Title: Richey v. Morris
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC-2023-0261, SC-2023-0324, SC-2023-0483
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 11, 2023

Rel: August 11, 2023 
Corr: September 6, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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) 229-0650), 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, 2023 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2023-0261 
_________________________ 
 
Dorothy Richey  
 
v.  
 
Paul Morris, as guardian and conservator of the Estate of 
Rodney Morris, an incapacitated person 
 
 
 
Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court 
(CV-17-900069) 
 
STEWART, Justice. 
 
SC-2023-0261 
2 
 
 
Dorothy Richey appeals from a judgment of the Clarke Circuit 
Court ("the trial court") that set aside a deed conveying an interest in 
certain property ("the property") to Richey on the basis that the grantor, 
Rodney Morris, was incompetent at the time he purportedly executed the 
deed.  Because the appeal is not from a final judgment, however, it must 
be dismissed. 
 
On April 25, 2017, Paul Morris, as guardian and conservator of the 
estate of his brother Rodney Morris ("Rodney"), an incapacitated person, 
initiated this action against Richey, seeking to set aside a deed in which 
Rodney had purported to convey his interest in the property to Richey.  
Morris alleged that Rodney had lacked the mental capacity to execute the 
deed in question and sought a judgment declaring the deed void and 
setting it aside.  Morris also sought an accounting of any proceeds Richey 
had obtained from harvesting timber located on the property.  On May 
30, 2017, Richey filed an answer and a counterclaim, which included 
claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, civil conspiracy, 
and breach of contract against Morris. 
 
The case was called for trial on April 21, 2022.  During the pretrial 
discussion, the trial judge stated as follows: 
SC-2023-0261 
3 
 
 
"What we are here on today, as I appreciate it … first 
and foremost, we've got to determine whether or not to set 
aside that deed. 
 
 
"…. 
 
 
"Before anything else can be done, we've got to make a 
decision about whether that deed should be set aside." 
 
A bench trial was then conducted in which the testimony and evidence 
primarily related to Rodney's capacity to execute the deed.  No evidence 
was offered, and no arguments were made, concerning any of Richey's 
counterclaims. 
 
On December 8, 2022, the trial court entered an order finding that 
Rodney was incompetent at the time the deed was executed and setting 
aside the deed.  The trial court also ordered Richey to provide a full 
accounting for any proceeds she had received from the harvesting of 
timber from the property.  The order made no mention of Richey's 
counterclaims.  Richey subsequently initiated this appeal. 
 
Although the issue has not been raised by the parties, we must first 
address whether the trial court's order constitutes a final judgment 
supporting the appeal in this case.  "This Court addresses ex mero motu 
the lack of appellate jurisdiction when an appeal is taken from a nonfinal 
judgment."  Ex parte Eustace, 291 So. 3d 33, 36 (Ala. 2019).  A final 
SC-2023-0261 
4 
 
judgment is one "that conclusively determines the issues before the court 
and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties involved."  Bean v. 
Craig, 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). 
Here, the trial court's December 8, 2022, order made no reference 
to Richey's counterclaims.  Furthermore, the record indicates that the 
trial court did not intend to consider the merits of Richey's counterclaims 
during the April 21, 2022, trial.  Accordingly, the counterclaims were not 
resolved by the December 8, 2022 order, and this appeal must be 
dismissed as arising from a nonfinal judgment.1  See Posey v. Posey, 614 
So. 2d 1041, 1042 (Ala. 1993) (dismissing appeal as arising from nonfinal 
judgment when trial court's order did not mention certain claim and it 
did not appear that that claim had been considered on the merits); and 
Malone v. Gainey, 726 So. 2d 725, 726 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (dismissing 
appeal as arising from nonfinal judgment when trial court's order did not 
address counterclaim and the merits of the counterclaim had not been 
argued at bench trial); see also Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Jackson, 906 So. 2d 
143, 153 (Ala. 2005) (distinguishing the rule in jury cases, in which, 
 
1The order also was not certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), 
Ala. R. Civ. P. 
SC-2023-0261 
5 
 
absent a formal severance of an unadjudicated claim, a judgment failing 
to address the claim will generally be deemed a judgment on the merits 
adverse to the claimant). 
 
APPEAL DISMISSED. 
 
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur.