Michael T. Chappell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/28/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 ((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 2110510 Michael T. Chappell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-10-1327) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Michael T. Chappell Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t appeals from a judgment of the ("the c i r c u i t c o u r t " ) i n f a v o r o f J P Morgan Chase Bank, NA ( " C h a s e " ) . We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . 2110510 On June 1, 2010, Montgomery D i s t r i c t Chappell Court filed ("the a complaint district in court"), alleging t h a t Chase owed him $1,490 b e c a u s e , he s a i d , Chase " s t o l e amount o f money f r o m [ h i m ] . " for Chappell a d e f a u l t judgment i n the d i s t r i c t 2010. The district court entered an f i l e d an the this application c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r order setting the 2, case for " W r i t o f I n q u i r y " and r e q u i r i n g a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n to appear Before the O c t o b e r 4, "Motion to requesting with before 2010, Stop the district Chappell Foreclosure district i t s f o r e c l o s u r e of October district order court. denying stating 4, that Chappell's Chappell's the court 2010. a court, proceeding That appeared motion before t o Stop F o r e c l o s u r e "lacks from the d i s t r i c t After case had the court entered to the over Chappell c o u r t to the c i r c u i t been a p p e a l e d an Sale," jurisdiction On O c t o b e r 20, 2010, f i l e d an a p p e a l c o u r t , on November 30, 2010, 4, district Chase f r o m the d i s t r i c t matters of e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f . " Chappell's the residence. parties "Motion district October complaint. T h a t same day the in court to stop 2010, on f i l e d a m o t i o n s t y l e d as Sale" e f f e c t i v e l y amended C h a p p e l l ' s On court court. circuit C h a p p e l l f i l e d a m o t i o n s t y l e d as 2 2110510 a "Motion to Stop Foreclosure" in the circuit court, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t s t o p Chase f r o m p r o c e e d i n g w i t h i t s f o r e c l o s u r e o f C h a p p e l l ' s r e s i d e n c e . Chase f i l e d an answer t o C h a p p e l l ' s "Motion t o Stop F o r e c l o s u r e , " d e n y i n g the m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s and a s s e r t i n g a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s . September 14, j u d g m e n t on 2011, Chase filed Chappell's claims. a motion for Chappell f i l e d a On summary a motion in o p p o s i t i o n t o C h a s e ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 13, 2011. On J a n u a r y 18, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Chase on timely appealed appeal to t h i s On t o our Chappell's claims. supreme c o u r t , w h i c h 1 Chappell transferred c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code a p p e a l , Chase raises circuit court's j u r i s d i c t i o n settled potential issues over action. the the 1975. r e g a r d i n g the It is well that " ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are of such magnitude t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero motu.' Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . The o r d e r g r a n t i n g C h a s e ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n i s a h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n on t h e b o t t o m o f t h e m o t i o n t h a t i s s i g n e d by t h e j u d g e . See R u l e 5 8 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("A w r i t t e n o r d e r o r a j u d g m e n t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t i f i t i s s i g n e d o r i n i t i a l e d by t h e j u d g e "). 1 3 2110510 1 9 8 7 ) . 'Lack o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t be w a i v e d by t h e p a r t i e s and i t i s t h e d u t y o f an a p p e l l a t e court to consider l a c k of subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu.' Ex p a r t e S m i t h , 438 So. 2d 766, 768 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . " MPQ, I n c . v. B i r m i n g h a m R e a l t y Co., 78 So. 3d 391, 393 ( A l a . 2011). Section 12-11-9, A l a . Code 1975, states, in pertinent part: " I f a case f i l e d i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t i s w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a d i s t r i c t c o u r t or a case f i l e d i n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t , the c i r c u i t c l e r k o r a j u d g e o f t h e c o u r t where t h e c a s e was f i l e d s h a l l t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e t o t h e d o c k e t o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t , and t h e c l e r k s h a l l make s u c h c o s t and d o c k e t f e e a d j u s t m e n t s as may be r e q u i r e d and t r a n s f e r a l l c a s e r e c o r d s . " Therefore, Chappell's c a s e was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was action to the jurisdiction provided 768-69 court in order for i t to attain over the a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o mandatory procedures i n § 12-11-9. (Ala. transferring court circuit r e q u i r e d to t r a n s f e r the 1983) a case pursuant See Ex parte (discussing from the Smith, mandatory the d i s t r i c t court t o § 12-11-9 i n o r d e r 4 438 So. nature to the to confer 2d the 766, of circuit circuit 2110510 court with subject-matter jurisdiction over A c c o r d i n g l y , because the c i r c u i t court l a c k e d jurisdiction to January 2012, 18, judgment will Chappell's enter not appeal. a judgment judgment an appeal, ( A l a . 2007) 2d (Ala. 1983))("'[S]ince support an a p p e a l , case, because we ( q u o t i n g Underwood void dismiss 965 So. v. S t a t e , 439 So. a v o i d judgment w i l l i t follows that 2 the a must See G r e e n e v. Town o f C e d a r B l u f f , 2d 773, 779 125, 128 and, case). subject-matter i n Chappell's i s void, support the the appeal i s due not t o be dismissed.'"). M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f an a p p e a l , was as o p p o s e d t o a t r a n s f e r , t h e p r o p e r method the a c t i o n to the c i r c u i t court, that f o r moving the d i s t r i c t court's cannot support an judgment i s a n o n f i n a l appeal because the d i s t r i c t order d i d not dispose of Chappell's judgment court's c l a i m f o r m o n e t a r y damages C h a s e f i l e d a " M o t i o n t o C o n f i r m J u r i s d i c t i o n and S u s p e n d Briefing" with this court, addressing the p o t e n t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l issues i n this action. I n i t s m o t i o n , Chase suggests that t h i s court " t r e a t Chappell's appeal to the c i r c u i t c o u r t as a § 12-11-9 t r a n s f e r t h a t f i x e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t . " I t a t t e m p t s t o d i s t i n g u i s h Ex p a r t e S m i t h , 438 So. 2d 766, t o b o l s t e r t h i s a r g u m e n t . However, t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t the mandatory procedures f o r t r a n s f e r r i n g t h i s case from the d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t were n o t f o l l o w e d and t h a t t h e h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e S m i t h i s c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c a s e a t hand. 2 5 2110510 in t h e amount o f $1,490. ("Any p a r t y may See appeal from a f i n a l court i n a c i v i l A l a . Code judgment of the judgments). 882 So. district A (noting t h a t appeals are taken judgment i s nonfinal 2d 361, 363 § from i f i t fails a d j u d i c a t e a l l t h e c l a i m s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , see Wright, 1975 c a s e by f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . . . . " ) ; 12-12-71, A l a . Code 1975 final § 12-12-70(a), ( A l a . C i v . App. Wright 2003), and to v. "[a] n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . " D z w o n k o w s k i v. Sonitrol of M o b i l e , T h e r e f o r e , we accordance transfer with § j u d g m e n t was So. 2d 354, 363 ( A l a . 2004) . must d i s m i s s C h a p p e l l ' s a p p e a l . Accordingly, properly I n c . , 892 because the the action 12-11-9 and district to the because a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t , we court circuit the failed to court in district court's d i s m i s s the a p p e a l . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, J . , recuses h i m s e l f . 6

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.