Arlington Props., Inc. v. Brown (Ex parte Brown)
Decision Date | 09 September 2011 |
Docket Number | 1091367. |
Citation | 83 So.3d 512 |
Parties | Ex parte Cantrell BROWN.(In re Ex parte Arlington Properties, Inc.(In re Arlington Properties, Inc. v. Cantrell Brown)). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Misty S. Ledbetter, Legal Services Alabama, Inc., Anniston; and Kenneth James Lay, Legal Services Alabama, Inc., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Joseph M. Willoughby of Day & Willoughby, P.C., Gadsden, for respondent.
Cantrell Brown petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion granting a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Arlington Properties, Inc. (“Arlington”). Ex parte Arlington Props., Inc., 83 So.3d 503 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) ( ). We issued the writ; we now reverse and remand.
In its opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals summarized the procedural history of this case in the district court and the circuit court as follows:
Ex parte Arlington Props., Inc., 83 So.3d at 504.
In its petition for the writ of mandamus filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, Arlington argued that Brown did not timely file a notice of appeal from the district court to the circuit court and that, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Civil Appeals granted Arlington's petition and issued a writ directing the circuit court to dismiss Brown's appeal as untimely. Specifically, two members of that court held that the application of Rule 6(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., to compute the time within which a party must file a notice of appeal pursuant to § 6–6–350, Ala.Code 1975, and § 35–9A–461(d), Ala.Code 1975, would unconstitutionally expand the jurisdiction of the circuit court to hear such appeals. Brown filed an application for a rehearing, which the Court of Civil Appeals denied.
Brown then petitioned this Court for certiorari review of the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on the ground that the case presented a material question of first impression. See Rule 39(a)(1)(C), Ala. R.App. P. We issued the writ to consider Brown's argument that the Court of Civil Appeals erred when it concluded that, in the context of §§ 6–6–350 and 35–9A–461(d), the phrase “seven days” means seven calendar days and that Rule 6(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., does not apply to those statutes.
Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Williams, 984 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2007).
Brown argues that the Court of Civil Appeals misinterpreted §§ 6–6–350 and 35–9A–461, Ala.Code 1975, in holding that Rule 6(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., does not apply when computing the time for filing an appeal in cases involving those statutes.
Section 6–6–350, Ala.Code 1975, a part of Alabama's Unlawful Detainer Article (§ 6–6–310 et seq., Ala.Code 1975), provides:
“Any party may appeal from a judgment entered against him or her by a district court to the circuit court at any time within seven days after the entry thereof, and appeal and the proceedings thereon shall in all respects, except as provided in this article, be governed by this code relating to appeal from district courts....”
(Emphasis added.) Section 35–9A–461, a part of Alabama's Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, § 35–9A–101 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) A landlord's action for eviction, rent, monetary damages, or other relief relating to a tenancy subject to this chapter shall be governed by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure except as modified by this chapter.
“....
(Emphasis added.) Finally, Rule 6(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:
(Emphasis added.) This Court has stated:
“
City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1074–75 (Ala.2006)(emphasis omitted).
This unlawful-detainer action involves a dispute between a residential landlord and a tenant. Section 35–9A–461(a) addresses actions by residential landlords “for eviction, rent, monetary damages, or other relief relating to a tenancy.” The Alabama Comment to § 35–9A–461 confirms that “[t]he Unlawful Detainer [Article], Ala.Code [1975], § 6–6–310 et seq.”—which includes § 6–6–350—“is amended [by this section].” Unlike the statutes at issue in two cases relied upon by the Court of Civil Appeals in this case— State v. Ladner & Co., 346 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Ala.Civ.App.1977), and Mitchell v. State, 351 So.2d 599 (Ala.Civ.App.1977)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jennings-Jones v. DeRamus
...from an eviction judgment entered by a district court to the circuit court at any time within seven days after the entry thereof.” In Ex parte Brown, 83 So.3d 512 (Ala.2011), our supreme court held that Rule 6(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., applies to § 35–9A–461(d) so that intervening weekends and l......
-
Jones v. Deramus, 2140740
...judgment entered by a district court to the circuit court at any time within seven days after the entry thereof." In Ex parte Brown, 83 So. 3d 512 (Ala. 2011), our supreme court held that Rule 6(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., applies to § 35-9A-461(d) so that intervening weekends and legal holidays a......
-
Boswell v. Lowery
...by § 35-9A-461, a part of Alabama's Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, § 35-9A-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. See Ex parte Brown, 83 So. 3d 512, 515 (Ala. 2011). Section 35-9A-461(d) provides:"Notwithstanding subsection (a) of Section 12-12-70 [concerning appeals from the district c......
-
Arlington Props., Inc. v. Brown (Ex parte Arlington Props., Inc.), 2090038.
...an opinion reversing this court's judgment and directing this court to “quash the writ ... issued on March 26, 2010.” Ex parte Brown, 83 So.3d 512, 516 (Ala.2011). Accordingly, in compliance with the supreme court's opinion, we hereby quash the writ of mandamus issued by this court on March......