Shirley Denise Turner v. Carl Angelo Green

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/2/11 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, 2011-2012 2100998 S h i r l e y Denise Turner v. C a r l Angelo Green Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-09-19) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . S h i r l e y Denise Turner ("Shirley") appeals from a judgment i n f a v o r o f C a r l A n g e l o G r e e n ( " C a r l " ) . We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . On who J a n u a r y 14, 2009, C a r l , i s one o f C a r l ' s s i b l i n g s , a c t i n g p r o s e , sued Shirley, i n t h e Etowah C i r c u i t Court 2100998 ("the trial court"). Carl's complaint alleged that S h i r l e y ' s deceased mother, H e l e n A u r t m i s h e l l Green had d e v i s e d a p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y ("the property") to him i n her w i l l had b e e n p r o b a t e d , and J a n e Ann Devereaux ("the will"), determination was the subsequently t h a t S h i r l e y had had also a c h i l d The on 22, 2009. Acting c o m p l a i n t on F e b r u a r y 17, she had and averred that Helen, i n t e r e s t she c o m p l a i n t sought a pro se, served with process Shirley answered the 2009. I n h e r a n s w e r , S h i r l e y d e n i e d done a n y t h i n g known what she was of property. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t S h i r l e y was January that t o S h i r l e y . The t h a t C a r l owned t h e ("Helen"), that e x e c u t e a q u i t c l a i m d e e d p u r p o r t i n g t o c o n v e y any m i g h t have i n t h e p r o p e r t y and l o c a t e d i n Etowah County will ( " J a n e " ) , who his improper, s i g n i n g when she H e l e n was very averred that Jane had s i g n e d the q u i t c l a i m deed, s i c k when she executed the will. On F e b r u a r y 20, On May Carl's court 7, 2009, the 2009, C a r l moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . trial summary-judgment entered an order court motion. held On May s t a t i n g that a hearing 8, i t was r u l i n g on C a r l ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n and 2 2009, regarding the trial reserving granting Carl its 30 2100998 d a y s t o amend h i s c o m p l a i n t t o s t a t e a q u i e t - t i t l e c l a i m a n d to a d d any a d d i t i o n a l n e c e s s a r y On June 3, 2009, C a r l requested that the s h e r i f f p r o c e s s on t h e r e s t o f H e l e n ' s Bernard other Green than surviving Radford of ("Dale"), C a r l ; Alonzo one o f H e l e n ' s H. who serve next of k i n , i . e . , Jane; Green two s u r v i v i n g ("Alonzo"), s o n ; and T i f f a n y R a d f o r d ("Terrence"), Helen parties. ("Tiffany") Helen's 1 sons other and Terrence the c h i l d r e n of Walter Lee B e l l , had predeceased Dale her. Thereafter, the a son sheriff attempted u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t o serve Jane, Dale, A l o n z o , T i f f a n y , and Terrence. On June 8, 2009, Shirley filed a pleading titled " O b j e c t i o n " i n w h i c h she a s s e r t e d t h a t H e l e n h a d b e e n m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t when she e x e c u t e d t h e w i l l , t h a t C a r l h a d p r o c u r e d Helen's over execution of the w i l l b y e x e r c i s i n g undue h e r , and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t C a r l judgment determining that he was influence was n o t e n t i t l e d the sole owner to a of the property. T i f f a n y ' s name i s s p e l l e d " T e f f a n y " i n some p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d and " T e r r a n y " i n o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d ; however, t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a document s i g n e d b y h e r i n w h i c h she s p e l l s h e r name as T i f f a n y . T h e r e f o r e , we r e f e r t o h e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n as T i f f a n y . 1 3 2100998 On November 9, 2009, an attorney filed a notice of a p p e a r a n c e on b e h a l f o f C a r l . On December 14, 2009, t h e t r i a l court s e t the action f o r t r i a l On F e b r u a r y Although on F e b r u a r y 1, 2010. 