A trial court had no jurisdiction to enter a permanent injunction while an appeal from its earlier decision, granting a preliminary injunction, was pending. The permanent injunction was void and would not support an appeal. Searle v. Vinson, Nos. 2080760, 2081155 (Ala. Civ. App. Jan. 29, 2010).
The trial court granted a preliminary injunction in this easement dispute. The defendants appealed that order. While their appeal was pending, the trial court entered a second order making the injunction permanent. The defendants appealed from that second order.
The rule that mandamus relief will be denied where other relief is available was the determining factor in Ex parte Wall, No. 1061381 (Ala. Oct. 5, 2007).
A husband was turned aside where he appealed, not from the denial of his initial post-judgment motion, but from the denial of his (much later) motion to "reconsider” that initial post-judgment disposition. Rorex v. Rorex, No. 2060232 (Ala. Civ. App.) (July 27, 2007). The trial court’s acts after it denied the first post-judgment motion were “void” and would not support an appeal.
A mother appealed from a judgment, trying to address a motion that had been left unresolved in an earlier suit. The current judgment did not address that unresolved motion. Nor did any other ruling. Lacking a final judgment adjudicating that earlier motion, the Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the case. Fielding v. Fielding, No. 2060243 (Ala. Civ. App.) (July 27, 2007).
In Lanier Worldwide, Inc. v. Crum [slip op.], the Alabama Supreme Court allowed an appeal of the trial court’s order granting a Rule 60(b) motion. In this case, released June 15, 2007, Lanier sought to enforce a Georgia judgment directing Crum to pay Lanier $17,045.66 awarded in arbitration. Lanier submitted a certified copy of the judgment, along with an affidavit of one of its attorneys who testified that the judgment of the Georgia court was valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied. In response, Crum filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure attacking the judgment of the Georgia court on the basis of personal jurisdiction. Following a hearing, the trial court refused to enforce the Georgia judgment, thereby effectively granting Crum’s Rule 60(b) motion.
In determining whether it had appellate jurisdiction, the court noted the general proposition that an order granting a Rule 60(b) motion is considered interlocutory and therefore not appealable. However, the trial court’s order at issue amounted to a conclusion that the judgment of the Georgia court was void for lack of jurisdiction and no further proceedings were contemplated with respect to enforcement of the Georgia court’s judgment in the Alabama Court. Under these circumstances, orders granting Rule 60(b) relief may be appealable.