William R. Miller and Sarah L. Miller v. Miles Jones

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 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 ((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, 2012-2013 2110624 W i l l i a m R. M i l l e r and Sarah L. M i l l e r v. M i l e s Jones Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-901344) PITTMAN, Judge. William ("Sarah") R. appeal Miller from ("William") an and Sarah interlocutory L. default e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them b y t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t Miller judgment ("the t r i a l 2110624 c o u r t " ) . We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l because t h e judgment a p p e a l e d from i s n o t a f i n a l judgment. In August 2011, M i l e s Lakeside Properties, Ltd. Jones sued ("Lakeside"), William, stating various on b e h a l f o f h i m s e l f a n d two l i m i t e d - l i a b i l i t y LLC, and claims c o m p a n i e s , MAJ, a n d DJM, L L C . J o n e s ' s c o m p l a i n t s o u g h t n o t o n l y damages, 1 but also declaratory process server William, a Sarah, left relief. copies On S e p t e m b e r 3, 2 0 1 1 , a p r i v a t e o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t f o r Sarah, and L a k e s i d e w i t h W i l l i a m and Sarah's son a t residence located on M c I n t o s h Bluff i n Fairhope. Jones s u b s e q u e n t l y amended h i s c o m p l a i n t t o name M i l l e r A c q u i s i t i o n s and Developments, corporation, Inc. and M i l l e r ("MAD Alabama"), an Alabama A c q u i s i t i o n s and Developments, I n c . ("MAD M i s s i s s i p p i " ) , a M i s s i s s i p p i c o r p o r a t i o n , as a d d i t i o n a l defendants. On O c t o b e r behalf to of himself, dismiss") that 4, 2 0 1 1 , W i l l i a m , valid pro se, f i l e d , Sarah, and L a k e s i d e a motion seeking service acting dismissal of process of the action had n o t been on ("the m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d effected on B e c a u s e we do n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a p p e a l , we do n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r J o n e s h a d s t a n d i n g t o p r o s e c u t e c l a i m s on b e h a l f o f MAJ, L L C , a n d DJM, L L C . 1 2 2110624 William, day, Sarah, or Lakeside Jones f i l e d defend S e p t e m b e r 3, applications for a g a i n s t W i l l i a m , Sarah, otherwise on and specified amounts Lakeside. That granting Jones's and (2) of same 2011. 2 The next (1) t h e e n t r y o f d e f a u l t s Lakeside for failure to plead or the e n t r y of d e f a u l t judgments f o r damages day, against the trial applications. William, court N e i t h e r the Sarah, entered and orders applications for d e f a u l t judgments nor the o r d e r s g r a n t i n g those a p p l i c a t i o n s addressed the declaratory relief Jones had response to sought in the complaint. Thereafter, d i s m i s s and Jones filed a a motion a s k i n g the t r i a l the motion court to enter a to final d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f and t o d i s p o s e o f h i s claim f o r damages a g a i n s t W i l l i a m , S a r a h , O c t o b e r 13, 2011, motion Lakeside. 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 d e n y i n g motion to d i s m i s s ; i t entered Jones's and for the a separate entry of a final order (1) judgment On the granting against B e c a u s e we do n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a p p e a l , we do n o t r e a c h t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was a n u l l i t y b e c a u s e W i l l i a m was n o t a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y and, t h e r e f o r e , h i s p u r p o r t i n g t o r e p r e s e n t S a r a h and Lakeside c o n s t i t u t e d t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d p r a c t i c e o f l a w . See Ex p a r t e G h a f a r y , 738 So. 2d 778, 781 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . 2 3 2110624 William, Sarah, and Lakeside and (2) a t t o r n e y to submit a proposed f i n a l trial Jones's d e f a u l t judgment f o r the court's consideration. On O c t o b e r 19, 2011, served with process. order directing that final to Lakeside and a w a r d e d him Within granted 30 be a judgment") L a k e s i d e . The p u r p o r t e d and A l a b a m a and MAD T h a t same day, purported purported MAD M i s s i s s i p p i were the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d final default against judgment William, ("the Sarah, and f i n a l judgment a g a i n s t W i l l i a m , Sarah, Jones's request for declaratory relief damages. days of the entry of the purported j u d g m e n t , s e v e r a l o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d what p u r p o r t e d final t o be a postjudgment motion a s k i n g the t r i a l court to set aside purported 2012, final an judgment. In January the trial the court e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e p u r p o r t e d f i n a l j u d g m e n t as to Sarah Lakeside purported only. t o be court denied. from the transferred Thereafter, W i l l i a m and filed another postjudgment motion, which the W i l l i a m and purported to t h i s Sarah then f i l e d a n o t i c e of final c o u r t by § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code judgment, the 1975. 