Title: Phoenix East Association, Inc. v. Perdido Dunes Tower, LLC, et al.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: June 14, 2019
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
OCTOBER TERM, 2018-2019
_________________________
1170694
_________________________
Phoenix East Association, Inc., Phoenix VIII Association,
Inc., and Karen Draper 
v. 
Perdido Dunes Tower, LLC, et al.
Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court
(CV-15-900449)
STEWART, Justice.
This 
case 
involves 
a 
dispute 
over 
the 
planned
construction of a high-rise condominium along the Gulf of
Mexico in Orange Beach. For the reasons stated below, we
dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the judgment of the
1170694
Baldwin Circuit Court.
Facts and Procedural History 
In 1984, Perdido Dunes, a Condominium ("Perdido Dunes"),
a beachfront condominium in Orange Beach ("the City"), was
created upon the filing of a declaration of condominium in the
Baldwin Probate Court ("the probate court"). The declaration
established Perdido Dunes Association, Inc. ("PDAI"), as the
condominium association for Perdido Dunes. The property on
which Perdido Dunes was situated ("the Perdido Dunes
property") is a rectangular plat bordered by Alabama State
Route 182 to the north and by  beachfront along the Gulf of
Mexico to the south. As originally constructed, Perdido Dunes
consisted of two buildings. The first building contained 8
condominium units ("the 8-unit building") and was located on
the southern-most edge of the Perdido Dunes property facing
the beach.  The second  building, containing 35 units ("the
35-unit 
building"), was 
constructed 
along 
the 
western 
property
line of the Perdido Dunes property. The eastern side of the
Perdido Dunes property contained a parking lot.  
The Perdido Dunes property shares common boundaries with
property containing other beachfront condominium buildings.
2
1170694
Phoenix East, a Condominium, which  was created by the filing
of a declaration of condominium in the probate court in 1995,
is a 14-story condominium with 158 residential units located
adjacent to and directly east of the Perdido Dunes property.
Pursuant to the 1995 declaration, Phoenix East Association,
Inc. ("Phoenix East Association"), is the condominium
association organized pursuant to the Alabama Uniform
Condominium Act, § 35-8A-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the
Act"), for the purpose of managing Phoenix East.1  Phoenix
VIII, a Condominium, is a 15-story condominium with
approximately 81 units that was constructed in 2000 and
established by the filing of a declaration of condominium in
2000.  Phoenix VIII is located adjacent to and directly west
of the Perdido Dunes property.  Pursuant to the 2000
declaration, Phoenix VIII Association, Inc. ("Phoenix VIII
Association"), is the condominium association organized
1Portions of the Act were substantially amended by the
Alabama Legislature in 2018 by Act No. 2018–403, Ala. Acts
2018. Those amendments became effective on January 1, 2019. 
The matters at issue and the judgment entered in this case
predate the effective date of Act No. 2018-403; thus, those
amendments do not apply to this appeal.  Accordingly, our
discussion of the Act in this opinion refers to the provisions
of the Act in effect before January 1, 2019.  
3
1170694
pursuant to the Act for the purpose of managing Phoenix VIII.
The Perdido Dunes property is separated from the Phoenix East
and the Phoenix VIII properties by retaining walls owned by
the latter condominiums that run along the boundary lines of
the respective properties. 
On September 16, 2004, Hurricane Ivan made landfall over
Baldwin County, causing significant structural damage to
Perdido Dunes. Although repairs were made to the 35-unit
building, the 8-unit building was destroyed by the storm, and
the remnants of the 8-unit building were subsequently
demolished.  So that the unit owners of the 35-unit building
would not be required to contribute to the cost of rebuilding
the 8-unit building, the members of the PDAI negotiated a plan
for the Perdido Dunes property.  The City's zoning regulations
prohibited Perdido Dunes from separating the Perdido Dunes
property into two parcels, but the City would allow Perdido
Dunes to split the PDAI into two neighborhood associations
governed by a master association.  Each neighborhood
association would own the land beneath its respective
building.  On October 29, 2005, a majority of the unit owners
of the PDAI voted to terminate Perdido Dunes and the PDAI. 
4
1170694
Simultaneously, the unit owners voted to approve an agreement
that would reform the PDAI under a master association named
the Perdido Dunes Condominium Owners Association, a Master
Association, Inc. ("the Master Association"). The ownership
interest in the Master Association would comprise the unit
owners of two newly created neighborhood associations, namely
the Perdido Dunes Tower Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
("the PD Tower Association"), and the Perdido Dunes 2006
Condominium 
Owners 
Association, 
Inc. 
("the 
PD 
2006
Association").  The PD Tower Association would serve as the
association for Perdido Dunes Tower, a Condominium ("Perdido
Dunes Tower"), a prospective 10-story, 20-unit condominium
building measuring 56 feet in length that was to be developed
by Perdido Dunes Tower, LLC ("Tower LLC"), on the land where
the 8-unit building had been located. Likewise, the PD 2006
Association would serve as the association for Perdido Dunes
2006, a Condominium ("Perdido Dunes 2006"), which consisted of
the 35-unit building. Under the agreement approved by a
majority of the Perdido Dunes unit owners, the common-area
property for the two buildings would be owned and managed by
the Master Association. The board of directors of the Master
5
1170694
Association would consist of six members, three of whom would
be selected by the unit owners who were members of the PD
Tower Association and three of whom would be selected by the
unit owners who were members of the PD 2006 Association.
