Ex parte Johnnie Mae Alexander Green et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Frank Stokes, Jr. v. E'Stella Alexander Webb Cottrell et al.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
rel: 04/09/2010 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 Courts, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1071195 Ex p a r t e J o h n n i e Mae A l e x a n d e r Green e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In re: Frank Stokes, J r . v. E ' S t e l l a Alexander Webb C o t t r e l l 1071204 et a l . ) Ex p a r t e E ' S t e l l a A l e x a n d e r Webb C o t t r e l l PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L (In re: Frank APPEALS Stokes, J r . v. E ' S t e l l a A l e x a n d e r Webb C o t t r e l l e t a l . ) (Elmore C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-03-321; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2060887) PER CURIAM. This of case i s before this certiorari. C. A l e x a n d e r , Cathy Alexander, no. referred opinion certain referred of the t r i a l real court Lillie Shirley Robinson, Alexander, of C i v i l insofar Alexander as " t h e G r e e n s " ) ( c a s e Webb C o t t r e l l f o rreview e s t a t e i n t h e Greens to collectively real Court f o rthe w r i t J r . , and A l t h e a Alexander o f t h e Court the case t o t h e t r i a l that this Green, Mae H u m p h r e y , to collectively 1071195) a n d E ' S t e l l a judgment in Bertha Johnny Alexander, 1071204) p e t i t i o n e d the on p e t i t i o n s J o h n n i e Mae A l e x a n d e r Oscar (hereinafter Court of that Appeals (case no. portion of reversing the as i t q u i e t e d t i t l e t o and C o t t r e l l as " t h e p l a i n t i f f s " ) (hereinafter and remanding c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment q u i e t i n g estate i nthe heirs 2 of Larenda Jenkins. title Stokes 1071195 & v. Cottrell, Civ. App. opinion the to [Ms. 2 0 6 0 8 8 7 , M a r c h 14, 2008). of trial the In a d d i t i o n , Court of 2008] So. Cottrell Appeals Civil seeks insofar c o u r t ' s judgment awarding c e r t a i n 3d (Ala. reversal as of the i t affirms other real estate Jenkins's heirs. In of 1071204 cases the trial opinion 1071195 of the insofar Appeals quieting title as and We i t asks erred of Larenda Civil Appeals of further the vacate Appeals petition to decide whether in affirming the trial the portion reversing in the case no. the Court of c o u r t ' s judgment of the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y i n "the J e n k i n s . " We for Civil quash us to a p o r t i o n heirs 1 0 7 1 2 0 4 , we Court c o u r t ' s judgment. 1071204 Civil no. remand t h e case t o t h e C o u r t proceedings consistent with of this opinion. Facts This of case concerns a p p r o x i m a t e l y 270 Estelle and Haggerty Procedural History a d i s p u t e over the r i g h t f u l ownership a c r e s o f r e a l p r o p e r t y f o r m e r l y owned Alexander ("Estelle"), 3 who died in by 1962 1071195 & without a summarizes 1071204 spouse the or facts children. of this The case as Court of follows: Civil Appeals 1 " D u r i n g h e r l i f e t i m e , E s t e l l e owned s i x p a r c e l s of l a n d l o c a t e d i n Elmore County i n the v i c i n i t y of R i f l e Range Road and D o z i e r Road. I n t h e c o m p l a i n t to q u i e t t i t l e , the p a r c e l s were identified as ' p a r c e l 1,' c o n s i s t i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 acres f o r w h i c h E s t e l l e had a deed of r e c o r d i n her name; ' p a r c e l 2,' c o n s i s t i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11 a c r e s ; ' p a r c e l 3,' c o n s i s t i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4.3 acres; ' p a r c e l 4,' c o n s i s t i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 24 a c r e s ; ' p a r c e l 5,' c o n s i s t i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 52 a c r e s ; and ' p a r c e l 6,' consisting of approximately 79 a c r e s . No d e e d o f r e c o r d was p r o d u c e d f o r p a r c e l s 2 t h r o u g h 6. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t E s t e l l e o w n e d a l l s i x p a r c e l s at the time of her death. " D u r i n g h e r l i f e t i m e , E s t e l l e l i v e d on a p o r t i o n o f p a r c e l 1, t h e 1 0 0 - a c r e t r a c t o f l a n d . A l s o d u r i n g h e r l i f e t i m e , E s t e l l e t o o k i n two infants--Cottrell and Johnny [Alexander] Sr.--whom she raised to a d u l t h o o d . C o t t r e l l and J o h n n y S r . were n o t r e l a t e d by b l o o d t o E s t e l l e or t o e a c h o t h e r , and Estelle d i d n o t l e g a l l y a d o p t t h e m . H o w e v e r , a t some p o i n t b e f o r e h e r d e a t h , E s t e l l e had a house b u i l t for J o h n n y S r . a n d h i s w i f e on p a r c e l 1. C o t t r e l l l i v e d i n E s t e l l e ' s house. " E s t e l l e d i e d i n 1 9 6 2 ; s h e l e f t no w i l l . She was b u r i e d on p a r c e l 1 a l o n g s i d e h e r h u s b a n d . F o l l o w i n g Estelle's death, both Cottrell and Johnny Sr. c o n t i n u e d l i v i n g on t h e p r o p e r t y . C o t t r e l l c o n t i n u e d l i v i n g i n E s t e l l e ' s house, w h i l e Johnny Sr., h i s T h e p l a i n t i f f s d i s p u t e some o f t h e f a c t s a s s e t f o r t h i n the o p i n i o n of the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s . The e x i s t e n c e o f those factual d i s p u t e s i s not m a t e r i a l to t h i s opinion; t h e r e f o r e , the Court w i l l not address those d i s p u t e s f u r t h e r in this opinion. 1 4 1071195 & 1071204 wife, Johnnie Mae [Alexander] Green, and their c h i l d r e n c o n t i n u e d l i v i n g i n the house t h a t E s t e l l e h a d h a d b u i l t f o r t h e m on p a r c e l 1. "After Estelle's death i n 1962, the Elmore Probate Court appointed Larenda Jenkins, E s t e l l e ' s c o u s i n and o n l y l i v i n g r e l a t i v e by b l o o d , as the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . J o h n n y S r . and C o t t r e l l each f i l e d claims a g a i n s t E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e i n amounts o f $7,500 and $ 5 , 0 0 0 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r personal s e r v i c e s rendered to E s t e l l e d u r i n g her lifetime. Johnny Sr. also challenged Jenkins's a p p o i n t m e n t a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r ; he filed an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o h a v e h i m s e l f named a s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r as t h e e s t a t e ' s l a r g e s t c r e d i t o r . 2 "A third party also challenged Jenkins's a p p o i n t m e n t as a d m i n i s t r a t o r , and the matter was removed to the c i r c u i t c o u r t . A f t e r a h e a r i n g i n 1963, the c h a l l e n g e s to J e n k i n s ' s appointment as a d m i n i s t r a t o r were d i s m i s s e d . A l t h o u g h Johnny Sr. voluntarily dismissed his petition, the order r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 1963 h e a r i n g a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the c h a l l e n g e s f i l e d to Jenkins's a p p o i n t m e n t as a d m i n i s t r a t o r w e r e 'not w e l l t a k e n ' and were ' d e n i e d . ' That o r d e r a l s o d e c l a r e d t h a t J e n k i n s was t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . No a p p e a l was t a k e n f r o m t h a t o r d e r . "Cottrell moved away from the property in a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1964 o r 1965 a n d n e v e r r e e s t a b l i s h e d a residence thereon. In 1965, C o t t r e l l and Johnny Sr. f i l e d a complaint, alleging that, during her l i f e t i m e , E s t e l l e had p u r c h a s e d the s i x p a r c e l s of l a n d f o r t h e i r b e n e f i t and t h a t , at the time of E s t e l l e ' s d e a t h , t h e p r o p e r t y was b e i n g h e l d i n a [ 2 ] The r e f e r e n c e to " s i x p a r c e l s " i n the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion appears to be an error. The alleged c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t p e r t a i n e d o n l y t o 100 a c r e s o f t h e p r o p e r t y at i s s u e i n t h i s case. 2 5 1071195 & 1071204 c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t f o r them. In that complaint, J o h n n y S r . and C o t t r e l l a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e y were not E s t e l l e ' s b i o l o g i c a l or a d o p t i v e c h i l d r e n . 3 "During the pendency of that 1965 action, J e n k i n s d i e d i n t e s t a t e ; at the time o f her death, J e n k i n s h a d n o t c l o s e d E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s , J e n k i n s ' s g r a n d d a u g h t e r , was t h e n named as the a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . C o t t r e l l and Johnny Sr.'s 'constructive trust' action was subsequently dismissed f o r lack of prosecution. "Johnny Sr. died in 1988; he was buried a l o n g s i d e E s t e l l e . At the time o f h i s death, Johnny S r . ' s w i f e and s e v e r a l o f h i s c h i l d r e n were still l i v i n g on t h e property. " J o h n n i e Mae Stokes, as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e , p a i d t h e p r o p e r t y t a x e s due on t h e s i x p a r c e l s ; t h e t a x e s w e r e a s s e s s e d i n t h e name o f the ' e s t a t e o f E s t e l l e Haggerty A l e x a n d e r . ' A l s o during Johnnie Mae Stokes's administration of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e , she l e a s e d t o t h i r d p a r t i e s t h e property held in Estelle's estate. The record contains a c o p y o f a 1991 lease entered into by J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s w i t h E.B. Calloway. That lease provided: "'For the sum of $70 0.00 for 1991 r e n t , I , J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s , a g r e e t o l e a s e E.B. C a l l o w a y a l l the f a r m i n g and cotton a c r e a g e l a n d o f L a r e n d a J e n k i n s and E s t e l l e A l e x a n d e r , south of the R i f l e Range Road and n o r t h o f t h e R i f l e Range [Road] j o i n i n g t h e G r i f f i n l a n d f o r t h e sum o f $ 7 0 0 . 0 0 . We r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t s t o f i s h a n d h u n t on s a i d property, my family and the family of J o h n n y A l e x a n d e r w i t h h u n t i n g and fishing r i g h t s going t o E.B. Calloway south and n o r t h of the R i f l e Range [Road]. I f t h i s l a n d i s s o l d b e f o r e the year i s out, E.B. 6 1071195 & 1071204 C a l l o w a y w i l l be g i v e n gather his crop.' the needed time to "Another such l e a s e f o r the year 1 993, this one b e t w e e n J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s and Colvin Davis, was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e ; t h e 1993 lease differed f r o m t h e 1991 l e a s e o n l y i n t h e names o f t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d and t h e amount o f r e n t c h a r g e d f o r the lease. " F r a n k S t o k e s , J r . , J o h n n i e Mae Stokes's son, t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h other l e a s e s c o u l d not be l o c a t e d , J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s h a d l e a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y to Calloway and then to Davis repeatedly and continuously during her administration of the e s t a t e . A l s o , according to Oscar Alexander, Johnny S r . was a w a r e t h a t , d u r i n g J o h n n y S r . ' s l i f e t i m e , a t h i r d p a r t y was l e a s i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . O s c a r b e l i e v e d t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e , J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s , was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the l e a s e s of the property. Because Johnny Sr. died in 1988, i t a p p e a r s t h a t J o h n n i e Mae S t o k e s l e a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y even b e f o r e 1991. " J o h n n i e Mae Stokes died intestate in 1996 without having formally closed Estelle's estate. Although Frank Stokes, J r . , was never appointed a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e , he t o o k o v e r t h e h a n d l i n g o f E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . He p a i d t h e t a x e s due on the property and he continued to enter into f a r m i n g , h u n t i n g , and f i s h i n g l e a s e s p e r t a i n i n g t o the p r o p e r t y w i t h C o l v i n Davis u n t i l Davis's death. At t h a t p o i n t , Stokes began e n t e r i n g i n t o l e a s e s f o r the use of the p r o p e r t y w i t h C o l v i n ' s son, Reese Davis. " I n 2002, C o t t r e l l and O s c a r A l e x a n d e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n , a s k i n g the p r o b a t e c o u r t t o a p p o i n t them as c o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . I n that petition, Cottrell and Oscar Alexander, one of Johnny Sr.'s sons, claimed that they were the d a u g h t e r and g r a n d s o n of E s t e l l e , t h a t t h e estate 7 1071195 & 1071204 was open, and that no administrator existed. C o t t r e l l and O s c a r a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t , o t h e r t h a n t h e ... plaintiffs, t h e y knew o f no other heirs to Estelle's estate. Cottrell and Oscar did not i d e n t i f y t h e h e i r s o f L a r e n d a J e n k i n s as E s t e l l e ' s kin and heirs at law. Cottrell and Oscar were a p p o i n t e d c o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s on May 22, 2 0 0 2 . "At some p o i n t i n 2003, F r a n k S t o k e s , J r . , entered into another lease with Reese Davis, g r a n t i n g D a v i s t h e r i g h t t o f a r m , h u n t , a n d f i s h on the p r o p e r t y i n E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . However, because a l a w y e r r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s contacted D a v i s and i n s t r u c t e d him n o t t o p l a n t h i s c r o p t h a t y e a r , no c r o p s w e r e p l a n t e d i n 2 0 0 3 . S t o k e s d i d n o t enter i n t o any subsequent l e a s e s because of this litigation. " I n A p r i l 2 0 0 3 , t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s e n t e r e d i n t o an agreement to sell the property in Estelle's e s t a t e t o a t h i r d p a r t y . A j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d by t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t on A u g u s t 7, 2 0 0 3 , i d e n t i f y i n g t h e ... plaintiffs as Estelle's heirs at law and a p p r o v i n g the f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e proposed by the ... plaintiffs. There is no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t any o f t h e pleadings f i l e d i n t h i s 2002 p r o b a t e a c t i o n w e r e e v e r served on t h e h e i r s o f L a r e n d a J e n k i n s . "On J u l y 24, 2 0 0 3 , t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h i s action i n the Elmore Circuit C o u r t ('the trial court') to quiet title to the land owned by E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . The ... p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d that they h e l d c o l o r of t i t l e to the p r o p e r t y because J o h n n y S r . and C o t t r e l l were E s t e l l e ' s c h i l d r e n and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e y were E s t e l l e ' s next of k i n ; t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y h a d b e e n determined to be Estelle's heirs at law in conjunction with the 2002 administration of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . T h a t c o m p l a i n t was subsequently amended t o a s s e r t t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y by a d v e r s e 8 1071195 & 1071204 possession plaintiffs and t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t none o f were E s t e l l e ' s b l o o d r e l a t i v e s . the ... 4 "Subsequent to the f i l i n g of the quiet-title action, Oscar Alexander s o l d the rights to cut t i m b e r on some u n s p e c i f i e d p o r t i o n o f t h e property to a t h i r d p a r t y . I n June 2005, L i l l i e Robinson entered into a hunting lease with a t h i r d party, g r a n t i n g t h i s t h i r d p a r t y t h e r i g h t t o h u n t on '150 a c r e s ' of the p r o p e r t y . A l l of these p o s s e s s o r y acts occurred after the filing of their quiet-title action. "In A p r i l 2006, Frank Stokes, J r . , p e t i t i o n e d the probate c o u r t to vacate i t s orders appointing C o t t r e l l a n d O s c a r A l e x a n d e r as c o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e a n d d e c l a r i n g t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s t o be E s t e l l e ' s h e i r s a t l a w . Stokes a l s o sought a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s f r o m selling, transferring, conveying, wasting, or consuming the lands and a s s e t s on t h e lands. On A p r i l 26, 2 0 0 6 , t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t v a c a t e d a l l o r d e r s and f i n d i n g s from the 2002 p r o b a t e proceeding. S h o r t l y b e f o r e the t r i a l i n the q u i e t - t i t l e a c t i o n , S t o k e s s o u g h t t o amend h i s a n s w e r a n d t o a s s e r t a c o u n t e r c l a i m , a s k i n g the c o u r t to q u i e t t i t l e to the p r o p e r t y i n the h e i r s of L a r e n d a J e n k i n s ; the t r i a l c o u r t , h o w e v e r , d e n i e d S t o k e s ' s m o t i o n t o amend. 