American Truck Driving Academy v. Smith

• Decision Date: 13 June 2008
• Docket Number: 2070381.,2070388.
• Parties: AMERICAN TRUCK DRIVING ACADEMY, INC. v. Reuben C. SMITH Ex parte American Truck Driving Academy, Inc. (In re American Truck Driving Academy, Inc. v. Reuben C. Smith).
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

998 So.2d 1067

AMERICAN TRUCK DRIVING ACADEMY, INC. v. Reuben C. SMITH Ex parte American Truck Driving Academy, Inc (In re American Truck Driving Academy, Inc. v. Reuben C. Smith).

2070381.

2070388.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 13, 2008.

Mark N. Chambless and Michael A. Griggs of Chambless Math Carr, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant/petitioner.

Submitted on appellant's/petitioner's brief only.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.

In December 2005, American Truck Driving Academy, Inc. ("ATDA"), sued Reuben C. Smith seeking to recover amounts it contended Smith owed it on an account. Smith did not respond to the complaint. On June 23, 2006, the trial court entered an order giving ATDA 60 days to inform the court about the status of the litigation or the action would be dismissed. ATDA moved for a default judgment. On October 5, 2006, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of ATDA. The October 5, 2006, judgment is not contained in the record on appeal, but motions and other filings in the record indicate that, in that judgment, the trial court awarded ATDA damages totaling $13,592.31.

On August 2, 2007, ATDA obtained a process of garnishment against Auburn Bank for any funds Smith held in that institution. On that same date, ATDA obtained a similar process of garnishment against Magnatron Corporation ("Magnatron"), Smith's employer, for garnishment of Smith's wages. Magnatron answered and indicated that it would comply with the order and pay wages it withheld pursuant to that order into the court. Auburn Bank also answered, stating "we are holding $2.44 until further notice from you."¹

On August 28, 2007, ATDA filed a document entitled "motion to condemn funds," which stated:

"COMES NOW [ATDA] and moves the Court to condemn all funds being held presently and any funds received in the future by the Court to [ATDA] in partial satisfaction of the Judgment obtained against [Smith]."

Included in that motion was the following paragraph, which was signed and entered by the trial court as its order on August 30, 2007:

"This Motion being considered by the Court and the Court having found said motion to be well taken, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all funds presently held or any funds delivered after this date and held by the Court pursuant to this garnishment be paid over to [ATDA] upon receipt with no further order of this court."

On October 26, 2007, the trial court, apparently on its own initiative, entered a judgment stating: "[ATDA] having failed to properly file a `Motion to Condemn Funds' from Auburn Bank, this case is ordered dismissed for want of prosecution." Pursuant to that order, the trial court clerk released Magnatron and Auburn Bank from the earlier garnishment orders. ATDA filed a postjudgment motion, and the trial court denied that motion. ATDA timely appealed, and this court assigned the appeal number 2070381; ATDA also filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus, docketed as case number 2070388. This court consolidated ATDA's appeal with its mandamus petition.

Initially, we note that "the case" referred to as being dismissed in the trial court's October 26, 2007, judgment was the proceeding seeking the garnishment orders enforcing the October 5, 2006, default judgment and not the default judgment itself. See Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 960 So.2d 689, 692 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) ("A garnishment proceeding to enforce a previous judgment is a postjudgment proceeding requiring the filing of a separate docket fee. See § 12-19-75, Ala.Code 1975."); see also Ex parte King, 776 So.2d 31, 35 (Ala.2000) (a trial court loses jurisdiction to set aside a final default judgment 30 days after the entry of that judgment).

The October 26, 2007, judgment dismissing the garnishment proceedings for want of prosecution is a final judgment that supports an appeal. Kaufmann v. Kaufmann, 960 So.2d at 692. Therefore, mandamus is not the appropriate method of obtaining appellate review in this matter. Ex parte Smith, 168 Ala. 179, 52 So. 895 (1910); see also Ex parte Amerigas, 855 So.2d 544, 546 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) ("Review by mandamus is not appropriate where the petitioner has another adequate remedy, such as an appeal."). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.

In its appeal, ATDA argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the garnishment action on the basis of its purported failure to prosecute and that, pursuant to that dismissal, the trial court erred in ordering that Magnatron and Auburn Bank be released from the garnishment orders.

"[I]t is clear from the record that the judgment is, in actuality, a judgment of dismissal, with prejudice, entered pursuant to Rule 41(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., on the trial court's own motion. See Burdeshaw v. White, 585 So.2d 842, 847 (Ala. 1991) (noting that `a court has the inherent power to act sua sponte to dismiss an action for want of prosecution'). However, as Burdeshaw also notes, `[t]he entry of a judgment for a defendant as a matter of law for...