1, 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a b e n c h t r i a l . t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t C a r l h a d amended his complaint i n accordance w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n in i t s May 9, 2009, o r d e r , a n d a l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s that Jane, Dale, Alonzo, been Tiffany, served with process, and Terrence the t r i a l 2010, e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t , w h i c h had not y e t c o u r t , on F e b r u a r y stated, 2, i n pertinent part: " T h i s m a t t e r h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on t h e 1 s t d a y o f F e b r u a r y , 2010 on t h e C o m p l a i n t o f [ C a r l ] s e e k i n g t o q u i e t t i t l e t o [ t h e p r o p e r t y ] and the o b j e c t i o n f i l e d by [ S h i r l e y ] and t h e Court h a v i n g taken testimony, ore tenus, t h e Court hereby f i n d s as f o l l o w s : "1. T i t l e t o t h e [ p r o p e r t y ] i s h e r e b y v e s t e d i n t h e name o f t h e [ C a r l ] "2. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ S h i r l e y ] , [ A l o n z o ] , [ D a l e ] , [ J a n e ] , [ T i f f a n y ] , a n d [ T e r r e n c e ] have no i n t e r e s t i n t h e above d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y . "3. The Tax A s s e s s o r i s d i r e c t e d t o a s s e s s t h e p r o p e r t y i n t o t h e name o f [ C a r l ] . ... " Shirley postjudgment neither filed motion within a Rule 30 d a y s 59(e), after A l a . R. C i v . P., the entry of the F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t n o r f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h i n 4 2100998 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2, On March 30, F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, "Motion part, to 2010, 56 days after 2010, the judgment. entry j u d g m e n t , an a t t o r n e y f i l e d a m o t i o n Reconsider" on behalf of Shirley. In of titled pertinent that motion s t a t e d : "COMES NOW, counsel, and Reconsider and counterclaim. In follows: [ S h i r l e y ] , by and t h r o u g h h e r l e g a l hereby submits this Motion to f o r leave of court to a s s e r t [ a ] s u p p o r t t h e r e o f , [ S h i r l e y ] a v e r s as "1) On F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, t h i s C o u r t e n t e r e d an Order which e s t a b l i s h e d r i g h t s to [ t h e p r o p e r t y ] . "2) A t t h e t i m e o f s a i d h e a r i n g , [ J a n e ] , [ D a l e ] , [ A l o n z o ] , [ T i f f a n y ] , and [Terrence] had n o t b e e n s e r v e d . D e s p i t e s a i d f a c t , a h e a r i n g was h e l d on F e b r u a r y 1, 2010. A f t e r s a i d h e a r i n g , t h i s C o u r t e n t e r e d an O r d e r w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e who were n o t y e t s e r v e d , d i d n o t have any i n t e r e s t i n t h e above d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y . "3) Due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a r e s t i l l c l a i m s pending a g a i n s t the non-served p a r t i e s , [Shirley] a s s e r t s t h a t t h e O r d e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2, 2010 i s n o n - f i n a l . As a r e s u l t , t h i s M o t i o n t o R e c o n s i d e r i s timely f i l e d . "4) [Shirley] r e s p e c t f u l l y requests that t h i s C o u r t w i l l r e c o n s i d e r i t s O r d e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2, 2010 to consider the following facts and c o u n t e r c l a i m s w h i c h a p p e a r t o have n o t b e e n a s s e r t e d d u r i n g the p r e v i o u s h e a r i n g . "5) to grant [Shirley] r e s p e c t f u l l y requests t h i s l e a v e t o a s s e r t [a] c o u n t e r c l a i m . " 5 the Court 2100998 (Emphasis added.) The m o t i o n stating claims of adverse against Carl. The gravamen then asserted possession had been of S h i r l e y ' s years. if i n adverse possession enrichment adverse-possession because, she a l l e g e d , o f i t f o r more t h a n The gravamen o f h e r u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t the property counterclaim and u n j u s t c l a i m was t h a t she owned t h e p r o p e r t y she a was owned b y C a r l , 10 c l a i m was t h a t , she was e n t i t l e d t o be c o m p e n s a t e d f o r i m p r o v e m e n t s s h e h a d made t o t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t C a r l h a d a l l o w e d h e r t o make w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n . Carl filed Shirley's trial had response i n which as i t p u r p o r t e d Alonzo, n o t been February service he (1) a s s e r t e d t o r e c o n s i d e r was u n t i m e l y ; court t o s e t aside the February insofar Dale, motion a T i f f a n y , and Terrence served with process (2) moved t h e 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t to adjudicate the rights only of Jane, on t h e g r o u n d t h a t before that the entry they of the 2, 2010, o r d e r ; a n d (3) s o u g h t an o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g b y p u b l i c a t i o n on J a n e , Dale, Alonzo, T i f f a n y , and Terrence. The t r i a l court h e l d a hearing regarding S h i r l e y ' s motion on J u n e 2, 2010. On J u n e 3, 2010, t h e t r i a l order that stated: 6 c o u r t e n t e r e d an 2100998 "THIS CAUSE c o m i n g b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on t h e 2 n d day of June, 2010 on [Shirley's] Motion to Reconsider f i l e d h e r e i n , w i t h the Court having heard arguments of counsel the following i s hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, a n d DECREED: "1. The C o u r t ' s O r d e r o f F e b r u a r y h e r e b y SET ASIDE a n d h e l d f o r n a u g h t . 