5 " Under the p r o b a t e law i n e f f e c t at the time of E s t e l l e ' s death, Title 61, § 81, A l a . Code 1940 (Recomp. 1958), the next of k i n e n t i t l e d to share i n t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e was given p r i o r i t y for the p o s i t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r i f no s p o u s e s u r v i v e d t h e d e c e d e n t . I f no n e x t o f k i n e n t i t l e d t o s h a r e i n t h e e s t a t e c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d , t h e l a r g e s t c r e d i t o r was to be named as administrator of the decedent's estate. 2 9 1071195 & 1071204 " Cottrell was a minor at the time this c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d , a n d , t h u s , i t was f i l e d b y a n d t h r o u g h h e r f a t h e r , as h e r b e s t friend. 3 " A f t e r a f a m i l y d i s p u t e arose between C o t t r e l l a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g ... p l a i n t i f f s , C o t t r e l l r e t a i n e d separate counsel. 4 " At obtained 5 action Stokes, order to q u i e t So. On this p o i n t i n the separate c o u n s e l to 3d November title." at 1, bifurcating litigation, Cottrell r e p r e s e n t her i n the . 2006, the the trial trial of court the entered quiet-title a pretrial action follows: "[T]he C o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t j u d i c i a l economy w i l l b e s t be s e r v e d b y b i f u r c a t i n g t h e t r i a l o f t h i s c a s e s o as t o p o s t p o n e , f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , t h e t r i a l o f those i s s u e s i n which the i n t e r e s t s of P l a i n t i f f C o t t r e l l w o u l d be a d v e r s e a n d i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e interests of the heirs of Johnnie Alexander. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C o u r t w i l l p r o c e e d , on N o v e m b e r 1, 2006, as f o l l o w s : "1. The Court w i l l t r y the i s s u e of whether the plaintiffs can establish that they are in peaceable p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e m t o m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n t o q u i e t title. "2. Assuming p l a i n t i f f s can establish peaceable p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n , the burden w i l l then s h i f t to the Defendant, Frank Stokes, J r . , to show legal title to the p r o p e r t y . The i s s u e o f D e f e n d a n t ' s l e g a l title t o t h e p r o p e r t y w i l l be t r i e d on N o v e m b e r 1, 2006. 10 as 1071195 "3. The & 1071204 A s s u m i n g t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t i s a b l e t o show l e g a l t i t l e to the p r o p e r t y , the burden w i l l t h e n s h i f t b a c k t o p l a i n t i f f s t o show s u p e r i o r legal title by adverse possession. If the Court reaches the question of whether p l a i n t i f f s c a n show s u p e r i o r t i t l e b y a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , the Court w i l l r e c e i v e evidence on the i s s u e of adverse p o s s e s s i o n and make a determination as to what portion of the property, i f any, is under the adverse possession of the plaintiffs. I f the Court f i n d s t h a t some o r a l l o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s have e s t a b l i s h e d t i t l e t o some o r a l l o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y by adverse p o s s e s s i o n , the Court w i l l make t h a t f i n d i n g . The C o u r t w i l l n o t , h o w e v e r , a t t h e N o v e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 6 , h e a r i n g , a t t e m p t t o make a n y a l l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y among t h e various p l a i n t i f f s . The r e s o l u t i o n of those l e g a l and f a c t u a l i s s u e s t h a t w i l l u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e how a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y b e i n g a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s e d w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be d i v i d e d among t h e p l a i n t i f f s w i l l be reserved for a later hearing F o r now, however, the Court w i l l n o t a t t e m p t t o make a n y a l l o c a t i o n among the p l a i n t i f f s of any property found to be u n d e r a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . Any d e c i s i o n as to how p r o p e r t y u n d e r a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n ( i f a n y is found to be) s h a l l be d i v i d e d among t h e plaintiffs will be reserved until a later time." case then proceeded as follows: "The ... plaintiffs' quiet-title action was h e a r d a t a b e n c h t r i a l c o n d u c t e d i n December 2006 and January 2 0 0 7 . The parties stipulated to the s p e c i f i c p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e and s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y at i s s u e belonged to E s t e l l e i n fee simple at the time of her d e a t h . T e s t i f y i n g at the h e a r i n g were O s c a r A l e x a n d e r ; F r e d Gray, the a t t o r n e y who [had] represented Jenkins i n connection with the administration of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e ; Johnny J r . ; 11 1071195 & 1071204 Cottrell; Clifford Thomas, who knew Estelle; Christopher Cairns, an independent property a p p r a i s e r who had e x a m i n e d t h e p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e ; Frank Stokes, J r . ; a n d R e e s e D a v i s , J r . , who had l e a s e d the l a n d from Stokes. " I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t C o t t r e l l a n d J o h n n y S r . h a d l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y b e g i n n i n g b e f o r e E s t e l l e ' s death i n 1962. No one disputed that C o t t r e l l and J o h n n y S r . l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e p e r m i s s i o n of E s t e l l e d u r i n g her l i f e t i m e . T e s t i m o n y was a l s o presented t e n d i n g to i n d i c a t e t h a t , a f t e r E s t e l l e ' s death, Cottrell and Johnny Sr. remained on the p r o p e r t y w i t h the p e r m i s s i o n of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Estelle's estate. However, the ... plaintiffs disputed that testimony. " F i n a l l y , the t r i a l c o u r t r e c e i v e d c o p i e s of the 1991 and 1993 lease agreements executed by the administrator of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e , i n which the a d m i n i s t r a t o r l e a s e d the e n t i r e p r o p e r t y to third p a r t i e s f o r f a r m i n g , h u n t i n g , and f i s h i n g . However, in those leases, the administrator specifically r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t o f t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s t o h u n t a n d f i s h on t h e l a n d . " T e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e ... p l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e y were aware t h a t J e n k i n s and t h e Stokeses had r e p e a t e d l y l e a s e d the p r o p e r t y t o t h i r d p a r t i e s . The ... p l a i n t i f f s a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e c r o p s p l a n t e d b y t h e l e s s e e s w e r e r e a d i l y v i s i b l e on t h e three f a r m e d p a r c e l s ; one of the ... plaintiffs also acknowledged t h a t the l e a s e s g r a n t e d the l e s s e e s the r i g h t t o u s e a l l t h e p r o p e r t y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , one o f t h e l e s s e e s , R e e s e D a v i s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w h i l e on the p r o p e r t y , he had run into Johnny J r . Davis testified that Johnny J r . had never questioned D a v i s ' s r i g h t t o be on t h e p r o p e r t y a n d h a d never a s k e d him t o l e a v e the p r o p e r t y . " C o t t r e l l admitted been Estelle's only t h a t she living 12 knew J e n k i n s relative; had she 1071195 & 1071204 acknowledged that Jenkins and t h e S t o k e s e s were E s t e l l e ' s h e i r s . T h e ... p l a i n t i f f s w e r e a l s o a w a r e t h a t J e n k i n s and t h e S t o k e s e s had p a i d t h e p r o p e r t y t a x e s s i n c e E s t e l l e ' s d e a t h i n 1962 u n t i l a t l e a s t 1997. 6 " An exhibit presented to the t r i a l court i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n 1 9 9 7 , C o t t r e l l made a p a r t i a l p a y m e n t t o w a r d t h e t a x e s ; i n 1 998 a n d 1 9 9 9 , F r a n k S t o k e s , J r . , a n d C o t t r e l l e a c h p a i d an amount t o w a r d t h e t a x e s ; i n 2000 a n d 2 0 0 1 , S t o k e s p a i d t h e t a x e s ; and, from 2002 u n t i l 2005, O s c a r A l e x a n d e r and Lillie Robinson paid the taxes. However, the t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e p a y m e n t o f t a x e s f r o m 1997 through 2 0 0 5 was disputed and d i d n o t entirely support t h i s e x h i b i t . " 6 Stokes, S o . 3d a t On A p r i l . 25, 2007, t h e t r i a l court entered the f o l l o w i n g order: "JUDGMENT Q U I E T I N G TITLE "This matter was heard before the Court on a n o n - j u r y t r i a l on D e c e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 6 a n d J a n u a r y 2 4 , 2007, and was submitted f o r judgment on the pleadings, parties' exhibits, and ore tenus testimony o f t h e p a r t i e s and their witnesses. P r e s e n t i n C o u r t w e r e p l a i n t i f f s [ t h e G r e e n s ] ... ; P l a i n t i f f [ C o t t r e l l ] ... ; D e f e n d a n t FRANK STOKES, JR., ... a n d , R o d e r i c k P e r d u e , E s q . , G u a r d i a n ad L i t e m r e p r e s e n t i n g W i l l i e C. A l e x a n d e r , thought to be d e c e a s e d , and any and a l l unknown h e i r s of E s t e l l e Haggerty Alexander. "The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t , as amended, complies i n a l lrespects with the requirements of Ala. Code [ 1 9 7 5 , ] § 6-6-561, i n o r d e r f o r t h e c o u r t to q u i e t t i t l e i n and t o t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d 13 1071195 & 1071204 within Plaintiffs' Complaint, and the amendments thereto, being approximately 279 acres of real p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n Elmore County, Alabama, (which i s and has b e e n a s s e s s e d t o t h e ' H e i r s o f E s t e l l e Alexander' by the Elmore County Revenue Commissioner) [ 3 ] "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t some o r a l l o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s have proven t h a t they have, s i n c e the death of E s t e l l e H a g g e r t y A l e x a n d e r i n 1962, b e e n i n a c t u a l , exclusive, open, notorious, uninterrupted, and h o s t i l e p o s s e s s i o n of the l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n the C o m p l a i n t , as amended, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h o s e subparcels of land specifically identified hereinbelow. Such p o s s e s s i o n has b e e n p r o v e n by evidence that, since 1962, some o r a l l of the plaintiffs occupied the land, lived on i t , maintained the improvements on i t , cultivated p o r t i o n s o f i t , k e p t d o m e s t i c l i v e s t o c k on i t , c u t t i m b e r on i t , c u t f i r e w o o d on i t , h u n t e d on i t , f i s h e d on i t , o p e r a t e d a b u s i n e s s on i t , a n d b u r i e d t h e i r d e a d on i t . The Court finds from a l l the evidence that the plaintiffs' possession was s u f f i c i e n t f o r some o r a l l o f t h e m t o a c q u i r e t i t l e to t h e p r o p e r t y by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . Accordingly, i t i s the judgment of t h i s Court t h a t t i t l e to the l a n d s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e C o m p l a i n t , as amended, l e s s and e x c e p t t h o s e s u b - p a r c e l s s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d below, i s hereby q u i e t e d i n the p l a i n t i f f s . The r e s p e c t i v e i n t e r e s t s , i f a n y , o f e a c h o f t h e named plaintiffs shall be determined at a subsequent hearing, pursuant to t h i s Court's earlier Order b i f u r c a t i n g the t r i a l of t h i s case. " I t i s the o p i n i o n of the c o u r t t h a t the h e i r s of Larenda Jenkins are e n t i t l e d to a judgment q u i e t i n g title to c e r t a i n s u b p a r c e l s of the r e a l property We n o t e t h a t t h i s f i g u r e d i f f e r s f r o m t h e t o t a l a c r e a g e t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s s a i d was i n d i s p u t e . It i s unclear f r o m t h e r e c o r d p r e c i s e l y how many a c r e s a r e i n v o l v e d . 3 14 1071195 & 1071204 prayed f o r i n the Defendant's counter-complaint, as d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n a f t e r w i t h i n P a r c e l A, P a r c e l B, and P a r c e l C. As t o t h o s e s u b - p a r c e l s , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t the D e f e n d a n t , F r a n k S t o k e s , J r . , showed r e c o r d t i t l e s u f f i c i e n t to defeat p l a i n t i f f s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n of prima f a c i e case to q u i e t t i t l e thereto. The Court f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t r e c o r d t i t l e to the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y was v e s t e d i n t h e name o f E s t e l l e H a g g e r t y A l e x a n d e r a t t h e t i m e o f h e r d e a t h and t h a t title passed to Larenda J e n k i n s at the death o f E s t e l l e Haggerty Alexander. A c c o r d i n g l y , the Court q u i e t s t i t l e to those s u b - p a r c e l s i d e n t i f i e d below i n the h e i r s of Larenda Jenkins. "The C o u r t f i n d s t h e r e t o be no j u s t r e a s o n t o d e l a y t h e f i n a l e n t r y o f t h i s o r d e r and d i r e c t s t h e e n t r y o f f i n a l o r d e r on t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s made h e r e i n r e g a r d i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t s , and a g a i n s t any and a l l other persons and entities who may claim any i n t e r e s t i n or to the lands d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n who have not filed an answer or intervened in this a c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: "1. The r i g h t , t i t l e , i n t e r e s t a n d o w n e r s h i p o f t h e H e i r s o f L a r e n d a J e n k i n s i n and t o a p o r t i o n o f the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i s hereby e s t a b l i s h e d i n fee simple and forever quieted i n rem and a g a i n s t a l l p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n , b o t h named and unknown, a l l o t h e r p e r s o n s and entities, and a g a i n s t t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y w h i c h i s more p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b e d as "Parcel A: Beginning at the NW corner of S e c t i o n 23, T17, R19, Elmore County, Alabama, thence South along westerly Section line approximately 1897 feet to the south right-of-way o f C o u n t y R o a d #4 (Rifle Range Road); thence l e a v i n g s a i d S e c t i o n l i n e and proceeding Easterly along said south right-of-way o f C o u n t y R o a d #4 (Rifle Range Road) approximately 1080 f e e t t o t h e P o i n t o f 15 1071195 & 1071204 Beginning (that point being the northeast c o r n e r o f p r o p e r t y d e e d e d t o B. Gene W i l l i a m s and Neva A l b r i t t o n W i l l i a m s b y W a r r a n t y Deed d a t e d May 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 a n d r e c o r d e d a t C a r d 2 1 5 1 3 ) ; T h e n c e S o u t h 382 f e e t ; T h e n c e E a s t 430 f e e t ; Thence N o r t h e a s t e r l y t o t h e s o u t h r i g h t - o f - w a y o f C o u n t y R o a d #4 ( R i f l e R a n g e R o a d ) a d i s t a n c e of approximately 385 f e e t ; Thence Westerly along said south right-of-way o f said public r o a d 500 f e e t t o t h e P.O.B. A l l l y i n g i n S 2 3 , T17, R19, E l m o r e C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . "Parcel B: B e g i n n i n g a t t h e NE corner of Section 22, T17, R19, b e i n g the Point o f Beginning f o r the parcel herein described; Thence South a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1820 f e e t to the North r i g h t - o f - w a y o f C o u n t y R o a d #4 (Rifle Range Road); Thence West along said right-of-way approximately 270 f e e t ; Thence North approximately 1825 f e e t ; Thence East approximately 260 feet to the Point of B e g i n n i n g . A l l l y i n g i n t h e E 1/2 o f t h e E 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, T o w n s h i p 17, Range 19, E l m o r e C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . "Parcel C: B e g i n n i n g a t t h e NW corner of S e c t i o n 27, T17, R19; t h e n c e E a s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 209 f e e t t o t h e e a s t b a n k o f t h e T a l l a p o o s a River; thence South approximately 116 f e e t a l o n g t h e r i v e r bank t o t h e P o i n t o f B e g i n n i n g of the parcel herein described; Thence southwesterly along said river bank approximately 984 feet; thence East approximately 2508 feet; thence North approximately 952 feet; thence West approximately 2237 f e e t t o t h e bank o f t h e T a l l a p o o s a R i v e r a n d t h e P.O.B. A l l l y i n g i n t h e N 1/2 o f t h e NE 1 /4 o f S 2 7 , T 1 7 , R 1 9 , Elmore County, Alabama, a n d c o n t a i n i n g 52 a c r e s , more o r l e s s . 16 1071195 & "3. On notice of 1071204 The p l a i n t i f f s are entitled to a judgment q u i e t i n g t i t l e to the remainder of the s u b j e c t real property, with each named P l a i n t i f f ' s interest t h e r e i n , i f a n y , t o be determined after f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s and order of this Court." June 2007, Frank of appeal to t h i s the t r i a l filed 6, court. On separate notices quieting title of Larenda all three Ala. Code On Court from J u n e 20, Jr. ("Stokes"), the A p r i l of appeal to t h i s On to 1975, 14, i n which judgment q u i e t i n g 2008, that Court heirs 2007, t h i s the court title of Court (1) Civil Court of C i v i l transferred to a p o r t i o n property instructions in the to the those So. J e n k i n s and plaintiffs trial parcels 3d at (2) and pursuant Appeals affirmed the of the court's order that quieted t i t l e Stokes, from Appeals the t r i a l to Cottrell of the p r o p e r t y i n the of Larenda title order order the h e i r s the 2007, a 12-2-7(6). § the Court filed the J u n e 29, appeals 25, 2007, t h e G r e e n s and to three p a r c e l s Jenkins. March opinion Stokes, trial real the . 17 court's r e v e r s e d the p o r t i o n to the remainder remanded heirs of an property in the c o u r t to e n t e r a judgment in issued to Larenda case of of with quieting Jenkins. 1071195 & 1071204 On M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , C o t t r e l l certiorari Court May seeking review of C i v i l Appeals 30, 2008, certiorari Civil Appeals the t r i a l in and r e v e r s a l in i t s entirety the Greens seeking filed review insofar filed a petition a (case no. 1071204). petition court (case for a no. On writ of of the Court of reversed court's order q u i e t i n g t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f s of t h e judgment of t h e of the decision as t h a t f o r a writ of the p o r t i o n of t o some o f t h e p r o p e r t y 1071195). Analysis I . The P l a i n t i f f s ' Contention Appeals Erred i n Reversing Court's Order Q u i e t i n g T i t l e the P l a i n t i f f s The erred plaintiffs argue that i n reversing the p o r t i o n awarding subject With without 4 the Court of of the t r i a l Civil Appeals court's them a l l b u t t h r e e p a r c e l s o f t h e p r o p e r t y . considering consider that the Court of C i v i l the P o r t i o n of the T r i a l t o Some o f t h e P r o p e r t y i n the whether merits of this argument, that p o r t i o n of the t r i a l to appellate review at this stage we See Rules t o hear an a p p e a l order i s 4 "this Court i s i n the absence 4 ( a ) a n d 5, A l a . R. A p p . P. 18 first of the l i t i g a t i o n . some e x c e p t i o n s n o t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e , jurisdiction Before must court's order of a 1071195 final & judgment." Morton, rel. 1071204 12 So. Championcomm.net 3d 1 1 9 7 , Slate-Hamilton v. 200 6 ) , q u o t i n g C a t e s 8 (19 7 5 ) ) ; Inc., judgment, So. take Docks 2001) (quoting Aland appealed So. Wharfhouse 320 is Terminal (1971)). from court] Dzwonkowski v. time Ry. 2004 ) (Ala. C i v . App. Nat'l Life 642 ( A l a . v. L y l e s , "'"When to (quoting ("Without jurisdiction to So. 2d 6 of a 797 So. of Mobile, Tatum 293 v. quoting appeal I n c . , 892 Freeman, i n turn A l a . 101, 102, Alabama 435 ( A l a . that mero an order of the motu."'" 362 So. 2d 97 9, 980 Powell v. Republic 2d 359, 300 So. "A f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h a t w i l l s u p p o r t a n a p p e a l i s t h a t p u t s an e n d t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e t w e e n t h e 19 2d 2d 354, 858 So. So. (1974)). one an subject-matter 2d 432, ex final (1975)."). judgment, i t i s the duty the 6, Bar, hear ex mero m o t u . ' " i t i s determined dismiss 2003), I n s . Co., or even & Oyster v . G r a h a m , 287 A l a . 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 , 250 Sonitrol (Ala. ex 640 , Rest. ( A l a . 2001 ) without i s not a f i n a l [appellate 2d n o t i c e of the question " ' a t any State 678 959 v . B u s h , 293 A l a . 5 3 5 , 307 will jurisdiction 31 6, Court Cates This Court 677, Connally, v. Hamilton (citing Inc. v . B u s h , 293 A l a . 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 , 307 S o . 2 d 2d this Tuscaloosa, ( A l a . 2009) see a l s o Ex p a r t e 796 appeal. 1199 of 360 1071195 & 1071204 p a r t i e s t o a c a s e and leaves nothing for further adjudication. See C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. City of F a i r f i e l d , 396 So. 2d 692 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . 'A j u d g m e n t n e e d no l o n g e r be p h r a s e d i n f o r m a l l a n g u a g e nor bear particular words of adjudication. It is s u f f i c i e n t i f i t i s s i g n e d or i n i t i a l e d by t h e t r i a l court and, i n c o n s i d e r i n g the entire record, i t evidences an intention to adjudicate and the s u b s t a n c e of a d j u d i c a t i o n . ' D u d l e y v. S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 555 So. 2d 1 1 2 1 , 1121 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 98 9) (citing Rule 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., and P u r n e l l v . C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y B d . o f E d u c . , 519 So. 2 d 560 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987))." Wharfhouse Rest., The 796 trial "evidence[] 2d court's an at claims plaintiffs. See with "no quieting to respect to the So. the on regarding persons lands the and certain Ala. final entities in R. order Defendants, described intervened 54(b), [a] the awarded the 2d j u s t reason to delay," A l a . R. of not land 796 does adjudicate finally of the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 54(b), entry title Rest., Wharfhouse court, finding 320. order intention" plaintiffs' trial So. and at C i v . P., against any to and claim any interest herein who have not filed (Emphasis Civ. P. (permitting circumstances to "direct 20 The "direct[] [ i t s ] determinations may action." 320. availed itself who this to the a l l i n or added.) trial entry of other to the answer an the ... or See court final Rule under judgment 1071195 as & 1071204 t o one o r m o r e b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l t h e c l a i m s an a c t i o n ) . judgment The trial court as t o any o t h e r As to the awarded court's order to interest the h e i r s in this to enter a case in a l l but the three Larenda of Jenkins, the trial does among t h e p a r t i e s . not Rather, put an end i n concluding to are e n t i t l e d to a judgment q u i e t i n g t i t l e remainder the reserved if The adjudicated order trial "after property," court expressly further bifurcating judgment with plaintiffs 2d this the the 851 to the ( A l a . 2006) support an a p p e a l between the p a r t i e s to a case adjudication.'" trial court interest therein, that and issue order to of the t r i a l court's judgment court's by t h a t judgment. 850, to the i s not be [the "earlier case." trial respect left proceedings [c]ourt" i n accordance with Therefore, So. real r u l i n g on " e a c h named [ p ] l a i n t i f f ' s any." trial] subject the that the "[p]laintiffs of final issue. plaintiffs' parcels proceedings d i d not purport or p a r t i e s " i n i s one that real property Miller Props., awarded the LLC v. G r e e n , 958 final puts an e n d t o t h e leaves judgment nothing (quoting Wharfhouse Rest., 21 final to ("'A and a that will proceedings for further 796 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 0 , 1071195 & 1071204 citing in turn So. 2d 692 694 ("We which City of Birmingham (Ala. 1981))); City of have p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d 'ascertains substantial merits litigated or and City Fairfield, rights and involved 396 judgment' such controversy necessarily of Birmingham, 'final declares of the v. So. as a the ( q u o t i n g M o r t o n v . C h r y s l e r M o t o r s C o r p . , 353 2d at decree embracing the m a t e r i a l in 396 the issues litigation.'" So. 2 d 505 (Ala. 1977))). Because the [p]laintiffs remainder are of dismiss the the appeal 8 92 purported to plaintiffs were portion of the Appeals i s due finding real property" plaintiffs' duty of the reverse 2d the entitled property, t o be at 362. trial to the a was the "[t]he Court of judgment judgment of the a final that Civil those Therefore, court's not to regarding claims ex m e r o m o t u w i t h r e g a r d So. that to a judgment q u i e t i n g t i t l e subject of Dzwonkowski, II. entitled i t was the court's the adjudication property, trial Appeals claims. insofar ruling quieting the Cf. as that title Court of to i t the to a Civil vacated. C o t t r e l l ' s Contention t h a t the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s E r r e d i n A f f i r m i n g t h a t P o r t i o n of the T r i a l Court's Order Q u i e t i n g T i t l e to Three P a r c e l s of the P r o p e r t y i n t h e "The H e i r s o f L a r e n d a J e n k i n s " 22 1071195 & 1071204 In case no. 1071204, judgment of the Court affirmed the estate to Cottrell Cottrell of C i v i l trial court's "the heirs of seeks to quiet heirs pursuant Section Larenda 6-6-560 a u t h o r i z e s any lands or any 5 The 6-6-560. Greens 7 5 court certain real We that note awarded t o the and "claims 6 ... t o own i s i n the actual, t o commence an i n r e m a c t i o n to such lands or i n t e r e s t and c o n c e r n i n g t h e same." A l a . Jurisdiction d i d not p e t i t i o n the e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . therein, t o c l e a r up a l l d o u b t s o r d i s p u t e s 1975, § awarding " a n y p e r s o n " who of the land" of i n s o f a r as t h a t to the parcels "to e s t a b l i s h the r i g h t or t i t l e Code reversal Jenkins." t o § 6-6-560 interest peaceable possession Appeals judgment title Jenkins seeks exists f o r review over Cottrell's of t h i s issue. The p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t e d i n their complaint that they b r o u g h t t h e i r c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o § 6-6-540, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , which governs i n personam a c t i o n s to quiet t i t l e . However, the t r i a l court c o r r e c t l y i n d i c a t e d i n i t s order quieting title t h a t t h i s a c t i o n i s g o v e r n e d b y § 6-6-560 e t s e q . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n her b r i e f s before this Court, C o t t r e l l states t h a t h e r c l a i m s w e r e b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o § 6-6-560 e t s e q . 6 Alabama Code 1975, § 6-6-560, also authorizes commencement o f an i n rem a c t i o n t o q u i e t title 7 " ' ( 2 ) When n e i t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n a n t n o r a n y o t h e r p e r s o n i s i n t h e a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d s and c o m p l a i n a n t has h e l d c o l o r of t i t l e t o t h e l a n d s , o r i n t e r e s t so c l a i m e d , f o r a p e r i o d o f t e n o r more consecutive years next preceding the f i l i n g of the 23 the 1071195 claims & 1071204 only i f C o t t r e l l can demonstrate t h a t , a t t h e time t h e b i l l , a n d h a s p a i d t a x e s on t h e l a n d s d u r i n g t h e whole of such p e r i o d [ ; ] or interest " ' ( 3 ) When n e i t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n a n t n o r a n y o t h e r person i s i n t h e a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e lands and complainant, together w i t h those through whom h e c l a i m s , h a v e h e l d c o l o r o f t i t l e a n d p a i d t a x e s on the l a n d s o r i n t e r e s t so c l a i m e d f o r a p e r i o d o f t e n o r more c o n s e c u t i v e y e a r s n e x t p r e c e d i n g t h e f i l i n g of t h e b i l l [ ; o r ] " ' ( 4 ) When n e i t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n a n t n o r a n y o t h e r person i s i n t h e a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e lands and complainant a n d t h o s e t h r o u g h whom h e c l a i m s h a v e p a i d taxes d u r i n g t h e whole of such p e r i o d of t e n y e a r s on t h e l a n d s o r i n t e r e s t c l a i m e d , a n d no o t h e r p e r s o n has p a i d taxes thereon d u r i n g any p a r t o f said period.'" Shelton v. Wright, 4 3 9 S o . 2 d 5 5 , 57 ( A l a . 1 983) (quoting F i t t s v . A l e x a n d e r , 277 A l a . 372 , 3 7 5 , 170 S o . 2 d 80 8 , 81 0 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ) . However, t h e s e t h r e e s e t s o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s c a n e x i s t o n l y when n e i t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n a n t n o r a n y o t h e r p e r s o n i s i n actual possession of the land. In l i g h t of the undisputed facts reflected i n the record regarding actual possession of the p r o p e r t y i n d i s p u t e here, and because C o t t r e l l bases h e r quiet-title claim solely on r i g h t s allegedly a c q u i r e d by adverse possession, these three sets of circumstances are i n a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. C f . Cobb v . B r o w n , 361 So. 2d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 0 ( A l a . 1978 ) ( " T i t l e may b e q u i e t e d i n a p a r t y u n d e r T i t . 7, § 1 1 1 6 [§ 6 - 6 - 5 6 0 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 ] o n l y when t h a t p a r t y i s i n a c t u a l , p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n o r when no o n e i s i n actual possession. D e n n i s o n v . C l a i b o r n e , 289 A l a . 69, 265 So. 2 d 853 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; F i t t s v . A l e x a n d e r , 277 A l a . 3 7 2 , 170 S o . 2 d 808 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . " ) . 24 1071195 & 1071204 complaint was possession of filed, the she land." was Ala. "in Code the 1975, actual, § peaceable 6-6-560. 8 W o o d l a n d G r o v e B a p t i s t C h u r c h v. W o o d l a n d G r o v e Cmty. C e m e t e r y A s s ' n , I n c . , 947 So. 2d 1 0 3 1 , 1038 ( A l a . 2006) ("The t r i a l c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r q u i e t - t i t l e a c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f s h o w s t h a t he o r s h e i s i n p e a c e a b l e , rather than scrambling, possession of the property."); State v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1028 (Ala. 1999) ("'Standing i s a n e c e s s a r y component of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' " ( q u o t i n g B a r s h o p v. M e d i n a C o u n t y U n d e r g r o u n d W a t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n D i s t . , 925 S.W.2d 618, 626 (Tex. 1996))); C u l l m a n W h o l e s a l e Co. v . S i m m o n s , 530 So. 2d 7 2 7 , 729 (Ala. 1988) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ("[T]he t r i a l c o u r t , i n the absence o f a s h o w i n g b y t h e c o m p l a i n a n t t h a t he m e e t s one o f t h e f o u r situations set f o r t h in [ A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-560], i s w i t h o u t power t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t r e s . " ) ; Denson v. Gibson, 392 So. 2d 523, 524 (Ala. 1980) 8 ("Complainant [ i n a q u i e t - t i t l e a c t i o n ] must p r o v e , inter a l i a , t h a t he was i n t h e a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f the property, and that his possession was peaceable as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from s c r a m b l i n g or d i s p u t e d . H i n d s v. S l a c k , 293 A l a . 5, 299 So. 2d 717 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . I t i s the c h a r a c t e r of the p o s s e s s i o n a t t h e t i m e t h e s u i t commenced w h i c h i s d e c i s i v e . D a v i d s o n v . B l a c k w o o d , 250 A l a . 2 6 3 , 34 So. 2d 205 (1948)."); c f . M e r c h a n t s N a t ' l B a n k o f M o b i l e v . M o r r i s , 252 A l a . 566, 569, 42 So. 2d 240, 242 (1 949) (noting that an in rem p r o c e e d i n g t o q u i e t t i t l e " i s p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y and t h e [Grove] Act [ w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e s t a t u t e now c o d i f i e d a t § 6-6-560] confers upon the circuit court in equity a limited j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s m u s t be made t o a p p e a r on t h e r e c o r d a n d be i n t r o d u c e d i n e v i d e n c e as a support to the d e c r e e " ) ; B u c h m a n n A b s t r a c t & I n v . Co. v. R o b e r t s , 213 A l a . 5 2 0 , 5 2 1 , 105 So. 6 7 5 , 67 6 (1 925) ("[W]e a r e c o n s t r a i n e d to h o l d t h a t the possessory a c t s h e r e i n i n d i c a t e d on t h e p a r t o f r e s p o n d e n t w e r e s u f f i c i e n t as a c o n t e s t of complainant's possession so as to destroy the peaceable c h a r a c t e r t h e r e o f and c o n s t i t u t e i t a d i s p u t e d , c o n t e s t e d o r s c r a m b l i n g o n e . ... T h i s c o n c l u s i o n d e s t r o y s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t o v e r t h e c a u s e a t i t s v e r y t h r e s h o l d , and renders 25 1071195 & "A 1071204 court deciding is cases obligated over jurisdiction (Ala. So. 2008) 362, we (1930)). limited of the by was of the Res., 999 Smith, In of 438 of party is v. has protect no Williams, at the considering that 12 jurisdiction." Ex 891, 894-95 So. 2d 766, 768 in possession denying the subject fact parte (Ala. at 635 A l a . 