4 and the what trial appeal appeal supreme c o u r t , p u r s u a n t was to 2110624 As a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , jurisdiction we must d e t e r m i n e t o review the purported final w h e t h e r we have judgment. "Subject to l i m i t e d exceptions not a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case, '"'"an appeal w i l l l i e o n l y from a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " ' " ' B u s b y v . L e w i s , 993 So. 2d 3 1 , 33 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g Owens v. Owens, 739 So. 2d 5 1 1 , 513 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , i n t u r n q u o t i n g T a y l o r v . T a y l o r , 398 So. 2d 267, 269 ( A l a . 1981) ) . "'"'A f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one t h a t c o m p l e t e l y adjudicates a l l matters i n controversy between t h e p a r t i e s . "'"'... An o r d e r t h a t does n o t d i s p o s e o f a l l claims or determine t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s t o an a c t i o n is not a f i n a l judgment. I n such an i n s t a n c e , an a p p e a l may be h a d " o n l y upon an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y a n d upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t . " See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.'"' "Busby v. L e w i s , 993 So. 2d a t 34 ( q u o t i n g Adams v. N a p h C a r e , I n c . , 869 So. 2d 1179, 1181 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , i n t u r n q u o t i n g Eubanks v. M c C o l l u m , 828 So. 2d 935, 937 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . " P i k e v. Reed, 3 So. 3d 2 0 1 , 203 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . MAD A l a b a m a a n d MAD M i s s i s s i p p i were s e r v e d w i t h on O c t o b e r 19, 2 0 1 1 , w h i c h made any j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d process on o r a f t e r t h a t date t h a t d i d not a d j u d i c a t e a l l the c o n t r o v e r s i e s as t o MAD A l a b a m a a n d MAD M i s s i s s i p p i i n t e r l o c u t o r y was c e r t i f i e d as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t 5 unless i t t o Rule 54(b), A l a . 2110624 R. C i v . P. C f . R u l e 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. (providing that, when t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s and p r o c e s s has been s e r v e d on one o r more, b u t n o t a l l , o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , a judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l c o n t r o v e r s i e s as t o a l l t h e s e r v e d d e f e n d a n t s is a final judgment); and Rule 54(b), A l a . R. Civ. ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t , e x c e p t as t o j u d g m e n t s t h a t a r e f i n a l P. as t o a l l s e r v e d d e f e n d a n t s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 ( f ) , any j u d g m e n t t h a t adjudicates fewer than a l l the c o n t r o v e r s i e s as t o a l l t h e p a r t i e s i s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y j u d g m e n t u n l e s s i t i s c e r t i f i e d as a final j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) ) . The p u r p o r t e d final j u d g m e n t d i d n o t a d j u d i c a t e t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t MAD A l a b a m a and MAD M i s s i s s i p p i , and, t h e r e f o r e , i t d i d n o t a d j u d i c a t e a l l t h e c o n t r o v e r s i e s as t o a l l t h e s e r v e d d e f e n d a n t s . M o r e o v e r , t h e trial final c o u r t d i d n o t c e r t i f y t h e p u r p o r t e d f i n a l j u d g m e n t as a judgment purported f i n a l "The pursuant Rule 54(b). judgment i s n o t a f i n a l question jurisdictional to whether question, a and judgment. judgment the Consequently, is reviewing d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e judgment i s not f i n a l , d i s m i s s t h e c a s e . " H u b b a r d v. H u b b a r d , (Ala. C i v . App. 2006). 6 Id. final is a court, on a has a d u t y t o 935 So. 2d 1191, A c c o r d i n g l y , because the the 1192 judgment 2110624 appealed from i n the p r e s e n t case i s not a f i n a l d i s m i s s the judgment, we appeal. J o n e s has moved t h i s g r o u n d t h a t W i l l i a m and appeal w i t h i n c o u r t to d i s m i s s the appeal Sarah f a i l e d to f i l e on the t h e i r n o t i c e of 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e p u r p o r t e d final j u d g m e n t . However, b e c a u s e t h e p u r p o r t e d f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s n o t a final j u d g m e n t , t h e e n t r y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t d i d n o t commence t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e 42-day p e r i o d f o r W i l l i a m and S a r a h t o a n o t i c e of appeal. See C o r p . , 75 So. 3d 660, 666-67 ( A l a . C i v . App. we deny J o n e s ' s R u f f i n v. General Motors file Acceptance 2011) . T h e r e f o r e , motion. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas, Moore, and concur. 7 Donaldson, J J . ,

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.