James Kevin Webb and Nancy Carol Reid Webb v. Freddie Leon Mitchell, as executor of the estate of Daisy Irene Mitchell, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 3/29/2013 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 eadvance 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, 2012-2013 2111046 James Kevin Webb and Nancy C a r o l R e i d Webb v. Freddie Leon M i t c h e l l , as executor o f the e s t a t e o f Daisy Irene M i t c h e l l , e t a l . Freddie Leon M i t c h e l l , as executor o f the e s t a t e o f Daisy Irene M i t c h e l l , e t a l . v. James Kevin Webb and Nancy C a r o l R e i d Webb Appeals from Jackson C i r c u i t (CV-2005-210) Court 2111046 DONALDSON, J u d g e . This appeal and cross-appeal follow a judicial d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a boundary l i n e between c o t e r m i n o u s a d j o i n i n g properties. Because t h e judgment from which t h e appeal and cross-appeal were taken d i d not adjudicate the claims or i n t e r e s t s of a l l p a r t i e s nor adjudicate a l l of the claims f o r relief and contained i n the complaint, the appeal t h e judgment i s n o t f i n a l a n d t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d . Facts Daisy Irene and Mitchell, 1 Leon M i t c h e l l , S h i r l e y M. Smith, K a y M. R a y b u r n ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y a s "the M i t c h e l l s " ) own adjoins County that l a n d owned b y James K e v i n Webb a n d Nancy C a r o l Reid Webb ( " t h e Webbs"). certain land The M i t c h e l l s i n Jackson f i l e d a complaint seeking a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g the o w n e r s h i p r i g h t s t o a c e r t a i n of property location ("the disputed of properties. the correct The M i t c h e l l s property") boundary also sought strip and d e c l a r i n g t h e line between temporary their injunctive r e l i e f , p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , a n d damages f o r t r e s p a s s . D a i s y Irene M i t c h e l l d i e d during the course of the litigation. The e x e c u t o r of her estate, Freddie Leon M i t c h e l l , was s u b s t i t u t e d i n h e r p l a c e . 1 2 2111046 The trial court restraining the granted Webbs from temporary certain injunctive acts relating relief to the disputed property. The Webbs a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t i n g ownership disputed to the boundary l i n e was 2008, t h e t r i a l and denying l o c a t e d where t h e M i t c h e l l s Webbs s o u g h t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n different location. property that the claimed. The t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e was in a F o l l o w i n g a p r e t r i a l conference court entered the i n March f o l l o w i n g order: " B a s e d upon t h e a s s e r t i o n s o f [ t h e M i t c h e l l s ] t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p o f p r o p e r t y was u s e d i n t h e p a s t by a d j o i n i n g l a n d owners f o r a c c e s s , n a m e l y A d d i e Wilhelm, R u p e r t S h e l t o n and M i l d r e d Moore, t h i s m a t t e r i s c o n t i n u e d t o a l l o w [ t h e M i t c h e l l s ] 30 d a y s t o amend t h e i r p l e a d i n g s t o add s a i d p e r s o n s as p a r t i e s to prevent m u l t i p l i c i t y of l i t i g a t i o n . " The add Mitchells Addie Wilhelm, amended t h e Rupert complaint Shelton, and on May 8, Mildred 2008, to Moore as d e f e n d a n t s ( h e r e i n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e a d d e d defendants"). The M i t c h e l l s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e added d e f e n d a n t s e a c h owned p r o p e r t y a d j o i n i n g e i t h e r t h e M i t c h e l l s ' o r t h e Webbs' p r o p e r t y and a c c e s s e d old r o a d bed Mitchells property t h a t p r o p e r t y by u s i n g t h a t l o c a t e d w i t h i n the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . asserted that any ruling by b o u n d a r y l i n e b e t w e e n t h e i r p r o p e r t y and 3 the court on an The the t h e Webbs' p r o p e r t y 2111046 w o u l d a f f e c t t h e added d e f e n d a n t s ' a b i l i t y t o a c c e s s t h e i r property. order In their claim for r e l i e f , " a d j u d i c a t i n g the the M i t c h e l l s sought respective rights p a r t i e s " as to the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . further incorporated contained On i n the o r i g i n a l May 15, complaint by complaint and the a l l of disputed boundary l i n e . 