Because the arrangement contemplated by the agreement was
not a conventional situation contemplated by the Act, the PDAI
sought ratification of the agreement by the Baldwin Circuit
Court ("the trial court").  The PDAI filed  a  complaint for
declaratory relief in the trial court, which was docketed as
case no. CV-05-741 ("the termination action").  The complaint
named as defendants all Perdido Dunes unit owners. On January
5, 2006, the trial court entered an order finding that Perdido
Dunes had been validly terminated pursuant to the terms of the
1984 declaration.  The trial court also approved of the
formation of the Master Association, the 
PD Tower Association,
and the PD 2006 Association.  The trial court further stated
that "the officers of [the PDAI] and the managing members of
[Tower LLC] are hereby appointed as Trustees for the holders
of their respective interests and are further empowered to
affect all actions necessary to establish a new master
association 
and 
two 
(2) 
neighborhood 
condominium
6
1170694
associations." On 
January 
6, 
2006, 
declarations of 
condominium
creating the Master Association, Perdido Dunes Tower, and
Perdido Dunes 2006 were filed in the probate court. The
articles of incorporation forming the new condominium
associations also were filed in the probate court. The new
condominiums and associations were created and organized
pursuant to the Act. The trial court entered a final judgment
in the termination action on January 6, 2006 ("the 2006
judgment"), acknowledging that the appropriate documents had
been filed in the probate court to establish the new
condominiums and the new associations.  The trial court
incorporated the January 5, 2006, order into the 2006 judgment
by reference. Neither Phoenix East Association nor Phoenix
VIII Association intervened in the termination action. No
appeal was taken from the 2006 judgment. 
On August 1, 2008, th City issued a building permit to
Tower LLC authorizing it to begin construction of Perdido
Dunes Tower. Construction, however, was delayed as a result of
litigation between the PD Tower Association and the PD 2006
Association.  That litigation was resolved in October 2014.
Tower LLC established plans to begin construction of the
7
1170694
building on April 13, 2015.  
The planned construction was interrupted on April 6,
2015, when the City notified Tower LLC of concerns relating to
the width of the proposed Perdido Dunes Tower in relation to
the neighboring properties, namely Phoenix East and Phoenix
VIII.  Specifically, the City questioned whether the location
of Perdido Dunes Tower would comply with the City's zoning
regulation requiring a 20-foot side setback in relation to
neighboring property on either side of 
a condominium building.
In order for the 56-foot-wide Perdido Dunes Tower to comply
with the 20-foot setback requirement in relation to Phoenix
East and Phoenix VIII, the southern property line of the
Perdido Dunes property would need to measure at least 96 feet
in length. The City directed that Tower LLC could not begin
substantial construction on the building, and the City
informed Tower LLC that its building permit would be revoked. 
If the building permit were revoked, Tower LLC would be
required to apply for a new permit under updated City building
standards, which, according to the trial court's judgment
being challenged on appeal, "would have required significant
additional undertakings by the Tower LLC to attempt to
8
1170694
complete the building of a compliant tower structure."
On April 13, 2015, the PD Tower Association and Tower LLC
filed a complaint in the trial court against the City, seeking
a judgment declaring that Tower LLC could move forward with
the construction of Perdido Dunes Tower and seeking to enjoin
the City from revoking Tower LLC's building permit. The case
was docketed as case no. CV-15-900449 ("the declaratory-
judgment action"). In the complaint, the PD Tower Association
and Tower LLC alleged that, since 1984, they or their
predecessors had been in peaceable possession of all property
east of the retaining wall separating the Perdido Dunes
property from Phoenix VIII and west of the retaining wall
separating the Perdido Dunes property from Phoenix East. This,
they alleged, included two narrow strips of land, one on the
eastern side of the Perdido Dunes property and one on the
western side, that Phoenix East Association and Phoenix VIII
Association contended were part of the common elements of
their respective condominium properties.  The PD Tower
Association and Tower LLC further alleged that they intended
to file a separate action to quiet title to the disputed
strips of land.  On April 13, 2015, the same day the complaint
9
1170694
was filed, the trial court entered a temporary restraining
order enjoining the City from revoking Tower LLC's permit, but
also enjoining Tower LLC from beginning construction on
Perdido Dunes Tower. On April 20, 2015, Phoenix East
Association filed a motion to intervene in the declaratory-
judgment action, arguing that it had an interest in the
property that was the subject of the action.  The trial court
granted Phoenix East Association's motion. In its answer as an
intervening defendant, Phoenix East Association denied the
allegations in the complaint concerning Tower LLC and the PD
Tower Association's adverse-possession claim to the narrow
strip of land between the two properties, and it alleged
affirmative defenses to contest any claim by Tower LLC and the
PD Tower Association of adverse possession of any property
belonging to Phoenix East. 
