Title: Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc.
Citation: 892 So. 2d 354
Docket Number: 1030285
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 23, 2004

892 So. 2d 354 (2004)
Joseph DZWONKOWSKI, Sr.
v.
SONITROL OF MOBILE, INC., Robert Dzwonkowski, and Joseph Dzwonkowski, Jr.
1030285.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 23, 2004.
*356 William W. Watts III of Hudson &amp; Watts, L.L.P., Mobile, for appellant.
Joseph C. Sullivan, Jr., and Brian Thomas Pugh of Hamilton, Butler, Riddick, Tarlton &amp; Sullivan, P.C., Mobile, for appellees Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., and Joseph Dzwonkowski, Jr.
Alan C. Christian of Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon &amp; Harris, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee Robert Dzwonkowski.
WOODALL, Justice.
In this action by Joseph Dzwonkowski, Sr. ("Joe Sr."), against Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc. ("Sonitrol"), Robert Dzwonkowski ("Robert"), and Joseph Dzwonkowski, Jr. ("Joe Jr."), Joe Sr. appeals from a "judgment" of involuntary dismissal and default of his claims, and of the defendants' counterclaims, respectively. We dismiss the appeal.
This case is yet another appeal in "an intrafamily dispute between [Joe Sr.] and two of his sons, [Joe Jr. and Robert], as to the ownership and control of [Sonitrol], a closely held corporation doing business in Mobile County." Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 854 So. 2d 598, 599 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) ("Dzwonkowski I"). The action is based on a 4-count complaint filed by Joe Sr. against Sonitrol, Robert, and Joe Jr., and a 35-count counter-complaint filed by those defendants. The complaint, as last amended, contained claims alleging "misappropriation of funds and corporate waste" and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking specific performance and an accounting.
As last amended, the counter-complaint against Joe Sr. contained lengthy factual averments of malfeasance. It alleged, among other things, that Joe Sr. was wrongfully refusing to tender his stock to Sonitrol, pursuant to provisions of a "Buy-Sell Agreement" executed on February 16, 1990, by Sonitrol, Joe Sr., Robert, and Joe Jr. It alleged that Joe Sr. had engaged in unauthorized self-dealing with Sonitrol Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, in acquiring from Sonitrol Corporation a franchise to operate security businesses in Birmingham, using a trademark owned by Sonitrol Corporation. The counter-complaint further alleged that Joe Sr. caused a financial loss to Sonitrol when he conveyed by quitclaim deed certain property to Sonitrol to cover personal expenses he had incurred in connection with the property. It alleged that Joe Sr. "illegally and fraudulently" sought to satisfy alimony obligations to a former wife by representing her as an employee of Sonitrol and by paying the former wife alimony from Sonitrol accounts in the form of "wages." The counter-complaint also alleged that Joe Sr. fraudulently filed a "Voluntary Petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code," in order to thwart the enforcement of court orders in this litigation.