254, 256, 128 the note this at the Alabama 2008 ) time peaceable appellate that, Court legal "[o]n is not conclusions regarding Dep't (citing the of Human Ex parte 1983)). possession the of Cottrell's of these i s s u e , we (Ala. peaceable when 631, appellate courts 2d is 3d reviewing jurisdiction, intermediate So. i n the a c t u a l , a r g u m e n t s o r by against [subject-matter] outset whether, l a n d t h a t i s the subject-matter and in C o t t r e l l was So. "'[O]ne scrambling filed, the p a r t i e s ' trial existence i t Therefore, must c o n s i d e r proceedings. questions vigilantly ( c i t i n g W i l k i n s o n v . H e n r y , 221 the complaint possession which Crutcher 364 petition, to time of as the complainant's opposed suit no to other possession.'" W o o d l a n d G r o v e B a p t i s t C h u r c h v. W o o d l a n d G r o v e Cmty. C e m e t a r y u n n e c e s s a r y a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n s which c o n s t i t u t e any o f t h e i s s u e s as t o t h e c o n t e s t o f t i t l e . " ) . 26 1071195 & 1071204 Ass'n, v. I n c . , 947 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 9 Gibson, party 392 does amounting peaceable to So. 2d 523, something to an ( A l a . 2006) 524-25 (other possession) which ( A l a . 1 980 ) ) . "When one mere acts not than interference with Brown, and becomes 'disputed' 361 So. 2d 1069, Washington, 288 A l a . 1 94 , isolated [the complainant's] i n d i c a t e s t h a t he h i m s e l f be i n p o s s e s s i o n , t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ' s peaceable ( q u o t i n g Denson 1070 or p o s s e s s i o n ceases 'scrambling.'" So. 2d 226 t o be Cobb ( A l a . 1978 ) ( c i t i n g 259 claims (1972)); v. Ford v. see also G e o r g e E. Wood L u m b e r C o . v . W i l l i a m s , 157 A l a . 7 3 , 7 7 , 47 S o . 202, 203 (1908) rule as t o what i s a p e a c e a b l e do t o s t a t e t h a t ("It i s d i f f i c u l t t h e mere would render party the r i g h t do denying something himself or are that " ) . " ' I f both for he i t , then definite [ I ] t would not right not peaceable. The i n the complainant must claims parties any the the possession that ... another of possession indicating scrambling possession. fact of p o s s e s s i o n t o l a y down denied t o be in claim actual the possession possession possession is [ 9 ] not "Actual possession generally refers to the p h y s i c a l occupation of the land." W o o d l a n d G r o v e , 947 S o . 2 d a t 1037 n.7 ( c i t i n g H i n d s v . S l a c k , 293 A l a . 2 5 , 2 8 , 2 9 9 S o . 2 d 7 1 7 , 719 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ) . 9 27 1071195 & 1071204 peaceable.'" Denson, In Woodland be 1965, J o h n n i e Mae cultivated Stokes So. copies Mae Mae crops o f many Mae cultivatable that leased during Stokes land Reese D a v i s , Stokes, (quoting named a d m i n i s t r a t o r , property"). the leased Davis leases the could leased Johnnie that could The readily lessees planted i n addition, Frank Stokes, 1 0 that, although written n o t be l o c a t e d , property died, Frank and Stokes, Johnnie repeatedly and After J r . , leased the hunting. Jr., testified at t r i a l property from Johnnie consecutive years, and h i s f a t h e r , they Jr., her a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the estate. f o r farming J r . , f o r 10 time, son, t e s t i f i e d of those had continuously rented 1039 the administrator on t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y ; Stokes's Stokes Johnnie at named h u n t e d a n d f i s h e d on t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y . Johnnie 2d of the property ("the l e a s e d harvested was A f t e r being Stokes leased p o r t i o n s and 947 392 S o . 2 d a t 5 2 5 ) . of E s t e l l e ' s e s t a t e . Mae Grove, t h a t h i s f a t h e r had Mae Stokes until or t h e i r and Frank 2002. sublessees, During would A d i s p u t e e x i s t s as t o w h e t h e r Reese D a v i s , J r . , h i s f a t h e r , and o t h e r l e s s e e s a l s o hunted i n o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e property. Our a n a l y s i s does n o t r e q u i r e t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f that issue. 1 0 28 1071195 & 1071204 cultivate hunt the and leased property, fish passed away Frank on Stokes, a c t i o n was leased in in He property In Mae and Stokes See 231 that property"). tenants leased in Greens i n s t r u c t e d Davis not rent v. the farm property leased property plaintiffs' another 288 party herself claims i t the p l a i n t i f f s Thus, at the time of Jr., t o be, the and is and the property was to others, undisputed hunted f i l e d the f i l i n g of in fact 29 on 194, was, of 200, that that 259 So. is something to in possession that acts possession "done complaint this Johnnie i n possessory Ala. be the Larenda possession has the thereafter. (holding that a complainant's when to farm property to J r . , engaged Washington, Further, claimed leased leased the d i d not from underlying awarded to "the h e i r s of Stokes, r e g u l a r l y farmed time a f t e r the court with she Davis parties, Frank 2003, father property the trial Ford the would Davis's after the (1972) peaceable indicate rented r e n t i n g the interfered property. not Davis Therefore, to Jenkins." 2d 2 2 6 , After d i d not t h a t the his father However, Jr. According and property. 2002, property. Davis leased f i l e d , the 2003. that the and the land of the Stokeses' until some in this action. a c t i o n , Frank Stokes, in actual possession of 1071195 & 1071204 the leased property. So. 273, 224, 276 226, occupancy v. So. of the 272 (quoting 135, (1906)) when t h e Ala. S t e p h e n s v. ("It is tenant, Southern 136 party, (1936)) Long, exists in fact, Cater, (citing (1912) 41 possession Shannon v. 660, S t a r k , 232 elementary possession Ala. Ry. v. 133 or as of the tenant even i f Cottrell 8 64 , 485, 168 867 So. Orso (1961 ) 873, 874 landlord between is or immediate ....'"); 2d 60 Ala. possession, tenant So. 137, 145 t h i n g i s i n the A l a . 485, that, 128, Hall, ("'Actual or h i s agent 657, 180 and possession of the landlord."). Accordingly, possession was filed property of 1 1 in was the leased property this not action, her "peaceable." was at the also time possession See Denson, 392 in the of So. actual complaint the 2d leased at 525 ( " [ I ] f both p a r t i e s c l a i m a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n , or are scrambling for see, i t , then Cobb, 361 So. the 2d possession at 1070 i s not ("The peaceable."); stipulation that e.g., appellees I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , s i n c e t h e 1960s, C o t t r e l l has not resided on any of the property at issue in this case, i n c l u d i n g the l e a s e d p r o p e r t y . C o t t r e l l contends t h a t the G r e e n s a c t e d as h e r a g e n t s i n p o s s e s s i n g b o t h t h e leased p r o p e r t y and t h e u n l e a s e d p r o p e r t y , b u t t h e G r e e n s d i s p u t e that contention. We f i n d i t unnecessary to r e s o l v e t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e at t h i s time. 1 1 30 1071195 & 1071204 walked over the p r o p e r t y , posted of timber to by others s i g n s , and h a l t e d t h e e s t a b l i s h e s a c t s of p o s s e s s i o n c a u s e a p p e l l a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n t o be 'peaceable.' having cut constituted appellees' possession also does not acts peaceable have appellees have possession suit [§ (Ala. 524-25) parties App. There Smith the While the both than land possession, and making appellant she and the i s enough e v i d e n c e v. Gaston, 1 Denson, 392 So. 3d 1043, So. 2d i n d i c a t e s a c l a i m of p o s s e s s i o n the d i s p u t e d l a n d . Because both Smith of either party's bringing (citing 2008 ) ("Gaston's fence over possession, to prevent 6-6-560]."); Civ. of 'scrambling.' some p o s s e s s i o n . by b o t h under 104 6 actual, sufficient 'scrambling' rather Likewise, appellant's walking timber cutting and at over Gaston claimed to be in p o s s e s s i o n of the d i s p u t e d l a n d , Smith's a l l e g e d p o s s e s s i o n was not peaceable."). Therefore, Code 1975, Ala. Cottrell § 6-6-560, w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e l e a s e d which the Jenkins." trial See court Ala. i s unable awarded Code rem a c t i o n s to quiet t i t l e own any peaceable lands or any possession 1975, by interest of the "any t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s to § "the 6-6-560 person" therein, land" 31 heirs and of property, of Larenda (authorizing in who "claims i s i n the (emphasis added)). ... to actual, Thus, 1071195 & 1071204 Cottrell's petition quashed to a l l issues as for a writ of c e r t i o r a r i contesting i s due the affirmance Court of C i v i l Appeals of that part of the t r i a l awarding leased the property to t o be "the by t h e court's heirs of order Larenda Jenkins." Conclusion For the petition reasons stated f o r the w r i t above, of c e r t i o r a r i judgment o f t h e Court o f C i v i l on the t r i a l that portion certain trial court's Rule of the t r i a l of the property court property to enter i n the heirs a trial dismissing court property remaining to vacate quash i n part. Cottrell's We vacate the Appeals i n s o f a r as, i n r e l i a n c e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n , court's order judgment of Larenda the appeal i t s Rule quieting title a n d we f o r that i n part court to to that remand t h e to enter and i n s t r u c t i n g 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n i t awarded t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s title and i n s t r u c t e d t h e Jenkins, Appeals i t reversed quieting i n the p l a i n t i f f s cause to the Court of C i v i l judgment we a the as t o t h e and t o then address t h e issues. 1 0 7 1 1 9 5 - - J U D G M E N T VACATED I N PART AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Woodall, Smith, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 32 1071195 & 1071204 Lyons, Parker, and Murdock, Stuart and B o l i n , J J . , concur J J . , concur specially. i n the result. Cobb, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 1 0 7 1 2 0 4 - - W R I T QUASHED I N PART; JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH Woodall, INSTRUCTIONS. J . , concurs. Smith, J . , concurs Lyons, the I N PART; Stuart, i n part Bolin, and concurs Parker, a n d Shaw, specially i n part i n the result. J J . , concur i n result. Murdock, J . , concurs and d i s s e n t s i n part. Cobb, C . J . , c o n c u r s i n part 33 and d i s s e n t s i n part. 1071195 & 1071204 SMITH, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y i n c a s e n o . 1071195 a n d c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t i n case no. 1071204). I concur of with Part t h e main o p i n i o n , Justice I agree alleges court matter res. the The that question possession with trial on Justice court has issues n o t make possession subject-matter means will Murdock notes peaceable Rather, whether the merits. does 1975, a subsequent a failure that the she i s e n t i t l e d likely intertwined peaceable quashed. that i fa possession failure by t h e d o e s n o t mean never had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the s u b j e c t possession demonstrated actual, a c t u a l , peaceable possession that the c i r c u i t peaceable be complaint t o prove or the w r i t should s p e c i a l w r i t i n g demonstrates § 6-6-560, A l a . Code plaintiff that As t o P a r t I I Murdock's plaintiff's under I o f t h e main o p i n i o n . that prove under has a c t u a l , contested and will t o be However, need actual, plaintiff to relief a plaintiff be to i n such a has § 6-6-560. peaceable often will resolved e x i s t s i n order jurisdiction 34 over whether by a type as circuit the element to determine this be circumstance, i n h i s special writing, "[t]he the decision not of whether i t of case, but 1071195 & 1071204 does so b e c a u s e type of case." i t has s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n So. 3d a t . 35 over this 1071195 & 1071204 LYONS, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t i n c a s e no. As write to Part specially pursuant to Rule defendants' title the I o f the main as to 54(b), the A l a . R. attempt to appeal of the multiple plaintiffs therefore, unleased trial I C i v . P., 1071195 concur of with fully. and I certification respect to the the t r i a l court's order q u i e t i n g i n the p l a i n t i f f s . court to allocate I agree that between the d e f e a t s f i n a l i t y o f t h e judgment and t h a t , a certification property opinion, unavailability t o some o f t h e p r o p e r t y failure i n c a s e no. 1071204) . pursuant to Rule 54(b) as to the i s inappropriate. " I f t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , t h e r e n e e d o n l y be one c l a i m i n t h e a c t i o n . Of c o u r s e , a l l of the r i g h t s o r l i a b i l i t i e s o f one o r more o f t h e p a r t i e s regarding that claim must have been fully adjudicated." 10 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 , and Mary Kay 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 § 2656 (3d e d . 1 9 9 8 ) . Kane, "The s e c o n d p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r i n v o k i n g R u l e 5 4 ( b ) is that at least one claim or the r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f a t l e a s t one p a r t y must be finally decided " "... A c c o r d i n g t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t [ C a t l i n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 324 U.S. 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 ( 1 9 4 5 ) ] 'A " f i n a l d e c i s i o n " g e n e r a l l y i s one w h i c h ends t h e l i t i g a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s a n d l e a v e s n o t h i n g f o r t h e c o u r t t o do but execute the judgment.'" 36 1071195 Id. & 1071204 (emphasis added). "A n o t a l l o c a t e an a g g r e g a t e final." H. 15B Cooper, 1992), determination sum among c l a i m a n t s s i m i l a r l y Charles Alan Wright, Federal citing Practice S t r e y v. o f damages t h a t A r t h u r R. and Miller, Procedure Hunt I n t ' l Res. § Corp., 696 i s not and 3915.2 does Edward (2d F.2d 87, ed. 88 (10th C i r . 1982). In Strey, Tenth C i r c u i t the United States Court of Appeals for the stated: "Rule 54(b) p e r m i t s an e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t f o r fewer than a l l claims presented i n a c i v i l a c t i o n . F e d . R . C i v . P . 5 4 ( b ) . However, i t p e r m i t s an e n t r y o f judgment o n l y f o r c l a i m s t h a t are i n f a c t f i n a l l y decided. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General E l e c t r i c C o . , 446 U.S. 1, 7, 100 S . C t . 1 4 6 0 , 1464, 64 L . E d . 2 d 1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; S e a r s , R o e b u c k & Co. v . M a c k e y , 351 U.S. 4 2 7 , 4 3 5 , 76 S . C t . 8 9 5 , 8 9 9 , 100 L . E d . 1297 (1956). We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c l a i m s c e r t i f i e d i n the R u l e 54(b) e n t r y of judgment have not f i n a l l y been decided. Notwithstanding the Rule 54(b) certification, the l i a b i l i t y claims of the class w i l l n o t be t h e s u b j e c t o f a f i n a l d e c i s i o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e w i l l n o t be a p p e a l a b l e , u n t i l t h e d i s t r i c t court e s t a b l i s h e s both the formula that will determine the division of damages among class members and the p r i n c i p l e s that w i l l guide the d i s p o s i t i o n o f any u n c l a i m e d f u n d s . See B o e i n g Co. v. Van G e m e r t , 444 U.S. 472, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L . E d . 2 d 676 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ." 696 F.2d at 88 (emphasis Although the the unleased property added). judgment is i n favor adverse 37 to of the the plaintiffs defendants as on to the 1071195 issue & 1071204 of t i t l e , " a l l of the l i a b i l i t i e s " of have n o t been d e t e r m i n e d where plaintiff without have a not been determination plaintiffs, the property to multiple plaintiffs that the United to do States, writing rights and but any proceeding i n this litigants." U.S. defendants. 3d the necessity to that the judgment. will be claim . f o r an the c l a i m e d by the states: wholly or i s nothing See The "The The order interest in Hence, the order defendants. 38 v. Justice's defendants' unaffected and for Catlin Chief issue, by no the further foregoing as statement r e q u i r i n g a conveyance plaintiffs an judgment as t o t h e among require their participation at t o those there (1945). action w i l l So. entitled allocation and 229 remaining from the defendants be ended execute liabilities of i s so b e c a u s e , and t h e judgment i n f a v o r of t h e dissenting i n part resolution overlooks has 324 special the of each i s not s u s c e p t i b l e to thec h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n the l i t i g a t i o n court This formerly collectively defendants remains undivided, defendants the r e s p e c t i v e shares ascertained. as the the appealed u l t i m a t e l y deemed t o lands from held i s not by a the final 1071195 & 1071204 I t h e r e f o r e concur f u l l y i n the main o p i n i o n ' s that the Rule 54(b) conclusion c e r t i f i c a t i o n of the judgment the unleased p o r t i o n of the property the judgment of the Court the extent i s ineffective remanded to concerning the unleased and the trial property court to and t h e consider join Justice Parker, J., to case issues property. As t o P a r t I I o f t h e main o p i n i o n , I concur i n t h e and that o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i s t o be v a c a t e d i t p e r t a i n s to the unleased ultimately involving Shaw's writing. concurs. 