Title: Ex parte Donald C. Cox.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:09/02/2016
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, 2016
____________________
1150989
____________________
Ex parte Donald C. Cox
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Donald C. Cox
v.
Stacy R. Cox)
(Autauga Circuit Court, DR-02-85.02 and DR-02-85.03;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2141036; 2150667)
BOLIN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1150989
Stuart, Parker, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., dissents.
2
1150989
MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting).
I refer the reader to the procedural history of this case
as set out in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.  Cox
v. Cox, [Ms. 2141036, June 10, 2016] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.
Civ. App. 2016).  
When the trial court consolidated the separate actions of
the mother and the father, they became a single action to
which the requirements of Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., were
applicable.    Thus, barring a Rule 54(b) certification (which
1
was not entered here and would, in any event, have been
inappropriate because of the intertwined nature of the
claims), no portion of the judgment of the trial court in the
consolidated action became final until all the claims in the
cases were finally adjudicated in accordance with applicable
rules of procedure.  Thus, during the continued pendency of
the mother's child-support claim as a result of the filing of
her postjudgment motion, the trial court's adjudication 
of 
the
father's custody claim also remained pending in the trial
The 
trial 
court's 
merger 
of 
the 
parties' 
competing 
claims
1
into a single action was appropriate, given the dependent and
intertwined nature of the claims asserted in the separate
actions.  The mother's claim for additional child support
could not be properly adjudged without a resolution of the
father's claim for custody. 
3
1150989
court.  The trial court's adjudication of the two claims in
the single, consolidated action became final for purposes of
appeal at the same time, a conclusion dictated by this Court's
holding in Hanner v. MetroBank & Protective Life Insurance
Co., 952 So. 2d 1056, 1060-61 (Ala. 2006). 
The Court of Civil Appeals held that the father's appeal
was untimely because the filing of a postjudgment motion as to
the mother's child-support claim tolled the time for appeal
only as to that claim.  But this holding ultimately fails to
fully 
account 
for 
this 
Court's 
holding 
in 
Hanner. 
Specifically, the Court of Civil Appeals, citing its own
opinion in a 2007 case, which in turn relied upon various
cases that predated or failed to take account of this Court's
2006 decision in Hanner, based its holding on the following
legal principles:
"'[W]here "several actions are ordered to be
consolidated for trial, each action retains its
separate identity and thus requires the entry of a
separate judgment."  League v. McDonald, 355 So. 2d
695, 697 (Ala. 1978), cited with approval by Solomon
v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 1211
(Ala. 2006).
"'"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
4
1150989
[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))."
"'Solomon, 953 So. 2d at 1222 (emphasis added).'"
Cox, ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting Pitts v. Jim Walter Res.,
Inc., 994 So. 2d 924, 930 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (emphasis
added)).   But this Court rejected the above-quoted legal
principles in Hanner:
"According to Wright and Miller:
"'Although 
federal 
courts 
usually 
have
said that consolidated actions do not lose
their separate identity, some courts have
reasoned persuasively that they should be
treated as a single action for purposes of
review by way of Rule 54(b), and that a
judgment in the consolidated case that does
not dispose of all claims and all parties
is appealable only if certified as that
rule requires.'
"9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2386 (2d ed. 1995)
(footnote omitted).  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has said:
"'In our view, the best approach is to
permit the appeal only when there is a
5
1150989
final judgment that resolves all of the
consolidated 
actions 
unless 
a 
54(b)
certification is entered by the district
court.  This leaves the discretion with the
court which is best able to evaluate the
[e]ffect of an interim appeal on the
parties and on the expeditious resolution
of the entire action.'
"Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir.
1984).  See, also, Trinity Broad. Corp. v. Eller,
827 F.2d 673, 675 (10th Cir. 1987) ('To obtain
review of one part of a consolidated action,
appellant must obtain certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b).'); and Spraytex, Inc. v. DJS&T, 96
F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ('We now extend
this approach to join the Ninth and Tenth Circuits
in adopting the rule that, absent Rule 54(b)
certification, there may be no appeal of a judgment
disposing 
of 
fewer 
than 
all 
aspects 
of 
a
consolidated case.').  We find persuasive the
holdings of these decisions interpreting the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on which our own Rules of
Civil Procedure are based.  Accordingly, we hold
that a trial court must certify a judgment as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., before a
judgment on fewer than all the claims in a
consolidated action can be appealed."
Hanner, 952 So. 2d 1056, 1060-61 (emphasis added). 
It appearing to me that the Court of Civil Appeals'
treatment of the father's appeal as untimely is based on legal
principles that have been superseded by and are irreconcilable
with this Court's holding in Hanner, I respectfully dissent
from the denial of further review in this case. 
6