Jennings-Jones v. DeRamus
Decision Date | 04 December 2015 |
Docket Number | 2140740. |
Citation | 199 So.3d 74 |
Parties | Ida Jennings-JONES v. Ruth DeRAMUS. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Ida Jennings–Jones, pro se.
Ruth DeRamus, pro se.
Ida Jennings-Jones (“the lessee”) appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) that affirmed a judgment of the Montgomery District Court (“the district court”) in favor of Ruth DeRamus (“the lessor”) in the lessor's ejectment action against the lessee. We dismiss the appeal as having been taken from a void judgment.
The lessor filed a complaint against the lessee in the district court, demanding the right to possession of certain real property as a result of the lessee's failure to pay rent. The lessor also sought an award of $525 for unpaid rent, plus court costs and other charges that had accrued. The lessee filed an answer to the complaint, asserting that the property was uninhabitable. The lessee later filed a counterclaim, asserting that the lessor had breached the rental agreement and had illegally evicted the lessee.
Following a hearing on March 31, 2014, the district court entered a judgment on that same date in favor of the lessor for possession of the property, ordering the lessee to vacate the property within seven days of the entry of the judgment and setting a hearing on the matter of damages. The damages hearing was held on July 21, 2014, and, on that same date, the district court entered a judgment in favor of the lessor in the amount of $1,000, plus court costs. Although the district court did not specifically address the lessee's counterclaims against the lessor in its judgment, that judgment was final because the holdings of the district court indicate that it implicitly denied the counterclaims. See Kennedy v. Boles Invs., Inc., 53 So.3d 60, 68–69 (Ala.2010).
On August 4, 2014, the lessee filed her notice of appeal to the circuit court, accompanied by an affidavit of substantial hardship, which was approved by the district court. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered a judgment on May 1, 2015, in favor of the lessor, affirming the district court's judgment. The lessee then filed her notice of appeal to this court.
S.B.U. v. D.G.B., 913 So.2d 452, 455 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).
Additionally, Ala.Code 1975, § 6–6–350, which addresses appeals to circuit court from district court in actions alleging unlawful detainer, provides that a 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.” In Ex parte Brown, 83 So.3d at 515, our supreme court stated, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Alabama Comment to § 35–9A–461[, Ala.Code 1975,] confirms that ‘[t]he Unlawful Detainer [Article], Ala.Code [1975], § 6–6–310 et seq....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Montoya
...by a trial court indicate that the court implicitly denied a counterclaim, that judgment will be deemed final. Jones v. DeRamus, 199 So.3d 74, 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) ; and Horton v. Perkins, 17 So.3d 235, 237 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). For example, although a counterclaim is not expressly......
- McGinnis v. Steeleman
-
McWhorter v. Parsons
...the next official business day when the court is open."§ 35–9A–141(3), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). See also Jones v. DeRamus, 199 So.3d 74, 76 (Ala.Civ.App.2015).As discussed, this court has already concluded that Parsons's appeal from the district court to the circuit court was untimel......
-
Vincent v. Kondaur Capital Corp.
...summary judgment indicates that the trial court implicitly denied those claims. Thus, the judgment is deemed final. Jones v. DeRamus, 199 So.3d 74, 75 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) ; and Horton v. Perkins, 17 So.3d 235, 237 n. 2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). For example, in Hingle v. Gann, 368 So.2d 22, 2......