a t t o r n e y fees i n d e f e n d i n g t h i s cause of a c t i o n , i n t h e amount o f $ 1 , 5 0 0 , f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n [ s h a l l ] issue." (Capitalization trial court in original.) entered Also another order on that July 28, 2011, is substantially same as t h e o r d e r q u o t e d a b o v e ; t h a t o r d e r s t a t e d : " T r i a l on 7/26/2011. and Plaintiff f a i l e d to appear. t h i r d - p a r t y complaint On A u g u s t 2, 2011, an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y 1 i s dismissed the the held Case i s d i s m i s s e d without prejudice." 1 B u t l e r - A u s t i n f i l e d a motion seeking f e e u n d e r t h e ALAA. I n r e s p o n s e , on 4 2110342 On A u g u s t counsel, filed postjudgment 28, 2011, Hester, 26, 2011, S m i t h , who in number So. 2 See SCI 2d 1207, Alabama 1208 v a l i d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n may final judgment."). support of h i s August the trial 2011, CV-11-900208 a retained purported m o t i o n i n w h i c h he s o u g h t t o s e t a s i d e t h e order. 984 case had b y t h a t t i m e Smith n.1 July F u n e r a l S e r v s . , I n c . v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) o n l y be t a k e n i n r e f e r e n c e t o a submitted 26, 2011, m o t i o n . certain exhibits On A u g u s t 29, to set aside the J u l y 28, 2011, order. in 2011, c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g S m i t h ' s A u g u s t motion ("A 26, Smith a p p e a l e d t o o u r supreme c o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l 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. 3 Smith A u g u s t 11, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i d e n t i c a l t o the J u l y 28, 2011, o r d e r q u o t e d a b o v e ; t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e J u l y 28, 2011, o r d e r and t h e A u g u s t 2, 2011, p o s t j u d g m e n t o r d e r a r e t h e d a t e s on t h o s e d o c u m e n t s . T h e p a r t i e s r e f e r t o t h e J u l y 28, 2011, o r d e r as a " d e f a u l t judgment." We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h a t o r d e r was one d i s m i s s i n g t h e c l a i m s i n c a s e number CV-11-900208 p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. B l a k e v. S t i n s o n , 5 So. 3d 615 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 2 I n h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , S m i t h named b o t h B u t l e r - A u s t i n and R e y n o l d s as a p p e l l e e s . None o f t h e p a r t i e s has a s s e r t e d on a p p e a l any a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g B u t l e r - A u s t i n ' s t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m s a g a i n s t R e y n o l d s . However, R e y n o l d s has f i l e d a b r i e f on a p p e a l a d o p t i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s a s s e r t e d by B u t l e r - A u s t i n and a motion t o s t r i k e Smith's a p p e l l a t e b r i e f . 3 5 2110342 contends t h a t the t r i a l t h e J u l y 28, 2011, However, as jurisdictional we an notice of initial issue. have 'jurisdictional matter, ( A l a . C i v . App. jurisdiction matters them a t any n o n f i n a l o r d e r cannot we take notice of a See B r y a n t v. F l a g s t a r E n t e r s . , I n c . , are time ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 955 to set aside o r d e r i n c a s e number CV-11-900208. 717 So. 2d 400, 401 whether court erred i n f a i l i n g 1998) over of do this such and ("[W]e must c o n s i d e r appeal, magnitude so that e v e n ex So. 2d 711, 712 we take mero motu. (Ala. 1987))). Lee, 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 In Co., 2d 418, 420 See A Shwarb v. So. s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . because ( A l a . 2006). 952 So. 2d 1056 ( A l a . 2006), t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n Hanner's divorce required maintain minor action life-insurance child. Shortly that she policies and her f o r the before h i s death, assigned a portion security for benefit the of h i s l i f e - i n s u r a n c e Bank as indebtedness, and the husband of former benefits r e m a i n d e r o f t h o s e b e n e f i t s t o h i s new w i f e . husband's d e a t h , former he their husband to Metro assigned A f t e r the former a d i s p u t e arose concerning the proceeds life-insurance policy. The 6 insurance company the filed of a 2110342 declaratory-judgment action against Hanner c o u n t e r c l a i m e d against the insurance widow. H a n n e r ' s a c t i o n was In Hanner, s u p r a , o f M e t r o Bank concluded, however, consolidated and against no filed filed on court entered a l l the claims that, "According insurance action. had been a c t i o n was n o n f i n a l . between Our supreme actions entered and t h e widow, the court a judgment i n pending b e c a u s e t h e two judgment I n so h o l d i n g , the action. the t r i a l the estate declaratory-judgment a t 1060. company and consolidated with p a r t i e s to the declaratory-judgment action Hanner. a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s e s t a t e and h i s company's d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t favor and I n a d d i t i o n , Hanner a c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i n s t M e t r o Bank. a separate M e t r o Bank court been i n Hanner's the order i n 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 : " ' A l t h o u g h f e d e r a l c o u r t s u s u a l l y have s a i d t h a t 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 t h e i r s e p a r a t e i d e n t i t y , 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 s i n g l e a c t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f r e v i e w b y way o f R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , and t h a t a j u d g m e n t i n t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e t h a t does n o t d i s p o s e o f a l l c l a i m s and a l l p a r t i e s i s appealable o n l y i f c e r t i f i e d as t h a t rule requires.' 