Ryals v. Lathan Company, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner Willard Ryals appealed a trial court's order enforcing a creditor's judgment against him in favor of Respondent Lathan Company, Inc. (Lathan). In 2004, Lathan sued Ryals Construction Company for breach of a construction sub-contract. The contract called for Ryals to obtain workers' compensation insurance for the project. Lathan claimed it made an advance payment for the insurance. When Ryals failed to get the insurance, Lathan sued. No one appeared on behalf of Ryals on the trial date. A default judgment was entered on behalf of Lathan. Two years later, Lathan tried to collect on its default judgment by serving a post-judgment discovery request on Ryals Construction. The request went unanswered. Lathan filed a motion for sanctions, naming "Ryals Real Estate," Willard Ryals and Ryals Construction Company. Through counsel, Willard Ryals moved to strike the motion for sanctions which the trial court granted. Lathan then amended its complaint to substitute Willard Ryals with fictitious parties. Rather than re-allege the allegations of its first complaint, Lathan sought to hold Ryals Real Estate and Willard Ryals liable as alter egos for the judgment it held against Ryals Construction Company. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Lathan's amended complaint did not technically substitute Willard Ryals and Ryals Real Estate for fictitiously named parties in the original complaint; it added them and asserted a new cause of action. The court found that Willard Ryals and Ryals Construction were liable for the creditor judgment. Willard Ryals appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Lathan's amended complaint. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as void: "The trial court's attempt to treat Lathan's amended complaint as a new action was in words only and was not sufficient to commence a new action." Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter its judgment against Willard Ryals and Ryals Real Estate.
Download PDF
REL:06/17/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2010-2011 1091673 W i l l a r d E. R y a l s v. The L a t h a n Appeal BOLIN, Company, I n c . from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CV-04-2868) Court Justice. Willard enforcing E. R y a l s appeals from the t r i a l a c r e d i t o r ' s judgment a g a i n s t L a t h a n Company, Inc. ("Lathan"). court's him i n favor We d i s m i s s order o f The the appeal. 1091673 Facts The trial court and Procedural summarized the History facts i n i t s order: "1. On A u g u s t 5, 2004, the L a t h a n Company ( h e r e i n 'Lathan') brought s u i t against C r a i g Walker, i n d i v i d u a l l y , and as a g e n t f o r R y a l s Construction Co., f o r breach of a c o n s t r u c t i o n s u b - c o n t r a c t and for f r a u d and/or m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I t was a l l e g e d t h a t W a l k e r a n d R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t e d t o do work for Lathan on a condominium project in Tuscaloosa and to provide worker's compensation i n s u r a n c e f o r the p r o j e c t . Lathan a l l e g e d that i t made an a d v a n c e p a y m e n t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o p r o c u r e t h e i n s u r a n c e ; t h e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o do s o ; a n d as a r e s u l t , L a t h a n s u s t a i n e d damages. "2. On A u g u s t 24, 2 0 0 4 , b o t h W a l k e r a n d R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. w e r e s e r v e d b y t h e B a l d w i n County S h e r i f f a t 511 N. H i g h w a y 59, S u m m e r d a l e , A l a b a m a , 36580. S e r v i c e was a c c e p t e d b y a C r i s t y H a g a n , an employee of R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e . "3. An a n s w e r d e n y i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t on b e h a l f o f W a l k e r a n d R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. was f i l e d by a t t o r n e y L l o y d T a y l o r , E s q . on S e p t e m b e r 28, 2 0 0 4 . "4. On J u l y 12, 2 0 0 [ 5 ] , t h i s C o u r t e n t e r e d order setting the case f o r t r i a l on January 2 0 0 [ 6 ] , and o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o m e d i a t i o n . "5. a motion Walker. "6. On O c t o b e r 28, t o w i t h d r a w as On January 4, 2005, a t t o r n e y T a y l o r counsel f o r defendant 2 0 0 6 , t h e m o t i o n was an 5, filed Craig granted. "7. No one a p p e a r e d on b e h a l f o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s on the trial date and though not noted on the docket, default was entered on behalf of the plaintiff. 