Ann Welch and Gary Welch v. Nunnally's Glass and Framing Company, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/17/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 2111225 Ann Welch and Gary Welch v. Nunnally's Glass and Framing Company, Inc. Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t (CV-08-900251) Court DONALDSON, J u d g e . Ann W e l c h a n d G a r y W e l c h a p p e a l Calhoun Circuit Court i n favor from a judgment o f t h e of Nunnally's Glass F r a m i n g , I n c . We d i s m i s s t h i s a p p e a l b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l judgment i s n o t f i n a l . and court's 2111225 Facts This case infringement involves claims between o f t r a d e m a r k o r tradename two b u s i n e s s e s operating i n Anniston. From 1983 u n t i l t h e i r d i v o r c e i n 1990, L i n d a N u n n a l l y a n d Ken Nunnally jointly operated Nunnally's Company, I n c . , a b u s i n e s s s p e c i a l i z i n g f r a m i n g . The N u n n a l l y ' s Nunnally the framing inventory. The Glass and Framing i n p i c t u r e and p o s t e r 1990 d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d p o r t i o n of the business divorce judgment awarded Ken and Linda related Nunnally the glasswork p o r t i o n of the business. Linda Nunnally operated the framing business as " N u n n a l l y ' s Frame S h o p " u n t i l 1995, a t w h i c h t i m e she s o l d i t t o t h e W e l c h e s . F o l l o w i n g t h e d i v o r c e , Ken Nunnally Glass operated Company," repairing and storefront a separate h i s work business focused and a u t o m o b i l e called on "Nunnally installing windows. Ken or Nunnally e v e n t u a l l y s o l d t h e g l a s s b u s i n e s s and a l l o f t h e o u t s t a n d i n g stock i n Nunnally's Sparks. Glass a n d F r a m i n g Company, I n c . , t o Guy S p a r k s c o n t i n u e d t o o p e r a t e t h e b u s i n e s s as " N u n n a l l y Company," automobile the Glass and glasswork. complaint, he performed only storefront and A t some p o i n t b e f o r e t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e Welches a l l e g e d , S p a r k s began t o o p e r a t e h i s b u s i n e s s u n d e r t h e name " N u n n a l l y G l a s s and F r a m i n g , I n c . " 2 2111225 On J u l y 28, 2008, t h e W e l c h e s i n s t i t u t e d t h i s the Calhoun Glass Circuit and Framing Court naming as d e f e n d a n t s Company, I n c . , a n d S p a r k s 1 action i n Nunnally's and r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s be e n j o i n e d f r o m u s i n g o r o p e r a t i n g u n d e r the name " N u n n a l l y also Glass included a request contended, and Framing, I n c . " The c o m p l a i n t f o r damages, because, that the defendants' G l a s s and Framing, t h e Welches u s e o f t h e name " N u n n a l l y ' s I n c . , " r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r y t o t h e Welches' b u s i n e s s , " N u n n a l l y ' s Frame S h o p . " Sparks, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as owner o f N u n n a l l y ' s G l a s s a n d F r a m i n g Company, I n c . , " f i l e d an a n s w e r a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n w h i c h he s o u g h t damages from t h e W e l c h e s f o r i n f r i n g i n g upon h i s c o r p o r a t e t r a d e n a m e . On M a r c h 25, 2009, t h e W e l c h e s f i l e d a preliminary injunction. e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g On A p r i l 13, 2009, t h e t r i a l court a h e a r i n g on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n f o r A p r i l 22, 2009. the t r i a l an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r On A p r i l 2 1 , 2009, c o u r t c o n t i n u e d t h e h e a r i n g t o J u l y 22, 2009, b u t , a p p a r e n t l y , no h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h a t d a t e . The t r i a l court s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d an o r d e r on O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2009, s e t t i n g t h e T h e c o m p l a i n t a l s o l i s t e d f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s ; h o w e v e r , t h e W e l c h e s have n o t s u b s t i t u t e d p a r t i e s f o r t h e s e f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s . 1 3 2111225 hearing on the aforementioned application orders f o r November indicate that the 17, trial 2009. The court was s e t t i n g only the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n f o r a hearing. The h e a r i n g injunction was u l t i m a t e l y h e a r d both p a r t i e s present On May on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y on November and r e p r e s e n t e d 2, 2012, t h e t r i a l by court 17, 2009, with counsel. entered a judgment i n w h i c h i t s t a t e d t h a t t h e c a s e h a d been " c a l l e d f o r t r i a l . " In the judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o e n t e r t h e i n j u n c t i o n and o t h e r w i s e The W e l c h e s purported filed t o " f i n d [ ] i n favor of the Defendant." a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the j u d g m e n t on May 7, 2 0 1 2 ; t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court never ruled appealed to t h i s on the motion. court. On a p p e a l , they d i d not receive notice Rule 40(a), C i v . P., trial, A l a . R. The ultimately t h e Welches contend of a t r i a l a n d t h a t t h e y were d e n i e d Welches regarding a trial that s e t t i n g pursuant to s e t t i n g cases f o r on t h e m e r i t s . 