StillWaters Residential Association, Inc. v. SW Properties, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/28/2013 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 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, 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 2120456 S t i l l W a t e r s R e s i d e n t i a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. v. SW P r o p e r t i e s , LLC Appeal from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t (CV-12-900051) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . I n 2003, SW P r o p e r t i e s , L L C ("SW P r o p e r t i e s " ) p u r c h a s e d a parcel of property ("the p r o p e r t y " ) located i n Tallapoosa C o u n t y f r o m " S t i l l W a t e r s D e v e l o p m e n t Co., LTD P a r t n e r s h i p , " ("SW D e v e l o p m e n t " ) b y a s p e c i a l w a r r a n t y d e e d . On J u l y 1 9 , 2120456 2012, SW Properties f i l e d a petition deed i n t h e T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t C o u r t the p e t i t i o n , SW for reformation ("the t r i a l of the court"). Properties asserted that, according s a l e s c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n i t and SW D e v e l o p m e n t , In to the the p r o p e r t y was n o t s u b j e c t t o any c o v e n a n t s o r r e s t r i c t i o n s b u t t h a t t h e d e e d erroneously contained was to subject the language indicating covenants and t h a t the restrictions property of the Blue C r e e k P o i n t S u b d i v i s i o n . SW P r o p e r t i e s r e q u e s t e d , among o t h e r things, that the t r i a l court r e f o r m the deed l a n g u a g e r e g a r d i n g c o v e n a n t s and r e s t r i c t i o n s SW 2012. Properties f i l e d The t r i a l the h e a r i n g , SW Development had reformation t o remove from the the deed. a m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 27, c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 23, 2012. At P r o p e r t i e s informed the t r i a l SW failed of the deed. to 1 respond The trial to court that the petition court entered for a default j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 23, 2012, o r d e r i n g the r e f o r m a t i o n of the special October warranty Residential motion deed. On A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. ("the to intervene, i n which 25, 2012, StillWaters association"), filed i t a s s e r t e d t h a t the was l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e S t i l l W a t e r s D e v e l o p m e n t and was a property subject I n c l u d e d i n the r e c o r d i s documentation i n d i c a t i n g t h a t SW D e v e l o p m e n t ' s r e g i s t e r e d a g e n t h a d b e e n p r o p e r l y s e r v e d . 1 2 2120456 to the covenants Subdivision. The recorded a l i e n and and restrictions association on the of the further property Blue Creek asserted that November 14, v a c a t e the The trial motions. 2012, O c t o b e r 23, court The the 2012, association j u d g m e n t and filed fees a motion stated that 20, pursuant 2013. d i d not r u l e on e i t h e r of the i t 2013; to § 2 the appeal was 12-2-7(6), A l a . was association's transferred Code 1975, on court to this March I n i t s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h e a s s o c i a t i o n a r g u e s t h a t trial court e r r e d by address the association's determine whether the I t i s s e t t l e d law b e e n d e n i e d has Shaw v. State ex 8, the denying i t s motion to vacate because i t a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y to the a c t i o n below. can to intervene. a s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d an a p p e a l t o o u r supreme February court has had f o r unpaid maintenance unaware o f t h e j u d g m e n t when i t f i l e d i t s m o t i o n t o was i t assessments. On on Point However, b e f o r e argument, appeal i s properly we must before this t h a t a p a r t y whose m o t i o n t o first court. intervene a r i g h t to appeal from t h a t d e c i s i o n . r e l . Hayes, 953 So. 2d 1247, we 1251-52 See (Ala. I n i t s b r i e f , the a s s o c i a t i o n a s s e r t s t h a t i t f i l e d i t s a p p e a l t o o u r supreme c o u r t a f t e r i t s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f law. 2 3 2120456 Civ. App. 2006) ( c i t i n g T h r a s h e r 607 ( A l a . 1982), Anglen, that, and U n i v e r s a l " ' " i n order t o be 424 So. 2d 605, Underwriters 630 So. 2d 441, 442 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . denying to v. B a r t l e t t , immediately I n s . Co. T h i s c o u r t has h e l d appealable, an a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e must be t r u l y f i n a l w i t h the proposed definitively intervenor that i s , the order on t h e p a r t y ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n before the [ t r i a l ] Human Res., 42 v. i n the order respect must rule litigation c o u r t . " ' " D.S. v. C u l l m a n C n t y . Dep't o f So. 3d 1284, 1285-86 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( q u o t i n g Shaw, 953 So. 2d a t 1252, q u o t i n g i n t u r n U n i t e d States v. C i t y 1998)). of Milwaukee, 144 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. Furthermore, " ' " [ i ] t i s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e t h a t , w i t h l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n s , an a p p e a l w i l l l i e o n l y f r o m a f i n a l judgment which determines the issues before the court and a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . " ' " Ex p a r t e L a n d r y , (Ala. 511, [Ms. 2110739, J a n . 18, 2013] , C i v . App. 2013) ( q u o t i n g Owens v. Owens, 739 So. 2d 513 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) , q u o t i n g T a y l o r , 398 So. 2d 267, 269 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . review So. 3d of the record on appeal and i n turn Taylor v. Despite a thorough the State Judicial I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m c a s e - d e t a i l s h e e t , we c a n n o t f i n d an o r d e r 4 2120456 of the trial intervene. before ruled court addressing Therefore, the t r i a l the association's motion to the motion t o i n t e r v e n e remains pending court. Because on t h e a s s o c i a t i o n ' s the t r i a l motion c o u r t has n o t y e t to intervene, we conclude t h a t the a s s o c i a t i o n ' s appeal i s premature. Insofar erred by because as t h e a s s o c i a t i o n a r g u e s denying i t s motion the motion a s s o c i a t i o n was that to vacate, to intervene we remains n e v e r made a p a r t y the t r i a l first note pending court that, below, to the u n d e r l y i n g the action. Our r e s e a r c h does n o t y i e l d A l a b a m a c a s e l a w d i r e c t l y on p o i n t ; however, " [ t ] h e b a s i c r u l e t h a t a n o n p a r t y cannot a p p e a l the judgment in sensible." an 15A E d w a r d H. C o o p e r , ed. 1992). status" action bring "unsuccessful the Wright, seems Arthur Alan Federal P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e § 3902.1 (2d an appeal, applicant Hosiery obviously Charles any s u b s e q u e n t o r d e r Therefore, others Although a successful intervenor to Parklane between i t i s also R. Miller, acquires the rule f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n cannot Co., 606 F.2d 354, 356 (2d d i d not have standing 5 to file that an from S h o r e v. C i r . 1979) . because i t i s not a p a r t y t o the u n d e r l y i n g association "full appeal o r judgment i n the l i t i g a t i o n . " & action, a motion to 2120456 vacate the t r i a l c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 23, 2012, j u d g m e n t , n o r does i t have s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w of t h a t motion. [Ms. 2120026, May App. See B a l l e n t i n e v. A l a b a m a Farm C r e d i t , 2013). Because 17, 2013] the motion So. 3d to intervene , remains (Ala. ACA, pending Civ. i n the t r i a l c o u r t , and b e c a u s e t h e a s s o c i a t i o n i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h e action, t h i s a p p e a l must be d i s m i s s e d . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 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.