Jewel Campbell et al. v. Ethel C. Taylor et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/22/2011 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2010-2011 2091072 Jewel Campbell e t a l . v. E t h e l C. T a y l o r e t a l . Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-09-900617) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . In their defendants, dismissed applications f o r rehearing, the Campbell j o i n e d by Taylor, point outt h a t , a f t e r t h i s this appeal amended t h e c a s e - a c t i o n on J a n u a r y 21, 2011,the t r i a l court court summary t o r e f l e c t t h a t t h e a c t i o n h a d 2091072 been disposed Thus, they App. by summary on which submission, In Warren, this case, same date had the t r i a l court the order Thus, was entered this court disposition by settlement claims as t o any p a r t i e s , claims remained pending an e n t r y that the case summary case, reflecting that an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g of the d i d not contain as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g that d i d not a n d we f o rthe the record case, concluded summary i n However, as i n t h i s entered on a summary j u d g m e n t i n suggesting i n the case-action d i s p o s i n g o f any c l a i m s (Ala. C i v . case. the case-action entered a n d , as i n t h i s settlement. i n i t s opinion summary c o n t a i n e d c o u r t had a c t u a l l y case, relied o f by s e t t l e m e n t . nothing trial entire an t h e judgment was by 796 S o . 2 d 377 and, l i k e the case-action been d i s p o s e d there court not i s not a p p l i c a b l e to t h i s favor of four defendants, this judgment, argue, Warren v. Wester, 2001), original of the entry actually held i n the t r i a l that reflecting adjudicate the court. parties. a any unadjudicated 796 So. 2d a t 379. It on appears from the c a s e - a c t i o n January amended 31, the indicating 2011, or F e b r u a r y case-action summary summary i n t h i s 1, 2011, the t r i a l by deleting t h a t t h e case had been d i s p o s e d 2 case the that court entries o f by s e t t l e m e n t as 2091072 to a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t s ; by n o t i n g made i n e r r o r ; by a d d i n g 06/03/2010 BY statement: " T H I S CASE an e n t r y (SUMMARY J U D G M T ) " ; WAS OFF CORRECTED BY TO BE 06/04/2010." (Capitalization For that ( s i c ) OFF the reasons those that e n t r i e s had been r e a d s : "DISPOSED and by a d d i n g INDEX BY ON: the f o l l o w i n g SETTLE I N ERROR THEN INDEX WITH SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON in original.) expressed i n Warren r e l a t i v e to the lack o f an a c t u a l o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f t h e c a s e , we a r e n o t c o n v i n c e d that the t r i a l sufficient court's in assuming that after sufficient summary court favor of i n the present the entry defendants. entries i n the case-action of this court's to accomplish the task i n favor without case-action However, judgment, of rendering jurisdiction t o make such case-action rendition the are even summary, would be and e n t e r i n g a of a l l the defendants, the entries trial i n the summary. A s we c o n c l u d e d i n o u r o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l the time t h i s case o f a summary a l l the t h e new judgment was entries t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e r e n d i t i o n and e n t r y judgment added new court summary submission, at e n t e r e d i t s judgment the n o t a t i o n s were insufficient to constitute and e n t r y o f a judgment i n f a v o r o f a t l e a s t defendants. When, a l i t t l e 3 more than i n the a week the some o f later, the 2091072 trial court reflect court purported amend the case-action summary to d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c a s e b y summary j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l was w i t h o u t stated i n Veteto App. to jurisdiction over the case. As t h i s v . Y o c u m , 792 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 1 8 - 1 9 court (Ala. Civ. 2001): "A ' " j u d g m e n t o f [ a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s ] i s n o t a f i n a l judgment u n t i l t h a t c o u r t i s s u e s a c e r t i f i c a t e of j u d g m e n t , a n d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i n t h a t c o u r t and a p e t i t i o n i n [ t h e supreme c o u r t ] f o r w r i t of certiorari stay the issuance of that certificate."' E x p a r t e T i o n g s o n , 765 S o . 2 d 6 4 3 , 643 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 566 S o . 2 d 7 5 8 , 759 n.2 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , and c i t i n g R u l e 41, Ala. R. A p p . P . ) . ... The t r i a l court h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r any o r d e r o r judgment until a f t e r t h i s c o u r t i s s u e d i t s c e r t i f i c a t e of judgment on J u l y 1 0 , 2 0 0 0 . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g V e t e t o ' s a c t i o n was v o i d b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n . " In the present case, additional entries at the time i n the case-action reinvested with j u r i s d i c t i o n a certificate permitted to the t r i a l of judgment. t o amend t h e c a s e - a c t i o n made i t s summary, i t h a d n o t b e e n because t h i s Thus, court court had not i s s u e d the t r i a l court than trial court's this Taylor, the only summary party judgment case. 4 not summary i n s u c h a manner as e x p a n d t h e s c o p e o f i t s summary j u d g m e n t t o i n c l u d e other was within at the time the scope parties of the of the appeal in 2091072 We r e c o g n i z e , o f c o u r s e , t h a t a t r i a l to any Rule C i v . P., t i m e , e v e n when a c a s e "cannot the 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. be u s e d judgment pronounced." Civ. App. other what In i n the than the present record to include at the n o r t o make was originally even i f t h e t r i a l case, time the only of the Taylor. judgment appeal a l l the remaining error. was The t r i a l 60(a) t o expand t h e scope guise of c o r r e c t i n g a c l e r i c a l be at M i c h a e l v . M i c h a e l , 454 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 5 , 1037 ( A l a . was n o t p e r m i t t e d u n d e r R u l e could mistakes a judgment summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f judgment pursuant However, R u l e 60(a) or enlarge something 1984). contained clerical i s on a p p e a l . to modify say correct c o u r t may, defendants a court of that under T h u s , we c o n c l u d e the that, c o u r t ' s amendment o f t h e c a s e - a c t i o n s u m m a r y construed as t h e r e n d i t i o n j u d g m e n t as t o a l l t h e p a r t i e s , and e n t r y of a summary s u c h an amendment w o u l d n o t be permitted. We have defendants we reviewed the remaining and T a y l o r r a i s e conclude that applications on a p p l i c a t i o n are without merit. the As a r e s u l t , overruled. OVERRULED. Bryan, Thomas, and Moore, 5 Campbell f o r r e h e a r i n g , and a r e due t o b e , a n d a r e h e r e b y , APPLICATIONS Pittman, they arguments J J . , concur. their

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.