Title: Guardian Builders, LLC v. Uselton

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: 5/31/13 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s 
may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111375 
Guardian Builders, LLC, 
and 
Wayne Tackett 
v. 
Randy Uselton and 
Melissa Uselton 
Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-09-901074) 
BRYAN, J u s t i c e . 
G u a r d i a n 
B u i l d e r s , LLC, 
and 
Wayne T a c k e t t 
( c o l l e c t i v e l y 
"Guardian") a p p e a l from an 
o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o 
deny 
G u a r d i a n ' s 
m o t i o n t o v a c a t e o r m o d i f y an a r b i t r a t i o n award e n t e r e d i n 
1111375 
f a v o r of Randy U s e l t o n and M e l i s s a U s e l t o n . 
We v a c a t e the 
o r d e r and d i s m i s s the a p p e a l . 
I n A p r i l 2010, the U s e l t o n s sued G u a r d i a n i n the Madison 
C i r c u i t C o u r t , a l l e g i n g s e v e r a l c l a i m s a r i s i n g from G u a r d i a n ' s 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
of 
a 
house 
f o r 
the 
U s e l t o n s . 
G u a r d i a n 
s u b s e q u e n t l y 
f i l e d a m o t i o n t o compel 
a r b i t r a t i o n , and the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
g r a n t e d 
t h a t 
motion 
i n O c t o b e r 
2010. 
On 
December 21, 2011, the a r b i t r a t o r e n t e r e d a f i n a l 
award i n 
f a v o r 
of the U s e l t o n s i n the amount o f $452,275.20. 
On 
J a n u a r y 11, 2012, 
G u a r d i a n 
f i l e d 
w i t h the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t a 
m o t i o n t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y the a r b i t r a t i o n award, t o w h i c h i t 
a t t a c h e d a copy of the a r b i t r a t i o n award. 
On May 
15, 2012, 
the U s e l t o n s f i l e d a "motion t o c o n f i r m " the a r b i t r a t i o n award 
and a response t o G u a r d i a n ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y . 
On 
May 31, 2012, the c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o 
deny G u a r d i a n ' s motion t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
award, p u r p o r t i n g t o g r a n t the U s e l t o n s ' motion t o c o n f i r m the 
a r b i t r a t i o n award, 
and p u r p o r t i n g t o o r d e r G u a r d i a n t o pay 
$1,421.75 i n B e t t e r B u s i n e s s Bureau f e e s and 
f a c i l i t y 
c o s t s 
r e l a t e d t o the a r b i t r a t i o n . 
G u a r d i a n a p p e a l e d . 
2 
1111375 
The U s e l t o n s move t h i s C o u r t t o d i s m i s s the a p p e a l on the 
ground t h a t G u a r d i a n f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of 
R u l e 71B, A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e s the p r o c e d u r e f o r 
a p p e a l i n g an a r b i t r a t i o n award t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
R u l e 
71B 
p r o v i d e s : 
"(a) 
Who 
may 
a p p e a l . 
Any 
p a r t y 
t o 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
may 
f i l e 
a n o t i c e of a p p e a l 
from 
the 
award e n t e r e d as a r e s u l t of the 
a r b i t r a t i o n . 
"(b) When f i l e d . 
The n o t i c e of a p p e a l 
s h a l l be 
f i l e d 
w i t h i n 
t h i r t y 
(30) 
days 
a f t e r 
s e r v i c e 
of 
n o t i c e of the 
a r b i t r a t i o n award. 
F a i l u r e t o 
f i l e 
w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) days s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a w a i v e r 
of 
the r i g h t t o 
r e v i e w . 
"(c) Where f i l e d . 
The n o t i c e of a p p e a l s h a l l be 
f i l e d w i t h the c l e r k of the c i r c u i t c o u r t where the 
a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n i s p e n d i n g or i f 
the 
c o u n t y where the award i s made. 
a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g i n the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t , then i n 
o f f i c e of the c l e r k of the c i r c u i t c o u r t of the 
"(d) What f i l e d . 
With the n o t i c e of a p p e a l , 
the 
a p p e l l a n t s h a l l 
f i l e a copy of the award, s i g n e d 
by 
the 
a r b i t r a t o r , 
i f t h e r e 
i s 
o n l y 
one, 
or 
by 
a 
m a j o r i t y 
of 
the 
a r b i t r a t o r s , 
a l o n g 
w i t h 
the 
s u b m i s s i o n 
t o the a r b i t r a t o r or a r b i t r a t o r s and 
any 
s u p p o r t i n g documents or r e c o r d of the 
p r o c e e d i n g s , 
i f 
a v a i l a b l e . 