39 result 1071195 & 1071204 SHAW, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t i n c a s e no. I concur addressing the plaintiffs' cases, i n the analysis finality claims. of As I would quash concur i n the raised of the to the the result. jurisdiction i n c a s e no. 1071204). 1071195 and Part I trial the court's remaining writs; of concurring main opinion ruling on the issues r a i s e d i n both therefore, as to Part II, I I w r i t e only to address the q u e s t i o n in the main opinion and in some of of the special writings. I n C u l l m a n W h o l e s a l e Co. 1988) (plurality plaintiffs 560, to a opinion) of there was title property peaceable possession. S i m m o n s , 530 (hereinafter sought to q u i e t piece v. i n which possession trial C o r p . , 293 A l a . 727, omitted)). So. 2d at 730, Specifically, that peaceable possession a party 729 could seek to a was quiet So. one of the they had court determined that pleadings only reversed 2d 2 0 7 , title 40 I"), alleged "'adducible plurality (Ala. 6-6¬ 209 of four under and alone, in a a full the cause Champion ( q u o t i n g Almon v. 310 727 § they t h e m e r i t s , ' " t h e j u d g m e n t was 530 was "Cullman the prior remanded. held from finding on caselaw 2d u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, Because the t r i a l peaceable So. Int'l (1975) the (emphasis Court, noting s i t u a t i o n s i n which § 6-6-560, stated: 1071195 & 1071204 "[T]he trial court, in the absence of a showing by the c o m p l a i n a n t t h a t he m e e t s one o f t h e f o u r s i t u a t i o n s s e t f o r t h in the s t a t u t e , i s without the in subject action, 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1035 Court noted "presented Cullman that on that property"; determination 564 So. that 2d show court the was trial of Cullman I the p l a i n t i f f s had the t r i a l court to were peaceable possession of the in Court held that i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n correct." ( A l a . 1990). seeking peaceable reversed 592 "the trial court's u n d e r A l a . Code The l a n g u a g e 1975, regarding i n C u l l m a n I was r e s t a t e d i n T h r i f t v . M c C o n n e l l , 431 a party Simmons, to enable §§ 6-6-560 a n d 6 - 6 - 5 6 1 , was jurisdiction appeal evidence the that I n c . v. over ( h e r e i n a f t e r "Cullman I I " ) , t h i s remand they thus, jurisdiction In a subsequent Wholesale, ( A l a . 1992) sufficient determine t o assume r e s . " 530 S o . 2d a t 7 2 9 . t h e same So. power "without court also to quiet possession the t r i a l to In that court's title of Oehmig v. the subject judgment, holding title the complaint." Johnson, this Court held u n d e r § 6-6-560 f a i l e d authority" to quiet "dismiss case, So. 2d that and the We trial instructing 564 846, So. 2d a t 433. See 1994) ( r e f e r r i n g t o t h e f o u r s i t u a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n § 6-6-560 41 638 property. to 848 ( A l a . 1071195 et & seq., 1071204 A l a . Code action to overruled Co., stated quiet on 825 1975, in title, other So. 2d i n which as grounds, 758 Grove may commence an "jurisdiction Ex parte (Ala. 2002). Woodland one Baptist v. Community Cemetery A s s ' n , 947 So. that has jurisdiction "[t]he actions in trial which peaceable, court the rather plaintiff than 2d 1031, shows Nat'l Life Ins. recently, this Church Court Woodland 1038 he Grove (Ala. 2006), over that scrambling, rem requirements"), Liberty More in quiet-title or she possession is of in the property." Although light So. I do not o f C h e s t a n g v. 2d 159 questionable, overrule Grove. disagree are Cullman I, In f a c t , these not more asked Cullman in conclusion II, Thrift, make no i s s u e at a l l . With particular I am h e s i t a n t to depart recent this the p a r t i e s this Court the T e n s a w L a n d & T i m b e r Co., (1961), we with case 273 decisis 26 So. 3d 1207 are to and Oehmig, revisit or Woodland argument w i t h r e s p e c t the case in this n.2 (Ala. 2009) commands, a t a m i n i m u m , a d e g r e e o f r e s p e c t 42 134 decisions to posture, f r o m t h e more r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s o f 1202, in A l a . 8, u n t i l t h e y a r e p r o p e r l y c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l . Carlisle, that Ex this parte ("'Stare from this 1071195 Court & 1071204 that makes i t disinclined p r e c e d e n t when i t i s n o t invited P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l Servs. (Ala. 346 2002))). (1953) Cf. M o r r i s o n Ltd. P'ship, v. 849 S t a t e , 258 So. 2d A l a . 410, So. 2d quiet-title action does of not call affirmance the into main plaintiffs' possession, as nevertheless the trial action other failed opinion Court despite Justices to court establish quash the w r i t as the to Lyons and as Parker, any JJ., Civil Appeals' concur. lack then jurisdiction of the in their i n the peaceable plaintiffs quiet-title as t o t h a t i s s u e , as remaining 43 the merit I would thus writ the retained suggest, action. quash that c o u r t ' s judgment q u i e t i n g t i t l e However, i f the the law"). question of the t r i a l defendant. over in in 63 926 l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to hear the p l a i n t i f f s ' holding "settled approved 914, v. court The as decision ( q u o t i n g Moore trial regarded a so.'" controlling cases be that t o do overrule later should (noting to issues. well 1071195 & 1071204 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y i n c a s e n o . 1 0 7 1 1 9 5 a n d c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t i n c a s e no. 1071204). As to nonleased opinion Part I of property, that the I trial [its] determinations So. 3d at the plaintiffs' reason, the finding that judgment" one the or I "'entry regarding concerning agree of at one cannot claim unless as a final court's the i t claims "was at with the order not regarding issue plaintiffs a that final on adjudicate and, for As judgment, c o u l d n o t be main Defendants,'" judgment. not the final [a] the land the d e f e n d a n t s , but stated in based was this on its entitled to d e c i d i n g which of certified as a the "final adjudication property." a of So. the 3d at added). i s axiomatic as the trial so e n t i t l e d , (emphasis decision in more o f because plaintiffs' order court's ... opinion, concur. certified opinion, p l a i n t i f f s was least fully interest judgment a g a i n s t It main (emphasis i n main o p i n i o n ) , does not c a n n o t be main the to the that entirety plaintiff be there a "final and considered of at one a i s at l e a s t judgment" requires a least claim between defendant. final one 44 one Put judgment " w i n n e r " and as one as final plainly, to a an given "loser" as 1071195 & 1071204 to claim two that parties "loser" of a reflected The available the nonleased property, before finality entry adjudicates be a that As to Part Rule I disagree no possession required allowed to to 54(b), a the rule i . e . , that judgment" an may n o t b e to revision adjudicating a l l the of a l l the parties." not contemplate judgment i.e., of at least and a t l e a s t certification i ti s "subject judgment," that the 54(b) does I I o f t h e main dissent. of Rule of a judgment the entirety process response be a " f i n a l as "final one p l a i n t i f f a and l i a b i l i t i e s certification otherwise as upon b e c a u s e and t h e r i g h t s remains Instead, sentence otherwise or executed fact least judgment. would any time those P., i s n o t t o c h a n g e t h e i n t r i n s i c final i n the last that appealed A l a . R. C i v . i s made mechanism claims over purpose of the f i n a l i t y - c e r t i f i c a t i o n nature at as between h a s b e e n made a s t o who t h e " w i n n e r " i s . Rule 54(b), order claim H e r e , a l t h o u g h we know who t h e i s i n the l i t i g a t i o n The of that have been d e c i d e d . determination by and a l l a s p e c t s that a would not judgment one c l a i m a that between at one d e f e n d a n t . opinion, a failure I respectfully to prove must the peaceable u n d e r § 6-6-560, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , d e p r i v e s 45 1071195 the & 1071204 circuit cause of failure court of action simply necessary created means element analysis jurisdiction of presented this courts have on court to that of a case treating as issue subject-matter a failure theory, of or to Alabama, (Ala. 2010). 1 2 we often issue of 'standing'" state a cognizable to satisfy Inc. 1050 92 6, Cf. have jurisdiction 13A Jan. Charles the fallen -- the nature that -- terms to Cross 2010] the for trap therefore as of an "that which i s merely Blue of action or element of & Blue So. legal a cause Shield 3d Wright, Arthur of , K. Miller, 12 "Nor do we s e e t h a t t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the legal theory asserted by BCBSAL i s o u t s i d e the subject-matter jurisdiction of e i t h e r the trial c o u r t or t h i s Court. The c o u r t s o f t h i s S t a t e e x i s t f o r the v e r y purpose of p e r f o r m i n g such tasks as 46 our observed, into and cause Alan of recently injury 15, a subject-matter recognizing the v. prove to a fundamental a u t h o r i t y of too Wyeth, [Ms. As such jurisdictional to the the statute. claims by courts a failure action." over referred in failed that over Rather, has of begin case. "our of under court must a example, statute. issue i n f a c t go decide jurisdiction" a plaintiff the occasion an that circuit t h a t w h i c h does not the by for recovery Any by "subject-matter 1071195 & 1071204 & E d w a r d H. § 3531 the (3d e d . cause transformed As Cooper, F e d e r a l I 2008) of action into "types" question stated by inappropriate understand subject-matter certain ("The P r a c t i c e & Procedure our jurisdiction of Jurisdiction whether the a law recognizes plaintiff is frequently standing terms."). jurisprudence on 1 3 the c o n c e r n s a c o u r t ' s power t o matter, decide cases: s o r t i n g out what c o n s t i t u t e s a c o g n i z a b l e c a u s e of a c t i o n , what are the e l e m e n t s of a cause of a c t i o n , and w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of a g i v e n complaint meet t h o s e e l e m e n t s . Such t a s k s l i e a t t h e c o r e o f t h e j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n . See g e n e r a l l y , e . g . , A r t . V I , § 1 3 9 ( a ) , A l a . C o n s t . 1901 ( v e s t i n g 'the judicial power o f t h e s t a t e ' i n t h i s C o u r t and l o w e r courts o f t h e S t a t e ) ; A r t . V I , § 142, A l a . Const. 1901 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t s of t h i s State 'shall exercise general j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l cases e x c e p t as may o t h e r w i s e be p r o v i d e d b y l a w ' ) . " Wyeth, I n c . v. B l u e at . Cross & Blue S h i e l d of Alabama, So. 3d Also, cf. Gene R. Nichol, J r . , Ripeness and the C o n s t i t u t i o n , 54 U. C h i . L. R e v . 1 5 3 , 162 (1987 ) ( o b s e r v i n g t h a t t h e r i p e n e s s d o c t r i n e has been u s e d by f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n r e c e n t y e a r s " t o m e a s u r e t h e demands o f s u b s t a n t i v e s t a t u t o r y or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l causes of a c t i o n , " but n o t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e does not r e l a t e to j u r i s d i c t i o n a l power at a l l . Instead, i t i s an a s p e c t of actionability a n a l y s i s -- t h a t i s , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e l i t i g a n t h a s s t a t e d a c l a i m on w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d . ... See Fed. R u l e C i v i l P r o c . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . " ) . 1 3 47 1071195 & 1071204 "Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns a court's power to d e c i d e c e r t a i n t y p e s of c a s e s . W o o l f v. M c G a u g h , 175 A l a . 2 9 9 , 3 0 3 , 57 So. 7 5 4 , 755 (1911) ('"By j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s meant t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n and o f t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t . " ' ( q u o t i n g C o o p e r v . R e y n o l d s , 77 U.S. (10 W a l l . ) 3 0 8 , 3 1 6 , 19 L . E d . 931 ( 1 8 7 0 ) ) ) . That power i s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n and the A l a b a m a C o d e . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o t t o n , 535 U.S. 6 2 5 , 6 3 0 - 3 1 , 122 S . C t . 1 7 8 1 , 152 L . E d . 2 d 860 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction r e f e r s to a court's ' s t a t u t o r y or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power' to a d j u d i c a t e a case). In d e c i d i n g whether Seymour's c l a i m p r o p e r l y challenges the trial court's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , we a s k o n l y w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l court had t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o t r y t h e o f f e n s e w i t h w h i c h S e y m o u r was c h a r g e d a n d as to which he has filed his petition for certiorari." Ex parte Seymour, 946 emphasis original; standard, I in this matter," do case or second did not have of can actually three speak in to the added). said be described discerning This (Ala. that jurisdiction case," c a s e s s u c h as t h i s . 538 i t can how "type 536, emphasis see "jurisdiction" jurisdiction 2d not Admittedly, court's So. whether over in § an 2006) (first Applying this circuit court the "subject 6-6-560. issue implicates become more c o m p l i c a t e d in i s s o b e c a u s e s o many r e p o r t e d separate strictest and sense, distinct or equity cases concepts: "subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n " ; s o - c a l l e d " e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n " ; and, 48 a finally, 1071195 & "equity jurisprudence." before 1071204 A well respected t h e merger o f law and e q u i t y explanation of the three i n most above-stated treatise states begins i t s concepts e x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between s u b j e c t - m a t t e r and "equity written by jurisdiction jurisdiction": "§ 1 2 9 . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o o b t a i n a t t h e o u t s e t a c l e a r and a c c u r a t e n o t i o n o f what i s meant by t h e term 'Equity Jurisdiction.' It i s used in c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o ' j u r i s d i c t i o n ' i n g e n e r a l , and t o 'common-law j u r i s d i c t i o n ' i n p a r t i c u l a r . Ini t s most g e n e r a l sense the term 'jurisdiction,' when a p p l i e d t o a c o u r t , i s t h e power r e s i d i n g i n such court to determine judicially a given action, controversy, or question presented to i t for decision. I f this power does not exist with r e f e r e n c e t o any p a r t i c u l a r case, i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e c o u r t i s an a b s o l u t e n u l l i t y .... On t h e other hand, i t i s e q u a l l y p l a i n t h a t t h i s strict meaning i s not always g i v e n to the term 'equity j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' a s i t i s o r d i n a r i l y u s e d . ... [W]hen o r d i n a r i l y s p e a k i n g o f t h e ' e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n ' we do n o t t h e r e b y r e f e r t o t h e g e n e r a l p o w e r i n h e r e n t in a court to decide a controversy a t a l l , -- a power so e s s e n t i a l t h a t i t s a b s e n c e r e n d e r s the d e c i s i o n a m e r e n u l l i t y , b u t we i n t e n d b y t h e p h r a s e t o d e s c r i b e some m o r e s p e c i a l a n d l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l authority. "§ 1 3 0 . 