2008, Webbs denying reasserting their property The the amended claims and an various complaint allegations complaint. the generally the The of own and responded the the allegations position the to as correct amended in to ownership location of the of the Webbs a l s o s t a t e d : "The Court's establishment of the boundary line b e t w e e n t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e [ M i t c h e l l s ] and the p r o p e r t y o f [ t h e Webbs] does n o t impede o r i m p a i r the p r o p e r t y r i g h t s of the Defendants Addie Wilhelm, Rupert S h e l t o n or M i l d r e d Moore. I f these [ a d d e d ] Defendants are l a n d l o c k e d , then they are e n t i t l e d to an easement by n e c e s s i t y o r by i m p l i c a t i o n o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y of the [ M i t c h e l l s ] but are not e n t i t l e d to an e a s e m e n t o r r i g h t o f way o v e r and a l o n g the property o f [ t h e W e b b s ] . Any roadway t h a t was f o r m e r l y u s e d by any o f t h e a d d e d D e f e n d a n t s has b e e n a b a n d o n e d by non-use f o r more t h a n twenty years The boundary Webbs line further between asked the the court to Webbs' p r o p e r t y establish and the Mitchells' p r o p e r t y i n a manner " w h i c h by n e c e s s i t y w o u l d a l s o e s t a b l i s h 4 2111046 the property Defendant, line between [ t h e Webbs] and the [added] M i l d r e d Moore." On J u n e 4, 2008, M i l d r e d M o o r e 2 filed an answer t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t w i t h o u t c o u n s e l a n d s t a t e d : "1. Y e s , I M i l d r e d Moore do own p r o p e r t y b e h i n d t h e P l a i n t i f f , I r e n e M i t c h e l l . Over t h e y e a r s o u r r i g h t of way t o o u r l a n d h a d been t h r o u g h t h e D i s p u t e d Area. W h i c h we have a l w a y s t h o u g h t was on t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s land. "2. Y e s we h a v e been u s i n g t h e o l d r o a d b e d as a c c e s s t o o u r l a n d . D u r i n g t h e l a s t 15 y e a r s my G r a n d s o n a n d G r e a t G r a n d s o n have w a l k e d t h i s r o a d b e d as a p a t h t o my l a n d t o d e e r h u n t a n d t u r k e y hunt. "3. I hope t h a t we c a n c o n t i n u e t o u s e t h e o l d r o a d b e d as a c c e s s t o o u r p r o p e r t y as i n t h e p a s t . " On June defendants, 8, filed 2010, A d d i e an a n s w e r Wilhelm, without one counsel. of 3 the She added admitted owning l a n d a d j a c e n t t o t h e M i t c h e l l s ' p r o p e r t y , b u t d e n i e d knowing anything about the l o c a t i o n of the boundary line b e t w e e n t h e M i t c h e l l s ' p r o p e r t y a n d t h e Webbs' p r o p e r t y . I t a p p e a r s M i l d r e d Moore d i e d a t some p o i n t d u r i n g t h e litigation, b u t t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t any s u b s t i t u t i o n was made i n h e r p l a c e . 2 Addie Wilhelm died during the l i t i g a t i o n . R u s s e l l David W i l h e l m a n d R o g e r J e f f W i l h e l m , as c o e x e c u t o r s o f h e r e s t a t e , were s u b s t i t u t e d i n h e r p l a c e . 3 5 2111046 On June defendants, 12, filed 2008, Rupert Shelton, an a n s w e r w i t h o u t one counsel o f t h e added s t a t i n g that the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y was n o t " w e l l - d e f i n e d " b u t d e n y i n g had any ownership interest i n the disputed t h a t he property as d e p i c t e d b y a d r a w i n g a t t a c h e d t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t . He also stated: "3. Should Defendant SHELTON's access to h i s p r o p e r t y be f o u n d t o c r o s s t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , SHELTON h e r e b y c l a i m s a n d r e s e r v e s h i s c o n t i n u e d right t o access h i s property v i a the disputed property. "4. D e f e n d a n t SHELTON h a s a c c e s s e d h i s p r o p e r t y v i a d i s p u t e d road bed w i t h i n l a s t twenty ( 2 0 ) years." The to Webbs f i l e d Amended several their Complaint." The response was land t o continue Webbs closely plaintiff had been suggested aligned permissive and l i m i t e d to allow this that with type the claims claims of i n the action. 6 of access. Irene in access and t h a t of Shelton Daisy Shelton conditional respects, claiming i n part that Shelton's intended the a "Response t o Answer o f R u p e r t to they Further, may be more Mitchell, a 2111046 In their brief on a p p e a l , t h e M i t c h e l l s included i l l u s t r a t i o n t h a t d i s p l a y s t h e p r o p e r t y owned b y e a c h The M i t c h e l l s an party. 