Ex parte Mountain Pointe Development Group, L. L. C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Wilson, Dillon, Pumroy, & James, L. L. C. v. Larry Ginsburg, Leonard Goldschein, and Mountain Pointe Development Group, L. L. C.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/02/2011 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 ((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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100892 Ex p a r t e M o u n t a i n P o i n t e Development Group, PETITION (In L.L.C. FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS r e : Wilson, D i l l o n , Pumroy, & James, L.L.C. v. L a r r y G i n s b u r g , Leonard G o l d s c h e i n , and Mountain P o i n t e Development Group, L . L . C . ) (Calhoun THOMAS, Judge. Circuit Court, CV-05-691) 2100892 This proceeding arises from initiated by W i l s o n , Dillon, Pumroy, escrow and agent"), i n the Calhoun Leonard agreement Goldschein Development Group, purchase agreement, real Ginsburg estate. and purchase with Pursuant agent. and Pointe regarding the to the deposited money. As underlying trial a purchase $25,000 of of the r e a l had was the escrow action entitled agent to the earnest instituted the a n d d e p o s i t e d t h e money with court. court Pointe. t o who result, interpleader On S e p t e m b e r trial as dispute sale Pointe, hand, a Ginsburg Mountain The p u r c h a s e and ("the G i n s b u r g a n d G o l d s c h e i n , on t h e o n e h a n d , a n d M o u n t a i n the other completed, Larry Pointe"), Goldschein L.L.C. between the never a action, arose on was into ("Mountain e a r n e s t money w i t h t h e e s c r o w property & James, agreement") L.L.C. of c e r t a i n interpleader C i r c u i t Court. entered ("the p u r c h a s e an 9, 2 0 0 9 , for a partial Ginsburg a n d G o l d s c h e i n moved t h e summary j u d g m e n t G i n s b u r g and G o l d s c h e i n a l l e g e d a d m i t t e d , by f a i l i n g t o respond made p u r s u a n t to Rule 3 6 , A l a . R. against that Mountain Mountain Pointe to requests f o r admissions C i v . P., 1 that i t had been G e n e r a l l y , when a p a r t y f a i l s t o r e s p o n d t o r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s , a t r i a l c o u r t may deem t h e m a t t e r s a d d r e s s e d i n 1 2 2100892 given proper earnest notice regarding money Goldschein awarding Pointe the requested them had The under the trial purchase that the $25,000 refused to a demand f o r t h e court earnest the Ginsburg agreement. trial in r e t u r n of and enter judgment that money a Mountain refund. court, on June 16, 2010, entered a partial summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f M o u n t a i n P o i n t e , a w a r d i n g $25,000 i n e a r n e s t stated to that Rule trial set a aside On motion to they judgment summary-judgment entitled partial-summary-judgment i s h e r e b y made f i n d On June a postjudgment because, sought order The A.R.C.P." filed court judgment not "[t]his 54(b), Goldschein money. the 23, motion, June 16, Ginsburg requesting Pointe had had Ginsburg and a summary j u d g m e n t in their the summary agreed but and that partial that not only at seeking 26, to 2010, have Ginsburg their and Goldschein the favor. October hearing i t s favor order [ s i c ] pursuant 2010, 2010, stated, Mountain in i t the Goldschein postjudgment motion were filed set for a a those requests admitted. See, e.g., B r y a n t v. R o b l e d o , 938 So. 2d 413, 420 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ("Pursuant to Rule 3 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a m a t t e r i s d e e m e d a d m i t t e d u n l e s s a w r i t t e n answer or o b j e c t i o n i s s e r v e d w i t h i n the a p p l i c a b l e time frame "). 3 2100892 hearing. status I n that motion, hearing, agreed to set postjudgment September trial 26, the motion May 60(b)(6), 2010, 4, motion for a had been See alleged, hearing. denied Rule by 2011, G i n s b u r g C i v . P., summary motion, and motion judgment they 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. 2 Rule court had Notably, the operation 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. argued Goldschein o f l a w on C i v . P. i n favor (1) C i v . P.; filed to set aside that judgment had not been p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d Rule the t r i a l 2 The o r o t h e r w i s e a c t on t h e m o t i o n . A l a . R. partial that they 17, 2010, d i d n o t s e t a h e a r i n g as r e q u e s t e d by t h e O c t o b e r 2010, motion On In at which, 21, 2010. court t h e y r e f e r e n c e d an A u g u s t (2) t h a t a t h e June 16, of Mountain Pointe. the p a r t i a l summary as f i n a l pursuant to the partial-summary- 59.1 r e a d s : "No p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 5 0 , 5 2 , 5 5 , o r 59 s h a l l r e m a i n p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r m o r e t h a n n i n e t y (90) d a y s , unless with the express consent of a l lthe p a r t i e s , which consent s h a l l appear of r e c o r d , or u n l e s s e x t e n d e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o w h i c h an a p p e a l o f t h e j u d g m e n t w o u l d l i e , a n d s u c h t i m e may b e f u r t h e r extended f o r good cause shown. A f a i l u r e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o render an order disposing of any pending postjudgment motion w i t h i n the time p e r m i t t e d hereunder, o r any e x t e n s i o n t h e r e o f , shall c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l o f s u c h m o t i o n as o f t h e date of the e x p i r a t i o n of the p e r i o d . " 4 Rule 2100892 judgment not motion had been f i l e d by Mountain a partial judge, Pointe, summary who which judgment; had s i n c e left by G i n s b u r g and G o l d s c h e i n and had not f i l e d and (3) t h a t the bench, a motion seeking the previous trial had r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t he had i n t e n d e d t o s e t t h e June 23, 2010, p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f o r a hearing. and On May 10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l Goldschein's motion partial summary On May a writ aside set aside 19, 2 0 1 1 , M o u n t a i n Pointe 16, 2 0 1 0 , p a r t i a l t o do s o . 16, 2 0 1 0 , p a r t i a l 54(b); that 16, 2010, summary this summary j u d g m e n t motion petition for court could not set judgment because i t was a f i n a l judgment filed judgment, by r e f e r e n c e t o R u l e 23, 2010, pursuant to Rule motion 5 9 , A l a . R. P., w h i c h was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1; and Goldschein 42 filed G i n s b u r g and G o l d s c h e i n ' s June a postjudgment Civ. June Mountain Pointe argues that the h a v i n g b e e n c e r t i f i e d as a f i n a l was the o f mandamus, a r g u i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l t h e June granted Ginsburg judgment. lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n June and court days that was the only remedy available to appeal the p a r t i a l of the denial of t h e i r motion by o p e r a t i o n of law. June summary to Ginsburg judgment 23, 2010, and within postjudgment S e e R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( 3 ) , A l a . R. 5 2100892 App. P. days of the d e n i a l In 16, as (requiring response, the a notice o f a p p e a l be f i l e d of a postjudgment motion). Ginsburg 2010, p a r t i a l a final that and G o l d s c h e i n argue within that 42 t h e June s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was n o t p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d judgment. certification According to Ginsburg was n o t p r o p e r because and G o l d s c h e i n , such certifications s h o u l d be g r a n t e d o n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s a n d n o t r o u t i n e l y . As a companion the claims argument, addressed unadjudicated under further not argue that sufficient 54(b) Alternatively, partial summary judgment, Rule to they are Rule 3 Rule sought as Ginsburg used to and was relief as final C i v . P., that judgment i n their Rule 3 i n pertinent May Goldschein under was Rule that, i f the as final a pursuant 4, 2 0 1 1 , 60(b)(6), to motion Ginsburg part: and upon such terms as relieve a p a r t y or a 6 preclude rule. properly certified from and i n the c e r t i f i c a t i o n the judgment judgment. 60(b) r e a d s , "On m o t i o n court may 54(b). that judgment G i n s b u r g and G o l d s c h e i n argue judgment the summary interrelated construing that 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. set aside so the language to c e r t i f y and t h e cases and G o l d s c h e i n a s s e r t i n the p a r t i a l claims certification Ginsburg are just, the party's legal and 2100892 Goldschein state petition, "grant[s] authority equity to a l t e r and Ginsburg partial their the response trial [] amend judicial and exercised in court its jurisdiction to set the discretion such relief." trial court aside summary j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e Pointe's i t s judgments, require contend, Mountain broad [] o r v a c a t e integrity Goldschein to the June and where Thus, properly 16, 2010, 60(b)(6). M o u n t a i n P o i n t e , as t h e p e t i t i o n e r , m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e it has 2011, a clear legal order judgment set setting aside right aside by this to have the June court. the trial court's May 16, 2010, partial summary As we have explained: "'"[M]andamus i s a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t t h a t w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : (1) a clear legal right in the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e respondent to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do so; (3) the lack of another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex p a r t e H o r t o n , 711 So. 2 d 979, 983 (Ala. 1998).'" representative from a f i n a l judgment, order, or proceeding f o r the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : ... (6) any other reason j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f from the o p e r a t i o n of the judgment." 