Gloria Savage v. Dr. Timothy Marlow et al.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/21/2013 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 2120078 G l o r i a Savage v. Dr. Timothy Marlow e t a l . Appeal from Wilcox C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-8) PITTMAN, Judge. G l o r i a Savage ( " G l o r i a " ) a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r of Dr. Timothy Mutual"), M a r l o w , MAG M u t u a l and Jack H i n t o n , Insurance Company J r . We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . ("MAG 2120078 I n M a r c h 2012, Loretta Savage Hinton, alleging G l o r i a , C o u r t n e y Savage ("Loretta") that, in ("Courtney"), and and sued Marlow, MAG 2009, Loretta Mutual, had sued Marlow, s t a t i n g a c l a i m of m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e ; t h a t , d u r i n g Marlow's deposition in confidential Loretta's medical action, information Marlow regarding d u r i n g h i s c l o s i n g argument i n L o r e t t a ' s attorney representing confidential medical Hinton an was malpractice Marlow agent insurer. of tort claims (collectively The things, "the filed dismissal assessment of a t t o r n e y and their attorney Accountability Code 1975. subsequently, Act The the an disclosed G l o r i a ; and that medical- allegations, Gloria, "the p l a i n t i f f s " ) M a r l o w , MAG Mutual, stated and Hinton among other defendants"). defendants the against that, Marlow's those (collectively Gloria; a c t i o n , had Mutual, on disclosed action, Hinton, regarding MAG Based C o u r t n e y , and L o r e t t a various i n that information had of a motion the f e e s and pursuant ("the trial plaintiffs' an to Litigation the § held 2 and plaintiffs Alabama 12-19-270 e t responded court claims c o s t s a g a i n s t the ALAA"), plaintiffs seeking, to the a hearing seq., Ala. motion, and, regarding the 2120078 motion. Thereafter, on May a j u d g m e n t ("the May 21, 2012, the p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d be had granted (2) d e t e r m i n i n g , in 2012, the t r i a l court entered j u d g m e n t " ) (1) d e t e r m i n i n g f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h and d i s m i s s i n g a l l the plaintiffs' that relief claims; b a s e d on an a n a l y s i s o f t h e 12 f a c t o r s l i s t e d § 12-19-273, a p a r t o f t h e ALAA, t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s their attorney justification the 21, the A L A A ; and the brought the action without substantial and t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d by defendants against had and i n defending plaintiffs and the action their should attorney be assessed pursuant to the (3) g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s a p e r i o d o f 10 d a y s f r o m entry of the May 21, 2012, judgment to submit d o c u m e n t a t i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs they the trial court and i n c u r r e d i n defending could assess a specific the a c t i o n so that amount o f a t t o r n e y fees c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. On 8, had June 8, 2012, 2012, Entered motion") the p l a i n t i f f s titled "Motion by t h e C o u r t on t h e 2 1 s t Day f i l e d a motion to Reconsider o f May 2012 ("the June Judgment o r [ , ] i n the A l t e r n a t i v e , [ t o ] G r a n t R e l i e f f r o m [ t h a t ] Judgment U n d e r R u l e 60(b)(6) of the [Alabama Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e ] . " 3 T h a t same 2120078 day, the p l a i n t i f f s filed a pleading titled "Amendment t o C o m p l a i n t , " w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t C o u r t n e y a n d L o r e t t a were "no longer [p]laintiffs or p a r t i e s to this matter." A f t e r the d e f e n d a n t s h a d s u b m i t t e d d o c u m e n t a t i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e amount of t h e a t t o r n e y fees and c o s t s they had i n c u r r e d i n d e f e n d i n g the action, judgment fees the t r i a l court, on June 12, 2012, e n t e r e d ("the June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t " ) a s s e s s i n g and c o s t s totaling $8,826 against a attorney the p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r a t t o r n e y p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. On J u l y 22, 2012, t h e 6 2 d d a y a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e May 21, 2012, j u d g m e n t a n d t h e 4 0 t h d a y a f t e r the entry June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t , G l o r i a f i l e d a m o t i o n 2012, motion") t i t l e d "Second Request of the ("the J u l y 22, f o rHearing" i n which she a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n was a R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., requested motion; that t h e June a h e a r i n g ; and t h a t t h e t r i a l h o l d such a h e a r i n g . 8, 2012, m o t i o n had c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o 1 On A u g u s t 23, 2012, G l o r i a p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e May 21, 2012, j u d g m e n t a n d t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t . T h i s c o u r t d o c k e t e d t h a t mandamus p e t i t i o n as c a s e no. 2111118. On A u g u s t 24, 2012, t h i s c o u r t d e n i e d G l o r i a ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n . 