Bice v. SCI ALABAMA FUNERAL HOME SERVICES

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Bice v. SCI ALABAMA FUNERAL HOME SERVICES

764 So. 2d 1280, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 153, 2000 WL 264237

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 10, 2000

Docket2981430

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 764 So. 2d 1280 (Bice v. SCI ALABAMA FUNERAL HOME SERVICES) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bice v. SCI ALABAMA FUNERAL HOME SERVICES, 764 So. 2d 1280, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 153, 2000 WL 264237 (Ala. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Edna Rae Bice, individually and as executrix of the estate of Mitchell Mink, deceased; and Doris Jean Hitchcock sued several defendants, including SCI Alabama Funeral Home Services d/b/a Elmwood Cemetery Corporation (hereinafter "SCI") and Betty L. Murphy. The parties filed and answered several counterclaims and crossclaims. All parties other than Bice, Hitchcock, SCI, and Murphy were eventually dismissed from the action. *Page 1281

On March 17, 1999, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of SCI and Murphy, the only remaining defendants, on the plaintiff's claims. The March 17, 1999, summary judgment constituted a final adjudication of all of the claims of the various parties to this action. On April 19, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a postjudgment motion asking the trial court to set aside or vacate its March 17, 1999, summary judgment. The trial court did not rule on that motion. On August 18, 1999, the plaintiffs appealed from the summary judgment entered in favor of SCI and Murphy.

We must dismiss this appeal as untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 42 days of the entry of the judgment. Rule 4(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P. Thus, the plaintiffs had until April 28, 1999, to appeal from the March 17, 1999, summary judgment.

However, the time for appeal may be extended where a party files a timely postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 50, 52, 55, or 59, Ala.R.Civ.P. Hale v. Crane, 747 So.2d 344 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). After considering the substance of the plaintiffs' postjudgment motion, see Hale v. Crane, supra, we conclude that it was a motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala.R.Civ.P. Such a motion must be filed not later than 30 days after the entry of the judgment. Rule 59(e); Newman v. Newman, [Ms. 2980050, Sept. 3, 1999] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). Thus, to toll the running of the time for appeal, the plaintiffs had to file their Rule 59(e) postjudmgent motion by April 16, 1999. The plaintiffs filed their motion on April 19, 1999 — more than 30 days after the March 17, 1999, summary judgment. That motion was untimely and did not extend the time for appeal.

The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal from the March 17, 1999, summary judgment on August 8, 1999, well beyond the end of the 42 days allowed by Rule 4, Ala.R.App.P. An untimely appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Rule 2(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and CRAWLEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Edna Rae Bice, individually and as executrix of the estate of Mitchell Mink, deceased; and Doris Jean Hitchcock sued several defendants, including SCI Alabama Funeral Home Services d/b/a Elmwood Cemetery Corporation (hereinafter "SCI") and Betty L. Murphy. The parties filed and answered several counterclaims and crossclaims. All parties other than Bice, Hitchcock, SCI, and Murphy were eventually dismissed from the action. *Page 1281

On March 17, 1999, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of SCI and Murphy, the only remaining defendants, on the plaintiff's claims. The March 17, 1999, summary judgment constituted a final adjudication of all of the claims of the various parties to this action. On April 19, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a postjudgment motion asking the trial court to set aside or vacate its March 17, 1999, summary judgment. The trial court did not rule on that motion. On August 18, 1999, the plaintiffs appealed from the summary judgment entered in favor of SCI and Murphy.

We must dismiss this appeal as untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 42 days of the entry of the judgment. Rule 4(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P. Thus, the plaintiffs had until April 28, 1999, to appeal from the March 17, 1999, summary judgment.

However, the time for appeal may be extended where a party files a timely postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 50, 52, 55, or 59, Ala.R.Civ.P. Hale v. Crane, 747 So.2d 344 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). After considering the substance of the plaintiffs' postjudgment motion, see Hale v. Crane, supra, we conclude that it was a motion made pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala.R.Civ.P. Such a motion must be filed not later than 30 days after the entry of the judgment. Rule 59(e); Newman v. Newman, [Ms. 2980050, Sept. 3, 1999] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). Thus, to toll the running of the time for appeal, the plaintiffs had to file their Rule 59(e) postjudmgent motion by April 16, 1999. The plaintiffs filed their motion on April 19, 1999 — more than 30 days after the March 17, 1999, summary judgment. That motion was untimely and did not extend the time for appeal.

The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal from the March 17, 1999, summary judgment on August 8, 1999, well beyond the end of the 42 days allowed by Rule 4, Ala.R.App.P. An untimely appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Rule 2(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and CRAWLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 So. 2d 1280, 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 153, 2000 WL 264237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bice-v-sci-alabama-funeral-home-services-alacivapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack