Court Opinion

ID: 9388727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 16:01:51.112489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.267953
License: Public Domain

Rel: April 21, 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
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023

                                 ________________________

                                      SC-2022-0818
                                _________________________

                                  Debra Ann Kawzinski

                                                  v.

     Sheryl Lyne, individually and as personal representative
          of the Estate of Robert L. Kawzinski, deceased

                        Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court
                                 (CV-22-900026)

MENDHEIM, Justice.
SC-2022-0818

     Sheryl Lyne, individually and as the personal representative of the

estate of Robert L. Kawzinski, deceased, commenced an action in the

Elmore Circuit Court against Debra Ann Kawzinski ("Debra Ann") to

quiet title to a piece of real property to which Lyne and Debra Ann both

claim an ownership interest. Lyne further requested that the circuit

court require the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the

rightful owners of the property. The circuit court entered a summary

judgment in favor of Lyne. Debra Ann appealed. We dismiss Debra

Ann's appeal as untimely filed.

                     Facts and Procedural History

     It is undisputed that Robert L. Kawzinski ("Robert") and Debra Ann

were married on September 14, 1991. On September 1, 2004, Robert and

Debra Ann purchased, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, a

piece of real property and a house ("the property") located in Elmore

County.

     On February 8, 2008, in a separate action, the circuit court entered

a "final decree of divorce" divorcing Robert and Debra Ann. According to

the divorce judgment, "[s]ince the purchase of the [property], it is

undisputed that [Debra Ann] has resided at the [property] and [Robert]

                                   2
SC-2022-0818

has resided at" a separate home owned by Robert. Concerning the

property, which is at issue in this case, the circuit court's divorce

judgment stated that the parties agreed that "the [estimated] value of

the … property [was] approximately $325,000.00 to $330,000.00." The

divorce judgment further stated:

     "The … property … shall be listed with a local real estate
     company or agent and sold at fair market value. The net
     proceeds from the said sale shall be equally divided by and
     between the parties. [Robert] shall select the real estate
     company and/or agent with which to list the [property] and
     have the [property] listed within 21 days of the date of this
     decree. [Debra Ann] shall be allowed to continue to reside [at]
     the [property] until such time as the [property] sells. [Debra
     Ann] shall fully cooperate, with [Robert] and/or his agents in
     arranging for the sale of same and shall make the [property]
     available for viewing, showing and/or inspection at any and
     all reasonable times pending the closing on same."

According to Debra Ann's affidavit testimony, Robert, contrary to the

divorce judgment, never listed the property for sale.

     On March 1, 2008, Robert executed his will, which named Lyne as

the personal representative of his estate and left her "[a]ll the rest,

residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my

death, real, personal and mixed, tangible and intangible, of whatsoever

nature and wheresoever situated, including all property which I may

acquire or become entitled to after the execution of this will …." On
                                    3
SC-2022-0818

August 15, 2021, Robert died, having never attempted to sell the

property. On September 24, 2021, Lyne filed Robert's will with the

Elmore Probate Court and petitioned for letters testamentary.         On

November 4, 2021, the probate court granted Lyne's petition and issued

her letters testamentary naming her the personal representative of

Robert's estate.

     On December 30, 2021, Lyne's attorney sent Debra Ann a letter,

which states, in pertinent part:

          "As you know, [Robert] owned a one-half (1/2) interest in
     the … property ….

           "Pursuant to your divorce decree with [Robert], the
     property … was to be sold and the proceeds from such sale
     were to be divided equally between [Robert] and yourself. At
     the time of your divorce, the … property was estimated to be
     valued at $330,000.00. Also, according to the divorce decree,
     this estimation was agreed to by you.

           "As personal representative of the Estate of Robert L.
     Kawzinski, Ms. Lyne must secure all of [Robert's] assets. That
     said, Ms. Lyne is not interested in trying to remove you from
     the … property; and, as such, would like to extend an offer to
     you to purchase [Robert's] one-half (1/2) interest in the real
     property for $165,000.00. Ms. Lyne believes this to be a
     reasonable resolution to this matter. However, if you are not
     agreeable to this solution, Ms. Lyne is prepared to seek legal
     action against you to have the property sold."

                                   4
SC-2022-0818

On January 28, 2022, Debra Ann's attorney sent a letter rejecting Lyne's

offer concerning the property.

     On February 1, 2022, Lyne, individually and as the personal

representative of Robert's estate, filed a complaint in the circuit court

against Debra Ann seeking to quiet title to the property and seeking a

sale of the property for a division of the proceeds, pursuant to § 35-5-20

et seq., Ala. Code 1975. On March 11, 2022, Debra Ann filed an answer

to Lyne's complaint.

     On March 23, 2022, Lyne filed a motion for a summary judgment.

Lyne argued that she is entitled to a "one-half undivided interest [in the

property] as the sole devisee of the real property owned by the estate of

Robert …." Lyne further argued that the property cannot be equitably

divided or partitioned and requested that the circuit court order that the

property be sold and distribute the proceeds of the sale between Lyne and

Debra Ann. On April 15, 2022, Debra Ann filed a response to Lyne's

summary-judgment motion and also requested that a summary judgment

be entered in her favor.