I f 
no 
r e c o r d 
i s 
a v a i l a b l e , 
the 
a p p e l l a n t 
s h a l l 
so 
s t a t e . 
I f a r e c o r d 
i s t o 
be 
p r e p a r e d 
b u t 
i s 
not 
c o m p l e t e d 
w i t h i n 
the 
time 
p r o v i d e d 
i n 
p a r a g r a p h 
(b) 
of 
t h i s 
r u l e , 
the 
a p p e l l a n t s h a l l so s t a t e i n the n o t i c e of a p p e a l 
and 
s h a l l 
f i l e the r e c o r d w i t h i n t h i r t y 
(30) days a f t e r 
the f i l i n g of the n o t i c e of a p p e a l , u n l e s s the c o u r t 
f o r good cause shown s h a l l a l l o w a d d i t i o n a l t i m e . 
3 
1111375 
"(e) How s e r v e d . 
I f 
t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a r o s e out 
of 
a p e n d i n g 
a c t i o n , 
s e r v i c e 
s h a l l be made as 
p r o v i d e d i n 
R u l e 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . I f t h e r e 
i s 
no a c t i o n p e n d i n g , s e r v i c e s h a l l be made as p r o v i d e d 
i n R u l e s 4 t h r o u g h 4.4[, A l a . R. C i v . P.,] and upon 
any c o u n s e l who appeared i n 
t h e a r b i t r a t i o n f o r 
t h e 
p a r t y b e i n g s e r v e d . 
" ( f ) 
P r o c e d u r e a f t e r 
f i l i n g . 
The c l e r k o f 
t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o m p t l y s h a l l e n t e r t h e award as 
t h e 
f i n a l 
judgment o f t h e c o u r t . 
T h e r e a f t e r , as a 
c o n d i t i o n 
p r e c e d e n t 
t o 
f u r t h e r 
r e v i e w 
by any 
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , any p a r t y opposed t o t h e award may 
f i l e , i n 
accordance w i t h R u l e 59, [ A l a . 
R. C i v . P.,] 
a motion t o s e t a s i d e o r v a c a t e t h e 
judgment based 
upon one o r more o f t h e grounds s p e c i f i e d i n 
A l a . 
Code 1975, 
§ 6-6-14, o r o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e law. The 
c o u r t 
s h a l l n o t g r a n t any such 
motion 
u n t i l a 
r e a s o n a b l e 
time 
a f t e r 
a l l p a r t i e s 
a r e 
s e r v e d 
p u r s u a n t 
t o p a r a g r a p h 
(e) o f 
t h i s 
r u l e . 
The 
d i s p o s i t i o n o f any such motion i s s u b j e c t t o 
c i v i l 
and 
a p p e l l a t e 
r u l e s 
a p p l i c a b l e 
t o 
o r d e r s and 
judgments i n c i v i l 
a c t i o n s . 
"(g) A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . 
An a p p e a l may be t a k e n 
from t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f any R u l e 59 motion 
c h a l l e n g i n g t h e award by f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l 
to t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 
4 , [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . " 
Thus, R u l e 71B e s t a b l i s h e s t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e f o r 
t h e a p p e a l o f an a r b i t r a t i o n award: (1) 
A p a r t y must 
f i l e a 
n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h t h e 
a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n 30 
days a f t e r s e r v i c e o f 
t h e 
n o t i c e o f 
t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d ; (2) 
the c l e r k o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l p r o m p t l y e n t e r t h e award 
as t h e f i n a l judgment o f 
t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ; (3) 
t h e a g g r i e v e d 
4 
1111375 
p a r t y may 
f i l e a R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., motion t o s e t a s i d e 
or 
v a c a t e 
the judgment, 
and 
such 
f i l i n g 
i s a 
c o n d i t i o n 
p r e c e d e n t t o f u r t h e r r e v i e w by any a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ; ( 4 ) the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t s o r d e n i e s the R u l e 59 m o t i o n ; and ( 5 ) the 
a g g r i e v e d p a r t y may 
t h e n a p p e a l 
from the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 
judgment t o the a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . 
from the a r b i t r a t i o n award w i t h i n 30 days of s e r v i c e 
of the n o t i c e o f the award and has t i m e l y 
f i l e d a 
R u l e 59 m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e or v a c a t e the judgment 
on t h e a r b i t r a t i o n award as d e s c r i b e d above." 