2 1091673 "8. On May 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t o f a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was f i l e d on b e h a l f o f [ L a t h a n ] and on May 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , a j u d g m e n t was entered on behalf of [Lathan] and a g a i n s t C r a i g W a l k e r and R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 4 2 2 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 . "9. Some two y e a r s l a p s e d a n d on J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 , [Lathan] served postjudgment discovery on Ryals C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. a t 511 N. H i g h w a y 5 9 , S u m m e r d a l e , Alabama 36580. "10. The d i s c o v e r y w e n t u n a n s w e r e d a n d on August 14, 2008, [Lathan] filed a motion for sanctions f o r the failure to respond to the d i s c o v e r y s e n t t o R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. a t 511 N. H i g h w a y 5 9 , S u m m e r d a l e , AL 3 6 5 8 0 . [ 1 ] "11. On [ S e p t e m b e r ] 2, 2 0 0 8 , a p p e a r i n g through c o u n s e l L l o y d T a y l o r , R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e and W i l l a r d E. R y a l s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e m o t i o n f o r sanctions, alleging that Ryals Real Estate and W i l l a r d E. R y a l s h a d n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y j o i n e d i n t h e matter and that Ryals Construction Co. had no a f f i l i a t i o n with Ryals Real Estate, Inc. or W i l l a r d E. R y a l s . "12. The m o t i o n to s t r i k e was granted on S e p t e m b e r 16, 2008. At t h a t h e a r i n g , the Court r u l e d t h a t t h e e f f o r t t o add W i l l a r d R y a l s and R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e as p a r t i e s i n a p o s t j u d g m e n t s a n c t i o n m o t i o n was p r o c e d u r a l l y i m p r o p e r . "13. On S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , [ L a t h a n ] a m e n d e d i t s complaint. I n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t , [Lathan] p u r p o r t e d t o s u b s t i t u t e R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e , I n c . as p r e v i o u s f i c t i t i o u s p a r t y A, a n d W i l l a r d E. R y a l s a s fictitious p a r t y B. [Lathan], however, d i d not simply r e - a l l e g e the a l l e g a t i o n s of i t s i n i t i a l The sanctions Ryals. 1 postjudgment motion f o r sanctions also sought a g a i n s t R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e , I n c . , a n d W i l l a r d E. 3 1091673 c o m p l a i n t ; r a t h e r i t a l l e g e d t h a t i t was s e e k i n g t o h o l d R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e and W i l l a r d R y a l s l i a b l e as a l t e r egos f o r the judgment i t h e l d a g a i n s t R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. T h u s , [ L a t h a n ] f i l e d a new cause of a c t i o n . [2] 2 The amended c o m p l a i n t reads as follows: " 1 ) The o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n t h i s case sated 'Defendants, A, B, and C, are individuals and/or business entities associated with Craig Walker and/or i n v o l v e d w i t h C r a i g Walker and/or R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company i n p e r f o r m i n g a c o n t r a c t in T u s c a l o o s a , A l a b a m a , and whose i d e n t i t i e s are u n k n o w n a t t h i s t i m e b u t w i l l be a d d e d b y amendment o n c e a s c e r t a i n e d . [ L a t h a n ] now amends i t s c o m p l a i n t to name Ryals Real Estate, Inc. (An Alabama c o r p o r a t i o n ) a s D e f e n d a n t ' A ' a n d W i l l a r d E. R y a l s as D e f e n d a n t 'B.' " 2 ) As a r e s u l t o f i n t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h [Lathan] has p r o v e n t h a t R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e , I n c . and W i l l a r d E. R y a l s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a n d / o r c o n t r o l l e d D e f e n d a n t Ryals C o n s t r u c t i o n Company and Defendant Craig Walker. A l l defendants o p e r a t e d o u t o f t h e same s m a l l o f f i c e a t 511 N o r t h H i g h w a y 59, Summerdale, Alabama 36580. The d e f e n d a n t s s h a r e d s t a f f , o f f i c e e q u i p m e n t and phone l i n e s . "3) [Lathan] r e c e i v e d a judgment from this H o n o r a b l e C o u r t