Anita D. Davis and Catherine Nall v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/07/2013 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 2120073 A n i t a D. Davis and Catherine N a l l v. Bayview Loan S e r v i c i n g , LLC, e t a l . Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-09-736) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Anita appeal D. Davis and C a t h e r i n e Nall f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d ("the p l a i n t i f f s " ) i n favor o f Bayview 2120073 Loan Servicing, ("Interbay"), LLC ("Bayview"), and M&T Although Bank Interbay a s s e r t i n support o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t a r e p r o c e d u r a l , a e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s i s h e l p f u l t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l . and signed a promissory in October mortgage is not loan a f t e r are hereinafter note and 2004. i t was a The residential t h e n o t e and the of brief of the The p l a i n t i f f s b o r r o w e d money f r o m I n t e r b a y Interbay assigned LLC ("M&T"). the grounds the p l a i n t i f f s t h e i r appeal Funding, mortgage property property. in secured In 2005, the mortgage t o Bayview. assigned r e f e r r e d to to Bayview. collectively M&T favor of by the Interbay serviced B a y v i e w and as "the M&T Bayview parties." In to the s p r i n g o f 2009, t h e p l a i n t i f f s purchase Apparently, the property t h a t was the plaintiffs had p a y o f f amount o f t h e b a l a n c e they filed Interbay, a civil alleging secured of the note, tort wantonness, s l a n d e r of t i t l e , and 2 by difficulties action against various r e c e i v e d an the claims and, the offer mortgage. obtaining i n June 2009, Bayview p a r t i e s such the as and negligence, the t o r t of outrage. They 2120073 a l s o sought i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . The p l a i n t i f f s stopped making payments on t h e m o r t g a g e i n A u g u s t 2009. The On May relevant procedural history 16, 2 0 1 1 , I n t e r b a y includes the following. and t h e Bayview parties filed a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o a l l t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. filed pay The n e x t d a y , May 17, 2 0 1 1 , t h e B a y v i e w p a r t i e s a motion seeking an o r d e r requiring was s c h e d u l e d A h e a r i n g on t h e p e n d i n g the motions. that parties should have c o u n t e r c l a i m and p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e unpaid f i l e d their opposition I n t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n , they appeared t o argue the Bayview possession of the note mortgage i f they payments. The judgment o f d i s m i s s a l . " the Bayview p a r t i e s the p l a i n t i f f s ' filed statement the e n t r y of a f i n a l filed a compulsory i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y were expected plaintiffs "Despite the foregoing, the P l a i n t i f f s a final motions f o r A u g u s t 4, 2 0 1 1 . On A u g u s t 2, 2 0 1 1 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s in to i n t o c o u r t t h e m o n t h l y m o r t g a g e payments on t h e p r o p e r t y as t h o s e p a y m e n t s came due. to the p l a i n t i f f s to recover the also stated: agree t o the e n t r y of The same d a y , I n t e r b a y a n d a motion asking t h a t , i n l i g h t of t h a t they "expressly 'agree[d] to judgment o f d i s m i s s a l , ' " t h e t r i a l 3 court 2120073 enter a final summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e i r favor, a c t i o n w i t h p r e j u d i c e , and c a n c e l t h e A u g u s t 4, "on dismiss 2011, the hearing a l l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s " as moot. The A u g u s t 4, 2011, h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d as s c h e d u l e d on the Bayview p a r t i e s ' motion seeking to r e q u i r e the plaintiffs to the pay funds into the court. A f t e r the hearing, trial court entered an o r d e r a s k i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o b r i e f t h e i s s u e . On 2011, A u g u s t 5, trial court September to 2, the p l a i n t i f f s dismiss 2011, after p r o p r i e t y of p a y i n g the Bayview motion as action the with briefs on prejudice. the f u n d s i n t o t h e c o u r t had parties counterclaim. the f i l e d a motion asking filed a motion for the submitted, assert attached to a the a s s e r t e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e t h e p l a i n t i f f s had f i l e d the a c t i o n the plaintiffs motion, of Bayview p a r t i e s them, the to On the against In been leave A c o p y o f t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m was " E x h i b i t 