Corretti v. Pete Wilson Roofing Co.
| Decision Date | 26 November 1986 |
| Parties | Johnny CORRETTI v. PETE WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, et al. 85-597. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jesse P. Evans III and Donald H. Brockway of Corretti & Newsom, Birmingham, for appellant.
John R. Chiles of Sirote, Permutt, Friend, Friedman, Held & Apolinsky, Birmingham, for appellee Pete Wilson Roofing Co.
William Anthony Davis III and J. Bentley Owens III of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for appellees R.B. Ethridge & Associates and U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. HOUSTON, Justice.
The appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.
On March 7, 1984, the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of each of the defendants. Though it was not necessary, since all claims as to all served defendants were adjudicated, so that the judgment was "final" anyway, the trial court used the following language: "and further, the Court expressly directs that said judgments be entered and made final in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure."
On November 14, 1985, over 20 months after final judgment, appellant Johnny Corretti filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the summary judgments, alleging a lack of notice.
On January 29, 1986, the trial court entered the following order:
Rule 77(d), Ala.R.Civ.P., provides in pertinent part:
"Lack of notice of the entry [of an order or judgment] by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except that upon a showing of excusable neglect based on a failure of the party to learn of the entry of the judgment or order the circuit court in any action may extend the time for appeal not exceeding 30 days from the expiration of the original time now provided for appeals in civil actions."
Rule 60(b), Ala.R.Civ.P., cannot be substituted for the exclusive remedy provided by Rule 77(d) and thereby used as a method to extend the time within which to appeal. Cockrell v. World's Finest Chocolate Co., 349 So.2d 1117, 1119...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte C.D.
... ... taking an appeal. Corretti v. Pete Wilson Roofing ... Co. , 507 So.2d 408, 409 (Ala. 1986); ... ...
-
Ex parte Oden
...that relief might have been available under Rule 60(b)(1) if the motion had been made within four months. Cf. Coretti v. Pete Wilson Roofing Co., 507 So.2d 408 (Ala.1986), in which the Court said that lack of notice from the circuit clerk of the entry of a judgment is not available as a gro......
-
Salvant v. Howell
...to extend the time within which to appeal.'" Hopper v. Sims, 777 So.2d 122, 125 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (quoting Corretti v. Pete Wilson Roofing Co., 507 So.2d 408, 409 (Ala.1987)). See also Lindstrom v. Jones, 603 So.2d 960, 961 (Ala.1992); Gallo v. Gallo, 741 So.2d 1093, 1095 "Rule 77(d), Ala.......
-
Altmayer v. Stremmel
...had "no jurisdiction to afford the [plaintiffs] any relief under Rule 77(d)." Hopper, 777 So.2d at 125 (citing Corretti v. Pete Wilson Roofing Co., 507 So.2d 408, 409 (Ala.1986), and Ireland v. Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distrib. Co., 719 So.2d 844, 845 The trial court did not rule on the plaint......