On April 21, 2015, Tower LLC and the PD Tower Association
filed a complaint in the trial court seeking to quiet title to
the disputed strips of lands, naming the Master Association
and Phoenix East Association as defendants.  That case was
docketed as case no. CV-15-900468 ("the adverse-possession
action"). In the complaint, Tower LLC and the PD Tower
10
1170694
Association alleged that they had acquired title by adverse
possession to a narrow strip of land measuring 2.4 feet in
width lying west of the retaining wall that separated the
properties.2 Similarly, Tower LLC and the PD Tower Association
later named Phoenix VIII Association as a defendant in an
amended complaint alleging that Tower LLC and the PD Tower
Association had acquired title by adverse possession to a
narrow strip of land measuring 1.3 feet between the Perdido
Dunes property and the retaining wall adjacent to Phoenix
VIII's property. The trial court consolidated the adverse-
possession action and the declaratory-judgment action. Tower
LLC and the PD Tower Association amended the complaint in the
adverse-possession action to join as defendants all owners of
condominium units in Phoenix East, Phoenix VIII, and Perdido
Dunes 2006, including Karen Draper, who is the owner of a unit
at Perdido Dunes 2006 and who aligned her interests in the
litigation  with those of Phoenix East Association and Phoenix
VIII Association. 
In the declaratory-judgment action, the trial court held
2Initially, the parties alleged that the disputed strip
of land measured at 5 feet wide, but the strip was measured at
2.4 feet in a survey conducted in 2015, discussed infra. 
11
1170694
a hearing on April 23, 2015, on the motion for a preliminary
injunction. Vincent Lucido, a licensed land surveyor,
testified that he had prepared a 
special-purpose survey, which
also constituted a boundary survey, of the Perdido Dunes
property on April 22, 2015.3 Lucido testified that the survey
was conducted to show the location of the Phoenix VIII and
Phoenix East properties in relation to 
the prospective Perdido
Dunes Tower.  Lucido testified that he used landmarks in the
field and the description of the property in the original
warranty deed of the Perdido Dunes property from 1969 to
determine the location of the section line between the
properties and to establish the starting point of his survey.
Lucido testified that descriptions of the property in surveys
conducted after the 1969 deed but before the 2015 survey
altered the starting point by approximately three feet, which
would have shortened the width of the Perdido Dunes property.
Lucido stated that markers that had been relied upon by
previous surveyors were no longer in place because they been
destroyed by storms or by utility construction and that, as a
3Other witnesses testified at the hearing, but the record
contains a transcript of only Lucido's testimony.
12
1170694
result, "[t]he written word [in surveys and recorded
documents] and where [a property line] actually is in the
field are two different things sometimes."  Lucido further
testified that discrepancies in measurements between the 2015
survey and older surveys of the properties in question could
have been caused by different surveyors using different
starting points. Under direct examination by 
counsel for Tower
LLC and the PD Tower Association, Lucido testified as follows
concerning the distance he measured between the retaining wall
of Phoenix VIII and the retaining wall of Phoenix East:
"Q. So, if I understand your process, you set
out the lines that were the eastern boundary for
Phoenix [VIII] and the western boundary for Phoenix
East and you put those on the survey?
"A. That's correct.
"Q. And then you've taken measurements of
distances north and south in between the lines that
you set out that are those neighbor's boundaries.
You've also measured in between the walls, haven't
you?
 
"A. That's correct. That's that mention there,
100.2 between the two walls."
According to Lucido's testimony and Lucido's 2015 survey, the
southern property line of the Perdido Dunes property between
Phoenix VIII's and Phoenix East's property lines, excluding
13
1170694
the narrow strips of land at issue in the adverse-possession
case, measures 96.5 feet wide. Lucido testified that, although
his survey was not a title-boundary survey for the PD Tower
Association or Tower LLC, he would not object to it being used
for title purposes. Following the hearing, the trial court
converted the temporary restraining order to a preliminary
injunction.
At a meeting held on November 17, 2017, a majority of the
members of the Master Association voted to convey to Tower LLC
a one-foot-wide parcel of the common-area property located
immediately west of the footprint of where Perdido Dunes Tower
would be constructed.  The purpose of this conveyance was to
center Perdido Dunes Tower to comply with the 20-foot side
setback requirement on both the east and west sides of the
Perdido Dunes property. The PD Tower Association, the Master
Association, and the City  later asserted to the trial court
that, after the centering of the proposed Perdido Dunes Tower,
the 20-foot side setbacks would not include any portion of the
disputed strips of land  at issue in the adverse-possession
action. On December 29, 2017, the Master Association deeded
the one-foot-wide strip of land west of Perdido Dunes Tower to
14
1170694
Tower LLC.  
On February 6, 2018, Tower LLC, the PD Tower Association,
the Master Association, and the City collectively filed in the
declaratory-judgment action and in the adverse-possession
action a document titled "Notice of Proposed Settlement and
Motion to Enter Consent Decree." The trial court entered a
consent decree in the declaratory-judgment action on February
15, 2018 ("the consent decree"), stating, in pertinent part:
"13. The Tower LLC and [PD] Tower Condominium
Association 
subsequently 
undertook 
additional
efforts to replot and adjust where the footprint of
the tower would be located in an effort to meet the
twenty (20) foot side setback requirements. The
Tower LLC and [PD] Tower Condominium Association
submitted to the City a revised site plan, moving
the footprint of the condominium in a westerly
direction. No other aspects of the footprint (e.g.,
size) were changed. The results of this adjustment
allow for a twenty (20) foot side setback on the
east and west sides of the property. ...