The counter-complaint contained the following counterclaims: (1) "Specific Performance for Sonitrol  Buy-Sell Agreement for Stock of Joseph Dzwonkowski, Sr.," (2) "Declaratory Judgment  Buy-Sell Agreement for Stock of Joseph Dzwonkowski, Sr.," (3) "Injunctive Relief  Buy-Sell Agreement for Stock of *357 Joseph Dzwonkowski, Sr. and Other Certificates," (4) "Breach of Contract  Direct Shareholder Loan," (5) "Breach of Constructive Contract  Alimony Payments," (6) "Breach of Implied Contract in Fact  Alimony Payments," (7) "Waste of Corporate Assets  Alimony Payments," (8) "Unjust Enrichment and Restitution  Alimony Payments," (9) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Alimony Payments," (10) "Conversion  Customer Checks," (11) Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Customer Checks," (12) "Waste of Corporate Assets  Customer Checks," (13) "Unjust Enrichment and Restitution  Customer Checks," (14) "Invasion of Privacy  Other Shareholders," (15) "Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity  Injunctive Relief," (16) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Post Office," (17) "Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations  Post Office," (18) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Fraudulent Bankruptcy," (19) "Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations  Fraudulent Bankruptcy," (20) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Line of Credit," (21) "Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations  Line of Credit," (22) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Involuntary Bankruptcy," (23) "Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations  Involuntary Bankruptcy," (24) "Misappropriation of Funds," (25) "Depreciation of Stock Value," (26) "Breach of Officer Standard of Conduct," (27) "Declaratory Judgment  Transfer Agreement," (28) "Equitable Estoppel  Transfer Agreement," (29) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  Quitclaim Deed," (30) "Waste of Corporate Assets  Quitclaim Deed," (31) "Unjust Enrichment and Restitution  Quitclaim Deed," (32) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty  CCM Debenture," (33) "Waste of Corporate Assets  CCM Debenture," (34) "Unjust Enrichment and Restitution  CCM Debenture," and (35) "Fraud  CCM Debenture." Compensatory and punitive damages were sought under counterclaims (7), (9), (10), (11), (12), (14), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (26), (29), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), and (35). Compensatory damages were sought under counterclaims (4), (5), and (6). Restitution damages were sought under counterclaims (8) and (13).
Sonitrol, Robert, and Joe Jr. moved for a summary judgment on counterclaims 27 and 28. Those counterclaims sought a judgment declaring that Joe Sr., who claimed ownership of five of the nine shares of outstanding Sonitrol stock, owned only one share of stock, and that four of the shares to which Joe Sr. claimed ownership belonged to Joe Jr. The trial court granted the motion, and Joe Sr. appealed. His appeal was the subject of Dzwonkowski I, in which the Court of Civil Appeals decided that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding ownership of the four disputed shares, so that a summary judgment was inappropriate. That court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
On June 9, 2003, the trial court empaneled an advisory jury to try the factual questions regarding stock ownership. However, on June 12, 2003, the trial court, ruling from the bench, entered a default judgment against Joe Sr. on the counterclaims and dismissed his claims against Sonitrol, Robert, and Joe Jr. The trial court set forth its reasoning in a "final order and judgment" entered on June 20, 2003. That order stated, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
On July 18, 2003, Joe Sr. moved to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. On September 24, 2003, Sonitrol, Robert, and Joe Jr. moved to supplement the order and judgment to hold, as an alternative basis for the judgment, that, based on Joe Sr.'s previous inconsistent testimony before two Florida tribunals, Joe Sr. was judicially estopped from claiming ownership of more than one share of Sonitrol stock.[1] On October 14, 2003, the trial court entered an order denying Joe Sr.'s motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, and supplementing the order and judgment to hold, additionally, that Joe Sr. was judicially estopped from claiming ownership of the four disputed shares. Joe Sr. filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 2003.
On appeal, the parties apparently[2] join issue on (1) whether the default judgment against Joe Sr. on the counterclaims and the dismissal of his claims comported with due process, and, if so, whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in entering the default and the dismissal, as well as (2) whether the trial court erred in holding that Joe Sr. was judicially estopped by his testimony before two Florida tribunals from claiming ownership of the four shares of Sonitrol stock to which Joe Jr. also claimed ownership. However, all parties have overlooked a fundamental flaw in these appellate proceedings  the absence of an appealable judgment.
To be sure, the trial court recited the formula for certification of a judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, "[n]ot every order has the requisite element of finality that can trigger the operation of Rule 54(b)." Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player, 869 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (emphasis added). A claim is not eligible for Rule 54(b) certification unless it has been completely resolved by the judgment. It that regard, it must be remembered that "[d]amages are [an element] of a claim to vindicate a legal right." Grantham v. Vanderzyl, 802 So. 2d 1077, 1080 (Ala.2001).
"Where the amount of damages is an issue, ... the recognized rule of law in Alabama is that no appeal will lie from a judgment which does not adjudicate that issue by ascertainment of the amount of those damages." Moody v. State ex rel. Payne, 351 So. 2d 547, 551 (Ala.1977). "That a judgment is not final when the *362 amount of damages has not been fixed by it is unquestionable." "Automatic" Sprinkler Corp. of America v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 351 So. 2d 555, 557 (Ala.1977) (recitation of the Rule 54(b) formula was ineffective to render appealable a judgment that resolved liability, but reserved the issue of damages for future resolution). "[T]he trial court cannot confer appellate jurisdiction upon this [C]ourt through directing entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) if the judgment is not otherwise `final.'" Robinson v. Computer Servicenters, Inc., 360 So. 2d 299, 302 (Ala.1978). Thus, it is well-established that a claim for which damages are sought is insufficiently adjudicated for Rule 54(b) purposes until the element of damages is resolved; a judgment resolving only liability in an action seeking damages cannot be certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). Tanner v. Alabama Power Co., 617 So. 2d 656 (Ala.1993).
That this case suffers from this defect is self-evident. The trial court purported to certify for appellate review the default judgment of 35 counterclaims, 29 of which sought damages that are yet to be determined. Because the trial court's order was ineffective to confer appellate jurisdiction over those counterclaims, the judgment, as it relates to the 29 counterclaims seeking damages, is nonfinal and nonreviewable at this time.
"`When it is determined that an order appealed from is not a final judgment, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.'" Tatum v. Freeman, 858 So. 2d 979, 980 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (quoting Powell v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 293 Ala. 101, 102, 300 So. 2d 359, 360 (1974)). Therefore, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal, insofar as it relates to the counterclaims for damages.
We also dismiss the appeal as to the remaining claims and counterclaims seeking nonmonetary relief. Although they do not suffer the same deficiency as the counterclaims for damages, they are, nevertheless, postured in such a manner as to evade current review. This is so, because the judgment of dismissal and default purports to bring up as a unit all the claims and counterclaims. Thus, the judgment, as it pertains to those claims, is not subject to resolution independently of the 29 counterclaims for damages.
In that connection, Joe Sr. states:
Joe Sr.'s brief, at 35-36, 68 (emphasis added).
As Joe Sr. concedes, none of the claims or counterclaims have been litigated on the merits. They all travel together in the single judgment of default and dismissal. Thus, resolution of the judgment as to the claims and the counterclaims for which damages are not sought would necessarily compel us to resolve the liability aspect of those counterclaims over which this Court clearly has no appellate jurisdiction.
It bears repeating, here, that "`[c]ertifications under Rule 54(b) should be entered only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely.'" State v. Lawhorn, 830 So. 2d 720, 725 (Ala.2002) (quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So. 2d 901, 903 (Ala.1994), citing in turn Branch v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373 (Ala.1987))."' "Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored."'" Goldome Credit Corp., 869 So. 2d  at 1148 (quoting Harper Sales Co. v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, Inc., 742 So. 2d 190, 192 (Ala.Civ.App.1999), quoting in turn Brown v. Whitaker Contracting Corp., 681 So. 2d 226, 229 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)) (emphasis added).
The trial court exceeded its authority in certifying as final the counterclaims for compensatory damages, and exceeded its discretion in certifying the remaining claims and counterclaims as final. A nonfinal judgment will not support an appeal. Whitehurst v. Peak, 819 So. 2d 611, 615 (Ala.2001). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as being from a nonfinal judgment.[3]
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HOUSTON, LYONS, BROWN, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur.
[1]  The motion was based on an intervening decision of this Court refining the elements of judicial estoppel. See Ex parte First Alabama Bank, 883 So. 2d 1236 (Ala.2003).
[2]  The brief of Joe Sr. contains no statement of the issues presented for review, as required by Rule 28(a)(6), Ala. R.App. P.
[3]  If Joe Sr. deems it necessary to appeal again, we trust he will favor this Court with a statement of the issues, as required by Rule 28(a)(6), Ala. R.App. P.