4 state: " T h i s c a s e c e n t e r s on t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e [Webbs' and M i t c h e l l s ' ] c o t e r m i n o u s b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e 90° westward turn of County 168 shown i n the I l l u s t r a t i o n , and t h e n o r t h e r n boundary o f t h e t h r e e p a r c e l s o f t h e 'Added D e f e n d a n t s ' a l s o shown i n t h e Illustration." Regarding Mitchells the claims of t h e added defendants, the s t a t e as f o l l o w s : "The Amended C o m p l a i n t i n t h i s a c t i o n , j o i n i n g t h e s e three Defendants ... s o u g h t a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s o f t h o s e D e f e n d a n t s -- A d d i e W i l h e l m , R u p e r t S h e l t o n , a n d M i l d r e d Moore -- t o a c c e s s their p r o p e r t i e s a l o n g t h e 'wagon t r a i l ' l a b e l e d on t h e I l l u s t r a t i o n . For various reasons, including the d e a t h s o f W i l h e l m a n d Moore a n d u n c e r t a i n t y o v e r t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i r e s t a t e s , t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t chose n o t t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t c l a i m a t t h e h e a r i n g on A p r i l 4, 2011." A t r i a l was c o n d u c t e d on S e p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2010 a n d A p r i l 2011. When the proceeding following occurred: "THE COURT: ... gentlemen. And began I'm on ready September 4, 20, the i f y'all are, The " i l l u s t r a t i o n " a p p e a r s t o be an a r i e l p h o t o g r a p h o f the p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t i e s and s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a s , w i t h l i n e s s u p e r i m p o s e d on t h e p h o t o g r a p h t o d e p i c t t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e parties' properties. 4 7 2111046 "[COUNSEL FOR THE WEBBS]: J u d g e , I b e l i e v e a l l t h e p l a i n t i f f s a r e a c t u a l p a r t i e s , a n d I want t o make s u r e o f t h a t . W i t h t h e changes a n d a d d i t i o n s , I believe that i s correct. "THE COURT: Why d o n ' t we a d d r e s s t h a t . some i s s u e a b o u t somebody h a v i n g d i e d . There was "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : W e l l , y e a h . J u d g e , i f I c o u l d a d d r e s s t h a t , a n d I'm r e f e r r i n g t o t h e t a x map, w h i c h shows t h r e e 1 6 - a c r e s t r i p s - "THE COURT: Y e s , sir. "[COUNSEL FOR THE these p l a i n t i f f s d i s p u t e h a s t o do t h a t I'm p o i n t i n g M I T C H E L L S ] : -- t h a t a d j o i n e d b o t h and t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s , and t h e with a continuation of t h i s road t o -- "THE sir. COURT: Y e s , "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : -- t h a t comes up t h e m o u n t a i n h e r e a n d h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n u s e d as an a c c e s s b y t h o s e t h r e e 1 6 - a c r e l a n d o w n e r s . They were a d d e d as p a r t i e s some t i m e ago, a n d s i n c e t h e y ' v e b e e n added, two o f them have p a s s e d away, A d d i e W i l h e l m , who p a s s e d away months ago, i f n o t o v e r a y e a r ago, a n d t h e n M r s . C u r t i s M o o r e , who I d i d n ' t know u n t i l t h i s m o r n i n g h a d p a s s e d away much more r e c e n t l y . The o t h e r one -- t h e o t h e r 1 6 - a c r e s t r i p l a n d o w n e r i s R u p e r t S h e l t o n . A n d t h e y have f i l e d a p r o se answer, b u t t h e y ' r e n o t h e r e e i t h e r . So b a s i c a l l y t h e s i t u a t i o n as i t e x i s t s t h i s m o r n i n g i s t h a t we have two l a n d o w n e r s who a r e p a r t i e s t o t h e c a s e who have p a s s e d away, a n d I d o n ' t know t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e i r e s t a t e , whether t h e r e has been a probate or anything l i k e that. "THE COURT: Those a r e l a n d o w n e r s s t r i p s ; i s that correct? of t h e 16-acre "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : C o r r e c t , 8 y o u r Honor. 