"14. The City has reviewed the site plan
provided and concluded that it is not contrary to
the public interest to allow the footprint of the
tower structure presented in 2008, and which formed
the basis for the initial approval of the building
permit, to be adjusted so as to provide for side
setbacks between the east and west property lines
and the tower structure equal to or in excess of
twenty (20) feet. The City has also concluded that
it is not contrary to the public interest to allow
the tower structure with that change to be
constructed in substantial compliance with the plans
submitted in support of the 2008 permit, and to
15
1170694
allow construction of the tower structure as
previously submitted in compliance with the building
code requirements in place at the time of the
initial issuance of the permit.
"NOW 
THEREFORE, 
in 
consideration 
of 
the
premises, based upon the agreed facts as set forth
above, and in furtherance of the agreement of the
Settling Parties, it is hereby:
"ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
"15. The Tower LLC and the [PD] Tower
Condominium Association have already submitted and
the City Building Department has approved full and
complete building plans for the tower structure in
connection with the permitting process. The Tower
LLC has already submitted a revised site plan
(drawing C-1) to the City, which has been approved
by the City Building Department and the City
Council. Additionally, the Tower LLC shall submit
the remaining site plan drawing (drawings C-2
through C-4) reflecting the movement of the Tower
building footprint to the west as herein described,
to the City Building Department.
"16. Upon receipt of the revised site plans ...,
the City staff will undertake a review of these
plans to ensure compliance with the twenty (20) foot
side 
setback 
provisions. 
Upon 
review 
and
confirmation of compliance with the side setback
provisions, the Tower LLC and [PD] Tower Condominium
Association will be allowed to construct the
proposed structure as long as the Tower LLC and [PD]
Tower Condominium Association and their builder
comply 
with 
the 
process 
and 
procedures 
for
construction that were in place in 2008 and the
substantive requirements contained in the Building
Code as they existed in 2008.
"17. At the completion of construction, if the
footprint of the tower structure conforms to
16
1170694
'Exhibit A' [to the consent decree] and the tower
structure conforms to the relevant 2008 Building
Code provisions, the City will issue a Certificate
of 
Occupancy 
to 
the 
[PD] 
Tower 
Condominium
Association.
"18. The 
provisions of 
this Consent Decree shall
run with the land and may be relied upon, enjoyed
and enforced by the Tower LLC and the [PD] Tower
Condominium Association, their successors, grantees
or assigns.
"19. The provisions of this Consent Decree are
unique to the facts of this action and may not be
cited as precedent in any proceeding before any City
Board, Council or Commission by any person or entity
not a party to this action or a successor in
interest to any party to this action.
"20. 
While 
[Phoenix 
East 
Association 
and 
Phoenix
VIII Association] are not participating in the
settlement which has resulted in this Consent
Decree, they are nevertheless parties to this
consolidated 
action 
and 
their 
attorneys 
have
received timely notice of the motion of the other
parties for the entry of this Consent Decree, and
said attorneys have either remained silent after
such notice or have notified the Court that they and
their clients have no objection to this settlement
or to the terms of this Consent Decree. [Phoenix
East Association and Phoenix VIII Association] are
therefore bound by its provisions, including but not
limited to those concerning the issuance and
enforceability of the 2008 building permit, the
requirements for construction and placement of the
tower structure, and the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy should the Tower structure be built in
conformance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
All other claims of the Tower LLC, the [PD] Tower
Condominium Association, and the Master Association 
against the City are hereby dismissed, 
with
prejudice.
17
1170694
"21. 
Pursuant to 
the 
provisions of 
Alabama Rules
of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay in
the entry of this Order, and expressly directs the
entry of this Consent Decree as to all issues
addressed herein."4
(Capitalization in original.)
On February 15, 2018, Phoenix East Association and
Phoenix VIII Association filed a motion to vacate the consent
decree. On March 16, Draper filed a motion joining Phoenix
East Association and Phoenix VIII's motion.  The trial court
4The consent decree resolved all claims asserted by the
PD Tower Association and Tower LLC against the City. Although
the consent decree states that Phoenix East Association is
bound by the consent decree, nothing in the decree or
elsewhere in the record indicates that the trial court
adjudicated claims asserted against Phoenix East Association
as an intervenor in the declaratory-judgment action.  The
claims 
asserted 
against 
Phoenix 
East 
Association 
as
intervenor, therefore, remain pending in the declaratory-
judgment case.  The trial court properly certified the consent
decree as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R.
Civ. P. As discussed infra, Phoenix VIII Association and
Draper were not parties to the declaratory-judgment action. As
also discussed infra, consolidation of the declaratory-
judgment action and the adverse-possession action did not
merge those actions into a single action.  Accordingly, the
consent decree is not final as to the adverse-possession
action, which had not been resolved at the time of the appeal
of 
the 
judgment 
in 
the 
declaratory-judgment 
action.
Furthermore, although the consent decree states that all
claims of the Master Association against the City have been
resolved, we note that the Master Association was never added
as a party in the declaratory-judgment action, although it was
a party to the settlement agreement.  
18
1170694
entered an order denying the motion to vacate on March 20,
2018.  Phoenix East Association, Phoenix VIII Association, and
Draper filed a notice of appeal to this Court on April 20,
2018. 
