Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to the Knoedlers’ claims. In fact, despite a review of the record, this Court is unable to find any further reference to the Blinco counterclaim subsequent to the Knoedlers’ answer. The trial court’s summary-judgment orders left pending the Blincos’ counterclaim, and there is no Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., certification that the judgments are final. Consequently, the summary-judgment orders are nonfinal judgments, which will not support an appeal. See Bon Harbor, LLC v. United Bank, supra (dismissing appeal on grounds that trial court’s summary-judgment order, which left pending defendants’ counterclaims, was, at best, an order entering a partial summary judgment and not a “final, ap-pealable judgment”); Hill v. Huntsville West Ltd. Partnership, 847 So.2d 375, 376 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). APPEAL DISMISSED. COBB, C.J., and WOODALL, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees (B) holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants (C) holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal (D) holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment (E) holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment
Output (English): holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment