Sanders v. E. I. Campbell et al.

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Plaintiff Nandean Sanders appealed a circuit court judgment in favor of Defendants E.I. Campbell, Averline Campbell and Jerry Lawrence. The parties owned adjoining properties in Dallas County. Sanders sought declarative and injunctive relief regarding a disputed strip of property that the the parties all claimed to own. Defendants counterclaimed to ask the court to establish a boundary line between Sanders and their property and to enjoin Sanders' "encroachment." Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's judgment was nonfinal, and therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction for further consideration. The appeal was dismissed.

Download PDF
REL: 03/15/2013 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 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 2120035 Nandean Sanders v. E.I. Campbell e t a l . Appeal from D a l l a s C i r c u i t (CV-09-86) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Nandean C i r c u i t Court Averline Sanders appeals ("the t r i a l Campbell, from court") a judgment of the Dallas i n favor of E.I. and J e r r y Winston Lawrence Campbell, (hereinafter 2120035 collectively appeal r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e d e f e n d a n t s " ) . as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n S a n d e r s and the a complaint the from a n o n f i n a l judgment. defendants are the p r o p e r t i e s l o c a t e d i n D a l l a s County. filed We d i s m i s s a s k i n g the t r i a l owners o f a d j o i n i n g On May 13, 2009, S a n d e r s c o u r t f o r d e c l a r a t i v e and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f regarding a disputed s t r i p of property ("the disputed both claimed property") t o own. answer t o the court to property On that J u l y 16, complaint establish and the Sanders and the d e s i s t from claim any right, title and enter Sanders filed from to defendants defendants a counterclaim defendants's and the 2009, t h e boundary "cease property," and her line property, a t r e s p a s s i n g on to order interest of in court trial heard was held on May evidence ore tenus. j u d g m e n t on A p r i l 4, 2012 ("the of the defendants. The 2011, The Sanders's Sanders to to [the disputed] enjoining disputed 10, property. Sanders 2009. at which the trial court entered trial a A p r i l 4 judgment"), i n favor A p r i l 4 judgment s t a t e d : " 1 . Judgment i s i n f a v o r o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s , E . I . Campbell, A v e r l i n e Campbell and Jerry Winston 2 trial efforts and an a n s w e r t o t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m on J u l y 17, A an injunction permanent the the between encroachment or asking filed 2120035 Lawrence and a g a i n s t the P l a i n t i f f , Na[n]dean S a n d e r s , on a c c o u n t o f s t a t u t o r y a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . D e f e n d a n t s met t h e i r b u r d e n a n d p r o p e r l y s a t i s f i e d the c o u r t t h a t they are coterminous landowners w i t h [ S a n d e r s ] and have h e l d a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e d s t r i p o f l a n d o p e n l y and e x c l u s i v e l y f o r more t h a n 10 y e a r s , b e l i e v i n g i t t o be t h e a c t u a l p r o p e r t y l i n e . S t r i c k l a n d v. M a r k o s , 566 So. 2d 229 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; K u b i s z y n v. B r a d l e y , 292 A l a . 57, 298 So. 2d 9 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . "2. T h a t d e f e n d a n t s have h e l d t h e l a n d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s t h a t i n c l u d e s t h e f l o w e r b e d as t e s t i f i e d a n d p r e s e n t e d i n c o u r t , a n d t h r e e (3) f e e t b e y o n d s u c h p o i n t . S a i d p o i n t s h a l l be t h e p r o p e r l y e s t a b l i s h e d p r o p e r t y l i n e f o r s a i d p a r t i e s . The d e f e n d a n t s a r e a u t h o r i z e d , a t t h e i r e x p e n s e s , t o have p r e p a r e d a boundary s u r v e y t o r e f l e c t such and r e t u r n i t t o t h i s c o u r t w i t h i n 60 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r for further orders. "3. I f t h e b o u n d a r y s u r v e y i s n o t r e t u r n e d t o t h i s c o u r t w i t h i n t h e above s a i d 60 d a y s , t h e n t h e c o u r t h e r [ e ] b y a p p o i n t s a n d a u t h o r i z e s Mr. G l e n M c C o r d ... as t h e s u r v e y o r / l a n d engineer, to perform s a i d s u r v e y i n t h i s c a s e , t h e c o s t o f w h i c h w i l l be t a x e d equally against the p a r t i e s . " 1 I t appears t h a t the t r i a l Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : c o u r t r e l i e d on § 35-3-3, A l a . 