2111046 "THE COURT: I s t h a t y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t h e Webbs]? [counsel f o r "[COUNSEL FOR THE WEBBS]: I t i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g . "THE COURT: A r e t h o s e f o l k s n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s t o t h e c a s e ? I t l o o k e d t o me l i k e t h e d i s p u t e was up t h e r e on t h e c u r v e . "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : W e l l , s e e , t h e p r o b l e m i s t h a t -"THE COURT: I f t h e r e landlocked. i s no a c c e s s , i t leaves them "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : Our c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t the o l d roadbed, which c o n s t i t u t e s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e d i s p u t e d a r e a , was a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h i s c o u n t y road that went on up t h e m o u n t a i n and had t r a d i t i o n a l l y been u s e d b y t h e s e p a r t i e s f o r a c c e s s t o t h e i r l a n d . A n d so I a d d e d them f o r two r e a s o n s : Number o n e , t h e y h a d a l o t o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e use o f t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p down t h r o u g h t h e y e a r s ; number t w o , t o p r e v e n t a f u t u r e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e plaintiffs f o r private condemnation of the r i g h t - o f - w a y i n t h e e v e n t t h a t we p r e v a i l o r i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e Webbs p r e v a i l . E i t h e r p a r t y that p r e v a i l s may i n t h e f u t u r e want t o c u t them o f f , a n d i f they're p a r t i e s , then any i s s u e s they had t o prevent a future claim against the p l a i n t i f f s f o r p r i v a t e condemnation o f t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y i n the e v e n t t h a t we p r e v a i l o r i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e Webbs p r e v a i l . E i t h e r p a r t y t h a t p r e v a i l s may i n t h e f u t u r e want t o c u t them o f f , a n d i f t h e y ' r e p a r t i e s , t h e n a n y i s s u e s t h e y h a d c o u l d be b e t t e r a d d r e s s e d . "THE COURT: W e l l , I t h i n k t h e i s s u e o f a c c e s s w i l l j u s t have t o be r a i s e d a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e time. "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : T h a t s u i t s me 9 fine. 2111046 "THE COURT: N o t t o d a y . A n d o b v i o u s l y i f t h e y ' r e n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , we c a n ' t a d d r e s s a n y i s s u e s t h e y may have h e r e t o d a y , b u t w e ' l l do what we c a n b e t w e e n t h e s e p a r t i e s t h a t a r e p r e s e n t . "[COUNSEL FOR THE M I T C H E L L S ] : A l l r i g h t . "THE COURT: U n l e s s somebody h a s g o t a b e t t e r i d e a . "[COUNSEL FOR THE WEBBS]: No, s i r . Rupert Shelton, an added t e s t i f i e d when t h e p r o c e e d i n g s defendant, resumed on A p r i l appeared and 4, 2 0 1 1 . H i s t e s t i m o n y a p p e a r s t o have b e e n d i r e c t e d t o t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e boundary l i n e During Webb, and n o t t o h i s a b i l i t y t o access h i s p r o p e r t y . one p o r t i o n o f t h e c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n counsel whether f o r the M i t c h e l l s he w o u l d allow questioned t h e added defendants him regarding t o access portion of the disputed property i f thet r i a l court the l o c a t i o n o f t h e boundary l i n e was. James Webb o f James determined t o be where he a s s e r t e d i t testified: "Q. How do y o u f e e l about use o f t h e roadbed [located within the disputed property]? "A. I f t h e y want t o c o n t i n u e t o u s e b e t w e e n t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e and t h e fence l i n e , t h a t i s f i n e w i t h me. "Q. What a b o u t i n t h e a r e a where t h e r o a d b e d g e t s across your survey l i n e before i t gets t o other p r o p e r t y owners [ i . e . , t h e added d e f e n d a n t s ] b a c k t h e r e ? How do y o u f e e l a b o u t t h a t ? 10 a 2111046 "A. I have a p r o b l e m w i t h that. "Q. Y o u g o t a p r o b l e m w i t h i t ? "A. Y e s , sir. "Q. B a s i c a l l y r e g a r d l e s s o f what t h e u s e s have b e e n down t h r o u g h t h e d e c a d e s , t h e n y o u s a y t h a t w h a t e v e r y o u r s u r v e y s a y s i s what y o u want t o do r e g a r d l e s s w h e t h e r Mr. S h e l t o n ' s f a m i l y , Mr. W i l h e l m ' s f a m i l y , Ms. Moore's f a m i l y , t h e M i t c h e l l s , p e o p l e i n McBroom H o l l o w a n d a l l b a c k t h r o u g h have u s e d t h a t r o a d b e d , t h e n you want t o s h u t i t down? "A. T h a t ' s correct." On A u g u s t 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l containing following detailed findings of court fact e n t e r e d an o r d e r and granting relief: "1. The c o u r t f i n d s t h e i s s u e s [ M i t c h e l l s ] a g a i n s t t h e [Webbs]. i n favor of the 2. The b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s i s f i x e d as t h e e a s t m a r g i n o f t h e p a v e m e n t o f C o u n t y Road 168 a n d extending southwardly along the east margin of the old roadbed t h a t runs or f o r m e r l y r a n onto the mountain which l i e s a t the r e a r o f the p a r t i e s ' r e a l estate. 