In two separate cases, the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed Rule 54(b) appeals from partial summary judgments. Certification under Rule 54(b) was improper in both cases because the appealed claims were too closely “intertwined” with claims that remained pending. Holman v. Sims, No. 2080809 (Ala. Civ. App. Jul. 16, 2010); Marshall Auto Painting & Collision, Inc. v. Peach Auto Painting & Collision, Inc., No. 2090090 (Ala. Civ. App. Jul. 16, 2010).
In Alfa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bone, [Ms. 1061808, 1061834] (Ala. Jan. 9, 2009), the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed an appeal based on an improper Rule 54(b) certification where the order did not dispose of all aspects of the declaratory judgment claim. Disposing of some, but not all, issues raised by a claim does not support a Rule 54(b) certification.
In Hammock v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., [Ms. 1070939] (Ala. Nov. 7, 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it determined that a Rule 54(b) certification was improper.
The Court of Civil Appeals found that a Rule 54(b) certification was improper and thus dismissed the appeal in Owen v. Hopper, Ms. 2070016 (Ala. Civ. App, May 23, 2008) . In a property line dispute, the Court of Civil Appeals found that the judgment on the counterclaim which was certified as final was really a defense to the underlying tort claim. The court found that the claim and counterclaim were too intertwined to support a 54(b) certification, and, therefore, the appeal had to be dismissed.
In Posey v. Mollohan, [Ms. 2060500] (Ala. Civ. App. March 21, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal of a judgment for lack of jurisdiction due to the presence of pending counterclaims and defenses which sought affirmative relief.
In Flores v. Flores, No. 2060408 (Ala. Civ. App. August 3, 2007), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from an order modifying a periodic alimony obligation because the trial court improperly certified the order as a final judgment pursuant to ARCP 54(b). “’[A] Rule 54(b) certification should not be entered if the issues in the claim being certified and a claim that will remain pending in the trial court ‘are so closely intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results.’” (quoting Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 2006)).