Rel: July 31, 2026
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 published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2026 _________________________
CL-2026-0110 _________________________
Barbara Murdock
v.
Nali Realty, LLC, and Dan Poggione, as trustee of The Gold Kelly and Peters Residential Land Trust and/or the Greater Montgomery Land Trust
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-25-194)
EDWARDS, Judge.
In February 2025, Nali Realty, LLC ("Nali"), filed in the
Montgomery District Court ("the district court") a statement of claim
pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-310 et seq., the unlawful-detainer CL-2026-0110
statutes, seeking to have Barbara Murdock evicted from a residence
located on Donavan Lane ("the property"), which Nali alleged it had
purchased. Murdock answered the statement of claim and submitted a
statement in which she averred that she was not a tenant of the property
but, instead, had been purchasing the property from its previous owner,
The Gold Kelly and Peters Residential Land Trust and/or the Greater
Montgomery Land Trust ("the land trust"). She attached a copy of a
document titled "wrap around mortgage" to her answer to support her
claim that she held an equitable interest in the property. Murdock later
filed a motion to dismiss the unlawful-detainer action, arguing that,
because she was not a tenant, Nali could not seek to evict her under the
unlawful-detainer statutes. After a hearing held on the issue of
possession, the district court entered an order reflecting that the parties
had "entered" a "joint motion to transfer" the unlawful-detainer action to
the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the circuit court") and transferring the
action.1
Nali filed in the circuit court an amended complaint in which it
sought to eject Murdock from the property and sought damages for both
1The record contains no such motion.
2 CL-2026-0110
trespass and unjust enrichment. Murdock answered the amended
complaint. Murdock later filed what she titled a "verified third-party
complaint," in which she sought to add Dan Poggione, the trustee of the
land trust, as a third-party defendant. In the third-party complaint,
Murdock sought damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
and also alleged that Poggione, as trustee of the land trust, would be
liable to her in the event she was found to be liable to Nali.
Poggione filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, to
which Murdock responded. Nali filed a motion for a partial summary
judgment regarding the issue of its right to possession of the property;
the motion specifically reserved the right to a later hearing relating to
the damages sought in the amended complaint. Murdock filed a response
in opposition to Nali's motion for a partial summary judgment.
On November 18, 2025, the circuit court entered an order
dismissing the third-party complaint. That same day, the circuit court
entered an order granting Nali a partial summary judgment; the circuit
court issued a writ of possession in favor of Nali on December 1, 2025.
On December 17, 2025, Murdock filed a motion to stay the writ of
possession and a motion to dismiss Nali's action based on the circuit
3 CL-2026-0110
court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Murdock also filed a motion to
reconsider the partial summary judgment and the dismissal of her third-
party complaint.2
Relying on Alexander v. Hawk, 139 So. 3d 824, 826 (Ala. Civ. App.
2013), and Darby v. Schley, 8 So. 3d 1011, 1012 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008),
Murdock argued in her motion to dismiss that the district court had
lacked the authority to transfer the unlawful-detainer action Nali filed to
the circuit court and also that, although Nali had filed an amended
complaint in the circuit court, Nali had failed to pay a filing fee, which
had prevented the circuit court from obtaining jurisdiction over the
action.3 Nali responded to that motion, arguing that the cases Murdock
2Murdock titled her motion as a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion
to alter, amend, or vacate, but the partial summary judgment was not a final judgment because Nali's trespass and unjust-enrichment claims and the accompanying requests for damages remained unadjudicated. See Ex parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So. 2d 547, 550 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Malone v. Gainey, 726 So. 2d 725, 725 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)) ("A 'Rule 59 motion may be made only in reference to a final judgment or order.' ").
3In Darby v. Schley, 8 So. 3d 1011, 1013-14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008),
this court held that, because an "unlawful-detainer action [is] not an action 'within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court,' [Ala. Code 1975,] § 12-11-9, … [a district court lacks] the authority to transfer that action to ... [a circuit court] pursuant to § 12-11-9." (Footnote omitted.) In Alexander v. Hawk, 139 So. 3d 824, 827 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013), we 4 CL-2026-0110
cited were inapposite. Nali admitted that it had not paid a filing fee in
the circuit court.
On January 5, 2026, the circuit court entered the following order:
"MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY filed by … Murdock is MOOT. The
above-styled matter is hereby DISMISSED." Murdock then filed a notice
of appeal. We dismiss Murdock's appeal.