7 had the 2110342 "9 C h a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t & A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l Practice and P r o c e d u r e § 2386 (2d e d . 1995) (footnote omitted). The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t has s a i d : "'In our view, the best approach i s t o p e r m i t t h e a p p e a l o n l y when t h e r e i s a f i n a l judgment t h a t r e s o l v e s a l l o f t h e 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 t h e d i s t r i c t court. This leaves the d i s c r e t i o n with the court which i s best able to evaluate the [e]ffect o f an i n t e r i m a p p e a l on t h e p a r t i e s a n d on t h e e x p e d i t i o u s r e s o l u t i o n of the e n t i r e a c t i o n . ' "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 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1987) ('To o b t a i n review o f one p a r t of 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 F e d . R. C i v . P. 5 4 ( b ) . ' ) ; a n d S p r a y t e x , I n c . v. DJS&T, 96 F.3d 1377, 1382 ( F e d . C i r . 1996) ('We now extend 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 in adopting the r u l e t h a t , absent Rule 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 disposing of fewer than a l l aspects of a consolidated case.'). We find persuasive the holdings of these d e c i s i o n s i n t e r p r e t i n g the Federal 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 R u l e s o f C i v i l 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 c o u r t 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 judgment on fewer than a l l the claims in a c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n c a n be a p p e a l e d . " H a n n e r , 952 So. 2d a t 1060-61 (emphasis added). I n t h i s c a s e , S m i t h f i l e d h i s c l a i m i n c a s e number CV-11900208 seeking to eject Butler-Austin 8 from certain real 2110342 property. number In h i s purported CV-11-900208, Reynolds allowing court action indication the may claims to lease t h e two a c t i o n s that he h a d f i l e d related that to the Reynolds's property. trial and t h e r e consolidated, The i s no i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f 42(a), common q u e s t i o n it alleged assert to a c t i o n s was o n l y See R u l e Smith Butler-Austin ordered postjudgment motion f i l e d i n case order f o r the purposes of d i s c o v e r y A l a . R. C i v . P. ("When a c t i o n s of law or f a c t are pending before a joint hearing or t r i a l and i t may make such involving a the court, o f any o r a l l m a t t e r s i n i s s u e i n t h e a c t i o n s ; i t may o r d e r consolidated; or t r i a l . the a l l the actions orders concerning p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n as may t e n d t o a v o i d u n n e c e s s a r y c o s t s o r delay." (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . indication Smith The r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s t h a t a judgment o r o r d e r asserted against Reynolds disposing h a s been no of the claims entered i n the R e y n o l d s a c t i o n , w h i c h was c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h c a s e number CV11-900208. We c o n c l u d e t h a t , g i v e n t h e f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h i s c a s e , t h e J u l y 28, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r CV-11-900208 was not s u f f i c i e n t l y appeal. 9 final i n c a s e number t o support this 2110342 Accordingly, trial R. cause f o r 14 days f o r the judgment i n the c o n s o l i d a t e d (2) t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e 2011, Ala. remand t h i s c o u r t (1) t o e n t e r a f i n a l action, 28, we o r d e r as a f i n a l C i v . P., would Fair, I n c . v. Lighting ( A l a . 2010) be judgment p u r s u a n t to Rule 54(b), a p p r o p r i a t e , g i v e n the f a c t s , Rosenberg, 63 So. 3d 1256, July see 1263-64 ( d i s c u s s i n g whether c l a i m s are too i n t e r t w i n e d f o r a R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o be a p p r o p r i a t e ) , o r (3) t o t a k e no a c t i o n , w h i c h w i l l r e s u l t i n a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e a p p e a l . the t r i a l R u l e 54(b) court enters a f i n a l judgment o r d e t e r m i n e s c e r t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s If that a matter, "a s u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d r e f l e c t i n g s u c h a c t i o n s h o u l d be p r e p a r e d and f o r w a r d e d t o t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n 14 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e t h i s o p i n i o n i s r e l e a s e d . ... I f no s u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d i s f o r w a r d e d t o t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e d a t e t h i s o p i n i o n i s r e l e a s e d , t h i s a p p e a l w i l l be d i s m i s s e d . " 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 . Co., 952 So. 2d a t 1062. The m o t i o n to s t r i k e Smith's b r i e f i s d e n i e d as moot. REMANDED. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 10

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.