1 On A u g u s t 29, 2012, G l o r i a p e t i t i o n e d t h e supreme 4 court 2120078 On S e p t e m b e r regarding 17, 2012, t h e t r i a l t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n court held and t h e J u l y a hearing 22, 2012, m o t i o n ; however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e n t e r a w r i t t e n o r d e r r u l i n g on t h o s e m o t i o n s . On O c t o b e r 22, 2012, G l o r i a notice of appeal. Gloria's appeal 2 Thereafter, to this filed a t h e supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d court pursuant t o § 12-2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975. Jurisdictional issues a r e o f such importance that an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t a n y t i m e a n d w i l l do so e v e n ex mero motu. See, e . g . , M a r s h v. M a r s h , 852 So. 2d 161, 163 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . B e c a u s e " [ t ] h e t i m e l y of a n o t i c e o f appeal filing i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t , " M a r s h , 852 So. 2d a t 163, we must f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e o f appeal was t i m e l y filed. I f a t r i a l c o u r t does n o t a d j u d i c a t e a p e n d i n g ALAA c l a i m in an o t h e r w i s e reserve final jurisdiction j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s i n that judgment o f an a c t i o n o r to consider t h e ALAA f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h e May 2 1 , 2012, j u d g m e n t a n d t h e J u n e 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t . The supreme c o u r t d o c k e t e d t h a t mandamus p e t i t i o n as c a s e no. 1111532. On S e p t e m b e r 18, 2 0 1 2 , t h e supreme c o u r t denied G l o r i a ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n . 2 Neither Courtney nor L o r e t t a f i l e d 5 a notice of appeal. 2120078 c l a i m s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e e n t r y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t , t h e ALAA c l a i m is deemed Klinger t o be implicitly denied by v . R o s , 33 So. 3d 1258, 1260 that judgment. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ("Our supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t , when a t r i a l an o t h e r w i s e final See court enters j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f a c a s e b u t f a i l s t o a d d r e s s a p e n d i n g ALAA c l a i m o r t o r e s e r v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o l a t e r c o n s i d e r t h a t c l a i m , t h e ALAA c l a i m i s i m p l i c i t l y ...."). On jurisdiction the other hand, to consider entry of the otherwise i f the t h e ALAA trial claim court denied reserves subsequent to the f i n a l j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e ALAA c l a i m s u b s e q u e n t to the entry of the otherwise K l i n g e r , 33 So. 3d a t 1260-61 final j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s . ("'[T]he t r i a l c o u r t can h o l d a s e p a r a t e h e a r i n g on an ALAA c l a i m a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l judgment on specifically the merits reserves provided jurisdiction ( q u o t i n g C a s e y v. M c C o n n e l l , App. 2007))). I n the present judgment d i d n o t f u l l y did that the pursuant court t o h e a r t h e ALAA c l a i m . ' " 975 So. 2d 384, 389 case, although (Ala. C i v . t h e May 2 1 , 2012, a d j u d i c a t e t h e ALAA c l a i m b e c a u s e i t n o t s p e c i f y t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y assessed trial t o t h e ALAA, 6 i t reserved fees and costs jurisdiction to 2120078 e n t e r a j u d g m e n t s p e c i f y i n g t h e amount o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e May retained 21, 2012, jurisdiction to j u d g m e n t . Thus, t h e t r i a l enter the June 12, 2012, court judgment s p e c i f y i n g t h e amount o f t h a t a s s e s s m e n t . I d . In t h e c o n t e x t o f c l a i m s s e e k i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s and pursuant to t h e o r i e s of appellate courts disposing of appeal have held a l l claims must be recovery that is a t i m e l y taken, other "a final than the d e c i s i o n on costs ALAA, the the merits d e c i s i o n from which whether a request for an attorney f e e s r e m a i n s f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n , " S t a t e Bd. o f Educ. v. W a l d r o p , 840 So. matters merits final 2d 893, are of (Ala. 2002), separate and distinct a dispute and ... judgment SouthTrust 899 as to Bank, 887 an either So. 2d and from matters appeal aspect 919, that 923 of may a be "attorney-fee going to taken from case," Niezer ( A l a . C i v . App. the a v. 2004) . However, we have n o t f o u n d an A l a b a m a c a s e 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 c o u r t has final reserved j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s i n w h i c h t h e jurisdiction t o a d j u d i c a t e an ALAA c l a i m subsequent to the e n t r y of the otherwise merits i s a f i n a l , appealable dispose of the ALAA claim trial f i n a l j u d g m e n t on judgment d e s p i t e i t s f a i l u r e or i s an 7 interlocutory the to judgment 2120078 because i t d i d not dispose present case, resolve final, i t appears t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d precedent the i s s u e whether appealable Consequently, final, o f t h e ALAA c l a i m . Thus, t h e May judgment or 21, 2012, an i t i s u n c l e a r whether t h i s appeal appealable judgments i . e . , both judgment and t h e June 12, 2012, judgment appealable judgment i . e . , the June does n o t judgment interlocutory was a judgment. i n v o l v e s two t h e May 21, o r o n l y one 12, i n the 2012, 2012, final, judgment. However, b e c a u s e