Wilson v. Leck's 66 Service Station
Decision Date | 08 July 1987 |
Citation | 513 So.2d 620 |
Parties | James WILSON v. LECK'S 66 SERVICE STATION and Bell Auto Parts, Inc. Civ. 5868. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Paul Whitehurst of Whitehurst & Whitehurst, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
William J. Donald III of Donald, Randall, Donald & Hamner, Tuscaloosa, for appellee Leck's 66 Service Station.
W. Perry Webb of Rosen, Harwood, Cook & Sledge, Tuscaloosa, for appellee Bell Auto Parts, Inc.
WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
Leck's 66 Service Station filed suit in the District Court of Tuscaloosa County against James Wilson for "non-payment of service" in the amount of $2,041.80. The defendant, James Wilson, filed an answer, alleging as an affirmative defense and counterclaim a claim for breach of warranty. He also filed a third-party claim against Bell Auto Parts. At trial, after close of evidence, Leck's 66 Service Station and Bell Auto Parts moved for involuntary dismissal of Wilson's counterclaim pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
The district court on November 17, 1986, ruled as follows:
On November 18, 1986, the attorney for Leck's 66 Service Station notified the court by letter that "the order granting the motions, by mistake, appears in effect to have dismissed the complaint" and requested that the court correct its judgment. The court on November 21, 1986, made the following order:
Following the amended ruling, James Wilson filed an appeal from district court to the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court. Bell Auto Parts, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which was joined by Leck's 66 Service Station. The ground asserted supporting the motion to dismiss was that the notice of appeal to the circuit court was untimely. The notice of appeal was filed on December 2, 1986, fifteen days after entry of the judgment on November 17, 1986. Section 12-12-70(a), Code 1975, states in pertinent part, as follows:
"Any party may appeal from a final judgment of the district court in a civil case by filing notice of appeal in the district court, within 14 days from the date of the judgment or the denial of a posttrial motion, whichever is later...."
The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. James Wilson appeals that decision.
The issue raised by Wilson is whether the appeal from the district court to the circuit court was timely filed. Wilson contends that the judgment of November 17, 1986, was not a final judgment and that he was appealing the November 21, 1986, judgment, thus the notice of appeal was made within the required fourteen-day period. Although we disagree with the contention that the November 17, 1986, judgment was not a final judgment, we find that the appeal was timely filed from the final judgment of November 21, 1986.
The district court's ruling of November 17, 1986, effectively dismissed the defendant, James Wilson, and ended proceedings against him to collect $2,041.80. Thus the judgment of November 17 was not an order the defendant wished to appeal from.
Appellees claim that the judgment of November 17, 1986, was amended on November 21, 1986, pursuant to a Rule 60(a) motion for clerical error. Therefore, appellees argue that the rule pertaining to clerical mistakes applies, stating that a corrected judgment relates back to the date of the defective judgment, and the time for taking appeal dates from the date of the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J.M.V. v. State
...We have found no case identical to the present case. However, an analogous situation was presented in Wilson v. Leck's 66 Serv. Station, 513 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). "Appellees claim that the judgment of November 17, 1986, was amended on November 21, 1986, pursuant to a Rule 60(a) moti......
-
First Continental Corp. v. Khan, 91-2641
...unsatisfactory because rules of civil and appellate procedure vary so widely among jurisdictions. See, e.g., Wilson v. Leck's 66 Service Station, 513 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); Matuszewski v. Pancoast, 38 Ohio App.3d 74, 526 N.E.2d 80 (1987). Even so, other courts in analogous circumstan......
-
Brown v. Brown
...to the entry of the original judgment. Edmonds v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 736 So.2d 646 (Ala.Civ.App.1999); Wilson v. Leck's 66 Serv. Station, 513 So.2d 620 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). "[T]he substantive effect of a Rule 60(a) order `is a correction of the original judgment to reflect the original i......
-
Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Alexander
...this motion as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the 1990 and 1992 orders because of a fraud upon the court. Wilson v. Leck's 66 Service Station, supra, 513 So.2d at 621; Swain v. Terry, supra, 454 So.2d at Rule 60(b) reads in pertinent part: "On motion and upon such terms as are just, th......