Case Title: Moody v. State Ex Rel. Payne

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1977-09-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
351 So. 2d 547 (1977)
Shearn MOODY, Jr.
v.
STATE of Alabama ex rel. Charles H. PAYNE, etc., et al.
SC 2215.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 9, 1977.
Rehearing Denied November 10, 1977.
*548 William H. Mills of Clark & James, Birmingham, Newman, Shook & Newman, Dallas, Tex., Rogers, Howard, Redden & Mills, Birmingham, for appellant.
Drayton Nabers, Jr. and William A. Robinson, Birmingham, for Protective Life Ins. Co.
James W. Webb and Edwin K. Livingston, Montgomery, for the Receiver, Charles H. Payne.
EMBRY, Justice.
Shearn Moody, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County entered 1 November 1976, adjudging him in civil contempt on account of matters arising from receivership proceedings involving Empire Life Insurance Company of America.
The genesis, nature, and history of the Empire receivership are reported in Moody v. State ex rel. Payne, 295 Ala. 299, 329 So. 2d 73 (1976). Only a brief review of the pertinent facts relating to this appeal is needed here.
On 6 January 1975, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County issued a permanent injunction enjoining Moody and others from filing, or aiding in the filing of, any lawsuit, complaint or legal claim, in any court, related to the Empire receivership or the implementation of any order or decree of the circuit court, without the circuit court's prior approval. This court upheld the injunction on the basis it was expressly authorized by Tit. 28A, § 624(2), Code (Insurance Code), and supported by the undisputed evidence of record. See Moody v. State ex rel. Payne, supra.
In an order of the circuit court of 30 April 1975, Moody was held in civil contempt of the 6 January injunction for filing on 28 January 1975, in the United States District Court, an amended complaint in Allmon v. Bookout, Middle District of Alabama, Case No. 74-377-N, without obtaining the permission of the circuit court to do so. Allmon was nothing more than an attempt on Moody's behalf to stop the liquidation of Empire and to regain possession of its principal assets. The 30 April order prescribed that Moody do the following in order to purge himself of contempt:
On 16 June 1976, pursuant to terms of the 30 April order, the circuit court in an ex mero motu order, commanded Moody to appear before the court on 19 July 1976, to demonstrate he had purged himself of civil contempt and had fully complied with the 30 April order.
At the 19 July hearing, after denying Moody's request for a continuance because of his illness and inability to attend, oral testimony was taken and documentary evidence received on behalf of Protective Life Insurance Company, Charles H. Payne, and Moody; all interested parties in this controversy.
On 1 November 1976, the circuit court rendered the judgment which is the subject of this appeal:
We cannot reach the merits of this review. A procedural question disposes of this case. In a motion to dismiss filed with this court, and in brief, Protective and Payne urge this court to dismiss Moody's appeal on the ground the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment within the meaning of § 754, Tit. 7, Code.
Appellees contend the first two paragraphs of the decree merely declare Moody has failed to purge himself of civil contempt and has failed to comply with the 30 April order. Further, they add, the second two paragraphs ordered Moody to pay to Protective, and to the Receiver, certain damages sustained by them as a proximate consequence of the contempt; this is expressly interlocutory in that determination *551 of damages is specifically set for hearing at a future date.
In opposition, Moody argues that a judgment may be final and support an appeal even though it leaves some issues undecided and some proceedings yet to be held. The test for finality of a judgment, Moody contends, is whether it ascertains and declares the rights of the parties. Moody submits that by this test the 1 November judgment is unquestionably a final judgment. We disagree.
Section 754 of Tit. 7, Code, provides for appeal to this court "From any final judgment or decree of the circuit court * * *." No authority need be cited for the proposition that a final judgment is necessary to give jurisdiction to this court on appeal.
The decisive issue raised by these contentions is whether an order and decree which establishes liability for damages but defers determination of the amount for later hearing is a final judgment. We answer no, and dismiss the appeal.
Last term we restated a definition of "final judgment" in Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So. 2d 623 (Ala. 1976). There we said:
Measured by these criteria, it is clear that the finality of the 1 November order and decree is defective due to the uncertainty of the amount of damages Moody is ordered to pay and postponement of their determination until a later hearing. No one would challenge the circuit court's authority to assess the amount of damages owed, but there is want of finality on this material issue when it is set to be litigated later. There is no need to review the 1 November order and decree and then be faced with an appeal from the assessment of damages. This would conflict with our general policy against piecemeal review.
Where the amount of damages is an issue, as here, the recognized rule of law in Alabama is that no appeal will lie from a judgment which does not adjudicate that issue by ascertainment of the amount of those damages. See McGowin Investment Co. v. Johnstone, 291 Ala. 714, 287 So. 2d 835 (1973). The cases cited by Moody in support of his contention are factually distinguishable from the instant case; none of those cases involved judgments awarding damages which were to be assessed at a subsequent hearing. Moody, in oral argument, intimates there is statutory authority for this appeal because the 1 November order was a part of the Empire receivership proceedings as contemplated in § 622(5) of Tit. 28A, Code (Insurance Code), which provides:
However, we do not hesitate to hold the same criteria applicable to § 754, Tit. 7, Code, are applicable to determine what has the character of a final order or decree within the purview of § 622(5), Tit. 28A, Code. Applying those criteria, we find the 1 November order fails to assess the damages in the portion of the receivership proceedings dealing with civil contempt in the particulars alluded to in that order.
Because of the adjudicatory nature of the 1 November order and decree, and the absence of any petition for a declaratory judgment, there is no need to address Moody's final contention that the order and *552 decree is appealable as a declaratory judgment. The 1 November order and decree is not a final judgment, complete and certain in itself; and therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as premature.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, JONES and ALMON, JJ., concur.