3. The [ M i t c h e l l s ] a r e a l l o w e d 120 d a y s h e r e f r o m t o submit t o the court a p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s boundary prepared by a licensed real estate surveyor, along with a suggested order f i x i n g the same as t h e b o u n d a r y . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the p a r t i e s are f r e e t o a g r e e where t h e e a s t b o u n d a r y l i e s on the g r o u n d a n d s u b m i t t h e i r agreement t o t h e c o u r t by s u g g e s t e d o r d e r f o r e n t r y . 11 the 2111046 4. C o s t s o f t h i s a c t i o n a r e t a x e d t o t h e [ M i t c h e l l s ] f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n may be h a d a c c o r d i n g t o l a w . 5. E x c e p t as s t a t e d i n p a r a g r a p h 3, a b o v e , t h i s i s a f i n a l , appealable order f o r a l l purposes. 6. P e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t , no one s h a l l block, obstruct, r e s t r i c t , i n t e r f e r e or attempt t o do t h e same w i t h t h e Webbs' d r i v e w a y o r t h e i r f r e e i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s f r o m t h e same." The damages order the M i t c h e l l s ' f o r t r e s p a s s o r f o r permanent Consistent trial, d i d not address with the discussions the order also that d i d not address claims f o r injunctive relief. occurred before the the i n t e r e s t s of the added d e f e n d a n t s . The Webbs p r o m p t l y f i l e d to a motion a s k i n g the t r i a l court e i t h e r make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e A u g u s t 22 o r d e r was "final" f o r purposes of Rule 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o delete paragraph 5 of that order. asserted that neither t h e Webbs The Webbs nor the M i t c h e l l s could d e t e r m i n e t h e i m p a c t o f t h e o r d e r on t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s until the survey referenced i n paragraph completed. On O c t o b e r 3 o f t h e o r d e r was 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 s t a t i n g as f o l l o w s : "Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e [Webbs'] M o t i o n t o C e r t i f y Order p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i t s O r d e r 12 2111046 o f A u g u s t 22, 2011 does n o t d e t e r m i n e a l l i s s u e s pending before the Court and that there are r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s t o be r e s o l v e d . T h e r e f o r e , the C o u r t ' s O r d e r o f A u g u s t 22,2011 i s NOT c e r t i f i e d as a f i n a l Order p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , any p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t o f t h e Court n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . " 5 On November Reconsideration Vacate" the 21, or August 2011, in the 2011 the Webbs filed Alternative order. 6 The h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n on J a n u a r y 30, 2012. and February t h e Webbs were p r e s e n t . 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 On to a "Motion Alter, trial for Amend court held or a Only the M i t c h e l l s 13, 2012, the motion to a l t e r , the trial amend, o r v a c a t e as " b e i n g p r e m a t u r e , " b e c a u s e t h e s u r v e y r e f e r e n c e d i n S e c t i o n 35-3-3, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t a c o u r t may order a survey " a f t e r the e n t r y of judgment" i f the boundary l i n e s a t i s s u e a r e o t h e r w i s e a s c e r t a i n a b l e by r e f e r e n c e t o " w e l l - k n o w n p e r m a n e n t l a n d m a r k s . " T h i s s t a t u t e does not p r o h i b i t t h e c o u r t f r o m o r d e r i n g a s u r v e y a t any o t h e r t i m e i n c l u d i n g b e f o r e the f i n a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the boundary l i n e . See, e.g., § 35-3-20, A l a . Code 1975; R u l e 706, A l a . R. E v i d . In an a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e , r e f e r e n c e t o § 35-3-3 c o u l d be u s e f u l i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an o t h e r w i s e i n t e r l o c u t o r y j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be c e r t i f i e d 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 t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e s u r v e y . 