a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t s C r a i g W a l k e r and R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n C o m p a n y j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y on May 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . B e c a u s e D e f e n d a n t s R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e , I n c . a n d W i l l a r d E. R y a l s a r e t h e a l t e r e g o s o f a n d exerted c o n t r o l over Defendants C r a i g Walker and Ryals Construction Company, [Lathan] seeks a judgment of the Court a d j u d i c a t i n g Defendants R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e , I n c . , a n d W i l l a r d E. R y a l s l i a b l e f o r the previously entered judgment plus accrued interest." (Emphasis added.) 4 1091673 "14. On O c t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , c o u n s e l L l o y d T a y l o r again filed a n o t i c e of appearances f o r Ryals C o n s t r u c t i o n C o . , W i l l a r d E. R y a l s , a n d R y a l s R e a l Estate, Inc. "15. The f o l l o w i n g d a y R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e a n d W i l l a r d E. R y a l s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o r d i s m i s s [Lathan's] complaint. This motion was d e n i e d on December 17, 2008. "16. A order denying c o m p l a i n t was subsequent motion to reconsider motion to s t r i k e and/or d i s m i s s a l s o d e n i e d on M a r c h 2, 2 0 0 9 . the the "17. On A p r i l 8, 2 0 0 9 , W i l l a r d E. R y a l s a n d R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e f i l e d an a n s w e r t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t , a s s e r t i n g i n t e r a l i a , t h a t t h e c l a i m was b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , r e s j u d i c a t a , and i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n . They a l s o d e n i e d t h e y had any ownership interest in or control of Ryals C o n s t r u c t i o n Co." The t r i a l proceeded court on t h e t h e o r y Estate, I n c . , were control over, ego Ryals Real entered Ryals amended at which E. R y a l s o f , and o t h e r w i s e of t h i s Willard E. contended, liable f o r the judgment C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. on the violated other Rule 5 hand, Willard alter Ryals and previously E. R y a l s asserted 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. Real asserted Because were Estate, Lathan and R y a l s Lathan Estate complaint egos trial C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. against Ryals Real a bench that Willard the a l t e r relationship, Ryals conducted and that the C i v . P., the 1091673 fictitious-party-practice of rule, and was b a r r e d by the s t a t u t e limitations. After testimony, complaint Ryals considering the d i d not Real original trial court for complaint, Construction Rule held that Lathan's 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. trial court Willard E. C i v . P., and Co. the amended E. R y a l s parties amended and in the complaint cause of a c t i o n , i . e . , f o r the judgment Lathan complaint concluded Ryals the t o a s s e r t a new held court Lathan's named rather, that liability Ryals hearing substitute Willard a c l a i m o f a l t e r ego against and that fictitiously but, defendants evidence determined technically Estate added those the Accordingly, was not already the barred trial by either or the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . from Ryals the Real undisputed Estate evidence were alter The that egos R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. B a s e d on t h i s u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e , trial order, and court entered an finding R y a l s R e a l E s t a t e were l i a b l e Ryals denied. of $422,250, filed a Willard plus postjudgment postjudgment E. Ryals motion, then on May 24, interest. which appealed, 6 E. the Ryals f o r the judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d a g a i n s t R y a l s C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. amount that Willard of the 2006, i n the Willard trial essentially E. court raising 1091673 the same Lathan's barred of issues amended complaint be However, 3 addressed -- matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . be filed 2 on there whether court, September i.e., (Ala. court Lack of subject-matter statute issue had that subject- jurisdiction or by a c o u r t County Bd. o f Educ., whether 22, 2008, i s i s a threshold the t r i a l r a i s e d a t any time by a p a r t y Stamps v. J e f f e r s o n n. by t h e t r i a l b y R u l e 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h e t w o - y e a r limitations. must addressed ex mero may motu. 642 S o . 