     On April 20, 2022, the circuit court entered an order granting

Lyne's summary-judgment motion. The circuit court's order states:

                                    5
SC-2022-0818

           "Upon hearing the argument and review of the
     pleadings, this court finds that the motion for summary
     judgment is due to be granted in [Lyne's] favor as there is no
     genuine issue of a material fact and [Lyne] is entitled to a
     summary judgment as a matter of law. The Estate is a half
     owner of the interest in the [property], as it took the same
     interest as Robert Kawzinski owned before his death. The
     court hearing that this is a residential property as such the
     same cannot be equitably divided."

     On May 20, 2022, Debra Ann filed a motion requesting a stay of

execution of the circuit court's April 20, 2022, order granting Lyne's

summary-judgment motion and requesting that the circuit court set a

supersedeas bond, because Debra Ann intended to appeal the circuit

court's order. On May 22, 2022, the circuit court denied Debra Ann's

motion, stating that its April 20, 2022, order was "not a final judgment."

     On June 7, 2022, Lyne filed a motion requesting "leave to list real

property for sale." Lyne noted in her motion that the circuit court, in its

April 20, 2022, order, had stated that the property "is a residential

property [and] as such the same cannot be equitably divided."

Accordingly, Lyne requested "that the [property] be sold at private sale,

and that [she] have the sole authority to list and market the [property]."

On June 8, 2022, the circuit court entered an order, stating: "Issue of the

summary judgment this date is moot as presented with [Lyne's]

                                    6
SC-2022-0818

summary judgment already ruled upon on April 20, 2022. Parties talking.

Reset for 9:00 a.m. on July 7, 2022."

     On July 7, 2022, the circuit court entered an order stating that the

"[o]rder of 4-20-2022 is made final for appeal purposes." On August 18,

2022, Debra Ann appealed to this Court.

                                Discussion

     We must first consider whether this Court has jurisdiction over

Debra Ann's appeal. On September 19, 2022, after Debra Ann had filed

her notice of appeal, Lyne filed with this Court a motion requesting that

we dismiss Debra Ann's appeal as untimely filed. Citing Bedgood v.

McConico, 30 So. 3d 451, 453 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), Lyne argues that the

circuit court's April 20, 2022, order directing the sale of the property was

a final judgment and that, thus, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P.,

Debra Ann was required to file her notice of appeal within 42 days of its

entry. Because Debra Ann undisputedly did not file her notice of appeal

within 42 days of the entry of the circuit court's April 20, 2022, order,

Lyne argues that Debra Ann's appeal is untimely and must be dismissed.

     On October 20, 2022, this Court's Clerk's Office issued a show-cause

order requiring Debra Ann to "show cause unto this Court … as to why

                                     7
SC-2022-0818

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely

filed." On October 27, 2022, Debra Ann filed a response to the show-cause

order. Debra Ann does not disagree with Lyne's assertion that the circuit

court's April 20, 2022, order was a final, appealable judgment, but she

asserts that she did not file a notice of appeal within 42 days of the entry

of the circuit court's April 20, 2022, order because she relied upon the

circuit court's May 22, 2022, order, in which the circuit court stated that

its April 20, 2022, order was "not a final judgment." Debra Ann states

that she, "relying on the [circuit] court's [May 22, 2022,] order[,] waited

until there was a 'Final Order' to proceed with her appeal." Debra Ann

notes that she did file her appeal within 42 days of the entry of the circuit

court's July 7, 2022, order, in which the circuit court stated that its

April 20, 2022, order "is made final for appeal purposes." Debra Ann

states that her "action and timing of filing of the appeal is an excusable

neglect due to her relying on the [circuit] court's own orders in this

matter"; Debra Ann cites no authority in support of her position.

     This Court set forth the relevant legal principles concerning the

jurisdictional issue before us in Jetton v. Jetton, 502 So. 2d 756, 758-59

(Ala. 1987):

                                     8
SC-2022-0818

          "It is a well established rule that, with limited
    exceptions, an appeal will lie only from a final judgment which
    determines the issues before the court and ascertains and
    declares the rights of the parties involved. Kelley v. U.S.A. Oil
    Corp., 363 So. 2d 758 (Ala. 1978); Alabama Public Service
    Commission v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 281 Ala. 111, 199
    So. 2d 653 (1967). However, as this Court has previously
    noted, decrees and orders entered in equity proceedings
    involving the sale of real property for division of the proceeds
    present an unusual situation:

               " 'Equity decrees may be partly final and
         partly interlocutory. A decree which ascertains
         and declares the rights of the parties and settles
         the equities is a final decree, although it provides
         for further proceedings under the direction of the
         court in order to make the final decree effective,
         such decree is interlocutory and remains within
         the control of the court because as to such decree
         and further proceedings thereunder the cause
         remains in fieri. …

                " 'This rule is strikingly illustrated in suits in
         equity to sell lands for division. When the court
         orders the land sold, that decree is final insofar as
         it will support an appeal. Three illustrations of our
         entertaining appeals from such decrees are Berry
         v. Berry, 266 Ala. 252, 95 So. 2d 798 [(1957)];
         Coppett v. Monahan, 267 Ala. 572, 103 So. 2d 169
         [(1958)]; Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So. 2d
         465 [(1964)]. We have also held that the decree
         confirming the sale is the final decree in judicial
         proceedings for the sale of lands for division, Pettit
         v. Gibson, 201 Ala. 177, 77 So. 703 [(1917)]; and
         that a sale of land for division among joint owners
         is not binding until confirmed by the court.'

                                    9
SC-2022-0818

     "Taylor v. Taylor, 398 So. 2d 267, 269 (Ala. 1981), quoting
     Sexton v. Sexton, 280 Ala. 479, 195 So. 2d 531 (1967)."

     As noted above, Lyne relied upon Bedgood, supra, in arguing that

Debra Ann's appeal should be dismissed as untimely filed. In Bedgood,

the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal from a judgment ordering

the sale of real property because the appellant, who had been a defendant

in the trial court, had failed to file his notice of appeal within the time

frame set forth in Rule 4, Ala. R. App. P. The Court of Civil Appeals,

relying upon the principles set forth above from Jetton, stated:

           "[The plaintiffs] filed a complaint against [the
     defendants], seeking a sale of property for a division of the
     proceeds, pursuant to § 35-5-20 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
     According to the State Judicial Information System, on
     February 20, 2007, the trial court entered an order directing
     that the property be sold for division. In a sale-for-division
     case, both the order directing the sale and the subsequent
     order confirming the sale are considered final judgments for
     purposes of appeal. Jetton v. Jetton, 502 So. 2d 756, 758-59
     (Ala. 1987). On March 14, 2007, [one of the defendants] filed
     a timely Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion seeking to alter or
     vacate the trial court's February 20, 2007, order, thus
     suspending the time for filing a notice of appeal. See
     Rule 4(a)(3), Ala. R. App. P. On June 12, 2007, 90 days after
     [the defendant] filed his Rule 59(e) motion, that motion was
     denied by operation of law. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.
     Consequently, the 42-day period for [the defendant] to file his
     notice of appeal commenced running on June 12, 2007. See
     Rule 4(a)(3). Therefore, [the defendant] had until July 24,
     2007, to file his notice of appeal. [The defendant] filed his
     notice of appeal to the supreme court on October 3, 2008, well
                                    10
SC-2022-0818

      after the time for filing an appeal had expired. Therefore, we
      must dismiss the appeal. See Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P. ('An
      appeal shall be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not
      timely filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court.')."

Bedgood, 30 So. 3d at 453 (footnotes omitted; emphasis added).

      As indicated by the emphasized portion of the above-quoted portion

of Bedgood, it is well established in Alabama that, "[i]n a sale-for-division

case, both the order directing the sale and the subsequent order

confirming the sale are considered final judgments for purposes of

appeal. Jetton v. Jetton, 502 So. 2d 756, 758-59 (Ala. 1987)." Id. Based on

Jetton and Bedgood, and contrary to the circuit court's mistaken belief,

the circuit court's April 20, 2022, order directing that the property be sold

was a final judgment capable of being appealed.            Regardless of the

confusion created by the circuit court's misguided orders that followed

the final April 20, 2022, order, Debra Ann was required to file her notice

of appeal of the circuit court's April 20, 2022, order within 42 days of its

entry in order to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. This she

undisputedly did not do. Thus, we must dismiss Debra Ann's appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.

      We note, however, that Debra Ann may still have the opportunity

to seek appellate relief. In Bedgood, even though the Court of Civil
                                      11
SC-2022-0818

Appeals dismissed the appeal in that case for lack of jurisdiction, the

Court of Civil Appeals went on to note:

           "[The defendant] untimely filed his notice of appeal from
     the trial court's February 20, 2007, order directing the sale for
     division. The record on appeal does not contain an order
     confirming any subsequent sale of the property made
     pursuant to the February 20, 2007, order. As noted, an order
     confirming a sale for division is appealable. Jetton, supra. In
     such an appeal, the appellant is 'entitled to raise objections
     arising from both the initial judgment ordering the land sold,
     and from the judgment confirming the sale, so long as the trial
     judge was given an opportunity to rule on such objections.'
     Jetton, 502 So. 2d at 759."

Bedgood, 30 So. 3d at 453. The same appears to be true in the present

case; the record on appeal does not contain an order confirming any sale

of the property made pursuant to the circuit court's April 20, 2022, order.

Accordingly, should such an order be entered below, Debra Ann could

appeal that order and would be " 'entitled to raise objections arising from

both the initial judgment ordering the land sold, and from the judgment

confirming the sale, so long as the trial judge was given an opportunity

to rule on such objections.' Jetton, 502 So. 2d at 759." Id.

                                Conclusion

     Based on the foregoing, Debra Ann's notice of appeal was not timely

filed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss

                                    12
SC-2022-0818

Debra Ann's appeal. See Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P. ("An appeal shall

be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed to invoke the

jurisdiction of the appellate court.").

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

      Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook,

JJ., concur.

      Shaw, J., concurs in the result, without opinion.

                                     13