7 that 10, 2100892 Ex parte Builders Insurer's Fund, (quoting Ex p a r t e 821 of M i s s i s s i p p i Self- ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) Alloy that trial court 2010, partial our we arguments and of will to We a g r e e w i t h set aside In order discuss 54(b) certification judgment declare that i t s June of Ginsburg and Mountain Pointe's on relying They Fullilove v. ( A l a . C i v . App. say was i n s u f f i c i e n t because, "there 16, to that to c e r t i f y they i s no j u s t the court's trial to f o r delay." Rule summary expressly Indeed, "[t]here are three p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r invoking Rule 54(b), [ A l a . ] R . C i v . P . , t o c e r t i f y a judgment as a f i n a l , a n d t h e r e f o r e a p p e a l a b l e , j u d g m e n t : 1) t h e r e must be either multiple claims for relief or 8 and court's the p a r t i a l say, i t f a i l e d reason 1996), Home ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the t r i a l as f i n a l Mountain mandamus. Goldschein, certification. DBI, to explain the basis each i n opposition 678 S o . 2 d 1 5 1 , 153 challenge So. 2d 819, g r o u n d s b y Ex p a r t e M a r t i n v . P h i l l i p s , 7 S o . 3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1017 first L t d . , 882 to the r e l i e f i t seeks because the summary j u d g m e n t . f o r the writ Co., on o t h e r jurisdiction conclusion, Ginsburg Finance lacked Int'l, (Ala. 2009)). i ti s entitled Goldschein's petition Wheels overruled 23 S o . 3 d 6 3 5 , 657 Pointe for Ass'n So. 2d 1 0 0 3 , 1006 980 (Ala. 2003), Inc., & Contractors 2100892 m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d , 2) t h e r e m u s t be a f i n a l d e c i s i o n as t o one o f t h e c l a i m s o r as t o t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s , a n d 3) the c o u r t m u s t d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n for delay." Fullilove, 678 However, finding and that of i t s e l f , Schneider So. 2d the at 153. trial "there court's i s no prevent just N a t ' l C a r r i e r s , I n c . v. 2000). In trial court's certification to 54(b) was expressly delay." Tinney, state Tinney, the specified the trial 776 So. 2d not at Id. We 755. So. 2d Tinney, the trial thus that Tinney of the 753, 755 that the 9 for include 54(b), of Rule certification consistent reference a certification rule. to while Rule language the therefore, specific court, to a failed reason failure "[b]y c i t i n g making court's to e f f e c t just in effective. determined no The incorporated conclude, summary j u d g m e n t u n d e r [was] approving implicitly sufficient 776 express does not, from being supreme c o u r t stated that, effective. was an o f a summary j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t order," 54(b) make for delay" Tinney, "there its that to even where t h a t c e r t i f i c a t i o n that language, court into our effective i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t was 54(b) reason the c e r t i f i c a t i o n (Ala. Rule failure of the to with Rule partial 2100892 Ginsburg the Rule See, 2d by the are so e.g., on partial 1374 adjudicated (Ala. and intertwined So. 2d risk need however, because certified as judgment is 60 So. acts at i t s own from the (Ala. from the certified portion of Civ. App. merits 54(b) Rule i t must 904-05 judgment, and judgment w i l l Allen, 10 a are "so would pose v. Cook, this argument, a judgment believes an that appeal the Allen v. 2010). a A timely attempt to party appeal appeal i n a d i s m i s s a l of 60 3d at 905. the of result So. an (applying by pursue later 54(b) an certification. not So. which Hurst of ( A l a . C i v . App. i f i t does 514 2007) pursue that improper. in results"); issue Rule adjudication the challenge appeal. that of remaining counterclaim to pursuant peril the the aggrieved 899, 3d and cases party to certified the a improper, i n order Briggs, separate consider when final in inconsistent not that D o t h a n , N.A., (holding unadjudicated 1148-51 We certification a propriety t o make c e r t i f i c a t i o n 1987) that of 1143, Branch). judgment inappropriate claim the ground S o u t h T r u s t Bank of is unreasonable as challenge the summary intertwined certification 981 next B r a n c h v. 1373, closely Goldschein certification 54(b) decided issues and that Thus, we 2100892 conclude that the Rule s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was Finally, reservoir 54(b) effective Ginsburg and Ex p a r t e R o b i n s o n 2d 444, 446 reservoir" that Nowlin Goldschein rule v. now rely justice'" may J., well partial challenged. the "'grand p r o v i d e d by So. 2d Although under Rule Rule I n c . , 709 587 dissenting)). exist the be on ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o t i n g H a l l v. H a l l , c o n s t r u i n g Rule to cannot of Roofing & Remodeling, ( A l a . 