2 d 9 4 1 , 945 1994). Analysis Lathan's asserted amended c o m p l a i n t a claim based filed on a n a l t e r ego on S e p t e m b e r 22, 2008, theory. "A c l a i m b a s e d on t h e a l t e r e g o t h e o r y i s n o t i n i t s e l f a claim f o r substantive r e l i e f , but rather i s p r o c e d u r a l . A f i n d i n g o f f a c t o f a l t e r ego, s t a n d i n g alone, creates no cause of action. I t merely furnishes a means f o r a c o m p l a i n a n t t o r e a c h a second c o r p o r a t i o n or i n d i v i d u a l upon a cause o f action that otherwise would have existed only a g a i n s t t h e f i r s t c o r p o r a t i o n . An a t t e m p t t o p i e r c e t h e c o r p o r a t e v e i l i s a means o f i m p o s i n g l i a b i l i t y on a n u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e o f a c t i o n s u c h a s a t o r t o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . I t has been s a i d t h a t t h e a l t e r ego d o c t r i n e i s thus remedial, not defensive, i n nature. One who s e e k s t o d i s r e g a r d t h e corporate We note that on M a r c h 30 , 2 0 1 0 , t h i s Court denied, w i t h o u t o p i n i o n , W i l l a r d E. R y a l s ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, w h i c h r a i s e d t h e same i s s u e s now b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e R y a l s (No. 1 0 9 0 7 5 5 ) . 3 7 1091673 veil m u s t show t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t e form abused to the i n j u r y of a t h i r d p a r t y . " 1 Fletcher, Cyclopedia court concluded entirely theory new that obtained action, sued a So. 2d Club Carousel 619 90, based on been The trial asserted an alter 1342 ( A l a . 1993), club's the Watsons to ("the f o r her club"), seeking alleged injuries; Backus later filed had present Backus used the u n d e r an a l t e r ego judgment she the owner had entirely different the was filed based a new from a l l e g e d i n the club of theory action against club she another Syble t o s e t a s i d e an a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t t r a n s f e r o f assets. hold ego Backus n a m i n g as d e f e n d a n t s t h e c l u b , J i m m y W a t s o n , a n d the an of a c r e d i t o r ' s b i l l . " Inc. Dram S h o p A c t (1990). complaint claim a s u b s t a n t i a l judgment. Watson, s e e k i n g Backus amended alleging Watson, damages u n d e r t h e a § 41.10 " i n essence almost i n the nature initially for Lathan's action In B a c k u s v. sought Corporations has as a their against W a t s o n was based 619 complaint one So. on on 2d at the club. a cause her alter ego liable veil) "Backus's of action 1344-45. that Backus personally the which alleging 8 ego. to p i e r c e the c o r p o r a t e obtained " complaint alter corporation (i.e., the new In action against short, theory. 1091673 Here, Lathan d e f e n d a n t s and the attempted to t o a s s e r t a new same p r o c e e d i n g . the original amend h i s c o m p l a i n t However, the d e f a u l t judgment e n t e r e d complaint a final 138, was 454, declares the even proceedings So. 2d that final. 455 (Ala. rights 355 judgment. "Claims Oliver (Ala. v. Nichols App. 1999). the v. to be done, court Ex parte adjudicated at the time the Townsend, i t s character 534 save "A settles i n the the c o u r t 840 So. 64 envisions 710 that further Wyers v. K e e n o n , stated, court Ala. i n a previous a below, 234, 2d 1038, leaving 235 is (Ala. finality. 9 A final a (1879). n o n - f i n a l order 1046 762 judgment become l a s t p a r t y or c l a i m i s d i s p o s e d So. 2d the e q u i t i e s i s [ i t s enforcement]," Gilmer, and judgment i t s subsequent a c t i o n , d i v e s t a of that Ingram Plumbing, Otherwise cause on parties involved i s 1998)). trial of " ' " c o u r t c a n n o t , by of the judgment I n c . v. B o y e t t , o f t h e p a r t i e s and though further ... of the to e f f e c t u a t e the judgment." 353, nothing final rights Civ. "'A issues before Pratt Capital, is "definitive final the (Ala. 2 0 02)(quoting 2d final declares judgment.'" 144 So. and two postjudgment cause of a c t i o n i n c o n c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e s a l l of the ascertains t o add 1988). of." A [judgment] [judgment] is not 1091673 rendered i n t e r l o c u t o r y by docket, 2d at Downtown 1994)). trial 580 Boyett, 456, Redev. quoting Auth., Neither court's 840 S o . 