5 T h i s m o t i o n was f i l e d more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y of the o r d e r ; however, the o r d e r d i d not determine a l l of the i s s u e s between the p a r t i e s . Therefore, i t remained " s u b j e c t to revision a t any time before the e n t r y of judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l t h e c l a i m s and 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 . " R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. B e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t was n o n f i n a l , t h e t i m e p e r i o d s o f R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., were n o t a p p l i c a b l e . 6 13 2111046 the August 2011 incorporated the court order into had not a judgment. adopted a survey yet been approved I n t h a t same F e b r u a r y establishing and order, the boundary line b e t w e e n t h e M i t c h e l l s a n d Webbs a n d s t a t e d : " T h i s i s a f i n a l , appealable motion order f o r a l l purposes." to alter, That motion Both amend, o r v a c a t e the February another 2012 o r d e r . was d e n i e d f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g . the M i t c h e l l s a n d t h e Webbs f r o m t h e F e b r u a r y 2012 o r d e r . the The Webbs f i l e d evidence filed timely appeals The Webbs p r i m a r i l y a r g u e t h a t d i d not support the order determining the l o c a t i o n o f t h e boundary l i n e , w h i l e t h e M i t c h e l l s argue t h a t the survey location August adopted b y t h e c o u r t was n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e o f t h e boundary 2011 o r d e r . In t h e i r "potential judisdictional February or the line described brief, f o r permanent i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . at t r i a l damages a n d f o r i n j u n c t i v e the M i t c h e l l s note a f l a w " i n t h a t t h e A u g u s t 2011 a n d 2012 o r d e r s d i d n o t a d d r e s s testimony presented generally i n the 7 t h e i r c l a i m s f o r damages The M i t c h e l l s c l a i m t h a t established their right to relief. T h e A u g u s t 2011 o r d e r e n j o i n s c e r t a i n a c t i v i t y f r o m b e i n g t a k e n t h a t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e Webbs' r i g h t s , b u t n o t t h e Mitchells' rights. 7 14 2111046 Discussion "Generally, this court's appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n e x t e n d s o n l y t o f i n a l j u d g m e n t s . § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 1975. "'A j u d g m e n t i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l claims, 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 been 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 o n l y 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 c o u r t d i r e c t s the 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 [478] a t 480 App. 2 0 0 9 ) ] . " A u s t i n v. A u s t i n , 102 So. 3d 403, 406 T h e r e a r e two r e a s o n s why for damages addressed. and permanent See, e.g., H a l l 2009)(dismissing an appeal ( A l a . C i v . App. the appeals not from a f i n a l judgment. F i r s t , i n this 2012). case are the claims of the M i t c h e l l s injunctive v. R e y n o l d s , when [(Ala. Civ. the relief were not 27 So. 3d 479 ( A l a . order establishing a b o u n d a r y l i n e d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e c l a i m s f o r damages a n d f o r injunctive relief); App. 2008) Day v. D a v i s , 989 So. 2d 1118 ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l when a j u d g m e n t e s t a b l i s h i n g a boundary l i n e d i d not address remaining M i t c h e l l s a s s e r t that they presented trial (Ala. Civ. tort claims). s u f f i c i e n t testimony The at t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r c l a i m s f o r damages and f o r p e r m a n e n t 15 2111046 injunctive relief, i . e . , they assert their c l a i m s were n o t waived by f a i l i n g t o present evidence trial. Therefore, the order d i d not adjudicate a l l of and We a g r e e . t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s on t h e s e c l a i m s a t t h e o f t h e M i t c h e l l s a n d t h e Webbs c a n n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . Second, the t r i a l court's orders d i d not address the c l a i m s i n v o l v i n g t h e added d e f e n d a n t s . The d i s c u s s i o n s b e t w e e n c o u n s e l f o r t h e M i t c h e l l s a n d Webbs b e f o r e t r i a l