Committee Comments t o R u l e 71B E f f e c t i v e F e b r u a r y 1, 2009. 
I n t h i s case, G u a r d i a n never f i l e d w i t h the c i r c u i t c o u r t 
a document 
t i t l e d 
a " n o t i c e of a p p e a l . " 
R a t h e r , 
G u a r d i a n 
a t t e m p t e d t o a p p e a l from the a r b i t r a t i o n award by f i l i n g w i t h 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t a motion t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y the a r b i t r a t i o n 
award, which G u a r d i a n f i l e d w i t h i n 30 days o f the e n t r y of the 
award. The U s e l t o n s argue t h a t G u a r d i a n does not have a r i g h t 
t o a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w because G u a r d i a n d i d not f i l e a n o t i c e of 
a p p e a l ; i n s t e a d , i t f i l e d o n l y a m o t i o n t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y . 
C o n v e r s e l y , G u a r d i a n 
argues 
t h a t 
i t s m o t i o n 
t o v a c a t e 
o r 
m o d i f y the a r b i t r a t i o n award may 
be c o n s t r u e d t o be b o t h a 
eved p a r t y has 
no 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
award 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t 
r\ 
J 
IT 
: 
_ 
5 
1111375 
n o t i c e of a p p e a l and a R u l e 59 m o t i o n , f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 
71B. 
In J.L. Loper C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v. F i n d o u t P a r t n e r s h i p , 
LLP, 
55 
So. 
3d 
1152 
( A l a . 2010), 
t h i s 
C o u r t a d d r e s s e d 
a 
s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . 
In Loper, an a r b i t r a t o r e n t e r e d an award 
i n f a v o r o f F i n d o u t and a d v e r s e t o Loper. 
Loper 
f i l e d 
w i t h 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e the award. 
F i n d o u t 
s u b s e q u e n t l y moved the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o c o n f i r m the award, and 
Loper 
f i l e d a motion 
t o e n j o i n F i n d o u t from a t t e m p t i n g t o 
c o l l e c t the award. 
A l t h o u g h Loper d i d not 
f i l e a " n o t i c e of 
a p p e a l , " the c i r c u i t c o u r t t r e a t e d the motions 
f i l e d by Loper 
— 
the motion t o s e t a s i d e the award and the motion t o e n j o i n 
enforcement of the award — 
"'as an a p p e a l of t h [ e ] award'" 
under R u l e 71B. 
55 So. 3d a t 1157 
( q u o t i n g c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r ) . 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t o r d e r e d the c l e r k of the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o e n t e r the a r b i t r a t i o n award as the judgment o f t h a t 
c o u r t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 7 1 B ( f ) . 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t t h e n 
c o n s i d e r e d L o p e r ' s motion t o s e t a s i d e , 
i . e . , i t s R u l e 
59 
m o t i o n , and g r a n t e d t h a t m o t i o n . 
F i n d o u t a p p e a l e d t o 
t h i s 
C o u r t . 
6 
1111375 
In 
L o p e r , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
d i d not 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
L o p e r ' s 
f a i l u r e 
t o 
f i l e 
a s e p a r a t e document 
t i t l e d 
a 
" n o t i c e 
of 
a p p e a l , " 
i n a d d i t i o n 
t o the 
two 
motions 
f i l e d 
by 
Loper, 
p r e c l u d e d f u r t h e r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . 
I n s t e a d , i t n o t e d t h a t 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t had c o n s i d e r e d L o p e r ' s motions 
c h a l l e n g i n g 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n award as a n o t i c e of a p p e a l of the award. 
T h i s C o u r t t h e n r e v i e w e d the m e r i t s of the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 
judgment s e t t i n g a s i d e the a r b i t r a t i o n award and r e v e r s e d t h a t 
judgment. 
Thus, based on Loper, the c i r c u i t c o u r t i n t h i s 
case c o u l d have t r e a t e d G u a r d i a n ' s motion t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y 
as a n o t i c e of a p p e a l . 
