Case Title: Ex parte Utilities Board of the City of Roanoke.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1200307

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2021-09-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: September 3, 2021
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2021
_________________________
1200307
_________________________
Ex parte Utilities Board of the City of Roanoke
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Charles Ester and Evella Ester
v.
Crawford Grading and Pipeline, Inc.; John Landers, Jr.; and
Utilities Board of the City of Roanoke)
(Randolph Circuit Court, CV-15-900006)
STEWART, Justice.
1200307
The Utilities Board of the City of Roanoke ("the Utilities Board")
petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Randolph
Circuit Court to vacate an order purporting to reinstate a case that the
circuit court had previously disposed of. Because we conclude that the
circuit court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order purporting to reinstate
the case, we grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
In February 2015, Charles Ester and Evella Ester filed a complaint
against Crawford Grading and Pipeline, Inc. ("Crawford Grading"), and
John Landers, Jr., alleging property damage and personal injuries arising
out of two alleged occurrences in which sewage had backed up into the
Esters' house. Regarding Crawford Grading, the complaint asserted claims
of negligent or wanton construction, maintenance, or repair of the
involved sewer line. Regarding Landers, who sold the house to the Esters,
the complaint asserted claims of fraudulent suppression, breach of
contract, and breach of the warranty of habitability. In April 2015, the
Esters filed their first amended complaint, adding the City of Roanoke as
a defendant and alleging claims of negligence and wantonness related to
2
1200307
the second alleged sewer backup. Subsequently, the Esters filed their
second amended complaint, substituting the Utilities Board for the City
of Roanoke as a defendant.
In June 2017, the Esters' first set of attorneys withdrew. On August
4, 2017, the circuit court entered an order dismissing Landers from the
case.  The Esters retained new counsel on August 9, 2017. Nearly two
years later, the Utilities Board filed a motion for a summary judgment on
August 8, 2019, and the circuit court set the hearing on the motion for
August 28, 2019. On August 15, 2019, Crawford Grading, the only other
remaining defendant, also filed a motion for a summary judgment, which
the circuit court also set for a hearing on August 28, 2019.
On August 26, 2019, the Esters' second set of attorneys withdrew.
The Esters were apparently unaware of the hearing set for August 28. The
circuit court proceeded with the hearing, and the Esters were not present
in court. Neither the Esters' second set of attorneys nor the Esters
themselves had filed a response to the summary-judgment motions. On
September 9, 2019, the circuit court entered an order ("the September 9
order") that stated:
3
1200307
"This matter coming before court on defendant's Motions
for Summary Judgment. Upon call of the case the Plaintiff
failed to appear; counsel for the defendant was present. Based
on the Plaintiff's failure to appear the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted and this case is dismissed. The
Plaintiff is given forty-five (45) days from the date[] of this
order to request the case be reinstated."
On October 22, 2019, 43 days after the circuit court entered the
September 9 order, the Esters, acting without counsel, filed a motion to
reinstate the case. In that motion, the Esters stated that they had used
the time between the entry of the September 9 order and the filing of the
motion to reach a settlement with Crawford Grading. On October 23,
2019, the Esters, with the assistance of new counsel, filed a second motion
to reinstate the case. On the same day, the Utilities Board filed an
objection to the motion to reinstate.  
On January 4, 2021, the circuit court entered an order purporting to
reinstate the case. That order noted that the Esters' second set of
attorneys had withdrawn from the case before the hearing was held and
that the Esters, themselves, never received notice of the hearing on the
summary-judgment motions. The circuit court further stated that the
Utilities Board had agreed to the condition in the September 9 order that
4
1200307
the Esters be given 45 days in which to request reinstatement of the case.
The Utilities Board filed a motion to reconsider the order reinstating the
case. At a hearing on the Utilities Board's motion to reconsider, the
Utilities Board informed the circuit court that it planned to file the
instant petition for writ of mandamus if the motion to reconsider was
denied. The circuit court then stated for the record that it would not grant
the motion to reconsider but that it would withhold ruling on the merits
of the Utilities Board's motion for a summary judgment. This mandamus
petition followed.
