Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A.
| Decision Date | 02 October 1987 |
| Citation | 514 So.2d 1373 |
| Parties | A.G. BRANCH v. SOUTHTRUST BANK OF DOTHAN, N.A. 86-859. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard H. Ramsey III, Dothan, for appellant.
W. Davis Malone III of Farmer & Farmer, Dothan, for appellee.
SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A. ("SouthTrust") filed a complaint against defendants A.G. Branch and Clint Owens in the Houston County Circuit Court, alleging default by Branch and Owens on a promissory note. A default judgment was entered against Owens, and the court entered a Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., certification of finality on July 3, 1986. On June 13, 1986, Branch filed an answer to SouthTrust's complaint and a cross-claim against Owens. On July 10, 1986, SouthTrust filed a motion for summary judgment against Branch. Subsequently, on July 16, 1986, Branch filed an amended answer and a counterclaim against SouthTrust. In his counterclaim, Branch asserted that SouthTrust had represented to him that it would hold certain real property as security for a loan that SouthTrust was soliciting Branch to "endorse." Branch further asserted that he relied on the representations of SouthTrust in signing the note, later discovering that SouthTrust released part of the property from its mortgage without his knowledge or consent. In response to SouthTrust's motion for summary judgment, Branch submitted his affidavit, which repeats a portion of the allegations of his counterclaim.
On August 5, 1986, SouthTrust filed an amended motion for summary judgment, seeking summary judgment on Branch's counterclaim as well as on its complaint. The trial court entered a partial summary judgment in favor of SouthTrust on its complaint against Branch, but denied the summary judgment on Branch's counterclaim. On January 15, 1987, the trial court made a Rule 54(b) certification of finality as to that partial summary judgment, expressly finding no just reason for delay. Branch appeals, claiming that the summary judgment against him was improper. Alternatively, Branch asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by making its partial summary judgment a final judgment.
Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., provides a means of making final "an order which does not adjudicate the entire case but as to which there is no just reason for delay in the attachment of finality." Foster v. Greer & Sons, Inc., 446 So.2d 605, 609 (Ala.1984). Foster, 446 So.2d at 610.
Rule 54(b) is properly applied in a situation where the claim and the counterclaim present more than one claim for relief, either of which could have been separately enforced. Cates v. Bush, 293 Ala. 535, 307 So.2d 6 (1975). Under "appropriate facts," a partial summary judgment on an original claim may be finally adjudicated pursuant to Rule 54(b), leaving a counterclaim undecided so that the parties can further litigate the issues presented by the counterclaim. Pate v. Merchants National Bank of Mobile, 409 So.2d 797,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weldon v. Ballow
...Clarke–Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So.2d 88, 95 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Ala.1987) ). In this case, the only claim still pending in the trial court is the claim by the grandmother for visitation wit......
-
Ex parte Green, No. 1071195 (Ala. 4/9/2010)
...disposition of this appeal. Cf. Palmer v. Resolution Trust Corp., 613 So. 2d 373, 376 (Ala. 1993) (quoting Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373 (Ala. 1987)) (holding that Rule 54(b) was not intended to cover a situation where "`the issues in the Page 73 claims in [the]......
-
Ex Parte Johnnie Mae Alexander Green Et Al.(in Re Frank Stokes
...the disposition of this appeal. Cf. Palmer v. Resolution Trust Corp., 613 So.2d 373, 376 (Ala.1993) (quoting Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987)) (holding that Rule 54(b) was not intended to cover a situation where “ ‘the issues in the two claims in [the] ca......
-
Williams v. Williams
...936 So.2d 1056, 1061 (Ala.2006) ; Clarke–Mobile Cntys. Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy Corp., 834 So.2d 88 (Ala.2002) ; Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1987) ; Winecoff v. Compass Bank, 854 So.2d 611 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) ; and H.P.H. Props., Inc. v. Cahaba Lumber & Millwork......
-
Rule 54(b) Orders: Are They Losing Their Appeal?
...of inconsistent results," and therefore set aside the Rule 54(b) certification of finality. See Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, NA, 514 So.2d 1373 (Ala. 1987). The appellate courts have continued to follow this precedent whenever a counterclaim challenges the validity of the transactio......