G u a r d i a n a t t a c h e d t o t h a t motion a 
copy o f the a r b i t r a t i o n award and s e r v e d a copy o f the motion 
on the U s e l t o n s ; t h a t motion p r o v i d e d n o t i c e t h a t G u a r d i a n was 
a p p e a l i n g 
t h e award. 
We 
c o n s t r u e G u a r d i a n ' s motion 
as 
a 
n o t i c e of a p p e a l i n t h i s case; however, we emphasize 
t h a t , t o 
a v o i d p o t e n t i a l c o n f u s i o n , a p a r t y d e s i r i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w 
of an a r b i t r a t i o n award s h o u l d f o l l o w the e x p l i c i t p r o c e d u r e 
f o r a p p e a l i n g e s t a b l i s h e d by R u l e 
71B. 
A l t h o u g h 
we 
c o n s t r u e G u a r d i a n ' s 
m o t i o n 
t o v a c a t e 
or 
m o d i f y the a r b i t r a t i o n award as a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , we must 
a d d r e s s 
a d d i t i o n a l 
i s s u e s 
c o n c e r n i n g 
the 
p r o c e d u r e 
f o r 
7 
1111375 
a p p e a l i n g 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
award used 
i n t h i s 
case. 
Most 
i m p o r t a n t l y , 
a f t e r G u a r d i a n a p p e a l e d t o the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t , 
i . e . , a f t e r i t f i l e d i t s 
motion t o v a c a t e o r m o d i f y the award, 
t h e r e 
i s no i n d i c a t i o n 
t h a t the c l e r k o f the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d the a r b i t r a t i o n award as the judgment o f t h a t c o u r t as 
r e q u i r e d by R u l e 7 1 B ( f ) . 
That r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e 
c l e r k 
of the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t p r o m p t l y s h a l l e n t e r 
the award as the 
f i n a l judgment o f the c o u r t " a f t e r the f i l i n g o f the n o t i c e o f 
a p p e a l i n t h a t 
c o u r t . 
R u l e 71B, which became e f f e c t i v e 
on 
F e b r u a r y 1, 2009, s u p e r s e d e d the p r o c e d u r e e s t a b l i s h e d by § 6¬
6-15, 
A l a . Code 
1975. 
Committee Comments 
t o 
R u l e 
71B 
E f f e c t i v e F e b r u a r y 1, 2009 ("[Rule 71B] 
c l a r i f i e s the method 
f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l from an a r b i t r a t i o n award and supersedes 
the p r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e d 
by A l a . Code 1975, 
§ 6-6-15."); 
and 
Parham v. American 
Bankers 
I n s . Co. 
of F l o r i d a , 
24 So. 
3d 
1102, 1104 n.2 
( A l a . 2009) 
. A l t h o u g h R u l e 71B s u p e r s e d e d the 
p r o c e d u r e 
e s t a b l i s h e d by § 6-6-15, the two p r o c e d u r e s 
are 
s i m i l a r 
i n some 
r e s p e c t s ; 
t h a t 
s i m i l a r i t y 
i n f o r m s 
our 
d i s c u s s i o n on the e f f e c t of the noncompliance w i t h R u l e 71B(f) 
i n t h i s case. 
8 
1111375 
Under 
§ 6-6-15, a p a r t y 
i n i t i a t e d 
an 
a p p e a l 
from 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n award by 
f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l i n the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t . 
See g e n e r a l l y Horton Homes, I n c . v. Shaner, 999 So. 
2d 
462, 
467 
( A l a . 2008) 
( c l a r i f y i n g 
and m o d i f y i n g 
the p r o c e d u r e 
f o r a p p e a l i n g an a r b i t r a t i o n award under § 6-6-15). 
L i k e the 
c u r r e n t p r o c e d u r e under R u l e 7 1 B ( f ) , under § 6-6-15 the 
c l e r k 
of the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t was 
r e q u i r e d t o e n t e r 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
award as the judgment of the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
Under § 6-6-15, 
as under R u l e 7 1 B ( f ) , the a g g r i e v e d 
p a r t y c o u l d t h e n 
f i l e 
a 
R u l e 59 m o t i o n a s k i n g 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e or 
t o 
v a c a t e the judgment. 
Under 
the 
p r o c e d u r e 
e s t a b l i s h e d by 
§ 6-6-15, 
i t 
was 
e s s e n t i a l 
t h a t the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r the a r b i t r a t i o n award 
as 
the 
judgment 
of 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t . 
