Title: Baker v. Ball
Citation: 473 So. 2d 1031
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: June 21, 1985

473 So. 2d 1031 (1985)
Wilmer E. BAKER and Mary Louise Baker
v.
E.E. BALL, d/b/a Owen and Ball, Attorneys at Law.
Wilmer E. BAKER and Mary Louise Baker
v.
Arthur MANNICH, d/b/a Mannich Realtors, Inc.
83-1233, 84-255.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 21, 1985.
Rehearing Denied July 19, 1985.
*1033 Wilmer C. Baker and Mary Louise Baker, pro se.
Carroll H. Sullivan of Gaillard, Little, Hume &amp; Sullivan, Mobile, for appellees E.E. Ball, d/b/a Owen and Ball.
Edward S. Sledge III and Blane H. Crutchfield of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves &amp; Johnston, Mobile, for appellee Arthur C. Mannich, d/b/a Mannich Realtors.
MADDOX, Justice.
These are consolidated appeals, one from an order granting summary judgment and one from an order denying a motion to rescind, revise, or clarify and denying a motion for relief from judgment.
In October 1976, Wilmer E. and Louise Baker sold a residence to Mr. and Mrs. William P. Dexter. In March 1977, the Dexters brought suit against the Bakers and Mannich Realtors, the listing agent, alleging fraud, requesting a rescission of the contract of sale, and seeking punitive damages. The Bakers retained attorney E.E. Ball to represent them in defense of the Dexters' suit. The case was tried, and a directed verdict was entered in favor of the Bakers and Mannich. The Dexters appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Dexter v. Baker, 382 So. 2d 552 (Ala.1980). Before a second trial could be held, in July 1980, the Dexters and Bakers reached a settlement agreement.
Thereafter, the Bakers retained the services of a second attorney and, on November 26, 1980, brought suit, alleging that Mannich had negligently failed to ensure restoration of their Veterans Administration loan eligibility and to ensure their release from mortgage liability. In February 1982, this suit was settled, the Bakers receiving $10,036.50 in return for their execution of a release and indemnity agreement. That agreement provided as follows:
By stipulation of the parties, the suit was dismissed with prejudice on February 3, 1982.
On November 2, 1982, the Bakers filed a pro se complaint against Ball, alleging essentially the same things they had alleged against Mannich. Ball moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.R.Civ.P. His motion was granted and, after a hearing, the Bakers' motion to reconsider was denied. The Bakers appealed, pro se, to this Court, which reversed and remanded, Baker v. Ball, 446 So. 2d 39 (Ala.1984), holding that the trial court had applied the wrong statute of limitations in dismissing the Bakers' suit. On remand, Ball moved for summary judgment, asserting the Bakers' release agreement with Mannich as a defense. The motion was granted, on July 20, 1984, and the Bakers again appealed to this Court, pro se.
On October 14, 1984, the Bakers filed two pro se motions in their action against Mannich, one asking the court to "rescind, revise or clarify" the release they executed, so that it would not apply to Ball, and another requesting relief from the dismissal entered pursuant to the settlement agreement. This second motion was entitled "Motion to get Relief from Judgment under Alabama Rule 60-B-2 [sic]." Both *1035 motions were denied, and the Bakers filed another pro se appeal with this Court, along with a motion, which this Court granted, to consolidate both of their appeals.
The issues now before us are: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the Bakers' motion to rescind, revise, or clarify and motion for relief from judgment; and (2) whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Ball. We find no error and affirm.
Because the Bakers' motion to "rescind, revise or clarify" is not specifically recognized in Alabama, their motion must be treated as being a motion to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala.R.Civ.P. Such motions must be filed no later than 30 days after the entry of the judgment challenged; if they are not filed within that time, the trial court cannot correct, modify, or amend its judgment pursuant to such a motion. Sparks v. Delta Masonry Contractors, 411 So. 2d 808 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). Therefore, the Bakers' motion, coming more than two and one-half years after the dismissal of their suit against Mannich, was properly denied.
Similarly, the Bakers' motion for relief from judgment was also time-barred, having been filed more than four months after the court's order dismissing their suit. Rule 60(b)(2), Ala.R.Civ.P. The Bakers' argument here that they intended this motion to be a Rule 60(b)(6) motion (which need only be filed within a reasonable time after the judgment, not exceeding three years) is rejected. The motion itself, which clearly states that it seeks relief "under Alabama Rule 60-B-2" and sets forth as grounds for relief that "plaintiffs have additional evidence," shows the Bakers' intent to file a 60(b)(2) motion rather than a 60(b)(6) motion. Even if we treated the Bakers' motion as a 60(b)(6) motion, we still could not reverse the trial court's denial of it unless presented with evidence that the court abused its discretion in denying it. Young v. Reddock, 437 So. 2d 1247 (Ala. 1983). No such evidence is present in this case.
As to the propriety of the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Ball, Alabama law is clear that by executing a general release, like the one signed by the Bakers, a party releases all tortfeasors against whom a cause of action is not specifically reserved, regardless of whether those tortfeasors are parties to the release or are expressly mentioned therein. Johnston v. Bridges, 288 Ala. 156, 258 So. 2d 866, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 847, 93 S. Ct. 52, 34 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1972). As this Court has previously stated:
Miles v. Barrett, 233 Ala. 293, 134 So. 661 (1931).
There is no doubt that the release of Ball was supported by $10,036.50 as consideration, regardless of the fact that Mannich, not Ball, actually paid it.
Bridges, supra, 288 Ala. at 162, 258 So. 2d  at 872. Although the Bakers raise the issue of fraud, the record before us is completely devoid of any evidence that the release in question was actually procured by fraud. There is also no basis for an argument that the release was ambiguous. In both Conley v. Harry J. Whelchel Co., 410 So. 2d 14 (Ala.1982), and Finley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 456 So. 2d 1065 (Ala.1984), this Court has recently held language strikingly similar to that of the present release to be unambiguous.
Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court erred in construing the *1036 present release based purely upon the language of the instrument itself. That language releases:
Because the above language is so broad as to include "all claims" and, at the same time, so specific as to apply, with particularity, to claims arising out of the failure of the Bakers to be released from their mortgage liability and to have their V.A. eligibility reinstated, we agree with the trial court that Ball comes within the purview of that language. Therefore, we hold that Ball is released from all liability arising out of his representation of the Bakers in the matter in question and that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Ball.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.