G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y filed r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r b o t h t h e May 21, 2012, j u d g m e n t and t h e June 12, 2012, judgment were only 12, the June judgment, we need 2012, final, judgment not determine judgment was a f i n a l , appealable was a whether judgments o r final, t h e May a p p e a l a b l e judgment o r an appealable 21, 2012, interlocutory judgment. We w i l l f i r s t e x p l a i n why untimely f i l e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e May t h a t judgment was a f i n a l , 2012, judgment was 2012, m o t i o n was motion. See, G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e of appeal a final, Evans 21, 2012, j u d g m e n t i f a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t . I f t h e May 21, a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t , t h e June a timely filed e.g., was R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., v. W a d d e l l , 8 8, 689 So. 2d 23, 26-27 2120078 (Ala. 1997) ("While the Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l not speak o f a 'motion t o r e c o n s i d e r , ' Procedure do [the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s ] h a [ v e ] r e p e a t e d l y c o n s t r u e d m o t i o n s so s t y l e d , when t h e y have b e e n f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment, t o be R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n s . " ) . A t i m e l y f i l e d R u l e 59(e) suspends appeal court Ala. t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e 42-day p e r i o d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f until the motion o r d e n i e d by i s either ruled upon by 2d a t 163-64; and R u l e 59.1. the trial to Rule o p e r a t i o n of law p u r s u a n t R. C i v . P. See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. App. So. motion 59.1, P.; Marsh, Under R u l e 59.1, a Rule 852 59 m o t i o n " n o t o t h e r w i s e r u l e d upon i s d e n i e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w on the 90th applicable, on day the after last the day motion p e r i o d . " W i l l i a m s o n v. F o u r t h Ave. 3d 1200, 1204 or, where e x t e n s i o n of the o f any is filed, 90-day I n c . , 12 So. In the p r e s e n t case, the 90th ( A l a . 2009). Supermarket, day a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n was September 2012. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e June 8, 2012, on or b e f o r e September r u l i n g on t h a t m o t i o n was 6, 2012, June 8, 2012, motion was the motion 90-day p e r i o d for not extended. T h e r e f o r e , i f the May 21, 2012, j u d g m e n t was a f i n a l and 6, j u d g m e n t and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e a Rule 9 59(e) motion, the June 8, 2120078 2012, m o t i o n was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on September 2 012. 3 Gloria See R u l e would appeal with 5 9.1; then Williamson, have s u p r a ; and Marsh, h a d 42 d a y s to f i l e 6, supra. her notice of r e s p e c t t o t h e May 2 1 , 2012, j u d g m e n t . See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. P. The 42d day a f t e r September 6, 2012, was O c t o b e r 18, 2012. G l o r i a d i d n o t f i l e h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l until October 22, 2012. T h e r e f o r e , i f t h e May 2 1 , 2012, E v e n i f t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n were deemed t o be a s e p a r a t e R u l e 5 9 ( e ) m o t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e May 21, 2012, judgment, i t would n o t e x t e n d t h e p e r i o d f o r G l o r i a t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e May 2 1 , 2012, judgment b e c a u s e t h e i t was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e May 2 1 , 2012, j u d g m e n t , s e e R u l e 5 9 ( e ) ("A m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e judgment s h a l l be f i l e d n o t l a t e r t h a n t h i r t y (30) d a y s a f t e r e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t . " ) , a n d an u n t i m e l y f i l e d Rule 59(e) motion w i l l not suspend t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , s e e M a r s h , 852 So. 2d a t 163 ( " A l t h o u g h a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i l l t o l l t h e 42-day t i m e p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , an untimely filed postjudgment motion w i l l n o t do so."). L i k e w i s e , even i f t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n were deemed t o be an amendment o f t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n , t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n w o u l d n o t have e x t e n d e d t h e p e r i o d f o r G l o r i a t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e May 2 1 , 2012, judgment b e c a u s e t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h a t j u d g m e n t . See Roden v. Roden, 937 So. 2d 83, 85 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( " [ I ] f a subsequent f i l i n g i s deemed t o be an amendment t o a p r e v i o u s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h a t amendment w i l l t r i g g e r a new 90-day j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p e r i o d o n l y i f t h e amendment i s f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e original judgment, i . e . , w i t h i n t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g an ' o r i g i n a l ' p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . " (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . 3 10 2120078 judgment was a f i n a l , a p p e a l a b l e judgment, G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t We will now explain why Gloria's judgment. notice of appeal was u n t i m e l y f i l e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, judgment i f both the May 21, 2012, judgment and the June 12, 2012, judgment were f i n a l , a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t s . B e c a u s e t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n was f i l e d b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t , t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n was n o t f i l e d w i t h respect to t h e June 12, 2012, judgment and, o f c o u r s e , d i d n o t to that judgment or seek relief from refer i t pursuant to Rule 5 9 ( e ) . T h e r e f o r e , t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n d i d n o t s u s p e n d 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 G l o r i a t o f i l e h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t . the July 22, 2012, m o t i o n was filed after Although the entry of the June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t , t h a t m o t i o n d i d n o t r e f e r t o t h e June 12, 2012, judgment o r s e e k r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t j u d g m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n did not c o n s t i t u t e June 12, 2012, a R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n w i t h judgment and, t h e r e f o r e , r u n n i n g o f t h e 42-day p e r i o d for Gloria respect to the d i d not suspend the to f i l e a notice of a p p e a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t . M o r e o v e r , 11 2120078 e v e n i f t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n h a d s o u g h t r e l i e f pursuant t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t , t h e J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n was not f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t . R u l e 59(e) r e q u i r e s t h a t "[a] motion to a l t e r , filed not judgment." later 2012, than t h i r t y Therefore, sought r e l i e f 12, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t s h a l l (30) days even i f t h e J u l y after entry of be the 22, 2012, m o t i o n h a d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June judgment, the J u l y 22, 2012, m o t i o n was untimely and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , d i d n o t s u s p e n d t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e 42-day period f o r Gloria to f i l e the June 12, 2012, a n o t i c e of appeal w i t h respect to judgment. See Marsh, 852 ("Although a t i m e l y postjudgment motion w i l l So. toll 2d a t t h e 42-day t i m e p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , an u n t i m e l y postjudgment motion w i l l days from June 12, 2012, n o t do so."). to f i l e Thus, a notice 163 Gloria filed had of appeal 42 with r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t . The 42d day a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e June 12, 2012, judgment was J u l y 24, 2012. did not file her n o t i c e of appeal until Gloria O c t o b e r 22, T h e r e f o r e , G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y f i l e d respect t o t h e June 12, 2012, 12 judgment i f b o t h t h e May 2012. with 21, 2120078 2012, j u d g m e n t and t h e June 12, 2012, appealable If j u d g m e n t were final, judgments. the May 21, 2012, judgment was an j u d g m e n t and t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t was appealable interlocutory the only final, judgment i n t h i s a c t i o n , G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t f o r t h e same r e a s o n s i t was u n t i m e l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t j u d g m e n t if the May appealable appeal 21, notice untimely of t h i s of appeal provides notice of filed, a separate final, of t h i s that appeal i t failed to invoke the c o u r t . See Kennedy v. M e r r i m a n , 963 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. jurisdiction P., were 4 was 86, 88 judgment judgment. A c c o r d i n g l y , because G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e of jurisdiction 2d 2012, was 2007) untimely, court not i t did " ) . Rule " [ a ] n appeal was ("Because shall timely [the a p p e l l a n t ' s ] invoke the 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a R. App. be filed not dismissed to i f the invoke the A l t h o u g h i t w o u l d h a v e no e f f e c t on t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r G l o r i a ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was t i m e l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e June 12, 2012, j u d g m e n t , we n o t e t h a t , i f t h e May 21, 2012, j u d g m e n t were n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , t h e June 8, 2012, m o t i o n w o u l d n o t have been a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) m o t i o n b e c a u s e " [ a ] 'Rule 59 m o t i o n may be made o n l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r . ' " Ex p a r t e Troutman S a n d e r s , L L P , 866 So. 2d 547, 550 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g M a l o n e v. G a i n e y , 726 So. 2d 725, 725 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) . 4 13 2120078 jurisdiction the o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " T h e r e f o r e , we dismiss appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, M o o r e , and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 14

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.