2 d a t 145 can a f i n a l calling S o . 2 d 5 7 0 , 572 defendant court pursuant allowed plaintiff's judgment Stagner, that complaint supra, to Rule 60(b), We after the v. 710 Falkville ( A l a . C i v . App. Corp., a judgment a g a i n s t the p l a i n t i f f co-purchaser The holding sought only of property fraud, acquired the t h e judgment i n relief t o amend i t s as a d e f e n d a n t . allegedly to trial that d e f e n d a n t a n d s o u g h t no of contract, a d e f e n d a n t as a p a r t y reversed, purchaser 10 moved A l a . R. C i v . P. but, instead, breach I n c . , 845 S o . 2 d d i d not attack t o a d d an i n d i v i d u a l alleging Richardson, t o a d d an i n d i v i d u a l the prospective purchaser Nichols, Smith v. Fruehauf Subsequently, 60(b) motion judgment [judgment] "be made n o n f i n a l b y t h e obtained favor against the corporate from 832 on t h e ( A l a . 1991). amendment. Rule 830 , i tnonfinal." defendant. amend h i s c o m p l a i n t (quoting Mingledorff So. 2d ( A l a . 2002), the p l a i n t i f f corporate his i n turn 641 In Harper v. Brown, 777 of the case nor by t h e subsequent r e n d i t i o n o f another therein."'" So. the retention In sued and the Boyett, h i s co- conversion title to 1091673 property trial and a and prospective a d d i n g as attorney t o r e t u r n t h e p u r c h a s e money. entered court purchaser was refused summary awarded compensatory purchaser filed a defendant the was president, an transfer The trial on j u d g m e n t was his final complaint. First to More ground that 988 the So. 2d 485 to seize sale of the proceeds guarantor's preliminary injunction judgment a g a i n s t seeking relief the defendants alleged were property. had The subsequently guarantor. The and seeking fraudulent. to aside The trial 11 original could not 2008), The amend LLC the of a court the entered a a default a motion bank then conveyances bank business filed w i f e and v. from court guarantor set the the entered adding the guarantor's the realized trial and to found and guarantor guarantor co-purchaser Properties, (Ala. from the d e f a u l t judgment. an a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t as the complaint, property that Faith the co-purchaser's the co-purchaser in prospective his motion held b r o u g h t an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n a l loan that the Court recently, C o m m e r c i a l Bank, to t r a n s f e r the granted This and the the p u n i t i v e damages, amendment the court fraudulent. and for company o f w h i c h t h e fraudulently attempting company. judgment After a filed grantee the bank allowed the 1091673 amendment a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r t h e bank. to This Court held entertain denied the motion Lathan's Willard an named p a r t i e s amendment the t r i a l court lost t o the bank's t o amend and R y a l s i n the o r i g i n a l to Estate f o r the complaint so t h a t complaint would r e l a t e back to h i s o r i g i n a l after i t judgment. i t s complaint Real jurisdiction complaint to set aside the default attempt E. R y a l s that substitute fictitiously t h e amended complaint i s also unavailing. Rule 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : "When t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e summons ... a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t h a v e b e e n s e r v e d on o n e o r more, b u t n o t a l l , o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , t h e p l a i n t i f f may p r o c e e d t o judgment as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s on whom p r o c e s s h a s b e e n s e r v e d a n d , i f the j u d g m e n t a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s who have been s e r v e d i s f i n a l i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , i t shall be a f i n a l judgment. A f t e r the entry of judgment, i f the p l a i n t i f f i s a b l e t o o b t a i n s e r v i c e on a d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s n o t p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d (except, however, defendants designated as fictitious parties as a l l o w e d b y R u l e 9 ( h ) , who s h a l l be d e e m e d t o h a v e b e e n d i s m i s s e d v o l u n t a r i l y when t h e c a s e was a n n o u n c e d r e a d y f o r t r i a l a g a i n s t other defendants sued by t h e i r t r u e names), t h e c o u r t s h a l l h e a r and d e t e r m i n e t h e m a t t e r as t o s u c h d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e same m a n n e r a s i f such defendant or defendants had o r i g i n a l l y been brought i n t o c o u r t , but such defendant or defendants shall be a l l o w e d t h e b e n e f i t o f any payment o r s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t may h a v e b e e n made on t h e j u d g m e n t previously entered i n the action." 