1." issue the were mortgage payments; t h e r e f o r e , the they had no b a s i s at t h a t time a g a i n s t the p l a i n t i f f s . the Bayview p a r t i e s s a i d , delinquent. The not i n arrears Bayview p a r t i e s for asserting a on their asserted, counterclaim However, s i n c e f i l i n g t h e complaint, t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' a c c o u n t had become Bayview p a r t i e s a s s e r t e d t h a t , at the August 4 2120073 4, 2011, hearing, the plaintiffs had advanced t h a t , i n the absence o f a c o u n t e r c l a i m the position by t h e B a y v i e w p a r t i e s , t h e p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d a v o i d t h e i r d e b t and r e t a i n t h e property, u n e n c u m b e r e d by contended a mortgage. t h a t s u c h a r e s u l t w o u l d be they intended the p r o p e r t y to The Bayview p a r t i e s inequitable. commence f o r e c l o s u r e s e c u r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e . They i n d i c a t e d t h a t proceedings Therefore, the p a r t i e s s a i d , they d e s i r e d to assert a counterclaim judgment declaring that they were entitled remedies f o r d e f a u l t s e t f o r t h i n the including On ordered later n o t e and Bayview seeking pursue the a the mortgage, foreclosure. O c t o b e r 28, parties' to regarding request that than the 2011, for the leave plaintiffs November trial 21, to c o u r t g r a n t e d the assert respond 2011. On a to Bayview counterclaim the November and counterclaim 22, 2011, no the Bayview p a r t i e s f i l e d a supplement to t h e i r pending motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , asserting that summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e i r f a v o r On to the F e b r u a r y 16, Bayview judgment, 2012, the on t h e y were e n t i t l e d their plaintiffs p a r t i e s ' supplemental pointing out, among 5 a counterclaim. f i l e d an motion other to for things, objection a summary that no 2120073 c o u n t e r c l a i m had trial ever been f i l e d . court entered Interbay, February 17, 2012, a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f M&T. plaintiffs m o t i o n , i n w h i c h t h e y a g a i n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t no counterclaim On M a r c h 22, 2012, filed Bayview, postjudgment been f i l e d . The the a had and On without seeking the t r i a l c o u r t , the Bayview p a r t i e s f i l e d t h e i r leave of counterclaim, with exhibits attached, and p a i d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f i l i n g f e e . On trial June 4, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' postjudgment motion. The p l a i n t i f f s ' a p p e a l e d t o the Alabama Supreme C o u r t , t r a n s f e r r e d the to pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), This with which court's jurisdiction A l a . Code clerk's court trial court 1975. r e i n v e s t e d the and e n t e r , i f i t chose, a f i n a l judgment a d d r e s s i n g a l l c l a i m s and court requested. explicitly motion for a declaratory February parties' 17, December this consider forms of r e l i e f until office appeal granted summary judgment, 2012, On the 17, 2012, December 12, Bayview judgment on stating that to 2012, parties' their the supplemental counterclaim i t had intended The trial court stated for for summary j u d g m e n t t o encompass t h e counterclaim. trial a the Bayview that the p l a i n t i f f s had b r e a c h e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e n o t e and t h e m o r t g a g e 6 2120073 and that the Bayview parties f o r e c l o s u r e of the p r o p e r t y under the the terms of the plaintiffs trial filed court's m o t i o n was On judgment entered other the declaratory the to pursue remedies a v a i l a b l e mortgage. In response, challenging relief. The the postjudgment appeal proceeded. plaintiffs of lacked over Bayview declaratory their jurisdiction the the on subject-matter favor contend that i s v o i d because, t h e y say, the t r i a l c o u r t counterclaim in entitled a postjudgment motion d e n i e d , and the any n o t e and granting appeal, and were that parties claim. Specifically, the p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t , pursuant to Rule 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i i ) , R. C i v . P., 2011, t h i s a c t i o n was before the Bayview automatically dismissed parties sought leave to Ala. i n August file the counterclaim. Rule subject a c t i o n may of c o u r t signed Ala. t o c e r t a i n r u l e s and c a s e , "an order 41(a)(1)(ii), by ... be Civ. P., s t a t u t e s not dismissed ( i i ) by a l l p a r t i e s who R. filing by the provides that, applicable in plaintiff a stipulation have a p p e