Analysis
Phoenix East Association, Phoenix VIII Association, and
Draper raise several issues on appeal.  They contend (1) that
the consent decree is void because the PD Tower Association
and the Master Association were invalidly created; (2) that
the consent decree purports to sanction the conveyance of
"common elements," as that term is defined in the Act, of
Perdido Dunes 2006 in violation of the Act; (3) that the
partition of common elements is prohibited by the Act and the
declaration of condominium for Perdido Dunes 2006; (4) that
the consent decree effectively "takes" title to the disputed
real property from Phoenix East and Phoenix VIII; and (5) that
the consent decree has established title to the disputed
narrow strips of land in Tower LLC, the PD Tower Association,
and/or 
the 
Master 
Association without 
requiring 
those 
entities
to establish their burden of proving ownership of the disputed
lands by adverse possession. 
I.
19
1170694
Before we address the merits of the appeal, we must first
address 
the 
appellees' 
contentions 
that 
Phoenix 
East
Association, Phoenix VIII Association, and Draper lack
standing to appeal the consent decree. The underlying
declaratory-judgment action and the adverse-possession action
were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.,
which provides that, 
"[w]hen actions involving a common question of law
or fact are pending before the court, it may order
a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters
in issue in the actions; it may order all the
actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay." 
This Court has held that actions consolidated under Rule 42
retain their separate identities.
"[W]hen two or more actions are consolidated under
Rule 42, Ala. R. Civ. P., the actions do not lose
their separate identities.  League v. McDonald, 355
So. 2d 695, 697 (Ala. 1978).  Moreover, '[a]n order
of consolidation does not merge the actions into a
single [action], change the rights or the parties,
or make those who are parties to one [action]
parties to another.'  Jerome A. Hoffman, Alabama
Civil Procedure § 5.71 (2d ed. 2001) (citing Evers
v. Link Enters., Inc., 386 So. 2d 1177 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1980)).  Finally, '"in consolidated actions ...
the parties and pleadings in one action do not
become parties and pleadings in the other."'  Ex
parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So. 2d 34, 50 (Ala.
2005) (quoting Teague v. Motes, 57 Ala. App. 609,
613, 330 So. 2d 434, 438 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976))." 
20
1170694
Solomon v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 1211, 1222
(Ala. 2006). 
The trial court's order consolidating the declaratory-
judgment action and the adverse-possession action did not
"destroy the identity of those actions, but rather provide[d]
a means of avoiding repetitious litigation." Ex parte Flexible
Prods. Co., 915 So. 2d 34, 50 (Ala. 2005). Consolidation of
the actions did not merge the parties in the adverse-
possession action into the declaratory-judgment action.
Consolidation of the actions did not prevent the parties in
the declaratory-judgment action from settling the claims in
that action while leaving the 
claims in the adverse-possession
action pending. Nettles v. Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.C.,
[Ms. 1170162, Aug. 31, 2018] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2018). 
Similarly, the trial court's consolidation order does not
confer standing on a party in one action to appeal a judgment
entered in the other consolidated action in which it is not a
party. This Court has held: 
"The law in the area of standing for purposes of
appeal is well settled. One must have been a party
to the judgment below in order to have standing to
appeal any issue arising out of that judgment.
Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers, 621 So. 2d 1221
(Ala. 1993). When a court denies a nonparty's motion
to intervene in an action, that nonparty cannot
21
1170694
appeal from the final judgment in the action because
it never became a party to that action. Duncan v.
First Nat'l Bank of Jasper, 573 So. 2d 270, 273
(Ala. 1990)."
Mars Hill Baptist Church of Anniston, Ala., Inc. v. Mars Hill
Missionary Baptist Church, 761 So. 2d 975, 980 (Ala. 1999).
See also Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988)("The rule
that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become
parties, may appeal an adverse judgment, is well settled.").
Phoenix VIII Association was named as a defendant in the
adverse-possession action, but it was not a named party in the
declaratory-judgment action. 
 
Phoenix 
VIII 
Association did 
not
intervene in the declaratory-judgment action.  Because it was
a nonparty in the declaratory-judgment action, Phoenix VIII
Association does not have standing to appeal from the consent
decree. Similarly, Draper was added as a defendant in an
amended complaint filed in the adverse-possession action, but
she was not a named party in the declaratory-judgment action. 
Draper also did not intervene in the declaratory-judgment
action.  Draper, therefore, does not have standing to appeal
from the consent decree.  Lack of standing is a jurisdictional
defect. State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d
1025, 1027 (Ala. 1999). The notices of appeal filed by Phoenix
22
1170694
VIII Association and Draper failed to invoke the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court; accordingly, their appeal from the
consent decree is dismissed.
The 
trial 
court, 
however, 
granted 
Phoenix 
East
Association's motion to intervene in the declaratory-judgment
action. Although the judgment entered in that action was one
by consent, Phoenix East Association was not a party to the
consent decree.  "A consent decree has elements of difference
from one representing judicial determination by 
the court. For
it then 'must be "regarded as in the nature of a contract or
binding obligation between the parties thereto."'"  Mudd v.
Lanier, 247 Ala. 363, 372, 24 So. 2d 550, 558 (1945)(quoting
Garrett v. Davis, 216 Ala. 74, 76, 112 So. 342, 343 (1927),
quoting in turn Cowley v. Farrow, 193 Ala. 381, 384, 69 So.
114, 115 (1915)(emphasis added)).
"Although a consent order is a voluntary agreement
between the parties, it is also a judicially
approved order. Wyatt v. King, 803 F. Supp. 377
(M.D. Ala. 1992). Consent decrees '"have attributes
both of contracts and of judicial decrees," a dual
character that has resulted in different treatment
for different purposes.' Local Number 93, Int'l
Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S.