That 
p o i n t 
was 
i l l u s t r a t e d 
i n Parham v. American Bankers I n s u r a n c e Co. 
of 
 
F l o r i d a , s u p r a . 
In Parham, American Bankers sought r e v i e w 
of 
an a r b i t r a t i o n award i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
However, the 
c l e r k 
had 
not 
e n t e r e d 
the award as 
the 
judgment of 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t . 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t l a t e r e n t e r e d an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o 
g r a n t 
American B a n k e r s ' 
motion 
t o 
v a c a t e 
the 
award. 
On 
9 
1111375 
a p p e a l , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
v a c a t e d 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
and 
d i s m i s s e d the a p p e a l , 
c o n c l u d i n g : 
"We 
f i n d no i n d i c a t i o n i n the r e c o r d t h a t 
the 
c l e r k 
of 
the 
S h e l b y 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
the 
a r b i t r a t o r ' s o r d e r as the judgment of t h a t c o u r t as 
r e q u i r e d under § 6-6-15, A l a . Code 1975; 
t h u s , t h e r e 
i s no 
f i n a l judgment from which Parham can 
a p p e a l . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s ... o r d e r [ p u r p o r t i n g 
t o g r a n t the m o t i o n t o v a c a t e the award] i s v o i d and 
i s 
hereby v a c a t e d , 
and 
t h i s 
a p p e a l 
i s 
d i s m i s s e d . 
See Harvey v. C i t y of Oneonta, 715 
So. 2d 779, 
781 
( A l a . 
1998) 
('A 
judgment 
of 
a 
c o u r t 
w i t h o u t 
j u r i s d i c t i o n i s v o i d . An a p p e a l 
w i l l not l i e from a 
v o i d judgment.' ( c i t i n g , among o t h e r c a s e s , Luken v.  
BancBoston Mortgage Corp., 
580 
So. 
2d 
578 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 1 ) ) ) . " 
Parham, 24 So. 3d a t 1104. 
See a l s o Jenks v. H a r r i s , 990 
So. 
2d 
878, 
882 
( A l a . 2008) 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t , under § 6-6-15, 
a 
c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o s e t a s i d e an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
award was v o i d because the c i r c u i t c l e r k had not f i r s t 
e n t e r e d 
the award as the judgment of the c o u r t ) . 
L i k e 
§ 6-6-15, Rule 
71B(f) 
r e q u i r e s the 
c l e r k 
of 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t t o 
f i r s t 
e n t e r the 
a r b i t r a t i o n award as 
the 
judgment of t h a t c o u r t b e f o r e the c i r c u i t c o u r t may 
a c t on a 
m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e the award. 
I n t h i s 
case, 
t h e r e i s no 
i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the c l e r k e n t e r e d the a r b i t r a t i o n award as the 
judgment of the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t . 
Thus, the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o deny G u a r d i a n ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e or m o d i f y 
10 
1111375 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
award 
i s 
v o i d . 
Parham 
and 
Jenks. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we v a c a t e the o r d e r and d i s m i s s the a p p e a l . 
We note t h a t , a f t e r G u a r d i a n 
f i l e d i t s motion t o v a c a t e 
or m o d i f y the a r b i t r a t i o n award, w h i c h we have c o n s t r u e d as a 
n o t i c e of a p p e a l , the U s e l t o n s f i l e d a "motion t o c o n f i r m " the 
award. 
In i t s o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o deny G u a r d i a n ' s m o t i o n t o 
v a c a t e or m o d i f y the award, the c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o p u r p o r t e d 
t o g r a n t the U s e l t o n s ' m o t i o n t o c o n f i r m the award, p u r p o r t i n g 
t o e n t e r a judgment on the award " f o r which e x e c u t i o n 
may 
i s s u e . " 
A l t h o u g h i t i s u n c l e a r , i t appears t h a t the U s e l t o n s 
sought t o i n v o k e R u l e 
71C, 
A l a . R. 
C i v . P., 
i n s e e k i n g 
an 
e n t r y of a judgment by 
f i l i n g 
t h e i r m o t i o n t o c o n f i r m 
the 
award. 
Rule 71C p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"(a) 
Who 
may 
e n f o r c e . 
Any 
p a r t y 
t o 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
may 
seek 
enforcement 
of 
the 
award 
e n t e r e d as a r e s u l t of the 
a r b i t r a t i o n . 
" (b) When f i l e d . 