A party may appeal only from an adverse judgment. Alcazar Shrine
Temple v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 868 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Ala.
2003). The circuit court's January 5, 2026, order was not adverse to
Murdock. Although the January 5, 2026, order could have been more
clear, the circuit court determined that Murdock's motion seeking
reconsideration of the order dismissing the third-party complaint and the
order granting Nali's partial-summary-judgment motion was moot,
which only could have occurred if the circuit court determined that, as
Murdock had argued in her motion to dismiss, the circuit court's orders
further explained that, if a district court transfers an unlawful-detainer action to a circuit court and if the plaintiff files "an amended complaint in the circuit court, asserting claims that fall within the original jurisdiction of the circuit court" but fails to pay a filing fee in the circuit court, the amended complaint will not initiate a new action invoking the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. 5 CL-2026-0110
were void because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Nali's
action.4 See Ex parte Musa Props., LLC, 401 So. 3d 273, 275 (Ala. 2024)
(dismissing a petition for the writ of mandamus because the trial court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rel: July 31, 2026
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 published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2026 _________________________
CL-2026-0110 _________________________
Barbara Murdock
v.
Nali Realty, LLC, and Dan Poggione, as trustee of The Gold Kelly and Peters Residential Land Trust and/or the Greater Montgomery Land Trust
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-25-194)
EDWARDS, Judge.
In February 2025, Nali Realty, LLC ("Nali"), filed in the
Montgomery District Court ("the district court") a statement of claim
pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-310 et seq., the unlawful-detainer CL-2026-0110
statutes, seeking to have Barbara Murdock evicted from a residence
located on Donavan Lane ("the property"), which Nali alleged it had
purchased. Murdock answered the statement of claim and submitted a
statement in which she averred that she was not a tenant of the property
but, instead, had been purchasing the property from its previous owner,
The Gold Kelly and Peters Residential Land Trust and/or the Greater
Montgomery Land Trust ("the land trust"). She attached a copy of a
document titled "wrap around mortgage" to her answer to support her
claim that she held an equitable interest in the property. Murdock later
filed a motion to dismiss the unlawful-detainer action, arguing that,
because she was not a tenant, Nali could not seek to evict her under the
unlawful-detainer statutes. After a hearing held on the issue of
possession, the district court entered an order reflecting that the parties
had "entered" a "joint motion to transfer" the unlawful-detainer action to
the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the circuit court") and transferring the
action.1
Nali filed in the circuit court an amended complaint in which it
sought to eject Murdock from the property and sought damages for both
1The record contains no such motion.
2 CL-2026-0110
trespass and unjust enrichment. Murdock answered the amended
complaint. Murdock later filed what she titled a "verified third-party
complaint," in which she sought to add Dan Poggione, the trustee of the
land trust, as a third-party defendant. In the third-party complaint,
Murdock sought damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
and also alleged that Poggione, as trustee of the land trust, would be
liable to her in the event she was found to be liable to Nali.
Poggione filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, to
which Murdock responded. Nali filed a motion for a partial summary
judgment regarding the issue of its right to possession of the property;
the motion specifically reserved the right to a later hearing relating to
the damages sought in the amended complaint. Murdock filed a response
in opposition to Nali's motion for a partial summary judgment.
On November 18, 2025, the circuit court entered an order
dismissing the third-party complaint. That same day, the circuit court
entered an order granting Nali a partial summary judgment; the circuit
court issued a writ of possession in favor of Nali on December 1, 2025.
On December 17, 2025, Murdock filed a motion to stay the writ of
possession and a motion to dismiss Nali's action based on the circuit
3 CL-2026-0110
court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Murdock also filed a motion to
reconsider the partial summary judgment and the dismissal of her third-
party complaint.2
Relying on Alexander v. Hawk, 139 So. 3d 824, 826 (Ala. Civ. App.
2013), and Darby v. Schley, 8 So. 3d 1011, 1012 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008),
Murdock argued in her motion to dismiss that the district court had
lacked the authority to transfer the unlawful-detainer action Nali filed to
the circuit court and also that, although Nali had filed an amended
complaint in the circuit court, Nali had failed to pay a filing fee, which
had prevented the circuit court from obtaining jurisdiction over the
action.3 Nali responded to that motion, arguing that the cases Murdock
2Murdock titled her motion as a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion
to alter, amend, or vacate, but the partial summary judgment was not a final judgment because Nali's trespass and unjust-enrichment claims and the accompanying requests for damages remained unadjudicated. See Ex parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So. 2d 547, 550 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Malone v. Gainey, 726 So. 2d 725, 725 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)) ("A 'Rule 59 motion may be made only in reference to a final judgment or order.' ").