1 "The judgment s h a l l l o c a t e and d e f i n e t h e boundary l i n e s i n v o l v e d by r e f e r e n c e t o well-known p e r m a n e n t l a n d m a r k s , a n d i f i t s h a l l be deemed f o r the i n t e r e s t o f the p a r t i e s , a f t e r the e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t a c o m p e t e n t s u r v e y o r t o e s t a b l i s h a permanent stone o r i r o n landmark i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e judgment from w h i c h future s u r v e y s o f t h e l a n d embraced i n t h e judgment s h a l l be made. Such l a n d m a r k s s h a l l have d i s t i n c t l y c u t o r m a r k e d t h e r e o n ' j u d i c i a l l a n d m a r k . ' The surveyor 3 2120035 S a n d e r s f i l e d what she pursuant to Rule 59(a), s t y l e d as a m o t i o n f o r a new A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n . 11, 2012; however, c o u n s e l a t t e n d the h e a r i n g . 13, 2012, The A h e a r i n g was f o r the trial on A p r i l 18, unable an o r d e r on i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , a t t h e h e a r i n g , S a n d e r s had requested 2012; h e l d on June d e f e n d a n t s was court entered trial June orally t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i n s t r u c t the defendants to stop c o n s t r u c t i o n of a fence on t h e d i s p u t e d b o u n d a r y l i n e and remove the any constructed. parts In of the order, fence the that trial defendants to cease c o n s t r u c t i o n of the any to s t r u c t u r e they had c a u s e d t o be had already court been i n s t r u c t e d the fence placed to on and the to remove disputed s h a l l make r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t , and i n h i s r e p o r t s h a l l a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e t h e l a n d m a r k so e r e c t e d and d e f i n e i t s l o c a t i o n as n e a r l y as p r a c t i c a b l e . " (Emphasis added.) W i t h o u t a d d r e s s i n g the m e r i t s of this a p p e a l , we n o t e t h a t " d e c r e e s e s t a b l i s h i n g b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n c o t e r m i n o u s l a n d s must be r e a s o n a b l y d e f i n i t e and c e r t a i n i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s and t h a t a s c e r t a i n e d b o u n d a r y l i n e s must be capable of being p h y s i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n l e a v i n g no room f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n as t o t h e i r l o c a t i o n . Ray v. R o b i n s o n , 388 So. 2d 957 (Ala. 1980)." T i d w e l l v. S t r i c k l e r , 457 So. 2d 365, 368 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . 4 2120035 property. The trial Sanders's purported On J u l y 19, court also continued postjudgment motion. 2012, the t r i a l operation parties had judgment, of law 3 and trial the finality an had t h a t a l s o addressed raised regarding hearing on 2 court entered s t a t e d t h a t S a n d e r s ' s m o t i o n f o r a new by the of order been that denied questions the April the 4 stating: "This [ c ] o u r t i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t a l l a c t i o n a b l e i s s u e s were f u l l y a d j u d i c a t e d by t h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f [ A p r i l 4 ] , 2012, and t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f p a r a g r a p h s 2 and 3 p e r t a i n i n g t o a s u r v e y o f t h e properly established boundary line are a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n n a t u r e o n l y , and t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e b e i n g no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y , t h i s C o u r t does h e r e b y d i r e c t the e n t r y o f f i n a l judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s and a g a i n s t [ S a n d e r s ] i n a c c o r d w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Court's order of [ A p r i l 4 ] , 2012." On J u n e 13, 2012, the defendants f i l e d a motion to r e c o n s i d e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n s t r u c t i n g them t o remove t h e f e n c e . The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u n e 16, 2012, that read, s i m p l y : " m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r f i l e d by [the defendants] i s hereby granted i n p a r t . " The m o t i o n and subsequent order are not at i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. 2 S a n d e r s f i l e d t h e m o t i o n s t y l e d as a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l on A p r i l 18, 2012. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, such a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on J u l y 17, 2012, 90 d a y s a f t e r i t was f i l e d . 3 5 2120035 Sanders 2012; f i l e d an a p p e a l w i t h o u r supreme c o u r t on A u g u s t that c o u r t then transferred t h e cause to this 29, court, p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Although jurisdiction no p a r t y has r a i s e d the issue of t h i s court's on a p p e a l , " ' " [ 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 m o t u . W a l l a c e v. Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional a c t . W i l l i a m s o n v. Fourth Ave. Supermarket, I n c . , 12 So. 3d 1200, 1202 ( A l a . 20 0 9)." Burgess v. Burgess, 99 So. 3d 1237, 1239 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012). Our supreme c o u r t has stated: "'"'As t h i s c o u r t has sa id ma n y t i mes previously, a final judgment i s necessary to g i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o this court on an a p p e a l , and i t c a n n o t be waived by the parties ' II I II "'"When i t is determined t h a t an o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m i s not a f i n a l judgment, i t i s t h e 6 2120035 duty of the Court to d i s m i s s a p p e a l ex mero motu." the " ' P o w e l l v. R e p u b l i c N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 293 A l a . 101, 102, 300 So. 2d 359, 360 (1974) ( q u o t i n g McGowin I n v e s t m e n t Co. v. J o h n s t o n e , 291 A l a . 714, 715, 287 So. 2d 835, 836 (1973)). " ' " O r d i n a r i l y , an a p p e a l can be brought o n l y from a final judgment. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-2. If a case involves multiple claims or multiple p a r t i e s , an o r d e r i s g e n e r a l l y not f i n a l u n l e s s i t d i s p o s e s of all c l a i m s as t o a l l p a r t i e s . Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, when an a c t i o n c o n t a i n s more t h a n one c l a i m f o r r e l i e f , R u l e 54(b) a l l o w s the c o u r t to direct the entry of a final j u d g m e n t as t o one o r more o f t h e c l a i m s , i f i t makes t h e 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 reason f o r d e l a y . " "'Grantham v. V a n d e r z y l , 1079-80 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . ' 802 " N o r t h A l a b a m a E l e c . Coop. v. New 7 So. 3d 342, 344-45 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . "In reference to 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., So. 2d 1077, Hope T e l . Coop., certifications under Rule t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t "'a R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d i f the i s s u e s i n the c l a i m b e i n g c e r t i f i e d and a c l a i m t h a t w i l l remain p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t " ' a r e so c l o s e l y intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of 7 2120035 inconsistent results.'" Clarke-Mobile C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t . v . P r i o r E n e r g y C o r p . , 834 So. 2d 88, 95 ( A l a . 2002) (quoting B r a n c h v . S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373, 1374 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . ' "Schlarb 2006)." Harlan (Ala. v. L e e , 955 So. 2d Home B u i l d e r s , Inc. 418, 419-20 ( A l a . v. H a y s l i p , 58 So. 3d 1 0 2 , 106 2010). The trial court's judgment purports t o be a final judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n s o f a r as i t e s t a b l i s h e d the location properties; however, defendants' opinion line t h e judgment counterclaim between the parties' d i d not address f o rinjunctive that theboundary-line dispute by t h e t r i a l relief, o f t h e boundary relief. I t i s our t h a t has been resolved c o u r t and the defendants' request f o r i n j u n c t i v e i . e . , a permanent i n j u n c t i o n e n j o i n i n g trespassing on t h e d i s p u t e d intertwined the that separate property, Sanders "'"'are adjudication from so c l o s e l y 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 . ' " ' " See H a r l a n Home Builders, Inc., 58 So. 3d a t 106. Accordingly, because S a n d e r s a p p e a l s f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t , we must d i s m i s s t h e appeal for lack of subject-matter Sexton, 42 So. 3d jurisdiction. 1280, 1282 8 See S e x t o n v . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) 2120035 ("Generally, and i f there without an a p p e a l i s not a jurisdiction will l i e only final from a f i n a l judgment then this judgment, court i s t o hear the a p p e a l . " ) . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , concur. 9 Moore, and 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.