2 Discussion N u n n a l l y ' s G l a s s a n d F r a m i n g Company, I n c . , h a s n o t f i l e d a b r i e f on a p p e a l . 2 4 2111225 I n i t s May 2, 2012, j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court denied the Welches' request f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . does n o t , h o w e v e r , d i s p o s e The j u d g m e n t 3 of the defendants' counterclaim f o r damages a r i s i n g f r o m t h e W e l c h e s ' a l l e g e d i n f r i n g e m e n t defendants' corporate specifically address Therefore, t h e judgment jurisdiction to consider tradename the Welches' i s not the nor final of the does the judgment claim for damages. and this court lacks appeal: "Generally, this court's appellate jurisdiction e x t e n d s o n l y t o f i n a l j u d g m e n t s . § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 1975. "'A j u d g m e n t i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l claims, or the r i g h t s or l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l p a r t i e s , have been d e c i d e d . Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) . The o n l y e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e o f f i n a l i t y i s when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t s the e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.'" A l t h o u g h R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s an a p p e a l f r o m an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r d e n y i n g a r e q u e s t f o r an i n j u n c t i o n t o be f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t , t h e W e l c h e s have n o t a p p e a l e d t h e d e n i a l o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n as an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order. The W e l c h e s , i n s t e a d , a s s e r t t h a t t h e y d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f a t r i a l s e t t i n g i n t h i s c a s e as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 40, A l a . R. C i v . P.; and t h a t j u d g m e n t on t h e m a t t e r s h o u l d n o t have been made f i n a l s i n c e t h e November 17, 2009, h e a r i n g was n o t a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . Thus, we do n o t d i s m i s s b a s e d upon u n t i m e l y f i l i n g o f an a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . 3 T h e 5 2111225 L a n e y v. Garmon, 25 So. App. 2009) ] . " A u s t i n v. A u s t i n , 102 Rule 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. So. 3d [478] 3d 403, C i v . P., a t 480 406 [(Ala. Civ. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012). provides, i n part: "When more t h a n one c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i s p r e s e n t e d i n an a c t i o n , whether as a claim, counterclaim, c r o s s - c l a i m , o r t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m , o r when m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s a r e i n v o l v e d , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o one o r more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l o f t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s o n l y upon an 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 r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f judgment." T h e r e i s no certify does not indication i t s j u d g m e n t as have t h a t the t r i a l f i n a l under Rule jurisdiction nonfinal j u d g m e n t t h a t has pursuant to Rule 54(b). C o l l e g e C i t y D r u g s , 885 to not See, So. court intended 54(b). consider an This appeal to court from a been a p p r o p r i a t e l y c e r t i f i e d e.g., 2d 811, Finova 813 Capital Corp. ( A l a . C i v . App. v. 2004) ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l b e c a u s e a c o u n t e r c l a i m r e m a i n e d p e n d i n g and the pursuant 479 trial to Rule (Ala. establishing damages and 2d 1118 court d i d not certify judgment 5 4 ( b ) ) ; see a l s o H a l l v. R e y n o l d s , 2009)(dismissing a the boundary an did line appeal not address f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f ) ; and Day ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) 6 when as 27 So. an appeal 3d order claims v. D a v i s , ( d i s m i s s i n g an final 989 for So. when a 2111225 judgment establishing remaining tort although the commencement boundary line did not address claims). Finally, authorizes a Rule trial of the 65(a)(2), court, Ala. "[b]efore hearing of Civ. after or P., the for a action on t h e m e r i t s t o be a d v a n c e d and c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t h e h e a r i n g of p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n [to] order the that a p p l i c a t i o n , " there procedure Welches followed specifically m e r i t s was For was i s no argue an R. the application trial of the i n d i c a t i o n i n the in on this appeal cases. that no record In that fact, the trial on the held. the jurisdiction reasons to hear stated the appeal above, because this court lacks a l l claims of a l l p a r t i e s have n o t b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d ; a c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 7 Thomas, and Moore, J J . , the

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.