2, 2010 i s "2. [ C a r l ] i s h e r e b y ORDERED a n d DIRECTED t o g e t a l l Defendants s e r v e d pursuant t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e method u n d e r A l a . R. C i v . P. 4.2." (Capitalization i n original.) On June service 14, 2010, C a r l on Jane, publication. Dale, The t r i a l moved f o r an o r d e r Alonzo, Tiffany, authorizing and Terrence court granted that motion by on June 2 1 , 2010. After service was effected on T i f f a n y , and Terrence by p u b l i c a t i o n , bench trial regarding Carl's Jane, Dale, the t r i a l complaint Alonzo, court held a and Shirley's c o u n t e r c l a i m on F e b r u a r y 14, 2 0 1 1 . On F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e trial court judgment entered a judgment. In pertinent part, stated: "[H]aving taken testimony, h e r e b y f i n d s as f o l l o w s : ore tenus, the Court "1. T i t l e t o t h e [ p r o p e r t y ] i s h e r e b y q u i e t e d i n t h e name o f [ C a r l ] . "2. The C o u r t finds that 7 [Shirley], [Alonzo], that 2100998 [ D a l e ] , [ J a n e ] , [ T i f f a n y ] , a n d [ T e r r e n c e ] have no interest i n t h e ... p r o p e r t y . Only [Shirley] appeared t o c o n t e s t the c l a i m o f [ C a r l ] . "3. The Tax A s s e s s o r i s d i r e c t e d t o a s s e s s t h e p r o p e r t y i n t o t h e name o f [ C a r l ] "4. The c l a i m s of [Shirley] f o r Adverse P o s s e s s i o n and U n j u s t Enrichment a r e hereby d e n i e d . " On M a r c h 18, 2 0 1 1 , S h i r l e y moved to alter, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t motion on May 18, 2 0 1 1 . The F e b r u a r y 22, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t was a p p e a l e d t o t h e supreme c o u r t b y S h i r l e y o n l y . The supreme court t r a n s f e r r e d S h i r l e y ' s appeal t o t h i s court pursuant t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. As a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , C a r l a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t r i a l court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t insofar as i t r u l e d i n h i s favor with respect to h i s claim a g a i n s t S h i r l e y . R u l e 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : "When t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e summons ... a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t have b e e n s e r v e d on one o r more, b u t n o t a l l , o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , t h e p l a i n t i f f may p r o c e e d t o j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s on whom p r o c e s s h a s b e e n s e r v e d a n d , i f t h e j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s who have b e e n s e r v e d i s f i n a l i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , i t s h a l l be a f i n a l judgment. A f t e r t h e e n t r y o f judgment, i f t h e p l a i n t i f f i s a b l e t o o b t a i n s e r v i c e on a d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s n o t p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d (except, however, defendants designated as f i c t i t i o u s p a r t i e s as a l l o w e d b y R u l e 9 ( h ) , [ A l a . R. 8 2100998 C i v . P.,] who s h a l l be deemed t o have b e e n d i s m i s s e d v o l u n t a r i l y when t h e c a s e was a n n o u n c e d r e a d y f o r t r i a l a g a i n s t o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s s u e d by t h e i r t r u e names), t h e c o u r t s h a l l h e a r and d e t e r m i n e t h e m a t t e r as t o s u c h d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e same manner as i f s u c h d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s h a d originally been brought into court, but such d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s s h a l l be a l l o w e d t h e b e n e f i t o f any payment o r s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t may have b e e n made on t h e j u d g m e n t p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d i n t h e action." The February against Shirley, with 2, 2010, was a adjudicated t h e o n l y d e f e n d a n t who p r o c e s s . Thus, u n d e r judgment judgment final, Rule a l l claims had t h e n been s e r v e d 4 ( f ) , t h e F e b r u a r y 2, a p p e a l a b l e judgment with 2010, respect to S h i r l e y . See F r a n k l i n v. C a t l e d g e , 59 So. 3d 738, 740-41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 344 2 0 1 0 ) ; B e d e l l v. Q u a l i t y Cas. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006); S t a t i o n s of Birmingham, and I n s . Co., Williams v. I n c . , 959 So. 2d 1120 Fox 958 So. Television ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e L u k e r , 25 So. 1152 2d 3d ( A l a . 2007). Although t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, judgment a l s o c o n t a i n e d language p u r p o r t i n g t o a d j u d i c a t e C a r l ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t Dale, Alonzo, T i f f a n y , and Terrence, that l a n g u a g e was Jane, void b e c a u s e J a n e , D a l e , A l o n z o , T i f f a n y , and T e r r e n c e h a d n o t t h e n b e e n s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s and, t h e r e f o r e , 9 the t r i a l court d i d 2100998 n o t have i n p e r s o n a m j u r i s d i c t i o n Indem. Co. v. W e s t g a t e , o v e r them. See Northbrook L t d . , 769 So. 2d 890, 893 ( A l a . 2000) ( " ' F a i l u r e of proper s e r v i c e under Rule 4 d e p r i v e s a c o u r t of jurisdiction 673 and r e n d e r s i t s judgment v o i d . ' So. 2d 427, 428-29 With Ex p a r t e P a t e , (Ala. 1995)."). respect to Shirley, h o w e v e r , t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t was a v a l i d , f i n a l j u d g m e n t f o r t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d above. R u l e 59(e) p r o v i d e s t h a t a t r i a l of a p a r t y , can a l t e r , c o u r t , on t h e m o t i o n amend, o r v a c a t e a f i n a l judgment i t has e n t e r e d i f t h e m o t i o n i s f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y of t h e judgment. file a Rule The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s 59(e) motion within that Shirley d i d not 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t . R u l e 59 a l s o a l l o w s a t r i a l court, a c t i n g s u a s p o n t e , t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a f i n a l judgment i t h a s e n t e r e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h a t judgment. See P i e r c e v. American (Ala. 2008). However, Gen. F i n . , I n c . , 991 So. 2d 212, 215 the record indicates that the trial c o u r t d i d n o t e n t e r a sua sponte o r d e r a l t e r i n g , amending, o r v a c a t i n g t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, judgment w i t h i n 30 d a y s after i t was e n t e r e d . R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a t r i a l 10 court, 2100998 on the motion o f a p a r t y made more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r the e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment, can r e l i e v e a p a r t y from t h a t f i n a l judgment b a s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g grounds: "(1) mistake, i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , o r excusable n e g l e c t ; (2) n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h b y due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( b ) ; (3) f r a u d (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or e x t r i n s i c ) , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , or other misconduct o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y ; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) the judgment has been s a t i s f i e d , released, or d i s c h a r g e d , o r a p r i o r judgment upon w h i c h i t i s based has been r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r e q u i t a b l e t h a t t h e judgment s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n ; o r (6) any o t h e r r e a s o n justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." However, Shirley's 30 d a y s "Motion after to Reconsider," which was filed more t h a n the entry of the February 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t , d i d n o t s e e k r e l i e f f r o m t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t b a s e d on any o f t h e g r o u n d s e n u m e r a t e d i n R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ; r a t h e r , i t m e r e l y a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t was not f i n a