501, 519, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed. 2d 405 (1986)."
 
Austin v. Alabama Check Cashers Ass'n, 936 So. 2d 1014, 1039
(Ala. 2005).  "[A] consent decree is binding only on the
23
1170694
parties to it." Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala.
1985)(citing Cowley, 193 Ala. at 384, 69 So. at 115).
"'[P]arties 
who 
choose 
to 
resolve
litigation through settlement may not
dispose of the claims of a third party, and
a fortiori may not impose duties or
obligations on a third party, without the
party's agreement. A court's approval of a
consent decree between some of the parties
therefore cannot dispose of the valid
claims of nonconsenting intervenors; if
properly raised, these claims remain and
may be litigated by the intervenor. And, of
course, a court may not enter a consent
decree that imposes obligations on a party
that did not consent to the decree.'"
Austin, 936 So. 2d at 1040–41(quoting Local No. 93, Int'l
Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland,
478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)(emphasis added in Austin)).
In its motion to intervene and its answer stating its
defenses for which intervention was sought, Phoenix East
Association stated that it was seeking to protect its interest
in the narrow strip of property between Phoenix East's western
property line and the retaining wall adjacent to the Perdido
Dunes property that Tower LLC and the PD Tower Association
claimed they had acquired by adverse possession. Pursuant to
the trial court's order granting its motion to intervene,
which was without limitation, Phoenix East Association became
24
1170694
a party to the declaratory-judgment action. Phoenix East
Association, however, was not a party to the consent decree,
although the trial court stated in the consent decree that
Phoenix East Association would be bound by it.  The trial
court certified the consent decree as a final judgment
pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., leaving the adverse-
possession claims against Phoenix East Association pending in
the declaratory-judgment action along with the claims pending
in the adverse-possession action. Accordingly, Phoenix East
Association has standing to appeal from the consent decree.
II.
Phoenix East Association first contends that the 2006
declaration of condominium that created Perdido Dunes Tower,
along with forming the PD Tower Association and the Master
Association, is a legal nullity because, it says, it failed to
comply with the Act.  Phoenix East Association argues that §
35-8A-201(c), Ala. Code 1975, which is part of the Act,
requires that a condominium building must be substantially
constructed before a declaration of condominium can be filed. 
Section 35-8A-201(c) states:
"A declaration or an amendment to a declaration
adding units to a condominium, may not be recorded
unless all structural components and mechanical
25
1170694
systems of all buildings containing or comprising
any 
units 
thereby 
created 
are 
substantially
completed in accordance with the plans as evidenced
by a recorded certificate of completion executed by
an independent registered engineer or registered
architect."
Furthermore, Phoenix East Association contends that the § 35-
8A-103(27), Ala. Code 1975, which defines the term "unit
owner," also requires that a condominium be in existence
before a person can be considered a "unit owner."  That
section defines a "unit owner" as
"a declarant or other person who owns a unit, or a
lessee of a unit in a leasehold condominium whose
lease expires simultaneously with any lease the
expiration or termination of which will remove the
unit from the condominium, but does not include a
person having an interest in a unit solely as
security for an obligation. In a condominium, the
declarant is the initial owner of any unit created
by the condominium."
Phoenix East Association argues that there can be no unit
owners of Perdido Dunes Tower because, it contends, the
condominium has not been created and does not exist under the
Act.  It further argues that because there is no condominium
building and because there are no unit owners, the PD Tower
Association has no members, the PD Tower Association has no
functioning board of directors, and the Master Association's
board of directors cannot assemble a quorum of members to
26
1170694
conduct business. Phoenix East Association contends that,
because of the legal insufficiencies in the creation of and
operation of Perdido Dunes Tower, the PD Tower Association,
and the Master Association, those entities lacked the
authority under the Act and under their own governing
documents to take any official action, including creating the
condominium and the respective associations and entering into
the settlement agreement with the City that resulted in the
consent decree in the declaratory-judgment action. Phoenix
East Association contends that the consent decree is,
therefore, void. We do not agree.
In the 2006 judgment, the trial court in the termination
action concluded that the termination of Perdido Dunes was
valid and ratified the formation of Perdido Dunes Tower, the
PD Tower Association, Perdido Dunes 2006, the PD 2006
Association, and the Master Association under the Act.  As a
result of the 2006 judgment, declarations of condominium for
the reformed condominiums and the 
organizing documents for the
above-listed associations were recorded in the probate court
pursuant to the Act.  As noted, no party appealed from the
2006 judgment. 
Essentially, Phoenix East Association, a nonparty to the
27
1170694
termination action, is waging a collateral attack on the trial
court's 2006 judgment by asserting that Perdido Dunes Tower,
the PD Tower Association, Perdido Dunes 2006, the PD 2006
Association, and the Master Association were not validly
created. In Randolph County v. Thompson, 502 So. 2d 357 (Ala.
1987), this Court stated:
"As 
explained in 
Williams v. 
First National 
Bank
of Mobile, 384 So. 2d 89, 93 (Ala. 1980):
"'[A] direct attack upon a judgment is an
attempt to amend, correct, reform, vacate,
or enjoin the execution of that judgment in
a proceeding instituted for that purpose,
and ... a collateral attack is an attempt
to avoid the binding force of a judgment in
a proceeding not instituted in an attempt
to amend, correct, reform, vacate or enjoin
its execution.'