a r e d i n t h e of without dismissal action." "'The p u r p o s e o f R u l e 41(a) i s to f a c i l i t a t e v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l s b u t t o l i m i t them t o an e a r l y stage of the p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e i s s u e i s j o i n e d . ' Rule 41 (Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption) 7 this 2120073 (emphasis added). I f the conditions of Rule 41(a)(1) are s a t i s f i e d , d i s m i s s a l i s automatic, t h a t i s , '[n]o order of the court i s required [and] the n o t i c e [ o f d i s m i s s a l ] terminates the a c t i o n ' 9 C h a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t & A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 2363, a t 439-41 (3d e d . 2008) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) (commenting on F e d . R. C i v . P. 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) ; s e e a l s o G r e e n e v. Town o f C e d a r B l u f f , 965 So. 2d 773, 777-79 ( A l a . 2007) . D i s m i s s a l u n d e r R u l e 41(a) (1) i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i s r e v i e w a b l e de novo. See M a t t h e w s v . Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 879 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1990) ( r e v i e w i n g R u l e 41, F e d . R. C i v . P . ) . "On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f R u l e 41(a) (1) a r e n o t met, ' " v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l c a n o n l y be upon c o u r t o r d e r [under R u l e 41 ( a ) ( 2 ) ] a n d t h e c o u r t i s g i v e n b r o a d powers t o p r e v e n t harassment o f or inconvenience t o t h e d e f e n d a n t b y an a r b i t r a r y d i s m i s s a l a t t h i s advanced stage of the case."' M i l l i k e n v . S o u t h R e a l t y Co., 628 So. 2d 928, 930 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) ( q u o t i n g C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 Adoption of Rule 41). See R u l e 41(a)(2) ('Except as p r o v i d e d i n paragraph (1) o f t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h i s r u l e , an a c t i o n s h a l l n o t be d i s m i s s e d a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n s t a n c e s a v e upon order of the court a n d upon such terms and c o n d i t i o n s as t h e c o u r t deems p r o p e r . ' ) . " R i v e r s t o n e Dev. Co. v. N e l s o n , 91 So. 3d 678, 681 ( A l a . 2012) . The p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t on a p p e a l t h a t " a l l p a r t i e s c l e a r l y and u n e q u i v o c a l l y c o n s e n t e d t o d i s m i s s a l o f a l l p e n d i n g with prejudice." agreeing their claims The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a r t o c o n t e n d t h a t to the entry their o f a " f i n a l judgment o f d i s m i s s a l " i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the Bayview p a r t i e s ' motion seeking m o r t g a g e payments be p a i d i n t o c o u r t , c o m b i n e d w i t h 8 that Interbay's 2120073 and t h e B a y v i e w p a r t i e s ' r e q u e s t judgment t h a t i n t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a summary t h e a c t i o n be d i s m i s s e d , constituted a s t i p u l a t i o n o f d i s m i s s a l between t h e p a r t i e s . contention i s not supported In the motions plaintiffs they The p l a i n t i f f s ' b y t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , filed with the t r i a l however. court, A s t i p u l a t i o n of d i s m i s s a l of the c a s e does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d . I n t h e i r A u g u s t 2, 2011, m o t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t , I n t e r b a y p a r t i e s d i d not agree i n s t e a d , they requested the dismissal a of the a c t i o n request c a n n o t be c o n s t r u e d the p l a i n t i f f s further t o merely i n light of a f i n a l for a summary the case; of the plaintiffs' judgment o f d i s m i s s a l . " judgment i n their favor as an a g r e e m e n t t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n , as have a d v a n c e d . proceedings, dismiss and t h e a summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e i r f a v o r and agreement t o " t h e e n t r y Clearly, the never suggested t h a t the p a r t i e s had agreed t o a s t i p u l a t i o n of d i s m i s s a l . Bayview joint Moreover, the t r i a l including a hearing p a r t i e s ' m o t i o n t o have t h e p l a i n t i f f s on court the p a y money i n t o held Bayview court, i n d i c a t i n g that i t d i d not consider the p a r t i e s ' statements t o be a s t i p u l a t i o n of d i s m i s s a l . 