Harley v. Anderson
167 So. 3d 355
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Floyd Anderson executed estate documents (2004 will; 2009 deed to his nephew Ray reserving a life estate; 2010 POA appointing Ray). After Floyd’s wife died, Floyd grew dependent on Joan Harley, who was hired as caregiver and helped with errands, doctors, banking, and preparing documents.
- Harley obtained new instruments in 2011 appointing herself as attorney-in-fact, a purported will favoring her, and had her name placed on multiple financial accounts/vehicles (JTROS, TOD, or beneficiary), and on two CDs; she later withdrew or claimed substantial funds after Floyd’s death.
- Ray (as personal representative) and his wife sued Harley in consolidated civil actions seeking to set aside certain inter vivos transfers as procured by undue influence; the trial court tried the undue-influence claims and took additional testimony.
- On July 25, 2013, the trial court found a presumption of undue influence established and that Harley failed to rebut it, declared the inter vivos transfers void, and ordered return of funds/property to Floyd’s estate; it also entered a damages judgment but left the precise amounts to be proved later.
- Harley moved to alter/ stay and appealed the July 25 order to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals; Harley’s sole appellate contention challenges the undue-influence finding.
- The Court of Civil Appeals sua sponte addressed appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal because the trial court’s order was nonfinal — damages were awarded but not liquidated and the plaintiffs were given leave to prove the amounts later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 25, 2013 order is appealable as a final judgment | Ray: liability was established and only the method/amount of satisfaction remains to be determined; order is final as to liability | Harley: order is nonfinal because it awards damages but leaves amounts unliquidated and permits further proceedings to prove damages | Court: order is nonfinal; because damages were not fixed and plaintiffs were granted leave to prove amounts later, appellate jurisdiction is lacking and appeal is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sexton v. Sexton, 42 So.3d 1280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (general rule that appellate court lacks jurisdiction over nonfinal judgments)
- Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711 (Ala. 1987) (courts may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
- Hamilton ex rel. Slate-Hamilton v. Connally, 959 So.2d 640 (Ala. 2006) (appeal generally lies only from a final judgment)
- Giardina v. Giardina, 39 So.3d 204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (a judgment is not final if it does not completely adjudicate all issues between the parties)
- Butler v. Phillips, 3 So.3d 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (same)
- Grantham v. Vanderzyl, 802 So.2d 1077 (Ala. 2001) (an order is not final if it leaves the question of additional recovery open)
- Haynes v. Alfa Fin. Corp., 730 So.2d 178 (Ala. 1999) (damages are only one element of a claim and nonliquidated damages can render a judgment nonfinal)
- Precision American Corp. v. Leasing Serv. Corp., 505 So.2d 380 (Ala. 1987) (order permitting later proof of damages is not final)
- "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 351 So.2d 555 (Ala. 1977) (a judgment is not final when the amount of damages has not been fixed)