Bowman v. Integrity Credit Corp.
Decision Date | 01 April 1987 |
Citation | 507 So.2d 104 |
Parties | Stanley D. BOWMAN, a/k/a & d/b/a Bowman Accounting v. INTEGRITY CREDIT CORP., f/k/a Tri-Continental Leasing. Civ. 5713. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Stanley D. Bowman, pro se.
Russell S. Terry and Eric J. Breithaupt of Feibelman, Shulman and Terry, Mobile, for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
Integrity Credit Corporation (plaintiff) brought suit against Bowman (defendant) for recovery under a lease agreement in 1983. After pleadings, discovery, and counterclaim, the case was set for trial in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, on October 21, 1986. On October 17, oral agreement was reached between counsel for settlement and entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff for a specific sum. On the date set for trial, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the oral agreement by entry of judgment. The motion averred that a settlement agreement between counsel had been reached on October 17, 1986, and the court informed of the agreement; that counsel for defendant indicated that he wanted his client to execute a written consent for entry of judgment and the filing of such consent in court for the record; that plaintiff, relying on the oral agreement, had excused his witness from appearing at trial and was, thus, unable to proceed with trial; plaintiff, therefore, asked the court to enforce the oral agreement.
On October 23, 1986, the court entered on its case action summary sheet the following:
On November 4, 1986, the trial court filed the following order:
On December 9, 1986, defendant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of October 23, 1986. Defendant appears before this court pro se, presenting the issue of whether an oral agreement between opposing attorneys for entry of judgment not made in open court is binding and may be enforced by the court. Before addressing the merits of the issue, the court will dispose of the motion of plaintiff to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
We have previously noted that the initial entry of judgment was on October 23, 1986. That entry gave judgment for money to plaintiff but made no mention of the defendant's counterclaim. Thus, the first judgment falls within the provisions of Rule 54, A.R.Civ.P. Rule 54 provides that a judgment which fails to dispose of all claims presented in the action, including counterclaims, is not final for purposes of appeal unless expressly determined to be so by the court. Goza v. Everett, 365 So.2d 658 (Ala.1978); Wesley v. Brandon, 419 So.2d 257 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). No such express determination was entered in this case. A judgment against less than all the parties or upon all the claims does not terminate the action as to any of the parties or claims. The judgment thus entered is subject to revision or correction at any time prior to the entry of a judgment which does terminate all claims or rights of the parties. Hallman v. Marion Corp., 411 So.2d 130 (Ala.1982). Therefore, the final judgment was not entered until November 4, 1986. We consider the notice of appeal, although directed to the entry of October 23, 1986, to have been timely filed on December 9, 1986. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
There is no record of evidence in this case. The only record of events is that of the clerk, including the motion to enforce the oral agreement and the judgment entries of the court. The statement of events contained in the motion to enforce is not sworn. The judgment of November 4, 1986, contains a statement, as previously quoted herein, that indicates that counsel for both parties had "opportunity to offer arguments with respect to said motion by telephone conference call on Friday, October 17, 1986." However, the record indicates that the motion to enforce settlement referred to in the order was not filed until October 21, 1986. The motion itself states that the agreement was made on October 17. Therefore, obviously there is conflict in the record as to the occurrence of events relating to the alleged settlement agreement upon which the judgment is founded.
It has long been the law of Alabama that private agreements between parties or their attorneys must be in writing and signed by the party to be bound thereby. Former Supreme Court Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McIver v. Bondy's Ford, Inc.
...assessed compensatory damages in the amount of $12,699.18. "This court is bound by the record in all cases." Bowman v. Integrity Credit Corp., 507 So.2d 104, 106 (Ala.Civ.App.1987)(quoted in McIver I, 916 So.2d at 622). In contrast to Kaufman, we cannot infer from the record in the present ......
-
Phillips v. Knight
...Roper, 378 So.2d 225, 229 (Ala.1979), quoting Brocato v. Brocato, 332 So.2d 722, 723-24 (Ala.1976); see also Bowman v. Integrity Credit Corp., 507 So.2d 104, 106 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). It appears from the above statute and our prior cases that either attorney Blair or attorney Wiley would have......
-
Groulx v. Carlson
...of memory." In re Dolgin Eldert Corp. 31 N.Y.2d 1, 4-10, 334 N.Y.S.2d 833, 286 N.E.2d 228 (1972). 4 See also Bowman v. Integrity Credit Corp., 507 So.2d 104 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Next, defendants argue that the agreement read into the record on December 14, 1987, was not binding because "ther......
-
Klein v. State Bd. of Educ.
...as to less than all of the parties is not final for purposes of appeal unless it is so designated by the court. Bowman v. Integrity Credit Corp., 507 So.2d 104 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Fewer than all of Klein's claims have been adjudicated due to her pending request for writ of certiorari. Thus,......