i n d i c a t e t h a t t h o s e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d t o have a s e p a r a t e t r i a l i f necessary r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e added d e f e n d a n t s . separate trial of certain claims remains part c a s e , a n d an o r d e r r e s o l v i n g c l a i m s i n one t r i a l and will not support an a p p e a l . See Day v. However, a of a single i s not f i n a l Davis, supra ( n o t i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between a s e p a r a t e t r i a l and a s e v e r e d case). The c l a i m s severed, tried involving and t h e i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g by t h e p a r t i e s default t h e added d e f e n d a n t s during trial. t o those were n o t c l a i m s were n o t No p a r t y requested a a g a i n s t any p a r t y p r o p e r l y named a n d s e r v e d b u t n o t appearing a t t r i a l . defendants remain T h e r e f o r e , t h e c l a i m s i n v o l v i n g t h e added pending. 16 2111046 The next q u e s t i o n i s whether the February i n t e n d e d t o be r e v i e w a b l e under Rule which provides 2012 order Civ. 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. was P., in pertinent part: "When ... m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s a r e i n v o l v e d , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o one o r more b u t f e w e r t h a t a l l o f t h e ... p a r t i e s 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 and 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 .... [ I ] n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n , any o r d e r o r o t h e r f o r m o f d e c i s i o n , however d e s i g n a t e d , w h i c h a d j u d i c a t e s fewer than a l l the claims or the rights and l i a b i l i t i e s of fewer than a l l the p a r t i e s s h a l l not t e r m i n a t e t h e a c t i o n as t o any o f t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s , and t h e o r d e r o r o t h e r f o r m o f d e c i s i o n i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a t any t i m e b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l t h e c l a i m s and 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 . " The February 13, 2012, o r d e r does n o t c o n t a i n a l l o f r e q u i r e d , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s a r c h a i c , l a n g u a g e o f 54(b) it reference certainly the entered "appealable." subsection of immediately Importantly, both the rule. 8 The indicates i t i s the M i t c h e l l s have t r e a t e d t h e o r d e r as a p p e a l a b l e . There are the n o r does order was "final" and and t h e Webbs circumstances W i t h e l e c t r o n i c f i l i n g and o t h e r modern c o u r t p r a c t i c e s , whether the requirement in the rule of "express[ly] d i r e c t [ i n g ] " t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t by t h e C l e r k r e m a i n s n e c e s s a r y i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . F o r e x a m p l e , an o r d e r r e n d e r e d by t h e c o u r t and e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d i s deemed t o be " e n t e r e d " a t t h e same t i m e . R u l e 5 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) and ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 8 17 2111046 in which intended all an appellate can i n f e r t o be c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l of the language 2d 83, 87 that an order was u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) e v e n when r e q u i r e d b y t h e r u l e was n o t u s e d . See Sho-Me M o t o r L o d g e s , So. court I n c . v. J e h l e - S l a u s o n (Ala. 1985) (concluding Constr. that Co., 4 66 the statement " ' [ t ] h e C o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s 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 in the entry of said f i n a l j u d g m e n t ' " was s u f f i c i e n t t o make a judgment f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) ) ; Nat'l 2000) C a r r i e r s , I n c . v. T i n n e y , (noting that intended to enter a final Schneider 776 So. 2d 753, 755 ( A l a . " i f i t i s clear language used by t h e t r i a l see a l s o and o b v i o u s court i n i t s order from t h e that the court order pursuant t o Rule 54(b), [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] w i l l t r e a t t h e o r d e r as a f i n a l even though the order may not contain indicating that i ti s , i n fact, of a f i n a l judgment). case does reflect M i t c h e l l s ' remaining judgment" a l lthe language d i r e c t i n g the entry B u t we must h o l d t h a t t h e o r d e r i n t h i s i s not s u f f i c i e n t not an o r d e r then that under Rule 54(b) because consideration was the record given to the c l a i m s o r t h e c l a i m s i n v o l v i n g t h e addded d e f e n d a n t s a n d w h e t h e r t h e r e was a e x p r e s s determination that there i n certifying the was "no just reason f o r delay" 18 2111046 i n t e r l o c u t o r y order to certify nor is i t decision. final, that an final. required to i f an articulate and the Fleetwood of Trucking 2012) (quoting 1256, 1263 ( A l a . 