Wallace v. Belleview Properties Corp., 120 So. 3d 485

Wallace leased office space in Belleview Shopping Center; lease renewed in 1996 and again in 2003 for five years.
Wallace alleged mold due to unrepaired water leaks, leading to April 2005 closure of his dental practice.
Wallace sued defendants in December 2005 for fraud, negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims; IPF counterclaimed for unpaid rent.
January 27, 2010, trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b) as to Wallace's claims.
Wallace moved to reconsider; IPF moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim; trial court conducted hearings through December 2010.
February 14, 2011 Wallace filed a clarification request; Wallace filed notice of appeal May 2, 2011, which the court dismissed as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal was timely after Rule 54(b) certification	Wallace contends certification and timing issues render the appeal timely	Wallace's notice of appeal was untimely under Rule 4(a)(1) following certification	Untimely
Effect of postjudgment motions on appeal timing	Motions under Rule 59 or 60 delayed the appeal deadline	If denied by operation of law, timelines run from denial; otherwise no delay	Untimely regardless of Rule 59 or Rule 60 basis
Impact of Allen v. Briggs on Wallace's challenge to Rule 54(b) certification	Allen allows challenging certification after remaining claims are decided	Allen is binding and permits no late challenge to certification when appeal is untimely	Wallace's challenge to certification cannot salvage timeliness; dismissal affirmed
Rule 54(b) finality and its effect on appeal timing	Rule 54(b) creates finality that triggers appeal time; the timing is intertwined with remaining claims	Rule 54(b) starts the 42-day clock and cannot be postponed by later intertwined-claims arguments	Rule 54(b) timing controls; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Allen v. Briggs, 60 So.3d 899 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (Rule 54(b) certification challenged; timely appeal required from certified judgment)
Lary v. Gardener, 908 So.2d 955 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (untimely review of Rule 54(b) certification when no timely notice of appeal)
Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003) (timeliness of appeal tied to certification and 42-day period; untimely review of prior judgment)
Lewis v. State, 463 So.2d 154 (Ala.1985) (Rule 54(b) certification triggers the running of the 42-day appeal period)
In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.1995) (Rule 54(b) starts appeal time; treatment of certified judgments)
Page v. Preisser, 585 F.2d 336 (8th Cir.1978) (diverges from Lindsay on whether 54(b) certification permits post hoc review)
Ex parte Pritchett, 812 So.2d 1157 (Ala.2000) (reminds that remand for perfection of Rule 54(b) factors occurs after Brown)
Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So.2d 354 (Ala.2004) (proper Rule 54(b) certification must precede appellate jurisdiction)
Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So.2d 418 (Ala.2006) (warns against piecemeal appellate review and inconsistent results from Rule 54(b) certifications)