'Equity j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' therefore, i n i t s o r d i n a r y a c c e p t a t i o n , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d on t h e one s i d e f r o m t h e g e n e r a l p o w e r t o d e c i d e m a t t e r s a t a l l , a n d on t h e o t h e r f r o m t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n ' a t l a w ' o r 'common-law j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' i s t h e p o w e r t o h e a r c e r t a i n k i n d s and c l a s s e s o f c i v i l c a u s e s a c c o r d i n g to the p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e method and procedure a d o p t e d by t h e c o u r t o f c h a n c e r y , and t o d e c i d e them i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e s and r u l e s o f e q u i t y 49 first 1071195 & 1071204 jurisprudence .... I n o r d e r t h a t a c a u s e may come w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n , one o f two a l t e r n a t i v e s i s essential; either the primary r i g h t , e s t a t e , o r i n t e r e s t t o be m a i n t a i n e d , or the v i o l a t i o n of which f u r n i s h e s t h e cause of a c t i o n , must be e q u i t a b l e r a t h e r t h a n l e g a l ; [ o r ] t h e r e m e d y g r a n t e d must be i n i t s n a t u r e p u r e l y e q u i t a b l e , o r i f i t b e a r e m e d y w h i c h may a l s o b e g i v e n b y a c o u r t o f l a w , i t must be one w h i c h , u n d e r t h e f a c t s a n d circumstances o f t h e c a s e , c a n o n l y b e made c o m p l e t e and adequate through the equitable modes of procedure "§ 131. I t i s p l a i n , from the foregoing d e f i n i t i o n s , that the question whether a given case falls within the equity j u r i s d i c t i o n i s entirely d i f f e r e n t a n d s h o u l d be most c a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r s u c h c a s e i s one i n w h i c h t h e r e l i e f p e c u l i a r t o t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n s h o u l d be g r a n t e d , or i n which t h e e q u i t y powers of t h e c o u r t should be e x e r c i s e d i n maintaining the primary r i g h t , estate, or i n t e r e s t of the p l a i n t i f f . The c o n s t a n t t e n d e n c y t o c o n f o u n d t h e s e two s u b j e c t s , so e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t , h a s b e e n p r o d u c t i v e o f much confusion i n the d i s c u s s i o n of equitable doctrines. Equity jurisdiction i s distinct from equity jurisprudence. One example will suffice to illustrate t h i s important proposition. A suit to enforce the s p e c i f i c performance of a contract, or to reform a w r i t t e n instrument on t h e g r o u n d o f mistake, must always belong to the equity j u r i s d i c t i o n , and t o i t a l o n e , s i n c e these remedies a r e w h o l l y b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f common-law m e t h o d s and c o u r t s ; but whether the r e l i e f of a s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e , o r o f a r e f o r m a t i o n , s h a l l be g r a n t e d in any g i v e n case, must be determined b y an a p p l i c a t i o n of the doctrines of equity jurisprudence to t h e s p e c i a l f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of that case. ... I n o t h e r words, the e q u i t y jurisdiction may e x i s t over a case, although i t i s one w h i c h t h e d o c t r i n e s o f e q u i t y j u r i s p r u d e n c e f o r b i d any r e l i e f t o be g i v e n , o r a n y r i g h t t o be m a i n t a i n e d . This 50 1071195 & 1071204 c o n c l u s i o n i s v e r y p l a i n , and e v e n commonplace; and yet the 'equity jurisdiction' is constantly confounded with the right of the plaintiff to maintain his suit, and to obtain the equitable r e l i e f . T h i s i s , i n f a c t , making the power to d e c i d e w h e t h e r e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f s h o u l d be g r a n t e d t o d e p e n d upon, and e v e n t o be identical w i t h , the actual g r a n t i n g of such r e l i e f . " J. Pomeroy, Pomeroy's E q u i t y 1905) (footnotes emphasis omitted; Jurisprudence second emphasis §§ 129-131 (3d in original; ed. other added). Reflective of Yuba C o n s o l i d a t e d the Gold (9th C i r . 1953), held law as explained F i e l d s v. as above, K i l k e a r y , 206 the court in F.2d 884, 887 follows: "This case i s permeated w i t h s e r i o u s questions relating to j u r i s d i c t i o n which r e q u i r e s , at the t h r e s h o l d o f o u r d i s c u s s i o n , t h a t we p o i n t o u t the d i s t i n c t i o n between the term ' j u r i s d i c t i o n ' i n i t s strict sense, and as commonly used in equity jurisprudence. 'Jurisdiction,' in the strict meaning of the term, i s the power to hear and d e t e r m i n e the s u b j e c t m a t t e r of the c l a s s of a c t i o n s to which the p a r t i c u l a r case b e l o n g s . Reference to ' e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n ' does not r e l a t e to the power o f t h e c o u r t t o h e a r and d e t e r m i n e a c o n t r o v e r s y but relates to whether i t ought to assume the j u r i s d i c t i o n and d e c i d e t h e c a u s e . The distinction is of the utmost importance here, as this case i n v o l v e s problems of b o t h ' e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n ' and ' j u r i s d i c t i o n ' i n i t s s t r i c t sense." (Emphasis added.) "jurisdiction" in Having its explained "strict 51 the difference sense" and between "equity 1071195 & 1071204 jurisdiction," "equity jurisdiction" jurisdiction exercised 206 the court being rests then and noted equity recognized, i n t h e sound the difference jurisprudence: the question discretion "Equity w h e t h e r i t w i l l be of the c h a n c e l l o r . " F.2d a t 889. I n a 1958 d e c i s i o n , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f M a r y l a n d this between offered observation: "Originally the term 'equity jurisdiction' referred to the category of controversies that a c o u r t o f e q u i t y was a u t h o r i z e d t o d e c i d e . So l o n g as t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f e q u i t y w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d by separate courts, questions of equity jurisdiction were o f t e n c o n s i d e r e d t o be j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i n t h e s t r i c t s e n s e , i . e . , i f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n was n o t of a k i n d t h a t fell within the province of the c h a n c e l l o r , a c o u r t o f e q u i t y h a d no p o w e r t o d e c i d e the case. However, i n t h o s e s t a t e s where l a w and equity have been merged, e q u i t y jurisdiction i s something e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t from j u r i s d i c t i o n over the s u b j e c t m a t t e r . S e e C h a f e e , Some P r o b l e m s o f Equity (1950) 305-6. Thus, i n t h o s e s t a t e s w h i c h have a single system of courts administering principles o f b o t h law and e q u i t y , the lack of e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t the c o u r t l a c k s power t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e c o n t r o v e r s y , b u t o n l y means t h a t u n d e r t h e h i s t o r i c p r i n c i p l e s o f equity the party seeking r e l i e f i s not e n t i t l e d to it. T h e r e t h e c o n c e p t o f e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n i s one that relates to the question of the merits of a controversy r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e b a s i c power o f t h e court to decide the case." Moore v. M c A l l i s t e r , (1958) (emphasis, 2 1 6 Md. 4 9 7 , 5 0 7 - 0 8 , 141 A . 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 1 - 8 2 other than on " p o w e r , " 52 added). 1071195 It under & 1071204 may be true that may be quieted o r when no v. 361 Brown, requirement So. one 2d court to 1070 "equity decide merits requirement a plaintiff that a (Ala. 1 978 ) , quiet-title jurisdiction"; jurisprudential respect showing or of of a Similarly, of the be i t is no i t instead quiet-title i n peaceable different actual possession valid contract i t i s no necessary f o r the courts. The 1 4 see Cobb but action goes this f o r an for different a circuit of for an showing ejectment the The of is a plaintiff. example, adverse-possession the of to to possession breach-of-contract than maintenance than, nor claim. s t a t u t o r i l y i m p o s e d p r e r e q u i s i t e t o r e c o v e r y by t h e this peaceable i s in actual possession," 1069, party goes n e i t h e r to the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n circuit so-called In in a [§ 6 - 6 - 5 6 0 ] o n l y when t h a t p a r t y i s i n a c t u a l , possession the "[t]itle a claim claim. possession action in our c o u r t d o e s n o t make t h e d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r Compare, e.g., P e n i c k v. Most W o r s h i p f u l P r i n c e H a l l G r a n d L o d g e F & AM o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , [Ms. 1 0 7 1 5 3 0 , M a r c h 19, 2010] So. 3d , ( A l a . 2010) ( r e v e r s i n g a judgment of ejectment on i t s m e r i t s b e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t h a v e l e g a l t i t l e to or p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y at the time i t f i l e d i t s c o m p l a i n t , a p p l y i n g a n d q u o t i n g A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 66-280)("'[T]he complaint [in an ejectment action] is s u f f i c i e n t i f i t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was p o s s e s s e d of t h e p r e m i s s e s o r h a s t h e l e g a l t i t l e t h e r e t o ... a n d t h a t t h e 1 4 53 1071195 the & 1071204 element of peaceable possession exists i n order determine whether i t has s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over type case, of jurisdiction b u t does over this so type defendant entered thereupon d e t a i n s t h e same.'"). because of case. i t has to this subject-matter 1 5 and u n l a w f u l l y withholds and Indeed proof of peaceable possession i s n o t even n e c e s s a r y f o r a c i r c u i t c o u r t t o g r a n t r e l i e f u n d e r § 6-6-560; it i s only a prerequisite f o r r e l i e f u n d e r one o f f o u r d i f f e r e n t , a l t e r n a t i v e showings p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t a t u t e : 1 5 "When a n y p e r s o n , n a t u r a l o r a r t i f i c i a l , c l a i m s , e i t h e r i n h i s own r i g h t o r i n a n y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e capacity whatsoever, t o own a n y l a n d s o r any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , and i s i n t h e a c t u a l , peaceable p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d , o r i f n e i t h e r he n o r a n y other person i s i n the actual possession of the l a n d s a n d he h o l d s , a n d h a s h e l d , c o l o r o f t i t l e t o the l a n d s , o r i n t e r e s t so c l a i m e d , f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 o r m o r e c o n s e c u t i v e y e a r s n e x t p r e c e d i n g a n d h a s p a i d t a x e s on t h e l a n d s o r i n t e r e s t d u r i n g t h e w h o l e of such period, o r i f he, t o g e t h e r with those t h r o u g h whom he c l a i m s , h a s h e l d c o l o r o f t i t l e a n d p a i d t a x e s on t h e l a n d o r i n t e r e s t s o c l a i m e d d u r i n g t h e w h o l e o f s u c h p e r i o d o f t i m e , o r i f he a n d t h o s e t h r o u g h whom he c l a i m s h a v e p a i d t a x e s d u r i n g t h e w h o l e o f s u c h p e r i o d o f 10 y e a r s on t h e l a n d s o r i n t e r e s t c l a i m e d a n d no o t h e r p e r s o n h a s p a i d t a x e s t h e r e o n d u r i n g a n y p a r t o f s a i d p e r i o d , h e may, i f no a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g t o t e s t h i s t i t l e t o , i n t e r e s t i n o r h i s r i g h t t o t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f such lands, f i l e a v e r i f i e d complaint i n the c i r c u i t court of the county i n which such lands l i e against said lands and any and a l l persons c l a i m i n g , o r r e p u t e d to c l a i m , any t i t l e to, interest i n , lien, or e n c u m b r a n c e on s a i d l a n d s , o r a n y p a r t t h e r e o f , t o establish the right or t i t l e t o such lands or 54 1071195 & The 1071204 main number of failure to cases peaceable subject-matter quiet title difference we describe but may see the the court ability of the cases Indeed, "jurisdiction" of equity. Morris, that i n Alabama 252 "the See, and [Grove] A c t 42 [including i n t e r e s t and to c l e a r c o n c e r n i n g t h e same." term up 2d the 240, and from "equity a few of equitable these relief, cases to traceable the 242 to merger Bank of or the cases of law Mobile v. (1949) s t a t u t e now a l l doubts to "subject-matter such Nat'l a above-explained the term in court "jurisdiction" states before So. a that a a claim in equity in just appear Merchants 569, notion The to grant find would other e.g., A l a . 566, the references equity , cites jurisdiction court do we the over 6-6-560. using at prevents e x p l a i n i n p a r t why, jurisdiction." and possession § 3d supporting subject-matter i n none o f t h e s e decided So. jurisdiction under between jurisdiction" cases, 8, purportedly prove to acquiring o p i n i o n , i n note (stating codified at disputes I do n o t s e e t h a t t h e e l e m e n t o f p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n u n d e r the first alternative presented by the s t a t u t e any more i m p l i c a t e s the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction of the circuit c o u r t than the other showings necessary to p r e v a i l under t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e o r any o f t h e o t h e r t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s p r e s e n t e d by t h e s t a t u t e . 55 1071195 § & 6-6-560, equity 1071204 A l a . Code a limited requirements introduced So. be In a & I n v . Co. title, the appear on record support to v. Roberts, Land & In Timber that Co., worth The t r i a l claim. 273 be decree"), and 213 A l a . 5 2 0 , 521, The case claim 134 So. Buchmann. 2d 159 in light that i n equity of Chestang examination the p l a i n t i f f "peaceable of a court's fundamental A l a . 8, closer q u o t a t i o n of Chestang, held the and of Alabama cases c o n f i r m s merits not to the c i r c u i t and d e c i d e opinion's the statutory to prove peaceable p o s s e s s i o n i s a f a i l u r e hear particularly court i n (1925). to the j u r i s p r u d e n t i a l quiet he as the c i r c u i t which to in any e v e n t , a c o m p e l l i n g l i n e that a failure goes made i n evidence 6 7 5 , 676 c o n f e r s upon jurisdiction must Buchmann A b s t r a c t 105 1975] power v. to Tensaw (1 9 6 0 ) , of to is the main i n h i s complaint that 16 alleged p o s s e s s i o n " of the p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n . c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d , upon e x a m i n i n g t h e f a c t s , that the I t a l s o s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s discusses the issue of j u r i s d i c t i o n . In note 7 of i t s o p i n i o n , t h a t c o u r t r e l i e s u p o n M y e r s v . M o o r e r , 273 A l a . 1 8 , 134 S o . 2 d 168 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , a n d C h e s t a n g t o c o n c l u d e , a s do I , t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s not i n i s s u e . Stokes v. Cottrell, [Ms. 2 0 6 0 8 8 7 , M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 ] S o . 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 1 6 56 1071195 & 1071204 plaintiff did and in fact, that, This Court follows: was not under 12, "Did the the peaceable possession of should quieted i n the title that trial the the pleadings, court, 134 to go ownership of the So. at 162. On be core issue after i n peaceable possession Buchmann and to have stated establishing at not of further lands lands, and i t the the Court decree 273 Ala. addressed a f f i r m a t i v e answer posed: "There i s a l o n g l i n e of cases h o l d i n g that complainant must have actual or constructive possession, peaceable and undisputed, as distinguished from a disputed or scrambling possession, t o be e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r . 16 A l a . Dig., Quieting Title, 12 (9). There was no c o n f l i c t , a d d i t i o n or s u b t r a c t i o n to t h i s r u l e u n t i l t h e c a s e o f B u c h m a n n A b s t r a c t & I n v e s t m e n t Co. v. Roberts, 213 A l a . 520 , 105 So. 6 7 5 , 67 6 [ ( 1 9 2 5 ) ] . In t h a t case, t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t the evidence showed a s c r a m b l i n g possession and dismissed the bill. T h i s a c t i o n was proper; but the f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h was a d d e d t o t h e o p i n i o n : "'This conclusion destroys the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t over the cause at i t s v e r y t h r e s h o l d , and r e n d e r s u n n e c e s s a r y a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the questions which c o n s t i t u t e any of the i s s u e s as t o the contest of title. These matters are properly here pretermitted. Ladd v. 57 as complainant i n respondent?" rehearing, was have a u t h o r i t y , render gave a t h o r o u g h and p e r s u a s i v e question that property defendant. before finding the the 1071195 & 1071204 P o w e l l , s u p r a [144 A l a . 408, 39 So. 46 [ ( 1 9 0 5 ) ] ' "Ladd v. P o w e l l supports the r e s u l t but not the p r o p o s i t i o n that the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court i s destroyed at i t s very threshold." 273 A l a . a t 13-14, other had cases been i n which 134 So. 2d a t 163. the " j u r i s d i c t i o n repeated, the Court After noting destroyed" three statement observed: " I n t h e c a s e o f Crump v . K n i g h t , 250 A l a . 3 9 3 , 34 So. 2 d 5 9 3 , 596 [ ( 1 9 4 8 ) ] , t h i s c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e Buchmann c a s e , and even t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d h e l d t h a t complainant had n e i t h e r p o s s e s s i o n nor title, but found for respondent under his c r o s s - b i l l , we s a i d : "'When t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e complainant had f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h such p o s s e s s i o n as w a r r a n t e d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f his bill, this ended any litigable c o n t r o v e r s y between the p a r t i e s ' "This s t a t e m e n t and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n conflicts with the holding of t h i s court i n cases decided prior to the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the 'jurisdiction destroyed' statement i n t h e Buchmann c a s e . See Collier v . A l e x a n d e r , 138 A l a . 