2010), improperly certified determination expression reasoning reviewing If 90 So. Lighting Fair, marks is reasons is claims 3d 180, Inc. V. quoting in 182 binding of the t r i a l upon turn only the claims as as court not "'so (Ala. Civ. other an an c o u r t w o u l d be certified the 63 cases appeal v. App. So. 3d (some from Although appellate an such a court, an as t o the of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e i n final involving an Hetzel Rosenberg, interlocutory order). not are results.'" omitted))(dismissing order for certified on t h e r e c o r d o r w i t h i n t h e o r d e r i t s e l f an 54(b), a d j u d i c a t i o n would pose inconsistent Co., quotation under Rule the remaining c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d that separate risk as f i n a l required must have b e e n made by t h e t r i a l adjudicated unreasonable c o u r t i s not i n t e r l o c u t o r y order a determination the A trial i n t e r l o c u t o r y order But 9 as the under added rule 54(b). defendants T h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r u n d e r 5 4 ( b ) s h o u l d o n l y be granted i n " e x c e p t i o n a l " cases. See H e t z e l v. Fleetwood T r u c k i n g Co., 90 So. 3d 180 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) (citing cases). 9 19 2111046 r e m a i n e d , i t w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e trial court certified f o r i t to consider as f i n a l under Rule t o remand t h e c a s e t o t h e whether the order s h o u l d be 54(b): "'When i t a p p e a r s f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t [an] a p p e a l was t a k e n f r o m an o r d e r w h i c h was n o t f i n a l , b u t w h i c h c o u l d have b e e n made f i n a l b y a R u l e 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n , we w i l l remand t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t for a determination as t o w h e t h e r i t c h o o s e s t o c e r t i f y t h e o r d e r as f i n a l , pursuant t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , a n d , i f i t so c h o o s e s , t o e n t e r s u c h an o r d e r a n d t o supplement t h e r e c o r d t o r e f l e c t that c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The j u d g m e n t w i l l be t a k e n as final as o f t h e d a t e t h e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s entered "'... [ I ] f t h i s C o u r t remands t h e c a s e to t h e t r i a l court f o r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f making such a c e r t i f i c a t i o n , the t r i a l c o u r t w i l l have t h e l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r a 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n i f , in i t s d i s c r e t i o n , i t decides t h e e n t r y o f such a c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s appropriate.' " F o s t e r v. G r e e r & Sons, I n c . , 446 So. 2d 605, 609-10 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2d 507, 510 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . " H a n n e r v . M e t r o Bank & P r o t e c t i v e L i f e 1056, 1061-1062 involve ( A l a . 2006). I n s . Co., 952 So. 2d But the remaining the non-adjudicated claims of issues also the M i t c h e l l s f o r damages a n d f o r p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , not j u s t i n v o l v i n g t h e added d e f e n d a n t s , adjudication of 20 and s e p a r a t e claims 2111046 these c l a i m s and t h e p r e v i o u s l y r e v o l v e d c l a i m s would "'pose an u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k o f i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s . ' " H e t z e l , 90 So. 3d a t 182. T h i s c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear the appeals b e c a u s e a l l c l a i m s o f a l l p a r t i e s have n o t b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d , and accordingly, the appeal and the cross-appeal must be dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 21 Thomas, and Moore, 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.