Standard of Review
" 'A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and
is appropriate when the petitioner can show (1) a clear legal
right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the
respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3)
the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly
invoked jurisdiction of the court.' " 
Ex parte Chmielewski, 280 So. 3d 386, 388 (Ala. 2018) (quoting Ex parte
BOC Grp. Inc., 823 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001)).
Discussion
5
1200307
 In its petition for a writ of mandamus, the Utilities Board argues
that, because the Esters did not file a timely postjudgment motion
pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., the circuit court lost subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case 30 days after the circuit court entered the
September 9 order and that, therefore, the circuit court lacked the
authority to enter the order granting the Esters' motion to reinstate the
case.  Rule 59(e) states that "[a] motion to alter, amend, or vacate the
judgment shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after entry of the
judgment." This Court has held that "[i]f no Rule 59 motion is filed after
a judgment is entered, the trial court that entered the judgment generally
loses jurisdiction to amend the judgment 30 days after the judgment is
entered." Ex parte Caremark Rx, LLC, 229 So. 3d 751, 757 (Ala.
2017)(citing Pierce v. American Gen. Fin., Inc., 991 So. 2d 212, 215 (Ala. 
2008)); see also George v. Sims, 888 So. 2d 1224, 1227 (Ala. 2004)
("Generally, a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify or amend a final
order more than 30 days after the judgment has been entered, except to
correct clerical errors.").
6
1200307
The Utilities Board contends that the September 9 order is a final
judgment.  A final judgment is one that "conclusively determines the
issues before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the
parties."  Palughi v. Dow, 659 So. 2d 112, 113 (Ala. 1995).  This Court has
also stated that a final judgment "is one that puts an end to the
proceedings between the parties to a case and leaves nothing for further
adjudication." Ex parte Wharfhouse Rest. & Oyster Bar, Inc., 796 So. 2d
316, 320 (Ala. 2001)(citing City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield, 396 So.
2d 692 (Ala. 1981)). The Utilities Board contends that the September 9
order disposed of all the Esters' claims against all the remaining
defendants in their entirety and that, despite the provision in the
September 9 order purporting to allow the Esters 45 days to file a motion
to reinstate the case, the 30-day period under Rule 59(e) began to run
upon the entry of that order. A review of the September 9 order reveals
that the circuit court unequivocally entered a summary judgment and
"dismissed" the case. Thus, the September 9 order, on its face, appears to
be a final judgment.
7
1200307
The Esters, however, contend that, based on a variety of factors and
circumstances surrounding the entry of the September 9 order, that order
cannot be construed to be a final judgment. This Court has said:
"We construe [a] trial court's judgment like other written
instruments: the rules of construction for contracts are
applicable for construing judgments. Hanson v. Hearn, 521 So.
2d 953, 954 (Ala. 1988); Moore v. Graham, 590 So. 2d 293, 295
(Ala. Civ. App. 1991). We are free to review 'all the relevant
circumstances surrounding the judgment,' and 'the entire
judgment ... should be read as a whole in the light of all the
circumstances as well as of the conduct of the parties.' Hanson,
521 So. 2d at 955."
Boykin v. Law, 946 So. 2d 838, 848 (Ala. 2006).  First, the Esters allege
that the September 9 order was not a final judgment because the order
adjudicated fewer than all their claims against all the remaining
defendants. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. (providing that "[w]hen more
than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties
are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one
or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express
direction for the entry of judgment"). " ' "The purpose of Rule 54(b) ... is to
8
1200307
make final 'an order which does not adjudicate the entire case but as to
which there is no just reason for delay in the attachment of finality." ' "
Ghee v. USAble Mut. Ins. Co., 253 So. 3d 366, 371 (Ala. 2017),(quoting
Stephens v. Fines Recycling, Inc., 84 So. 3d 867, 874 (Ala. 2011), quoting,
in turn, other cases). The Esters contend that the provision of the
September 9 order authorizing the Esters to request reinstatement of the
case within 45 days indicates that the circuit court intended not to
terminate the case, that the circuit court intended to preserve the Esters'
claims for the 45-day period, and that the circuit court concluded that
there was just reason to delay entry of a final judgment.  