2 4 5 , 36 S o . 367 [ ( 1 9 0 3 ) ] ; O ' N e a l v . P r e s t w o o d , 153 A l a . 4 4 3 , 45 S o . 251 [ ( 1 9 0 7 ) ] ; V a n d e g r i f t v. S o u t h e r n M i n e r a l Land Co., 166 A l a . 312, 51 So. 983 [ ( 1 90 9) ] ; 1 7 I n M y e r s v . M o o r e r , 2 7 3 A l a . 18 , 30 , 134 S o . 2 d 1 6 8 , 180 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ( o p i n i o n on r e h e a r i n g ) , t h i s C o u r t o b s e r v e d : 1 7 " I t i s d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to r e c o n c i l e the V a n d e g r i f t d e c i s i o n w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t lack of peaceable possession i n complainant deprives the court of jurisdiction to declare that a 58 1071195 & 1071204 S l o s s - S h e f f i e l d S t e e l & I r o n C o . v . L o l l a r , 170 A l a . 239, 54 S o . 272 [ ( 1 9 1 0 ) ] ; R u c k e r v . J a c k s o n , 18 0 Ala. 1 0 9 , 60 S o . 139 [ ( 1 9 1 2 ) ] . In the opinion i n e a c h o f t h e l a s t f o u r c i t e d c a s e s , t h i s c o u r t made the c a t e g o r i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e p r o o f showed t h e c o m p l a i n a n t was n o t i n p o s s e s s i o n , yet t i t l e was quieted i n respondent. I t i s obvious that this court d i d consider that i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n to d e c i d e t h e c a s e s e v e n when t h e c o m p l a i n a n t d i d n o t p r o v e h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he was i n p o s s e s s i o n . " T h e r e w o u l d a l s o be a c o n f l i c t w i t h t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e i n t h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t when i t a p p e a r s that the t i t l e to part of the land i s i n the c o m p l a i n a n t , and p a r t i n t h e r e s p o n d e n t , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e t h e s e f a c t s , and decree accordingly. M o t l e y v . C r u m p t o n , 2 6 5 A l a . 5 6 5 , 93 So. 2 d 413 [ ( 1 9 5 7 ) ] ; H i n d s v . F e d e r a l L a n d B a n k o f New O r l e a n s , 2 3 5 A l a . 360 , 17 9 S o . 194 [ ( 1 9 3 8 ) ] ; Friedman v. Shamblin , 117 A l a . 4 5 4 , 23 S o . 821 [(1898)]. " I t i s t h e law b o t h g e n e r a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y in statutory actions to quiet title, that allegations i n pleadings go t o t h e q u e s t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n , and p r o o f t o t h e r i g h t o f p l a i n t i f f t o recover. ... "'The right of a p l a i n t i f f to maintain a suit, w h i l e f r e q u e n t l y t r e a t e d as g o i n g t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , h a s b e e n s a i d t o go i n r e a l i t y t o t h e right of p l a i n t i f f to r e l i e f r a t h e r than to the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o a f f o r d i t . ' 21 C . J . S . C o u r t s § 35, p. 44. respondent i n peaceable superior to that of a possession." possession has a title complainant who h a d no 59 1071195 & 1071204 " I n A d l e r v . S u l l i v a n , 115 A l a . 5 8 2 , 22 So. 87 [ ( 1 8 9 7 ) ] , decided j u s t f o u r years a f t e r the adoption of the s t a t u t e , the c o u r t s a i d : "'The mere r e a d i n g of the bill in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the s t a t u t e , under which i t i s f i l e d , -( A c t s , 1 8 9 2 - 9 3 , p. 4 2 ) , -¬ suffices to show t h a t i t contains the necessary averments under the a c t , to g i v e the court j u r i s d i c t i o n and to authorize r e l i e f . ... ' 2d 8, " I n S t e w a r t v . C h i l d r e s s , 269 12 [ ( 1 9 5 9 ) ] , we said: Ala. 87, 111 So. "'... Furthermore, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i n a p r o c e e d i n g under the s t a t u t e , " i f the averments of the bill and answer conform to the requirements of the s t a t u t e , the i s s u e s i n v o l v e e v e r y t h i n g necessary to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y t h e c o u r t as t o w h e t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n a n t o r t h e d e f e n d a n t has the s u p e r i o r t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y , and i t i s proper f o r the c o u r t under the i s s u e s thus found to determine i n which of the p a r t i e s the t i t l e r e s i d e s . " ' " 273 Ala. at The other 134 jurisdictions 69 So. 2d at 164-65 (emphasis Chestang Court then proceeded to review reached, 348, 14-15, that including that S.E. 593, entertain a cause finally to 597 cause, comported of (1910) and the prevail, Young with v. the Hamilton, ("The jurisdiction right of present 60 the added). holdings from conclusion 135 i t Ga. 339, of a c o u r t plaintiff essentially in to such different 1071195 & 1071204 questions."), 377, 381 (1936) merits of the right to So. 2d As and hear at A t w o o d v. Cox, 88 ("Jurisdiction can case brought before the and decide at all."). Utah never 437, depend c o u r t , but 273 446, 55 P.2d upon the o n l y upon i t s Ala. at 16, 165-66. the Chestang Court also explained: " A t t r i a l , t h e b u r d e n i s on c o m p l a i n a n t t o p r o v e his a l l e g a t i o n s . I f he c a n n o t , he f a i l s t o r e c o v e r a n d h i s s u i t c a n n o t be m a i n t a i n e d . But t h a t does not mean that the equity court suddenly lost j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o c e e d a n y f u r t h e r . ... "We think we have explained most of the differences appearing in the cases under the quieting title statute. It follows that the ' j u r i s d i c t i o n destroyed' statements i n the cases of B u c h m a n n A b s t r a c t & I n v e s t m e n t Co. v . R o b e r t s , 213 Ala. 520, 105 So. 675 [(1925)]; Grayson v. Muckleroy, 220 Ala. 182 , 124 So. 217 [(1929)]; M c C a l e b v . W o r c e s t e r , 224 A l a . 360 , 140 So. 595 [ ( 1 9 3 2 ) ] ; P r i c e v . R o b i n s o n , 242 A l a . 626, 7 So. 2d 568 [ ( 1 9 4 2 ) ] ; M c G o w i n v . F e l t s , 263 A l a . 504, 83 So. 2d 228 [ ( 1 9 5 5 ) ] ; M e t t e e v . B o l l i n g , 2 66 A l a . 50, 94 So. 2d 191 [ ( 1 9 5 7 ) ] ; H a r t v . A l l g o o d , 260 Ala. 560, 72 So. 2d 91 [ ( 1 9 5 4 ) ] ; W i l s o n v . D o r m a n , 271 Ala. 280, 123 So. 2d 112 [(1960)], should be disregarded.... fl " F o r s i x t y - n i n e y e a r s , t h e b e n c h and b a r o f t h i s s t a t e h a v e u s e d T i t . 7, § 1109 et seq., to quiet title. In the great majority of cases, the c o m p l a i n a n t h a s h a d p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n . B u t we a r e 61 134 1071195 & 1071204 s u r e t h a t t i t l e h a s b e e n q u i e t e d many t i m e s i n t h e respondent when p o s s e s s i o n was i n h i m . Most o f t h o s e c a s e s p r o b a b l y w e r e n o t a p p e a l e d , b u t t h a t was the h o l d i n g of t h i s c o u r t i n 1907 i n O ' N e a l v . Prestwood, 153 A l a . 4 4 3 , 45 S o . 2 5 1 [ ( 1 9 0 7 ) ] , a n d l a t e r i n subsequent cases a l r e a d y c i t e d . To b e g i n e n f o r c i n g a r u l e t h a t t h e c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a s u i t t o q u i e t t i t l e when t h e c o m p l a i n a n t f a i l e d to prove his allegation of peaceable possession m i g h t p u t many t i t l e s i n j e o p a r d y . " 273 A l a . a t 16-17, The has Chestang 134 S o . 2 d a t 166 Court now b e e n a n o t h e r state have used including made these 50 y e a r s t h a t § 6-6-560], findings upon added). o b s e r v a t i o n s i n 1960. to quiet titles quieted regarding peaceable i n d e e d p u t many t i t l e s It " t h e Bench and B a r o f t h i s T i t . 7, § 1 1 0 9 e t s e q . [ o r t h e i r title." t o d a y w i t h even more a p p r e h e n s i o n attacks (emphasis Thus, successors, i t may b e said t h a t t o now a l l o w c o l l a t e r a l i n actions where p o s s e s s i o n were the proper n o t made would i n jeopardy. I n M y e r s , 2 7 3 A l a . a t 2 9 , 134 S o . 2 d a t 1 7 8 - 7 9 , t h e C o u r t reaffirmed jurisdiction that the statement i n Buchmann concerning o f t h e c o u r t was no l o n g e r g o o d l a w . "While i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d that a complainant i n a s t a t u t o r y b i l l t o q u i e t t i t l e , who f a i l s t o p r o v e his peaceable possession, thereby f a i l s to sustain the e q u i t y of h i s b i l l and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , the cases c i t e d i n support of the a s s e r t i o n in t h e Buchmann c a s e do not hold that where complainant f a i l s to prove h i s peaceable p o s s e s s i o n 62 the 1071195 & 1071204 the c o u r t i s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n of the r e s p o n d e n t . ... to quiet the title fl "The c a s e s c i t e d i n t h e B u c h m a n n c a s e do s u p p o r t the proposition t h a t a c o m p l a i n a n t who fails to prove h i s peaceable p o s s e s s i o n i s not e n t i t l e d to have his title declared superior to that of r e s p o n d e n t , b u t t h e c i t e d c a s e s do n o t h o l d t h a t t h e title of a respondent s h o w n t o be i n peaceable p o s s e s s i o n c a n n o t be q u i e t e d i n h i m , o r t h a t t h e court lacks jurisdiction to render a decree d e c l a r i n g t h a t r e s p o n d e n t has s u p e r i o r t i t l e . " (Emphasis added.) This court Keith, action 286 A l a . 431, City 854 2d 226, 299 So. 2d 60, 322 So. 433, Farms, (1970), So. It quiet-title Inc., F o r d v. 228-29 also 286 Hinds ( 1 9 7 4 ) , and 2d 706, 707 that some o f o u r The the i n Woolf v. (1 9 7 0 ) , L o t t (1970), 104, v. 288 105 145-46, Slack, 293 Bukacek 237 A l a . 194, v. So. 2d 198, 259 A l a . 25, 29, C o o p e r v . A d a m s , 295 Ala. 58, Cooper appear to (1975). cases after i n Chestang jurisdiction most circuit 2 d 7 94 , 7 95 Washington, (1972), the upheld A l a . 141, 720 repeated was of 2d So. 717, i s true Buchmann. jurisdiction So. 241 have o v e r l o o k e d the h o l d i n g have the 285 A l a . 648 , 650 , 235 Pell 851, of a in Oswell, v. understanding notable language of 63 and these t h u s i n some first cases mentioned are form in Historic 1071195 & Blakeley 1071204 F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . v. W i l l i a m s , 2009] So. 3d , [Ms. ( A l a . 2009); 1 0 8 0 5 5 0 , Dec. Woodland Grove Church v. Woodland Grove Community Cemetery A s s ' n , So. 1031 Thrift 2d ( A l a . 2006); 433 ( A l a . 1990); and So. 2d ( A l a . 1988) 727, Grove 729 quotes statement directly that quiet-title Cullman actions Wholesale Co. trial i n which I n c . , 94 7 opinion). Buchmann court for has v. Baptist So. (plurality from "[t]he v . M c C o n n e l l , 564 2d support of that property." 947 1038. and Thrift from Cullman on t h i s portion of simply quotes Williams issue. pertinent statute the The at length, alternative ways t o p r o v e e n t i t l e m e n t supra), states and unless one So. a t 729 2d 1211, 1212 analysis, the that that "'[t]he including to r e l i e f trial court (quoting Gulf ( A l a . 1987)) the "obvious I submit Cullman import" i s not (emphasis Court of L a n d Co. the then v. described foregoing at a l l "obvious": 64 Cullman four 501 So. an 530 2d further i t said statement, 15, relief Cullman, Without what quote (see n o t e Buzzelli, omitted). or of the the must deny of the above s i t u a t i o n s i s p r o v e n . ' " over he possession at i t s jurisdiction t h e p l a i n t i f f shows 530 Woodland than scrambling, 2d 431, Simmons, she i s i n p e a c e a b l e , r a t h e r So. 18, was import 1071195 & 1071204 "The o b v i o u s i m p o r t o f t h e a b o v e e m p h a s i z e d l a n g u a g e i s that the t r i a l c o u r t , i n the absence of a showing b y t h e c o m p l a i n a n t t h a t he m e e t s one o f t h e f o u r situations set forth i n the statute, i s without power t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t r e s . " Cullman, 530 Cullman S o . 2 d a t 729 relies (emphasis upon B u z z e l l i , added). supra, which i n turn u p o n F i t t s v . A l e x a n d e r , 277 A l a . 3 7 2 , 170 S o . 2 d 808 In doing and so, however, Buzzelli. Fitts the Cullman states Court misreads relies (1965). both Fitts that "one who c l a i m s t o own l a n d s o r a n y i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n ... may f i l e a v e r i f i e d b i l l of complaint i n the c i r c u i t court, i n e q u i t y , of the county i n which such l a n d s l i e , a g a i n s t t h e l a n d s and any and a l l p e r s o n s c l a i m i n g o r r e p u t e d t o c l a i m any t i t l e t o ... s a i d l a n d s ... when e i t h e r o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n s i s shown t o e x i s t : "1. When t h e c o m p l a i n a n t is peaceable p o s s e s s i o n of the lands. Fitts, 277 A l a . a t 3 7 5 , 170 i n the ... " So. 2d a t 810. actual, Thus, F i t t s does not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction possession that the of unless of the the complainant has actual, subject property; the F i t t s t h e p l a i n t i f f "may file a verified bill peaceable Court states of complaint" i f p l a i n t i f f a v e r s t h a t he o r s h e h o l d s p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n the property i n question. 65 1071195 & 1071204 Buzzelli comports deny with Chestang relief Buzzelli, relief actually articulated unless by s t a t i n g t h a t not "[t]he t r i a l one o f t h e a b o v e 501 S o . 2 d a t 1212 does the issue i n a fashion depend situations (emphasis upon a added). lack that c o u r t must i s proven." A denial of of subject-matter i n Cullman provide jurisdiction. In short, support for jurisdiction thoroughly followed the cases the statement of the c i r c u i t explains by t h e Court such in Cullman court. i n this case. concerning Chestang issue, 1 8 a determination. and a n d i t s h o u l d be I n an a c t i o n court possesses no the accurately brought may b e q u i e t e d i n t h e d e f e n d a n t , at a l l , but the c i r c u i t make upon t h e l a w on t h i s u n d e r § 6-6-560, t i t l e one relied o r no jurisdiction to 1 9 In Chestang, t h i s Court engaged i n a v e r y e x p l i c i t and thorough a n a l y s i s of whether the requirement of peaceable p o s s e s s i o n went t o t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. This issue has n o t been e x p r e s s l y analyzed i n subsequent cases t h a t used t h e term " j u r i s d i c t i o n , " and those c a s e s d o n o t command p r e c e d e n t i a l r e s p e c t i n t h e m a n n e r t h a t does Chestang. F u r t h e r m o r e , b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e i s i n d e e d one p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h i s C o u r t , I d o n o t s h a r e t h e h e s i t a t i o n o f some o t h e r J u s t i c e s t o b a s e t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e on a p r o p e r understanding of i t . 1 8 The d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i m p o r t o f p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n i s , some c a s e s , p r o v i d e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f an i n r e m a c t i o n 1 9 in 66 1071195 & 1071204 Thus, the r e q u i r e m e n t of p r o o f equitable actions merits the of to controversy, jurisdiction of case" a "cause of the or inability " t o meet t h e at , the The circuit of is one than rather to court action" plaintiffs, not mean matter j u r i s d i c t i o n recovery title as in to that the this first stated in to failed under the over t h e i r t o p r o v e an those competing that trial the claims. court in the subject-matter decide the goes "type place. main lacked of The opinion, r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A l a . Code, § 6-6-560," does plaintiffs quiet of peaceable p o s s e s s i o n So. 3d subject- I t means o n l y t h a t e s s e n t i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e to the their claims. claims l e a s e d l a n d were w i t h i n the of both sets subject-matter of parties jurisdiction to of the the u n d e r § 6-6-560, A l a . Code 1975, or i t s p r e d e c e s s o r , and i n other cases i n the context of i n personam a c t i o n s under § 6-6¬ 540, A l a . Code 1975, o r i t s p r e d e c e s s o r . T h e r e i s no m a t e r i a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two s t a t u t e s , h o w e v e r , as t o their language r e q u i r i n g a showing of p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n . Compare § 6-6-560 ("[W]hen a n y p e r s o n ... i s i n t h e a c t u a l , p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d ... he may ... f i l e a v e r i f i e d b i l l o f complaint ....") w i t h § 6-6-540 ("[W]hen a n y p e r s o n i s i n p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n o f l a n d s ... s u c h p e r s o n ... may bring and o r m a i n t a i n a s u i t " ) . The f a c t t h a t t h e two s t a t u t e s contemplate the naming of d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of defendants, ( i . e . , b o t h t h e l a n d and i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s i n an i n rem a c t i o n ) does not a l t e r the s i m i l a r i t y f o r our p u r p o s e s of the r e q u i r e d showing of p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n contained i n each statute. 