1991)(Adams, "grand and o f e q u i t a b l e p o w e r t o do 60(b). 1201 certification So. 1198, such 60(b), the a cases 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) a r e c l e a r t h a t a m o t i o n made p u r s u a n t may Druid not be City used Hosp. as Bd., a substitute 475 So. 2d f o r an 4 69, appeal. 471 (Ala. 1985). "Rule 60(b)(6) i s a r e s i d u a l c l a u s e to cover unforeseen contingencies. 7 J. Moore Federal Practice § 60.27[2] (1985). Considered an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) may n o t be u s e d t o r e l i e v e a p a r t y f r o m h i s own f a i l u r e t o t a k e an a p p e a l , C i t y o f D a p h n e v . C a f f e y , 410 So. 2 d 8 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , a n d t h e p r o v i s i o n may n o t be u s e d t o e x t e n d the time f o r appeal. R e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(6) w i l l be a l l o w e d o n l y i n u n i q u e s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e a p a r t y can show e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances s u f f i c i e n t to e n t i t l e h i m t o r e l i e f . Ex p a r t e H a r t f o r d I n s u r a n c e C o . , 394 So. 2d 933 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . " Nowlin, 2d 1142, appeal 475 So. 1145 and is 2d a t 4 7 1 ; ( A l a . 1993) not s e e a l s o P a t t e r s o n v . H a y s , 62 3 ("Rule available to 11 60 i s no relieve substitute a party for from So. an his 2100892 failure to exercise Tobacco Co. v. the right Cantley, 717 of appeal."); So. ("Neither Rule substitute f o ra timely appeal."); 3d 60(a) nor Rule 9, 16 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) 581 So. 2d overruled 105, not 109 1116, 1118 on o t h e r 751 , 60(b)(6) 759 may used 1998 ) as a by Ex p a r t e from f a i l u r e v. W i l l i a m s , 1991), impliedly Billeck, ("To p u t i t s i m p l y , a party be (quoting Williams 777 S o . 2 d 'Rule a v a i l a b l e as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r an a p p e a l used to r e l i e v e (Ala. a n d Bowen v . B o w e n , 28 S o . ( A l a . C i v . App. grounds ( A l a . 2000)) 2d R.J. Reynolds 60(b)(6) a n d may i s n o t be to exercise the right of appeal.'"). Even on mandamus Goldschein their When review, failed their i t i s t o take by Rule that apparent summary j u d g m e n t , to and safeguard t h e June 16, 2 0 1 0 , court failed to rule within the 90-day period and G o l d s c h e i n , to provide 12 Ginsburg steps on t h e p r e v i o u s l y they court the t r i a l 59.1, Ginsburg failed that of appealing motion a hearing request available to this the appropriate Instead postjudgment requested partial information summary j u d g m e n t a f t e r prescribed 2010, the scant own i n t e r e s t s . partial on from waited them until i n October denied relief motion. from the May 2 0 1 1 t o s e e k 2100892 r e l i e f under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) . exceptional circumstances court's discretion Because 16, 2010, warranting under Rule the t r i a l partial Goldschein's T h i s case s i m p l y does n o t p r e s e n t court 60(b)(6). lost summary postjudgment the exercise of the t r i a l jurisdiction judgment motion over after and by o p e r a t i o n was d e n i e d Ginsburg of law on S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , a n d b e c a u s e t h e f a i l u r e and Goldschein to timely and the denial of their sufficient under basis Rule 60(b)(6), we set aside judgment. Accordingly, i t seeks, vacate 2010, i t s May partial summary judgment motion court's does not form exercise of that grant Pointe the The t r i a l 10, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r setting trial i s entitled the petition court summary to the f o r the writ court a discretion 2010, p a r t i a l 16, Mountain of i s directed to aside t h e June 16, judgment. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Thompson, Ginsburg June the writ. summary by conclude the a n d we mandamus a n d i s s u e the p a r t i a l postjudgment f o rthe t r i a l improperly relief appeal t h e June P . J . , and ISSUED. Pittman, concur. 13 Bryan, 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.