As our Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, "[n]either Rule 59(b)
nor Rule 59(e)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] provide for such an extension of time, and
the 30-day time limit for the filing of motions contemplated by those rules
therefore cannot be extended." Ex parte Patterson, 853 So. 2d 260, 262
(Ala. Civ. App. 2002).  Similarly, "[a]lthough trial courts can interpret and
clarify the meaning of their judgments, they cannot convert a final
judgment into a nonfinal judgment simply by declaring it to be nonfinal."
Ex parte Chmielewski, 280 So. 3d at 390 (citing Smith v. Fruehauf Corp.,
9
1200307
580 So. 2d 570, 572 (Ala. 1991)). In addition, Rule 6(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.,
provides that a court "may not extend the time for taking any action under
Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] except to
the extent and under the conditions stated in them."  Accordingly, the
provision in the September 9 order authorizing the Esters to request
reinstatement of the case within 45 days neither had the legal effect of
extending the circuit court's jurisdiction over the case beyond 30 days
after the entry of that order nor made the order a nonfinal judgment.  
Second, the Esters contend that, in the September 9 order, the
circuit court limited its summary-judgment ruling to a single defendant
when it used the singular possessive noun "defendant's" rather than the
plural possessive noun "defendants' "; thus, the Esters contend, the circuit
court entered a summary judgment in favor of only one of the two
defendants who had pending summary-judgment motions -- i.e., the
Utilities Board or Crawford Grading -- and that the circuit court did not
specify which defendant's motion was being granted.  A reading of the
September 9 order, however, reveals that the circuit court's placement of
the apostrophe is more likely the result of a scrivener's error, and,
10
1200307
therefore, the failure of the September 9 order to expressly identify the
defendants in whose favor the circuit court was entering a summary
judgment does not alter the fact that the order disposed of all the Esters'
claims against all the remaining defendants.  Particularly noteworthy is
the circuit court's unequivocal language in the September 9 order stating
that the case was being "dismissed," thus indicating that no further claims
were pending before the circuit court. Additionally, the Esters' motion to
reinstate specifically requested reinstatement of the entire case, not just
the claims against one party. Moreover, the circuit court's order of
January 4, 2021, purporting to reinstate the case does not provide any
indication that less than all claims had been disposed of but, instead,
purports to reinstate the "matter" to the circuit court's docket.  Further
still, the failure of the September 9 order to specifically reference the
defendants by name does not indicate that the circuit court left claims
pending against one party.  See Ex parte Chmielewski, 280 So. 3d 386
(reviewing all the relevant circumstances surrounding the entry of a
judgment and concluding that, despite the failure of a judgment of
dismissal to expressly reference a defendant who had filed a motion to
11
1200307
dismiss and who had asserted the same arguments as another defendant,
the judgment did not leave the proceedings pending as to either
defendant). 
Third, the Esters point out that the January 4, 2021, order
purporting to reinstate the case to the circuit court's docket states that
"[t]he defendants agreed to a granting of said Motion for ... Summary
Judgment subject to reinstatement by the plaintiffs upon Motion filed
within 45 days." In its petition to this Court, the Utilities Board denies
that it had agreed to the 45-day reinstatement period, but, even if it did
so, the actions of parties cannot vest a trial court with subject-matter
jurisdiction. Stated otherwise, "subject-matter jurisdiction may not be
conferred by consent." Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403, 413 (Ala. 2010).
