Title: Montgomery Piggly Wiggly, LLC, et al. v. Accel Capital, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1200389
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 14, 2022

Rel: January 14, 2022
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, 2021-2022
____________________
1200389
____________________
Montgomery Piggly Wiggly, LLC, and Scott Scoggins
v.
Accel Capital, Inc.
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-19-900132)
SELLERS, Justice.
Montgomery Piggly Wiggly, LLC ("Piggly Wiggly"), and Scott
Scoggins appeal from an order of the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial
1200389
court") denying their motion to quash a garnishment proceeding filed by
Accel Capital, Inc. ("the judgment creditor").  We dismiss the appeal.  
 
In February 2018, a New York trial court entered a judgment ("the
New York judgment") in the amount of $188,646.27 in favor of the
judgment creditor and against Piggly Wiggly and Scoggins.  Pursuant to
Alabama's version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,
Ala. Code 1975, §§ 6-9-230 to -238, the judgment creditor domesticated the
New York  judgment in the trial court, and the clerk of that court mailed
a "Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment" to Piggly Wiggly and Scoggins. 
Because neither Piggly Wiggly nor Scoggins responded to the notice, the
trial court issued a certificate of judgment in December 2019, which was
recorded in the Crenshaw Probate Office to serve as notice of a lien
against real property Scoggins owned in Crenshaw County.
In January 2020, the judgment creditor initiated the garnishment 
proceeding by filing a process of garnishment in the trial court,  and a writ
of garnishment was issued to Piggly Wiggly, as garnishee; a copy of the
writ of garnishment was sent to Scoggins.  Piggly Wiggly and Scoggins
filed a motion to quash the garnishment proceeding, asserting that the
2
1200389
New York judgment had been satisfied pursuant to a settlement
agreement executed by the parties on February 22, 2019.   Piggly Wiggly
and Scoggins provided the trial court with a copy of a settlement
agreement, indicating that the parties had settled a debt owed by Piggly
Wiggly and Scoggins to the judgment creditor arising from a "Receivables
Purchase Agreement" in exchange for the payment of $31,838.52.  The
judgment creditor filed a response, disputing that the New York judgment
had been satisfied. The judgment creditor provided the trial court with
copies of documents intended to demonstrate that the New York 
judgment was based on Piggly Wiggly's and Scoggins's default on a
different agreement, specifically, an "Agreement for the Purchase and
Sale of Future Receipts." On January 27, 2021, following a hearing, the
trial court entered an order denying the motion to quash filed by Piggly
Wiggly and Scoggins.  This appeal followed.  
  We conclude that the January 27, 2021, order denying the motion
to quash the garnishment proceeding is not a final judgment that will
support an appeal. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the
merits of the appeal.  See Ex parte Wharfhouse Rest. & Oyster Bar, Inc.,
3
1200389
796 So. 2d 316, 320 (Ala.  2001) ("Without a final judgment, this Court is
without jurisdiction to hear an appeal.")  Specifically, only a judgment
that disposes of a garnishment proceeding in favor of either the judgment
creditor or the garnishee, standing in relation to the defendant, and that
leaves nothing for further adjudication is a final, appealable judgment. 
See Steiner Bros. v. First Nat'l Bank of Birmingham, 115 Ala. 379, 384,
22 So. 30, 31 (1987) (noting that, like appeals in general, an appeal in a
garnishment proceeding must determine the issues before the court and
ascertain and declare the rights of the parties involved).  In contrast, an
order that merely addresses the disposition of a motion to quash a
garnishment proceeding without concluding the rights of the parties is
preliminary in character and will not support an appeal.  See Miller
Constr., LLC v. DB Elec., [Ms. 2190467, Jan. 15, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___
(Ala. Civ. App. 2021) ("[A]n order denying a motion to quash garnishment
proceedings without otherwise concluding the rights of the parties, such
as by directing the garnishee to satisfy the garnishment, is not a final
judgment capable of supporting an appeal.")  
4
1200389
In this case, the trial court, based on the testimony and materials
before it, concluded only that the New York judgment had not been
satisfied.  The trial court therefore entered the January 27, 2021, order
denying the motion to quash the garnishment proceeding. That order
disposed of only a motion and effectively allowed the garnishment
proceeding to continue, which would require Piggly Wiggly, the garnishee,
to file an answer.  See § 6-6-450, Ala. Code 1975.  On that same day, the
trial court entered an order granting the judgment creditor's motion to
compel answers to written interrogatories and to produce documents in
aid of the execution of the New York judgment.  Thus, the garnishment
proceeding has advanced only to the discovery phase, and no final
disposition has occurred.  As indicated, an order merely ruling on a motion
to quash a garnishment proceeding, without condemning and distributing 
garnished funds, cannot support an appeal.   Accordingly, the appeal in
this case is premature and must be dismissed. 
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
5