"See also Williams v. Overcast, 229 Ala. 119, 155
So. 543 (1934). This distinction between a direct
and a collateral attack cannot be overemphasized.
"A judgment which is regular on its face and
indicates subject matter and personal jurisdiction
is conclusive on collateral attack. Otto v. Guthrie,
475 So. 2d 856 (Ala. 1985); Nigg v. Smith, 415 So.
2d 1082 (Ala. 1982); Williams v. First National Bank
of Mobile, supra.
"The general rule regarding the collateral
attack of a judgment by a person who was not a party
to the prior proceeding is adequately stated in 49
C.J.S. Judgments § 414 (1947):
"'A stranger to the record, who was
not a party to the action in which the
28
1170694
judgment was rendered or in privity with a
party is not prohibited from impeaching the
validity of the judgment in a collateral
proceeding; but in order to do so he must
show that he has rights, claims or
interests which would be prejudiced or
injuriously affected by the enforcement of
the judgment, and which accrued prior to
its rendition, unless the judgment is
absolutely void. Thus situated he may
attack the judgment on the ground of want
of jurisdiction, or for fraud or collusion;
but he cannot object to it because of mere
errors or irregularities or for any matters
which might have been set up in defense to
the original action.'"
502 So. 2d at 361-62.  
In 
its 
principal 
brief 
on 
appeal, 
Phoenix 
East
Association does not allege that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to enter the 2006 judgment or that the 2006
judgment was based on fraud or collusion.  It does not argue
that the 2006 judgment is void. Phoenix East Association fails
to even acknowledge the existence of the 2006 judgment in
relation to its argument. Phoenix East Association provides
citations to the Act in support of its argument concerning the
alleged legal shortcomings of the creation of Perdido Dunes
Tower, the PD Tower Association, and the Master Association,
but, in its principal brief and in its reply brief, Phoenix
East Association does not cite any authority that would compel
29
1170694
this Court to declare the 2006 judgment void.  Phoenix East
Association does not argue that its rights, claims, or
interests are prejudiced or injuriously affected by the 2006
judgment.  Thompson, 502 So. 2d at 362. No argument is made
that the 2006 judgment was a product of fraud or collusion. 
Accordingly, Phoenix East Association's collateral attack on
the 2006 judgment fails, and we conclude that Perdido Dunes
Tower, the PD Tower Association, and the Master Association
were legally constituted under the Act with authority to enter
into the settlement agreement with the City and to become
parties to the consent decree.   
III. 
Phoenix East Association next argues that the consent
decree authorizes the conveyance of 
common elements of Perdido
Dunes 2006 by the Master Association in violation of the Act.
Section 35-8A-312, Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Act, states,
in pertinent part: 
"(a) In a condominium portions of the common
elements may be conveyed or subjected to a security
interest by the association if persons entitled to
cast at least 80 percent of the votes in the
association, including 80 percent of the votes
allocated to units not owned by a declarant, or any
larger percentage the declaration specifies, agree
to that action; but all the owners of units to which
any limited common element is allocated must agree
30
1170694
in order to convey that limited common element or
subject it to a security interest. The declaration
may specify a smaller percentage only if all of the
units are restricted exclusively to nonresidential
uses. Proceeds of the sale or loan are an asset of
the association. 
"(b) An agreement to convey common elements in
a condominium or subject them to a security interest
must be evidenced by the execution of an agreement,
or ratifications thereof, in the same manner as a
deed, by the requisite number of unit owners. The
agreement must specify a date after which the
agreement will be void unless recorded before that
date. The agreement and all ratifications thereof
must be recorded in every county in which a portion
of the condominium is situated, and is effective
only upon recordation.
"(c) The association, on behalf of the unit
owners, may contract to convey an interest in a
condominium pursuant to subsection (a), but the
contract is not enforceable against the association
until approved pursuant to subsections (a) and (b).
Thereafter, the association has all powers necessary
and appropriate to effect the conveyance or
encumbrance, including the power to execute deeds or
other instruments.
"(d) Any purported conveyance, encumbrance,
judicial sale, or other voluntary transfer of common
elements, unless made pursuant to this section, is
void.
"(e) A conveyance or encumbrance of common
elements pursuant to this section does not deprive
any unit of its rights of access and support."
In its motion to vacate the consent decree, Phoenix East
Association argued that the one-foot-wide strip of common area
conveyed by the Master Association to Tower LLC in December
31
1170694
2017 for the purpose of centering Perdido Dunes Tower was, in
actuality, an attempted conveyance of the common elements of
Perdido Dunes 2006.  Phoenix East Association alleged that 
the original developer of Perdido Dunes conveyed deeds to
purchasers of the units of Perdido Dunes that transferred to
them "an undivided interest in and to the common area as shown
and defined in the Declaration of Condominium of Perdido
Dunes, a Condominium, and amendments thereto."  According to
Phoenix East Association, the termination of 
Perdido Dunes did
not supersede the transfers made by deeds to the original unit
purchasers and the Perdido Dunes common areas remained common
elements of Perdido Dunes 2006. Phoenix East Association
argues that the unit owners of Perdido Dunes 2006, not the
Master Association, were in possession of those common
elements. Under § 35-8A-312, a transfer of the common elements
could not occur without a vote of approval of at least 80% of
the unit owners; thus, Phoenix East Association contends, the
transfer of the one-foot-wide strip of land by the Master
Association would be void unless 80% of the unit owners
constituting the PD 2006 Association agreed to the transfer. 
