274 So. 3d 998
Ala. Civ. App.2018Background
- Kondaur foreclosed on property purchased by Sandra and Orderick Vincent and bought the property at a December 6, 2013, foreclosure sale; the Vincents refused to vacate.
- Kondaur filed an ejectment action March 14, 2014; the Vincents answered and asserted counterclaims for fraud and breach of contract related to alleged loan-modification promises and wrongful foreclosure.
- Kondaur moved for summary judgment (supported by evidence of legal title and the Vincents’ unlawful occupancy); the Vincents, then pro se, filed only handwritten responses and later letters asserting they would produce evidence at the summary-judgment hearing but submitted no timely evidentiary materials.
- The trial court held a hearing September 29, 2016, and entered summary judgment for Kondaur on March 15, 2017, awarding possession and ordering the Vincents to vacate.
- The Vincents filed an untimely postjudgment motion (filed May 11, 2017, more than 30 days after judgment) and later motions invoking Rule 60(b); the trial court purported to act on those motions, but it lacked jurisdiction because the Rule 59 period had expired.
- The court of appeals held the March 15, 2017 judgment was final (implicitly denying the counterclaims), the Vincents’ notice of appeal filed November 28, 2017 was untimely, and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment resolved Vincents’ counterclaims and was final | Vincents: counterclaims unresolved; judgment not final | Kondaur: judgment awarding possession implicitly denied counterclaims, final | Court: judgment implicitly denied counterclaims and was final |
| Whether untimely postjudgment motions tolled or extended appellate time | Vincents: trial court’s later rulings restarted appeal period | Kondaur: untimely postjudgment motions did not extend time; trial court lacked jurisdiction | Court: untimely motions did not extend appeal period and court lost jurisdiction to act on them |
| Whether Vincents’ Rule 60(b) arguments could be considered despite untimely Rule 59 motion | Vincents: asserted Rule 60(b) grounds and new evidence in later filings | Kondaur: substance did not show grounds under Rule 60(b); motions were untimely and waived | Court: substance did not present viable Rule 60(b) grounds; issues deemed waived for appeal |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely notice of appeal | Vincents: filed notice of appeal long after judgment and after postjudgment filings | Kondaur: timely notice required; Vincents’ late filing did not invoke appellate jurisdiction | Court: timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional; appeal dismissed for being untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. Burgess, 99 So.3d 1237 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (timing for postjudgment Rule 59 motions)
- Hingle v. Gann, 368 So.2d 22 (Ala. 1979) (claims may be implicitly denied by a judgment that resolves the core dispute)
- Faith Props., LLC v. First Commercial Bank, 988 So.2d 485 (Ala. 2008) (finality where judgment resolves all controversies)
- Bice v. SCI Alabama Funeral Home Servs., 764 So.2d 1280 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (untimely postjudgment motions do not extend appeal time)
- Rudd v. Rudd, 467 So.2d 964 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Jones v. DeRamus, 199 So.3d 74 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (treatment of unaddressed claims as implicitly denied)