3In Darby v. Schley, 8 So. 3d 1011, 1013-14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008),
this court held that, because an "unlawful-detainer action [is] not an action 'within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court,' [Ala. Code 1975,] § 12-11-9, … [a district court lacks] the authority to transfer that action to ... [a circuit court] pursuant to § 12-11-9." (Footnote omitted.) In Alexander v. Hawk, 139 So. 3d 824, 827 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013), we 4 CL-2026-0110
cited were inapposite. Nali admitted that it had not paid a filing fee in
the circuit court.
On January 5, 2026, the circuit court entered the following order:
"MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY filed by … Murdock is MOOT. The
above-styled matter is hereby DISMISSED." Murdock then filed a notice
of appeal. We dismiss Murdock's appeal.
A party may appeal only from an adverse judgment. Alcazar Shrine
Temple v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 868 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Ala.
2003). The circuit court's January 5, 2026, order was not adverse to
Murdock. Although the January 5, 2026, order could have been more
clear, the circuit court determined that Murdock's motion seeking
reconsideration of the order dismissing the third-party complaint and the
order granting Nali's partial-summary-judgment motion was moot,
which only could have occurred if the circuit court determined that, as
Murdock had argued in her motion to dismiss, the circuit court's orders
further explained that, if a district court transfers an unlawful-detainer action to a circuit court and if the plaintiff files "an amended complaint in the circuit court, asserting claims that fall within the original jurisdiction of the circuit court" but fails to pay a filing fee in the circuit court, the amended complaint will not initiate a new action invoking the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. 5 CL-2026-0110
were void because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Nali's
action.4 See Ex parte Musa Props., LLC, 401 So. 3d 273, 275 (Ala. 2024)
(dismissing a petition for the writ of mandamus because the trial court
had vacated its order and, thus, the petitioner received the relief he was
seeking in the petition); Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972, 983 (Ala.
2007) (quoting Crawford v. State, 153 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Tex. App. 2004))
(" 'The test for mootness is commonly stated as whether the court's action
on the merits would affect the rights of the parties.' "). That implicit
determination also supports the circuit court's dismissal of the entire
action. The dismissal of the entire action served to annul the previously
entered orders of the circuit court, therefore obviating the need for
reconsideration of the partial summary judgment or the order dismissing
the third-party complaint.
" 'As a general rule, interlocutory orders become unenforceable upon a final judgment of dismissal.' Ex parte W.L.K., 175 So. 3d 652, 661 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (citing Maddox v. Maddox, 276 Ala. 197, 199, 160 So. 2d 481, 483 (1964) (discussing Duss v. Duss, 92 Fla. 1081, 111 So. 382 (1927))). Generally, the dismissal of an action operates to annul previously entered orders, rulings, or judgments. See Ex parte Sealy, L.L.C., 904 So. 2d 1230, 1236 (Ala. 2004)
4In light of the posture of this appeal, which was brought by Murdock, we need not decide whether the circuit court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Nali's action. 6 CL-2026-0110
(quoting 27 C.J.S. Dismissal and Nonsuit § 39 (1959)) (holding that a voluntary dismissal renders the proceedings a nullity and ' "carries down with it previous proceedings and orders in the action" '); McNairy v. McNairy, 416 So. 2d 735, 736 (Ala. 1982) ('The motion to dismiss was granted by the circuit court, which also held for naught all prior orders of the probate court.'). See also 24 Am. Jur. 2d Dismissal § 89 (2008)."
K.L.R. v. K.G.S., 201 So. 3d 1200, 1203 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
The circuit court's January 5, 2026, order dismissed the entire
action and effectively annulled the previously entered partial summary
judgment and the order dismissing the third-party complaint. Thus, no
orders or judgments adverse to Murdock existed at the time she filed her
notice of appeal.5 We therefore dismiss Murdock's appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.
5We note also that, had the circuit court not dismissed the action,
Nali had been awarded only a partial summary judgment on the issue of possession, leaving the damages claims unadjudicated, and Murdock's appeal from that order would have been premature. See Gatlin v. Joiner, 4 So. 3d 1139, 1141 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (stating that the failure to adjudicate all pending claims in an action prevents finality). 7