Thus, even if the Utilities Board had consented to the provision in the
September 9 order allowing the Esters 45 days to request reinstatement
of the case, the circuit court was nevertheless without jurisdiction to take
any further action in the case after the 30-day period following the entry
of the September 9 order had expired.
12
1200307
Fourth, the Esters argue that the circuit court failed to comply with
Rule 56(c)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., when it held the hearing on the summary-
judgment motions on August 28, 2019. Rule 56(c)(2) ensures that a party
opposing a summary-judgment motion has a meaningful opportunity to
respond by requiring a minimum of 10 days between the date the
summary-judgment motion is served and the date of the hearing. See, e.g.,
Hilliard v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A., 581 So. 2d 826, 828 (Ala.
1991). The 10-day notice requirement was met in this case because the
Utilities Board's summary-judgment motion and supporting materials
were filed on August 8, 2019, Crawford Grading's summary-judgment
motion and supporting materials were filed on August 15, 2019, and the
circuit court held the hearing on the motions on August 28, 2019.
Although the Esters, themselves, may have not been aware of the hearing,
the summary-judgment motions were filed and properly served on the
Esters' second set of attorneys, who withdrew two days before the hearing. 
No responses to the motions were filed.  " It is elementary that omissions
and commissions of an attorney at law are to be regarded as acts of the
client whom he represents."  Lawrence v. Gayle, 294 Ala. 91, 94, 312 So.
13
1200307
2d 385, 387 (1975). This Court has also stated that "[k]nowledge of the
attorney will be imputed to the client if the knowledge comes to the
attorney while engaged in a service for the client after the attorney-client
relationship has commenced." Sanders v. Flournoy, 640 So. 2d 933, 939
(Ala. 1994). Moreover, notice of a hearing that is provided to an attorney
constitutes notice to the attorney's client.   Shirley v. McDonald, 220 Ala.
50, 53, 124 So. 104, 106 (1929) ("[C]ounsel's knowledge ... of the date of
trial[] must be imputed to [the] defendant as a matter of law ...."). We
conclude that the Esters, through their former counsel, received adequate
notice of the hearing on the summary-judgment motions under Rule 56(c),
and their argument that the circuit court should not have proceeded with
the hearing is without merit.
Under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the entry of the
September 9 order, we conclude that the order was a final judgment.  The
provision of the order granting the Esters 45 days to request
reinstatement of the case did not extend the time for the Esters to file a
postjudgment motion under Rule 59(e).  After expiration of the 30-day
period prescribed by Rule 59(e), the circuit court lost jurisdiction to take
14
1200307
any further action in the case.  Accordingly, the circuit court lacked
authority to enter the January 4, 2021, order purporting to reinstate the
case to its docket. 
Finally, we conclude that, even if the circuit court had considered 
the Esters' motion to reinstate the case to be a motion filed pursuant to
Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., the Esters would not be entitled to have the
September 9 order set aside under that rule. This Court has stated:
"Without question, a movant must both allege and prove
one of the grounds set forth in Rule 60 in order to be granted
relief under that rule. Moreover, because Rule 60(b) relief is
extraordinary relief, a movant has the burden of proving
extraordinary circumstances and/or extreme hardship or
injustice sufficient to entitle him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
And, while the decision of whether to grant or deny the motion
is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, that discretion
is not unbridled."
Ex parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873, 876 (Ala.1984)(internal citations omitted). 
The Esters' motion to reinstate the case did not set forth any of the
grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and the Esters' motion lacked
evidentiary support. See Ex parte Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt,
L.L.C., 29 So. 3d 175, 178 (Ala. 2009)(concluding that the trial court
exceeded its discretion in granting a Rule 60(b) motion when a party failed
15
1200307
to cite the allegedly applicable subsection of the rule on which it based its
motion and when the party failed to offer evidence in support of its
motion).  Accordingly, Rule 60(b) provided no basis for the circuit court to
grant relief to the Esters.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition and issue a writ of
mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order of January 4,
2021, purporting to reinstate the case.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and
Mitchell, JJ., concur.
16