I f no a p p e a l has been 
f i l e d 
 
p u r s u a n t 
t o Rule 
71B 
w i t h i n t h i r t y 
(30) 
days 
of 
s e r v i c e 
of 
the 
n o t i c e 
of 
the 
award, 
t h e r e b y 
r e s u l t i n g 
i n a w a i v e r of the 
r i g h t t o r e v i e w , 
the 
p a r t y s e e k i n g enforcement of the award may 
a t 
any 
time t h e r e a f t e r seek enforcement of the award i n the 
a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u i t c o u r t as s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h 
(c) of t h i s 
r u l e . 
"(c) Where 
f i l e d . 
The 
motion 
f o r e n t r y 
of 
judgment 
s h a l l 
be 
f i l e d 
w i t h 
the 
c l e r k 
of 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
where 
the 
a c t i o n 
u n d e r l y i n g 
the 
11 
1111375 
a r b i t r a t i o n i s 
p e n d i n g o r i f 
no a c t i o n i s 
p e n d i n g i n 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h e n i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c l e r k 
of t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f t h e county where t h e award 
i s made. 
"  
" ( f ) Procedure a f t e r f i l i n g . 
The c l e r k p r o m p t l y 
s h a l l e n t e r t h e award as t h e f i n a l judgment o f 
t h e 
c o u r t . 
A f t e r s e r v i c e p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h (e) o f 
t h i s 
r u l e , t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y may seek 
e x e c u t i o n 
on t h e judgment as i n 
any o t h e r c a s e . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
R u l e 71C p r o v i d e s 
f o r t h e e n t r y o f a judgment on an 
a r b i t r a t i o n award when an a p p e a l has not been f i l e d from t h a t 
award p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 71B. However, i n t h i s case, G u a r d i a n 
d i d i n i t i a t e an a p p e a l o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n award under R u l e 71B 
by f i l i n g i n 
t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i t s 
m o t i o n t o v a c a t e o r m o d i f y 
the award. 
Thus, R u l e 71C c o u l d not have been employed t o 
e n t e r a judgment on t h a t award. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t d i d 
not have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o " c o n f i r m " t h e award by 
e n t e r i n g a judgment on t h e award p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 71C.
1 The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t a l s o awarded B e t t e r B u s i n e s s Bureau f e e s and 
f a c i l i t y c o s t s t o t h e U s e l t o n s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e n t r y o f 
1 F u r t h e r m o r e , we note t h a t R u l e 71C(f) d i r e c t s t h e c l e r k 
of t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o e n t e r an award as t h e judgment o f 
t h e 
c i r c u i t c o u r t , which was not done i n t h i s case. 
12 
1111375 
the award; 
i t f o l l o w s 
t h a t 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t l a c k e d the 
a u t h o r i t y t o award t h o s e f e e s and c o s t s as 
w e l l . 
In summary, we c o n s t r u e G u a r d i a n ' s motion t o v a c a t e o r 
m o d i f y the a r b i t r a t i o n award o f December 21, 2011, as a n o t i c e 
of a p p e a l under R u l e 71B, thus e f f e c t u a t i n g the a p p e a l o f the 
award t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
However, because the c l e r k of the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t never e n t e r e d the award as the judgment o f t h a t 
c o u r t , the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r o f May 31, 2012, p u r p o r t i n g 
t o 
deny 
G u a r d i a n ' s 
motion 
t o 
v a c a t e 
or 
m o d i f y 
i s 
v o i d . 
E s s e n t i a l l y , G u a r d i a n ' s a p p e a l remains p e n d i n g i n the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t , a w a i t i n g f u r t h e r p r o c e d u r e s under R u l e 71B. 
F u r t h e r , 
because G u a r d i a n has a p p e a l e d from the a r b i t r a t i o n award under 
R u l e 71B, t h a t award c o u l d not be e n t e r e d as the judgment of 
the c o u r t under 71C. 
Thus, the c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y 
t o e n t e r a judgment on the award 
under R u l e 71C and t o award 
B e t t e r B u s i n e s s Bureau f e e s and 
f a c i l i t y c o s t s i n c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h 
the e n t r y of 
t h a t 
judgment. 
We 
v a c a t e 
t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s May 31, 2012, o r d e r , and we d i s m i s s the a p p e a l . 
ORDER VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 
S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Wise, J J . , 
concur. 
Moore, C.J., concurs i n the 
r e s u l t . 
13