67 1071195 trial & 1071204 court. majority's in part Because that the and leased the record land. the arguments correctness of a f f i r m the trial land i n the Court of regard, 2 0 its the dissent is insufficient from the writ decision of extent support to the a also of the i t claim call the on Court appeal before us of to Civil judgment q u i e t i n g t i t l e Larenda this to b y E ' S t e l l a A l e x a n d e r Webb C o t t r e l l presented Appeals I believe however, I f u r t h e r note that court's heirs Civil must 1071204 q u a s h i n g the main o p i n i o n , of p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n the I case. I agree w i t h to this, a c t i o n t o d a y i n c a s e no. i n that concludes of Jenkins. reached Court the should Because correct affirm the Appeals result to leased I believe this us decide to the as in portion the this of judgment. I do n o t i n t e n d b y t h i s s t a t e m e n t t o i m p l y t h a t I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d b y t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s as to the r e m a i n d e r of the p r o p e r t y ; as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h a t i s s u e s i m p l y i s n o t b e f o r e us a t t h i s time. 2 0 68 1071195 & 1071204 COBB, C h i e f J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g as c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and dissenting to in case part no. as 1071195 to case and no. 1071204). I that dissent the 54(b), as trial I of the court's was Court's certification P., invalid of as to opinion finality the would affirm the of the property to I. Applicability 54(b), of trial the Rule A l a . R. court's order land awarding holding under Rule that that award to the h e i r s of Larenda J e n k i n s . I Rule Part Civ. A l a . R. c o u r t d i d not to that Further, portion plaintiffs. 54(b) Civ. P., states: "When m o r e 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 action, 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 m o r e 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 u p o n an express 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 u p o n an express direction f o r the entry of judgment. E x c e p t where judgment i s e n t e r e d as to d e f e n d a n t s who have been s e r v e d p u r s u a n t to R u l e 4(f), i n the absence of such d e t e r m i n a t i o n and direction, any order or other form of d e c i s i o n , however d e s i g n a t e d , which a d j u d i c a t e s fewer than a l l t h e c l a i m s o r t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s o f f e w e r than a l l the p a r t i e s s h a l l not t e r m i n a t e the a c t i o n as t o a n y o f t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s , a n d t h e o r d e r o r o t h e r f o r m o f d e c i s i o n i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a t any time b e f o r e the e n t r y of judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l 69 1071195 & 1071204 the c l a i m s parties." and the r i g h t s and liabilities of a l l the 2 1 "Despite i t s apparently broad scope, Rule 54(b)[, Fed. R. Civ. P.,] may be invoked only i n a r e l a t i v e l y s e l e c t group of cases and applied to an even more l i m i t e d c a t e g o r y of d e c i s i o n s . The rule i t s e l f s e t s f o r t h t h r e e b a s i c c o n d i t i o n s on i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y . The f i r s t r e q u i r e m e n t i s that e i t h e r multiple claims for r e l i e f or m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s be i n v o l v e d . I f t h e r e are m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , t h e r e n e e d o n l y be one c l a i m i n t h e a c t i o n . Of c o u r s e , a l l o f t h e r i g h t s o r l i a b i l i t i e s o f one o r m o r e o f t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h a t c l a i m must have been f u l l y adjudicated. A decision that leaves a p o r t i o n o f t h e c l a i m p e n d i n g as t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s does not f a l l w i t h i n the ambit of Rule 54(b). ... "The second p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r i n v o k i n g R u l e 54 (b) i s t h a t a t l e a s t one c l a i m or t h e r i g h t s a n d l i a b i l i t i e s o f a t l e a s t one p a r t y m u s t be f i n a l l y d e c i d e d . ... "The third prerequisite to the issuance of a R u l e 54(b) certificate is t h a t t h e c o u r t m u s t f i n d 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 i n g an a p p e a l . ... " 10 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 , a n d M a r y K a y F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & P r o c e d u r e J u r i s d i c t i o n § 2 6 5 6 (3d e d . (footnotes omitted; emphasis added). Each of r e q u i r e m e n t s i s met i n t h i s c a s e . 70 Kane, 1998) these 1071195 & 1071204 "A final puts an end and leaves to 396 Rest. 2001) So. the & 692 the overall asked." H. (2d 15B City Bar, parties to Ex Inc., 796 o f B i r m i n g h a m v. "[T]he So. City test litigation. No more exact A r t h u r R. & Procedure (footnote omitted). 2d of case parte 316, 320 Fairfield, should important test Miller, test part should and Jurisdiction That that a of f i n a l i t y c o n c l u s i o n o f a d i s c r e t e and Charles Alan Wright, 1992) the i s one adjudication." further Cooper, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e ed. an a p p e a l between (Ala. 1981)). look for e f f e c t i v e of for Oyster (citing 2d support proceedings nothing Wharfhouse (Ala. judgment t h a t w i l l Edward § i s met be 3915.2 in this case. The trial r i g h t s and the liabilities property heirs of Although court's that Estelle order of the defendants were not Haggarty additional completely leased proceedings with clearly valid and regard to that unambiguously c l a i m to that property. 71 a l l the parties Larenda continue in by the Jenkins. the trial competing claims a g a i n s t each land, found and will of as t o t h e p o r t i o n s o f third Alexander c o u r t to r e s o l v e the p l a i n t i f f s ' other to disposed the that trial the court's defendants order have no 1071195 & 1071204 Before the Greens Cottrell excluded trial, and contained adversely possessed the court's trial the p r o p e r t y , could the defeat well as If C o t t r e l l portion of exclusive So. t h a t the arguments the prevails, Greens she will property i f not, claims dispute possessed as h e r i s the which by rendering Cottrell's i s that agents. the the This dispute issue. entitled Greens will to now remaining proceedings some claim presumably as a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r s , i n c l u d i n g C o t t r e l l . the pose no Resolution Trust ( q u o t i n g B r a n c h v. 2d intended 1373 to (Ala. cover 613 SouthTrust 1987)) a Corp., (holding situation where 72 So. 2d 373, own Under risk i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s appeal. v. as Greens sole remaining Greens only amended p l e a d i n g Court, the had a s s e r t i o n that, i f proven, p r e s u m a b l y be to that alone Greens a d v e r s e l y this the p r o p e r t y and the to they does not "scrambling." circumstances, 1993) Cottrell quiet-title ownership; the p r o p e r t y Palmer that possession Cottrell results claim d o e s s h e make a n y adversely possessed the amended c o m p l a i n t c o n t e n t i o n , r e f l e c t e d i n h e r own i n her between an plaintiffs' plaintiffs' remaining a property. finding nor the the filed 376 of Cf. (Ala. B a n k o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 that not "'the Rule 54(b) issues was i n the two 1071195 claims & 1071204 in [the] so closely intertwined would pose adjudication case are an unreasonable risk that of separate inconsistent results'"). My conclusion appropriate that does not "[a] unless that claim i t has "a completely Rule damages i s r e s o l v e d ; to (Ala. So. seeking Rule 54(b). 354, These liable, McGowin 2d 835, Co. 835-36 established for Rule resolved 54(b) by insufficiently until v. Power the Co., S o n i t r o l of 617 of in an pursuant So. 2d 656 Inc., 892 2004). are consistently triggered determination reserves the e.g., P o w e r Co., see that Dzwonkowski, 617 Johnstone, (1973); final Mobile, but v. and element liability as order See, certification is certified Alabama principles judgment" sought purposes was the from a c e r t i f i e d Alabama Inv. v. (Ala. proceedings. T a n n e r v. certification a judgment r e s o l v i n g only principles i s taken later 54(b) Tanner 361-62 parties well damages a r e Dzwonkowski appeal 54(b) d a m a g e s c a n n o t be 1993)." 2d eligible for which for Rule v i o l a t e our i s not been claim adjudicated action that 291 also 73 So. 2d 656 Ala. 714, Strey v. finds when one or of damages 892 So. (Ala. 1993); 715-16, Hunt 2d 287 Int'l an more for 354 ; and So. Res. 1071195 & 696 Corp., 1071204 F.2d Cooper, supra, neither a later (10th § 3915.2. a claim party 87 (because fact the party or such adjudicated, we eligible 54(b), claims or added); an have order e.g., our cases as and Rule 617 of one Tanner, 617 applicability rule judgment So. 2d of or "one Ala. 2d that, t o be sine appellate o n l y where the trial Civ. at pursuant to ... P. of determined, -- qua 74 'has the (emphasis 656-57. jurisdiction court extent be the the claims rights defendants court's order. non of i s the e x i s t e n c e of m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s confers must to the p l a i n t i f f s ' competing ("The nor partially o r more R. more p a r t i e s 656 claims judgment r e s o l v e d by t h e t r i a l at disposes "liable" recognized of So. some o f t h e p r o p e r t y h a v e y e t liabilities & have g e n e r a l l y f o c u s e d final 54(b), Tanner, have been c o m p l e t e l y The a must d i s p o s e Here, however, a l t h o u g h to Miller determined) found leave consistently parties." see, parties orders certification Rule Wright, c o u r t f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n the Although that for and S u c h an o r d e r c o m p l e t e l y r e t u r n to the t r i a l the 1982); ( b e c a u s e d a m a g e s r e m a i n t o be of t h a t l i a b i l i t y ) . on Cir. over the or an completely -¬ See rule's claims. order of disposed 1071195 of one Rule & 1071204 o f a number 5 4 ( b ) , c o m m i t t e e comments defendants' by rights proceeding participation order Ala. as qualifies final claims Rules conclusion claim action secure of every of t h i s 54(b), the entry of than a l l of the added)). just, speedy Rule case are u n u s u a l l y with the express of the Alabama and justice may 75 and inexpensive 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. complex, r e q u i r i n g proof t h a t s t r e t c h b a c k more t h a n to the Defendants" s i m p l i f i e s which court's "These r u l e s s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d the no their Rule c o u r t may d i r e c t No d o u b t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n with trial 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n . action." as t o a s e r i e s o f e v e n t s and require the The unaffected issue, will Therefore, [trial] Procedure: determination efficiency or i s c o n s i s t e n t not only to "as be w h o l l y 54(b), but also with the s p i r i t of C i v i l facts this (emphasis administered The will remaining parties.' [in Tanner])."). as t o one o r more b u t f e w e r or p a r t i e s . " wording of Rule of m u l t i p l e (emphasis litigants. ("[T]he judgment This in f o r Rule R. C i v . P. o r one and l i a b i l i t i e s t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f any further a of claims, of i t s order 40 as years. final t h e a c t i o n and i n c r e a s e s t h e be d i s p e n s e d i n this case. 1071195 II. & 1071204 The It the Merits i s undisputed property that permission property theory of permissive positive title. 1029, her death. disclaimer Alexander, of the property, or repudiation" the possessor disavowal, the true o r he m u s t m a n i f e s t adverseness so notorious their possession, initial t h e y made a " c l e a r a n d the record owner's t o change p o s s e s s i o n or repudiation must g i v e by a d v e r s e on the & S o n T i m b e r C o . , 592 S o . 2 d ("In o r d e r The p o s s e s s o r owned to prevail of ( A l a . 1992) disclaimer who t o show t h a t , a f t e r t h e i r to adverse, permissive positive with the Therefore, Moss v . Woodrow R e y n o l d s 1031 occupied the property were r e q u i r e d occupation initially of the complaint Haggerty they acquired the p l a i n t i f f s the p l a i n t i f f s was t h e s u b j e c t Estelle before that that must make of the true owner a c t u a l acts that from a clear owner's notice and title. of such o r make a d e c l a r a t i o n o f actual notice will be presumed."). The that trial court, the p l a i n t i f f s portions of the after hearing ore tenus evidence, had a d v e r s e l y possessed a l lbut property that 76 had been leased by held those the 1071195 & 1071204 administrators and Larenda of the estates of E s t e l l e Jenkins. make a n e x p r e s s clearly finding and p o s i t i v e l y When e v i d e n c e express trial I n so h o l d i n g , judge those this Court findings Transamerica Commercial N.A., S o . 2 d 3 7 5 , 378 assume t h e t r i a l "clear title. review, we m u s t any reasonable evidence affirm aspect the t r i a l i n the light the ore tenus a finding. most the plaintiffs a disavowal of the record the there we must made a t i m e l y of the record standard of i f , under i s credible See i d . favorable to the t r i a l "manifest[ed] d e c l a r a t i o n of adverseness support c o u r t ' s judgment of the testimony, such the Therefore, or repudiation" under that F i n . Corp. v. AmSouth Bank, judgment, t h e evidence, i n i t s t o t a l i t y , that to title. m a k e s no assume necessary ( A l a . 1 992). disclaimer Further, to support Viewed will judge court found that the p l a i n t i f f s and p o s i t i v e owner's court d i d not the p l a i n t i f f s had and t h e t r i a l judgment. 60 8 Alexander r e p u d i a t e d t h e r e c o r d owner's of fact, made the t r i a l on t h e r e c o r d t h a t i s taken ore tenus findings Haggarty court's supports the finding acts [and] ma[d]e a so n o t o r i o u s " t h a t a c t u a l n o t i c e o f owner's 77 title will be presumed. 1071195 Moss, & 1071204 592 So. Alexander, Sr., lifetime, their 2d at filed Estelle was lack the time held in a be drawn and of the fact that prosecution. reasonably conclude that C o t t r e l l record and the acres of and that, of 1965 However, the action a her land for death, constructive trust from the for existence them. of the dismissed was finder Johnny during the Estelle's for of t h a t the a c t i o n m a n i f e s t e d the r e c o r d owner's t i t l e the at Cottrell alleging 100 i n f e r e n c e s may Competing action 1 965, purchased that, being In a complaint, had b e n e f i t and property 1031. fact could a disavowal s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t i f y t h e r e c o r d owner Johnny Sr. d i d not r e c o g n i z e the v a l i d i t y owner's of title to at least 100 acres of of the property. In addition, the p l a i n t i f f s used the p r o p e r t y i n whatever manner t h e y p l e a s e d w i t h o u t a c c o u n t i n g t o anyone f o r t h e i r of i t and without paying rent. They l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y f o r s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s , m a i n t a i n e d i m p r o v e m e n t s on i t , p o r t i o n s of i t , drew w a t e r it, on c u t t i m b e r on i t , operated from i t , kept domestic i t , c u t f i r e w o o d on a business on use i t , hunted cultivated livestock on it, on fished i t , a n d b u r i e d t h e i r d e a d on i t . 78 1071195 Until & 1071204 shortly plaintiffs One the t r i a l believed themselves Haggerty before of t h i s themselves out t o be, the g r a n d c h i l d r e n could reasonably clearly conclude and o p e n l y held rightful owners o f t h e p r o p e r t y , Further, one c o u l d actual that notice that "clear and h e i r s held of E s t e l l e the record claim ownership of the p l a i n t i f f s ' of court's judgment that Transamerica, v. Nursing Home, Norman v. so open See Moss, supra. in the h a d n o t made So. 2d a of the record 608 S o . 2 d a t 378 ( q u o t i n g 9, Clark 13 ( A l a . 1 98 9 ) , and c i t i n g 1991)) ( s t a t i n g t h a t , i n c a s e s where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r e 79 594 could erred or repudiation" Schwartz, and reweighing after I n c . , 545 owners claim Appeals the p l a i n t i f f s disclaimer owner's t i t l e . was owners. Civil users. of ownership, or notice Court that the o u t t o be t h e of and c o n c l u d i n g Albertville themselves claim the the t r i a l and p o s i t i v e from the evidence of the p l a i n t i f f s ' actual Accordingly, evidence openly not merely permissive r e a s o n a b l y be i m p u t e d t o t h e r e c o r d reversing and reasonably conclude that the p l a i n t i f f s ' notorious be, a number o f t h e Alexander. plaintiffs had to case, S o . 2 d 45 (Ala. 1071195 tenus, any & 1071204 the t r i a l reasonable evidence III. j u d g m e n t must be a f f i r m e d aspect to support of the the testimony, there " ' i f , under is credible judgment'"). Conclusion For portion these of the inapplicable holding had court's to reasons, Court's that respectfully opinion portion dissent holding of the that trial t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were not e n t i t l e d not been l e a s e d . court's I order. Rule from 54(b) i s court's order to the land that I would a f f i r m that p o r t i o n of the In a l l other respects, 80 I that concur. trial
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.
