Court Opinion

ID: 9932868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:19.310572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:24.354038
License: Public Domain

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
On application for rehearing, the plaintiff argues that this Court erred in its application of res judicata in this case because, he argues, the judgment upon which res judicata was based was not rendered on the merits. Specifically, he contends that the summary judgment was vacated when the court granted the plaintiff's motion to alter, amend, or vacate. After granting that motion, the court later entered another order purporting to deny that motion. The plaintiff argues that the order purporting to deny the motion did not reinstate the summary judgment.
We do not have to reach this argument, because the motion to alter, amend, or vacate was filed after the 30-day period prescribed in Rule 59(e), Ala.R.Civ.P., had expired and therefore could have had no effect. Summary judgment was entered on December 3, 1986, and the motion to alter, amend, or vacate was filed on January 5, 1987.
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the summary judgment upon which the doctrine of res judicata was based was a final judgment rendered on the merits.
The opinion is extended and the application for rehearing is overruled.
OPINION EXTENDED; APPLICATION OVERRULED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.