Austin v. Austin, 102 So. 3d 403

Jacqueline appeals a judgment awarding attorney fees in two actions involving partition or sale of real property from the deceased mother’s estate.
The 2005 action, filed by James and Dana, sought partition/sale of about 172 acres north of Highway 14 and about 600 acres south of Highway 14 in Elmore County.
The 2008 action involved real property deeded out of the estate to Jacqueline, James, and Dana, and Jacqueline sought attorney fees in that action.
The two actions were consolidated on July 8, 2008; on April 29, 2011 a settlement addressed 172 acres north of Highway 14, but not the remaining 600 acres south of Highway 14.
At settlement, the court reserved attorney-fee issues; Jacqueline did not object to the reservation, and briefs/evidence were submitted.
On September 27, 2011 the court awarded specific attorney-fee amounts to Jacqueline, and to James and Dana, with each sibling paying a third of the total in the respective action, and retained jurisdiction over remaining property in the 2005 action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 54(b) finality properly permits this appeal	Jacqueline argues the judgment is not final because the 2005 action remains ongoing.	The court certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b) and consolidated proceedings support appeal.	Not proper; Rule 54(b) certification was improper and the appeal must be dismissed.
Whether piecemeal review of attorney-fee awards in a consolidated action is permitted	Review of fee awards in a partially resolved matter should be deferred and not reviewed piecemeal.	Consolidation and settlement allow separate final judgments; fees relate to each action.	Piecemeal review discouraged; certification failed to ensure finality for appeal.
Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper given ongoing litigation in the 2005 action	The ongoing 2005 action means the appeal cannot be final.	Finality was achieved via Rule 54(b) certification for the relevant portion and actions.	Appeal jurisdiction lacking due to nonfinal judgment.
Whether the trial court properly reserved and can award future attorney fees	Future fees in the 2005 action should be reviewable and not precluded by the current ruling.	Reservation of future fees was within the court’s authority given remaining property issues.	Not addressed as the appeal is dismissed for nonfinal judgment; reserves are unresolved.

Laney v. Garmon, 25 So.3d 478 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (applies lack of jurisdiction sua sponte in absence of final judgment)
Hanner v. Metro Bank & Protective Life Insurance Co., 952 So.2d 1056 (Ala.2006) (consolidated actions; 54(b) certification required for interlocutory appeal)
Moss v. Williams, 747 So.2d 905 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (54(b) certification not proper for nonfinal judgments)
Brown v. Whitaker Contracting Corp., 681 So.2d 226 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (finality and Rule 54(b) certification should be exceptional)
Parrish v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 682 So.2d 1383 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (Rule 54(b) certifications are not to be entered routinely)
Harper Sales Co. v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, Inc., 742 So.2d 190 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (piecemeal litigation not favored)
Tanner v. Alabama Power Co., 617 So.2d 656 (Ala.1993) (Rule 54(b) requires complete disposition of claims for appeal)
Fullilove v. Home Fin. Co., 678 So.2d 151 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (final judgment must wholly adjudicate a claim for 54(b))
James v. Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc., 713 So.2d 937 (Ala.1997) (high court endorsement of finality requirement for 54(b))
Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (finality generally required for appellate review)