l with respect to Shirley because Jane, Dale, A l o n z o , T i f f a n y , and T e r r e n c e had n o t been s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s b e f o r e t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, judgment was e n t e r e d . the o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l Moreover, c o u r t on J u n e 3, 2 0 1 0 , w h i c h purported to vacate the February entirety, d i d n o t c i t e any o f t h e g r o u n d s e n u m e r a t e d b y R u l e 11 2, 2010, judgment in i t s 2100998 60(b) as i t s b a s i s . court lacked jurisdiction insofar as C o n s e q u e n t l y , we i t purported conclude t h a t the t o e n t e r the June to vacate the judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o S h i r l e y because 2010, j u d g m e n t was a final 3, trial 2010, February order 2, 2010, (1) t h e F e b r u a r y judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o Shirley u n d e r R u l e 4 ( f ) , (2) S h i r l e y d i d n o t f i l e a t i m e l y R u l e motion challenging the February 2, 2010, 2, judgment, 59(e) (3) the trial c o u r t d i d not a c t sua sponte t o v a c a t e the F e b r u a r y 2010, judgment w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r i t was e n t e r e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 59, (4) Shirley's "Motion r e l i e f f r o m t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, g r o u n d s e n u m e r a t e d by R u l e J u n e 3, 2010, to R e c o n s i d e r " d i d not seek j u d g m e n t b a s e d on any o f t h e 6 0 ( b ) , and (5) t h e t r i a l court's o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o v a c a t e t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o S h i r l e y d i d n o t p u r p o r t t o do so t h e b a s i s o f any g r o u n d Moreover, 2, e n u m e r a t e d by R u l e on 60(b). we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2010, judgment b a r r e d S h i r l e y f r o m a s s e r t i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m she i n c l u d e d i n her "Motion Ala. R. to R e c o n s i d e r . " In p e r t i n e n t part, Rule 13(a), C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : "A p l e a d i n g s h a l l s t a t e as a c o u n t e r c l a i m any c l a i m which a t the time of s e r v i n g the p l e a d i n g the p l e a d e r has a g a i n s t any o p p o s i n g p a r t y , i f i t a r i s e s out of the t r a n s a c t i o n or o c c u r r e n c e t h a t i s the 12 2100998 s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e opposing p a r t y ' s c l a i m and does n o t r e q u i r e f o r i t s a d j u d i c a t i o n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h i r d p a r t i e s o f whom t h e c o u r t c a n n o t a c q u i r e jurisdiction." I n Ex p a r t e C i n c i n n a t i I n s u r a n c e C o s . , 806 So. 2d 376, 379-80 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "The d r a f t e r s o f R u l e 13, A l a . R. C i v . P., i n t e n d e d t o adopt t h e ' l o g i c a l - r e l a t i o n s h i p ' t e s t for determining whether a counterclaim is c o m p u l s o r y . 'A c o u n t e r c l a i m i s c o m p u l s o r y i f t h e r e i s any l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n o f any s o r t b e t w e e n t h e o r i g i n a l c l a i m and t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m . ' Committee Comments on 1973 a d o p t i o n o f R u l e 13, 5 6. U n d e r t h e l o g i c a l - r e l a t i o n s h i p standard, a counterclaim i s c o m p u l s o r y i f '(1) i t s t r i a l i n t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n would a v o i d a s u b s t a n t i a l d u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t or (2) t h e o r i g i n a l c l a i m a n d t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a r o s e o u t o f t h e same a g g r e g a t e c o r e o f o p e r a t i v e f a c t s . ' Ex p a r t e C a n a l I n s . Co., 534 So. 2d 582, 584 ( A l a . 1988) ( q u o t i n g Brooks v. Peoples N a t ' l Bank o f H u n t s v i l l e , 414 So. 2d 917, 919 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ) . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e c l a i m s 'arose o u t o f t h e same a g g r e g a t e c o r e o f o p e r a t i v e f a c t s , ' t h i s C o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r '(1) t h e f a c t s t a k e n as a w h o l e s e r v e as t h e b a s i s f o r b o t h c l a i m s o r (2) t h e sum t o t a l o f f a c t s upon w h i c h t h e o r i g i n a l c l a i m r e s t s c r e a t e s l e g a l r i g h t s i n a p a r t y which would o t h e r w i s e r e m a i n d o r m a n t . ' C a n a l I n s . , 534 So. 2d a t 584 . "The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e Eleventh Circuit has also adopted a l o g i c a l - r e l a t i o n s h i p t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a c o u n t e r c l a i m i s c o m p u l s o r y u n d e r R u l e 1 3 ( a ) , F e d . R. C i v . P. See R e p u b l i c H e a l t h C o r p . v . L i f e m a r k H o s p s . o f F l o r i d a , I n c . , 755 F.2d 1453, 1455 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1985) . T h e r e i s a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p 'when " t h e same o p e r a t i v e f a c t s s e r v e as t h e b a s i s o f b o t h c l a i m s o r t h e a g g r e g a t e c o r e o f f a c t s upon w h i c h t h e 13 2100998 claim rests activates additional legal rights, o t h e r w i s e dormant, i n t h e d e f e n d a n t . " ' Republic H e a l t h , 755 F.2d a t 1455 ( q u o t i n g P l a n t v. B l a z e r Fin. S e r v s . , I n c . , 598 F.2d 1357, 1361 ( 5 t h C i r . 1979)). Moreover, t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has s t a t e d t h a t '[a] d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r a c o u n t e r c l a i m i s compulsory i s not d i s c r e t i o n a r y ; r a t h e r , such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' Republic H e a l t h , 755 F.2d a t 1454. See a l s o Owens v. B l u e Tee C o r p . , 177 F.R.D. 673, 680 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . " "Failure to properly a s s e r t a compulsory counterclaim i n the o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g b a r s f u t u r e l i t i g a t i o n b y t h e p a r t i e s on t h a t c l a i m . " S a n d e r s v. F i r s t Bank o f G r o v e H i l l , 869, 564 So. 2d 872 ( A l a . 1990) C a r l ' s c l a i m and b o t h o f t h e c l a i m s assert i n her "Motion t o Reconsider" who owned t h e p r o p e r t y . claims Shirley Reconsider" were to compulsory assert we c o n c l u d e i n her counterclaims j u d g m e n t was a f i n a l action with Bedell; to Shirley, Williams, and, subsequently asserting those Reconsider," see Sanders. judgment and respect judgment entered 14 see Rule therefore, claims Thus, by t h e t r i a l that "Motion she to was The F e b r u a r y 2, terminated 4(f); barred i n her t o the extent court that the that r e q u i r e d t o f i l e i n C a r l ' s a c t i o n against her. 2010, to s h a r e d a common i s s u e : Consequently, purported S h i r l e y purported on F e b r u a r y Carl's Franklin; her "Motion that from to the 22, 2 0 1 1 , 2100998 purported claim to r u l e against S h i r l e y both with respect to C a r l ' s against her and her claims against him, i t was a nullity. Shirley after the d i d not entry therefore, this j u d g m e n t . See P. of file a n o t i c e of appeal w i t h i n 42 days the February judgment, and, court Rules has no 2, 2010, jurisdiction Moreover, because the February v o i d i n s o f a r as i t p u r p o r t e d 22, review that 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , and to App. 2011, judgment was t o r u l e a g a i n s t S h i r l e y , she was n o t a g g r i e v e d by t h a t j u d g m e n t . "A p a r t y t h a t i s n o t by a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment cannot a p p e a l See Sho-Me M o t o r L o d g e s , 466 So. 1271, 2d 1272 2d 1295, 83, 88 v. App. Jehle-Slauson ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006). Therefore, Constr. D.W.M., 723 1 9 9 8 ) ; and Rush v. H e f l i n , 1 9 8 2 ) . " Buco B l d g . I n c . v. Mayer E l e c . S u p p l y Co., Civ. from t h a t judgment. ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; S.W.M. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1297 Inc. aggrieved 960 So. not confer Under R u l e Jane, Dale, Alonzo, 411 2d So. 2d 707, 711-12 ( A l a . the n o t i c e of appeal Shirley filed j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h i s 4 ( f ) , the So. Constructors, w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, did Co., judgment court. a c t i o n p r o p e r l y proceeded T i f f a n y , and 15 Terrence after against they were 2100998 s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s , a n d t h e F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, j u d g m e n t was valid with appealed respect to the February them. APPEAL none of them have 22, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n we h a v e no j u r i s d i c t i o n However, over the appeal b e f o r e us. Because o v e r t h e a p p e a l , we must d i s m i s s i t . DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 16 Thomas, 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.