The Act provides a party aggrieved by an action that is
not in compliance with the Act the right to assert a claim
32
1170694
against the noncompliant person. Section 35–8A–414, Ala. Code
1975, provides, in pertinent part:
"If a declarant or any other person subject to
[the Act] fails to comply with any provision hereof
or any provision of the declaration or bylaws, any
person or class of persons adversely affected by the
failure to comply has a claim for actual damages or
appropriate equitable relief. The court, in an
appropriate case, may award reasonable attorney's
fees ...."
The Act defines the term "person" broadly to mean "[a] natural
person, 
corporation, 
business 
trust, 
estate, 
trust,
partnership, 
association, 
joint 
venture, 
government,
governmental subdivision or agency, or other legal or
commercial entity."  § 35-8A-103(19), Ala. Code 1975.  The Act
defines 
the 
term 
"association" 
as 
"[t]he 
corporation organized
under Section 35-8A-301." § 35-8A-103(3).  Because they are
corporations organized under § 35-8A-301, both Phoenix East
Association and the Master Association are "associations"
under the Act and are therefore also considered to be
"persons" for purposes of § 35–8A–414.
Pursuant to its motion to intervene and the answer it
filed in intervention, Phoenix East Association intervened in
the 
declaratory-judgment action to protect any interest it may
have in the narrow strip of land lying west of the retaining
33
1170694
wall that separated its property from the Perdido Dunes
property. Although Phoenix East Association's stated interest
in the declaratory-action was confined, the trial court's
order granting Phoenix East Association's motion to intervene
placed no limitation on the substantive issues or claims 
Phoenix East Association could raise. See Marcum v. Ausley,
729 So. 2d 845, 848 (Ala. 1999)(holding that the trial court's
granting of limited intervention pursuant to Rule 24, Ala. R.
Civ. P., effectively foreclosed the intervenor's attempts to
argue substantive issues unrelated to the purpose for the
intervention); see also Pinto v. 
Alabama Coalition for Equity,
662 So. 2d 894 (Ala. 1995). Phoenix East Association never
sought permission from the trial court to assert a
counterclaim pursuant to Rule 13(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., for
equitable relief under § 35–8A–414 to have the Master
Association's December 2017 transfer of property to Tower LLC
declared void for alleged noncompliance with § 35-8A-312 or
other provisions of the Act.  Furthermore, Phoenix East
Association failed to assert as a part of any claim that it is
a person "adversely affected" by the Master Association's
transfer of the property to Tower LLC.  Instead, Phoenix East
Association asserted that argument for the first time in its
34
1170694
postjudgment motion.  The failure to properly plead a claim
under § 35–8A–414 of the Act is fatal. Phoenix East
Association did not avail itself of the rights afforded
persons aggrieved under the Act. The issue, therefore, is not
properly before this Court, and the consent decree is affirmed
as to this issue.
IV. 
The remainder of Phoenix East Association's arguments are
waived.  Phoenix East Association contends that both the Act
and the declaration of condominium creating Perdido Dunes 2006
prohibit the partition of common elements, but the only
authority cited in this section of Phoenix East Association's
principal brief is § 35-8A-312(b), which Phoenix East
Association cites for the proposition that an agreement to
convey common elements in a condominium must be filed in the
probate court.  Phoenix East Association also argues that the
consent decree effectively ordered title of the disputed
narrow strip of land to be transferred from Phoenix East to
the Master Association, but it provides no citation to
authority to support this argument. Lastly, Phoenix East
Association argues that the consent decree has vested title to
the disputed narrow strip of land in Tower LLC, the PD Tower
35
1170694
Association, and/or the Master Association without requiring
those parties to establish their burden of proving ownership
of the disputed lands by adverse possession. As to this
argument, Phoenix East Association cites Sparks v. Byrd, 562
So. 2d 211, 214 (Ala. 1990), for the general proposition of
law pertaining to the elements of establishing a claim for
adverse possession, but it cites no other authority pertinent
to its argument. 
Regarding these three 
arguments, Phoenix 
East Association
has not provided this Court with citations to applicable
authority that demonstrate error in the consent decree. 
"'Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. 
App. 
P., 
requires that
arguments in an appellant's brief contain "citations
to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and parts
of the record relied on." ... "[I]t is well settled
that a failure to comply with the requirements of
Rule 28(a)(10) requiring citation of authority in
support of the arguments presented provides this
Court 
with 
a 
basis 
for 
disregarding 
those
arguments." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Motley, 909 So. 2d 806, 822 (Ala. 2005).'"
Prattville Mem'l Chapel v. Parker, 10 So. 3d 546, 560 (Ala.
2008) (quoting Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith,
964 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007)). Accordingly, Phoenix East
Association's arguments as to these issues are waived, and the
consent decree is affirmed as to these issues.
36
1170694
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal insofar as it was
filed by Phoenix VIII Association and Draper is dismissed
because those parties lack standing to appeal. The appellant
Phoenix East Association has standing to appeal, but its
challenge to the consent decree is unavailing, and the consent
decree is affirmed.
APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, and Sellers, JJ., concur.
37