Dees v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
| Citation | 563 So.2d 1059 |
| Parties | Frank DEES, Silas Tucker, et al. v. STATE of Alabama. Civ. 7341. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
David F. Steele, Monroeville, for appellants.
Jack W. Wallace, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This case concerns the granting of a summary judgment against Dees and Tucker (appellants). However, before reaching the issue regarding that ruling, we must first determine the timeliness of the appeal as challenged by the State in its motion to dismiss.
The pertinent facts are as follows: An order was entered by the trial court on September 21, 1989, which stated, inter alia, that appellant Dees was liable for payment of $800, an amount stipulated, and that "[s]aid $800 shall be paid to the county treasury by Monroe County being allowed to remove $800 worth of gravel at the rate of $.15 per cubic yard from the gravel pit located on the Ledford Brown property pursuant to the agreement attached hereto." (Emphasis added.)
The agreement was not attached to the order. On November 6, 1989, some 46 days after entry of this order, appellants filed a notice of appeal. The clerk certified the record on appeal as complete on December 1, 1989. On January 8, 1990, appellants petitioned this court to consolidate a copy of the agreement filed the same date, with the record, on appeal. At the same time, appellants again filed a notice of appeal.
The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 2(a)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, for failure to timely perfect the appeal. Appellants responded by contending that the order did not become a final appealable order until the agreement was filed on January 8, 1990, and that the appeal was timely perfected after that date.
We must first determine whether the order of September 21, 1989, was a final order. It is undisputed that if the order entered on September 21, 1989, is a final order, the appeal is untimely and must suffer dismissal. Rule 2(a)(1), A.R.App.P.
It is well settled that an appeal will lie only from final orders or judgments unless otherwise provided by statute. § 12-22-20, Ala.Code 1975; Wolf v. Smith, 414 So.2d 129 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). A summary judgment rendered on all the issues presented, or for all the relief requested, is a final order which can support a timely appeal. Gamble v. First Alabama Bank, 404 So.2d 688 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).
Appellants argue that the judgment of September 21, 1989, was not final until the agreement was filed, contending that the agreement was an integral part of the order.
It is well established that a final judgment is a "terminal decision which demonstrates there has been a complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants." Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bekken v. Greystone Residential Ass'n, Inc.
...which demonstrates there has been a complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants.’ " Dees v. State, 563 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (quoting Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So.2d 91, 92 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) ). However, " ‘[a] decision on the merits' of the c......
-
Ex Parte Cowabunga Inc.
...with all matters decided....’ ”Williams Power, Inc. v. Johnson, 880 So.2d 459, 461 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (quoting Dees v. State, 563 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)). An order that contains a finding that a worker has sustained an injury as the result of an accident arising out of and in t......
-
Hunt v. NationsCredit Fin. Servs. Corp.
...the litigants."'" Wilhoite v. Wilhoite, 897 So.2d 303, 312 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (opinion on return to remand) (quoting Dees v. State, 563 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) (quoting, in turn, Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So.2d 91, 92 (Ala.Civ.App.1986))). We conclude that Niezer stands for the pr......
-
Ex parte Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.
...which demonstrates there has been a complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants.’ " Dees v. State, 563 So. 2d 1059, 1061 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (quoting Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So. 2d 91, 92 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) ).’ " O.Y.P. v. Lauderdale Cty. Dep't of Human Re......