12 1091673 Lathan substitute Because d i d not a real "[t]he fictitiously 452 party his of t r i a l named p a r t i e s , " Rule rendered We was named party after to that treat not charge i n the present Lathan's Lathan court assign trial c o u r t ' s attempt a new action commence the to defendant. as a d i s m i s s a l of 709 S o . 2 d 4 4 7 , C i v . P.), to substitute a real final a t h e amended was a new a c t i o n . (which p r o v i d e s new Lathan's party for judgment was to treat complaint court filed on court f e e , nor d i d the trial a new Lathan's only the t r i a l However, t h e t r i a l filing complaint i n words case amended S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , a s a new a c t i o n . did named Dyess, 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. trial ineffectual. recognize purported before operates Ex p a r t e t o amend i t s c o m p l a i n t fictitiously complaint for a fictitiously beginning (Ala. 1997)(citing attempt a amend and case number. amended was not The complaint as sufficient to S e e , e . g . , § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 , A l a . Code 1975 t h a t payment o f a f i l i n g fee i s mandatory). Conclusion Lathan could not amend i t s complaint after a final j u d g m e n t h a d b e e n e n t e r e d , and t h e amended c o m p l a i n t c o u l d n o t simply be denominated a new action 13 without being treated as 1091673 one. to Accordingly, enter Estate, the trial 24, d i d not i t s judgment a g a i n s t W i l l a r d finding that those judgment p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d May court 2006, interest. A in Ry., foregoing, we So. 2d dismiss were against Ryals of entered jurisdiction 816 Ryals defendants amount judgment subject-matter Southern the E. 469, the is 472 jurisdiction and Ryals liable Real for the C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. $422,250, by have plus on postjudgment a trial court without void. Ex parte Norfolk (Ala. 2001). appeal as being Based from on a the void judgment. APPEAL Cobb, JJ., DISMISSED. C.J., and Stuart, Parker, Shaw, concur. Murdock, J . , concurs Woodall, J . , concurs specially. i n the 14 result. Main, and Wise, 1091673 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I to fully concur comment conclusion, (concurring on on i n the the on September cause of action conclusion, "in essence Wyers v. explained main opinion. tension t h e one filed specially). I write separately between the hand, t h a t Lathan's 22, 2008, alleging amended represented alter ego" trial and "an the court's complaint, entirely trial new court's on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h a t t h i s a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t almost Keenon, what i n the 7 62 So. nature 2d a creditor's of 353 bill a creditor's (Ala. i s and 1 999), is bill." this was In Court not: "A c r e d i t o r ' s b i l l i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f an e q u i t a b l e e x e c u t i o n , w h i c h i s g r a n t e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e i s no remedy a t l a w . 21 Am. J u r . 2d C r e d i t o r ' s B i l l § 2 (1981). The process of garnishment and a c r e d i t o r ' s b i l l are, i n e f f e c t , i n s t i t u t e d f o r the same p u r p o s e , n a m e l y , t o r e a c h money o r p r o p e r t y i n t h e hands o f a t h i r d p a r t y , due and o w i n g f r o m a j u d g m e n t d e b t o r t o a j u d g m e n t c r e d i t o r . 21 C.J.S. C r e d i t o r and D e b t o r § 95 (1990) . The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t when a c r e d i t o r ' s b i l l i s b r o u g h t t o r e a c h a d e b t o r ' s a s s e t s i n t h e hands o f a t h i r d p e r s o n , a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on t h e c r e d i t o r ' s b i l l cannot e x c e e d t h e v a l u e o f t h o s e a s s e t s and a p e r s o n a l judgment cannot be rendered against that third p e r s o n . 21 Am. J u r . 2d C r e d i t o r ' s B i l l § 87 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . " 762 So. was an 2d a t 3 5 5 - 5 6 effort defendant and to (emphasis added). obtain a thus was not "personal a The judgment" "creditor's 15 amended bill." complaint against a new
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.
