Opinion ID: 1930562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timely Filing

Text: Summary judgment was granted on June 14, 1985. On that same day the court made that summary judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P. Perry filed a motion entitled Motion for Relief from Order on June 27, 1985. This motion was denied on August 9, 1985. On September 20, 1985, 42 days from the August 9 entry, Perry filed this appeal from the order of June 14. Prisock argues that the Motion for Relief from Order is a motion pursuant to Rule 60, Ala.Civ., which does not suspend the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal. Therefore, he says, the appeal from the June 14 order should have been filed by July 26, 1985, in order to be timely. Although Perry's motion includes a reference to relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60, Ala.R.Civ.P., we consider the motion to have been one properly brought under Rule 59, A.R.Civ.P., which provides for motions for new trial or to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. The motion was filed within the 30-day limitation of Rule 59, and the relief sought was available under Rule 59. The motion cited no grounds for relief which fall under Rule 60. See Simmons v. Simmons, 390 So.2d 622 (Ala.Civ.App.) cert. denied, 390 So.2d 624 (Ala.1980). A motion filed under Rule 59 extends the time for filing a notice of appeal even though the motion follows the granting of a summary judgment. Morris v. Merchants National Bank of Mobile, 359 So.2d 371 (Ala.1978). Accordingly, the notice of appeal in this case was timely filed.