9 2120073 We a g r e e w i t h t h e B a y v i e w p a r t i e s t h a t a s t i p u l a t i o n o f d i s m i s s a l was n o t f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e . automatic trial Therefore, d i s m i s s a l of the a c t i o n i n August t h e r e was no 2011, a n d t h e c o u r t d i d not l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the a c t i o n a t t h a t time. The parties' after plaintiffs a l s o contend, counterclaim the i n i t i a l parties was n o t p r o p e r l y summary was e n t e r e d however, t h a t the Bayview filed judgment i n f a v o r on F e b r u a r y 17, 2012. until 34 days of the Bayview Therefore, they a r g u e , t h e r e was no c o u n t e r c l a i m p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t when it purported to enter a judgment i n favor of the Bayview parties. The Bayview parties assert that when the t r i a l court e n t e r e d t h e o r d e r on O c t o b e r 28, 2011, g r a n t i n g them l e a v e t o file by t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m and o r d e r i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s a certain counterclaim Bayview date, t o have b e e n parties contention, "the t r i a l and do this not filed cite court has a u t h o r i t y a l l o w i n g an " i m p l i c i t " Rule court implicitly on O c t o b e r any been filing t o respond deemed t h e 28, 2 0 1 1 . " authority unable to for find The their any of a counterclaim. 5 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 10 2120073 "The f i l i n g o f p a p e r s w i t h t h e c o u r t as r e q u i r e d b y t h e s e r u l e s s h a l l be made b y f i l i n g them w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t , e x c e p t t h a t t h e j u d g e may p e r m i t t h e p a p e r s t o be f i l e d w i t h t h e j u d g e , i n w h i c h event, the judge s h a l l note thereon the f i l i n g date and f o r t h w i t h t r a n s m i t them t o t h e o f f i c e o f t h e clerk." F u r t h e r m o r e , we c a n f i n d no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t attaching a counterclaim to file a counterclaim counterclaim. w h i c h we that i n this t h e judgment As office entered that when the t r i a l 17, 2012. the p l a i n t i f f s judgment, that what was p u r p o r t e d intended encompass we over judgment. appealed this a court from court's the clerk's to enter a l l c l a i m s and forms o f r e l i e f I n r e s p o n s e , on December 10, 2012, t h e t r i a l to that Therefore, court with j u r i s d i c t i o n judgment" a d d r e s s i n g i t had judgment of c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n reinvested the t r i a l requested. a t the time of February 17, 2012, summary a "final "filing" c o u n t e r c l a i m when i t e n t e r e d mentioned, February a the Bayview p a r t i e s had f i l e d action conclude that the t r i a l the p u r p o r t e d constitutes Our r e s e a r c h h a s n o t p r o d u c e d any a u t h o r i t y b y can c o n c l u d e counterclaim entered as an e x h i b i t t o a m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o be a " f i n a l f o r the February the Bayview 11 court judgment," stating 17, summary parties' 2012, counterclaim. 2120073 However, we have already counterclaim before the summary j u d g m e n t was On appeal, concluded c o u r t at the that time there the was no February 2012 argue t h a t because they entered. the Bayview p a r t i e s had f i l e d t h e i r p u r p o r t e d c o u n t e r c l a i m and p a i d t h e f i l i n g b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e December 10, they had cured time the February their any contention, R u d o l p h , 46 So. Espinoza 2012, d e f i c i e n c y t h a t may 2012 j u d g m e n t was the 3d 403 Bayview "final judgment," have e x i s t e d a t entered. parties fee the In support of Espinoza v. cite ( A l a . 2010). i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the instant case. In E s p i n o z a , b e f o r e the e n t r y of the judgment, a c o u n t e r c l a i m was f i l e d w i t h the c o u r t ' s c l e r k ; not been p a i d . properly Our supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l "reinstate" docketing fee. 1 Id. c o u n t e r c l a i m i t s e l f was entered i n the h o w e v e r , t h e f i l i n g f e e had the at counterclaim 414. In upon this court could payment case, of the however, the not f i l e d u n t i l a f t e r the judgment plaintiffs' action. The failure to file was a I n E s p i n o z a , o u r supreme c o u r t d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f f a i l i n g t o pay a f i l i n g f e e upon t h e f i l i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, and t h e f a i l u r e t o pay a d o c k e t i n g f e e upon t h e f i l i n g o f a c o u n t e r c l a i m - - a d e f i c i e n c y t h a t can be c u r e d . Espinoza, 46 So. 3d a t 414. 1 12 2120073 counterclaim docketing i s not comparable f e e upon t h e f i l i n g This to of a the failure t o pay counterclaim. c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a p a r t y cannot a counterclaim a o r amend a c o m p l a i n t on remand. file I n Ex p a r t e M.C. D i x o n F a m i l y P a r t n e r s h i p , L L L P , 993 So. 2d 447, 450 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2006), instructing this the t r i a l court issued court t o vacate reasoning finality o f judgments allowed to amend counterclaim." So. So. that dictates that i t s pleadings 2d 469, 473 ( A l a . 2003) 2d 10, 11 of mandamus leave i n t h e c a s e t o a d d a new "[t]he See a l s o E s k r i d g e writ i t s order g r a n t i n g f o r E n v i s i o n t o amend i t s p l e a d i n g s counterclaim, a philosophy Envision on favoring should remand to v. A l l s t a t e n o t be assert I n s . Co., 855 ( q u o t i n g K a r a g a n v. B r y a n t , ( A l a . 1988), quoting a in turn 537 other a u t h o r i t i e s ) ( e m p h a s i z i n g t h a t " ' " ' t h e l i b e r a l amendment p o l i c y o f R u l e 1 5 ( a ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] [ i s n o t ] t o be e m p l o y e d i n a way t h a t i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e p h i l o s o p h y favoring f i n a l i t y of judgments and t h e e x p e d i t i o u s t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n ' " ' " ) ; Karagan action v. B r y a n t , supra t o redeem p r o p e r t y asserting on remand a (holding from that a tax sale counterclaim 13 a defendant for i n an was b a r r e d the value from of 2120073 i m p r o v e m e n t s made t o t h e p r o p e r t y ) ; a n d C o s t e l l o s v. J e b e l e s , 406 So. 2d 393 file (Ala. 1981) an amended c o u n t e r c l a i m Although the Bayview counterclaim before the jurisdiction f o r the (party not allowed on remand t o s e t t i n g o u t new c l a i m s ) . parties trial entry filed court of a their was purported reinvested "final judgment," r a t i o n a l e o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d above a p p l i e s i n t h i s Once a j u d g m e n t h a s been e n t e r e d i n a case, deprive opportunity the party opposing the e n t r y o f t h e judgment For trial the reasons s e t f o r t h above, c o u r t never had j u r i s d i c t i o n counterclaim. Accordingly, we of the Accordingly, counterclaim, i n t h i s matter, case. To do so the counterclaim t o respond t o the counterclaim. conclude t h a t the Bayview p a r t i e s ' the a p a r t y c a n n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o f i l e a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e same m a t t e r . would with filed we after was a n u l l i t y . conclude over the Bayview to the extent that that the parties' t h e summary judgment p u r p o r t e d t o g r a n t a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f the B a y v i e w p a r t i e s on t h e i r counterclaim, t h e judgment i s void. B e c a u s e we f i n d t h a t t h e judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e B a y v i e w p a r t i e s on t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m i s v o i d , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n 14 2120073 of the p l a i n t i f f s ' considering contention t h a t the t r i a l the Bayview p a r t i e s ' court erred i n supplemental motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . B e c a u s e we h o l d t h a t t h e r e was no j o i n t stipulation d i s m i s s a l f i l e d before the entry of the t r i a l court's of February 2012 summary j u d g m e n t , we a f f i r m t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t in favor of plaintiffs' purporting Interbay and the c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. to grant Bayview parties appeal will not a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n f a v o r support an appeal, as t o t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 559 s o , h o w e v e r , we judgment. Hurricane (Ala. instruct the That p o r t i o n o f the judgment B a y v i e w p a r t i e s on t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m i s v o i d . judgment on we Because a v o i d must dismiss on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) . the t r i a l of the court to vacate See A l a b a m a Dep't o f E n v t l . the Vann In doing i t s void Mgmt. v. F r i e n d s o f C r e e k , [Ms. 2110410, Dec. 14, 2012] So. 3d , C i v . App. 2012) . AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Moore, Thomas, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . J., concurs in the 15 result, without writing.

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.