Ellana Johnson v. Tim Windham and Bolivia Windham (Appeal from Geneva Circuit court: CV-24-900026).

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: October 11, 2024
• Docket: CL-2024-0393
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: October 11, 2024

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 OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 ________________________

CL-2024-0393 ________________________

Ellana Johnson

v.

Tim Windham and Bolivia Windham

Appeal from Geneva Circuit Court (CV-24-900026)

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

Ellana Johnson ("the tenant") appeals from a judgment entered by

the Geneva Circuit Court ("the trial court") dismissing her complaint

against Tim Windham and Bolivia Windham ("the landlords"). We

reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case with instructions.

On August 27, 2023, the tenant entered into a residential lease

agreement with the landlords, pursuant to which she was allowed to CL-2024-0393

occupy a mobile home ("the mobile home"), which was located in Slocumb,

for a period of one year. On March 12, 2024, the landlords notified the

tenant that she was being evicted from the mobile home effective March

26, 2024. On March 13, 2024, the tenant vacated the mobile home, but

she left her personal property in the home. On March 14, 2024, law-

enforcement officers entered the mobile home, finding it in a disheveled

condition with an electric stove running; the landlords deactivated the

electric service running to the mobile home, locked the deadbolt on the

door of the mobile home, and closed the gate on the real property on which

the mobile home was situated. On March 19, 2024, the landlords gave

the tenant access to the mobile home, and the tenant returned to the

mobile home and gathered some of her personal property.

On March 21, 2024, the tenant commenced a civil action by filing a

complaint against the landlords. In her complaint, the tenant claimed

that the landlords had failed to properly notify her of the termination of

the lease and that the landlords had unlawfully evicted her from the

mobile home in violation of the Alabama Uniform Residential Landlord

Tenant Act ("the Act"), Ala. Code 975, § 35-9A-101 et seq. The tenant

2 CL-2024-0393

requested that the trial court enter a temporary restraining order

requiring the landlords to comply with the Act and to allow her to regain

unfettered access to the mobile home. The tenant also demanded

damages for the allegedly unlawful eviction.

On March 22, 2024, the trial court entered an ex parte temporary

restraining order ("the TRO") granting the tenant access to the mobile

home, enjoining the landlords from interfering with her access, and

requiring the landlords to comply with the notice and unlawful-eviction

provisions of the Act. That same date, the tenant retrieved most of her

remaining personal property from the mobile home. On March 24, 2024,

the landlords were served with the TRO. On April 2, 2024, the landlords

requested a hearing regarding the TRO; the trial court granted the

request and scheduled a hearing regarding the TRO to take place on April

11, 2024.

On April 11, 2024, after the hearing, in which the trial court heard

testimony from Tim Windham and the tenant, the trial court found that

the tenant had abandoned the mobile home and that she had not paid the

rent due for April 2024. The trial court entered an order dissolving the

3 CL-2024-0393

TRO and dismissing the action. On April 23, 2024, the tenant filed a

postjudgment motion, arguing that the trial court had erred in

dismissing the action without holding a trial on her claim for damages

based on the landlords' alleged violations of the Act. On April 24, 2024,

the trial court denied the postjudgment motion. The tenant filed a notice

of appeal on May 28, 2024.

On appeal, the tenant argues that the trial court erred in

dismissing the action based solely on the TRO hearing.1 We agree. In

Robinson v. Robinson, [Ms. CL-2022-1290, Sept. 8, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___

(Ala. Civ. App. 2023), the Etowah Circuit Court ("the circuit court")

entered an ex parte order restraining a father from visiting with his child.

The circuit court subsequently conducted a hearing on whether the ex

parte order should be dissolved or continued. Following the conclusion of

the hearing, the circuit court entered a final judgment modifying the

1The tenant does not argue that the TRO should not have been dissolved, which argument could have been raised only in an appeal filed within 14 days from the entry of the final judgment. See Rule 4(a)(1)(A), Ala. R. App. P. Because she filed her notice of appeal within 42 days of the entry of the denial of her postjudgment motion, the tenant's appeal is limited solely to the dismissal of her claims seeking damages for violations of the Act. See Rule 4(a)(3), Ala. R. App. P. 4 CL-2024-0393

father's visitation rights. The mother filed a postjudgment motion,

arguing that the circuit court had erroneously entered a final judgment

without first conducting a trial on the merits; the circuit court denied the

postjudgment motion. On appeal, this court held that the circuit court

had "erred to reversal in entering a 'Final Order,' purportedly on the

merits, after conducting only a hearing on whether to continue the

suspension of the father's visitation with the child as provided in the ex

parte order." ___ So. 3d at ___.

In this case, the tenant sought both injunctive relief and damages

for the landlords' alleged violations of the Act. The trial court notified

the parties that it would hear the landlords' motion "regarding" the TRO

on April 11, 2024. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court repeated

that its purpose was to hear the landlords' motion, and it ruled during

the hearing that only evidence relating to that motion would be admitted.

After the hearing, however, the trial court not only dissolved the TRO,

but it also dismissed the action, which dismissal was an adjudication on

the merits. See Rule 41(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Like in Robinson, we conclude

that the trial court erred to reversal in entering a final judgment on the

5 CL-2024-0393

merits based solely on the TRO hearing. Even if the trial court properly

disposed of the claim for injunctive relief, it could not have properly

adjudicated the claim for damages.

The tenant also argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the

action based on its determination that the tenant had abandoned the

mobile home and had not paid her April 2024 rent. We do not reach this

issue because we have reversed that portion of the judgment dismissing

the action, thereby vacating the adjudication on the merits. See Shirley

v. Shirley, 361 So. 2d 590, 591 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978) ("The reversal of a

judgment, or a part thereof, wholly annuls it, or the part of it, as if it

never existed."). Accordingly, this issue is moot.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing reasoning, we reverse the trial court's

judgment and remand the case for the trial court to decide the case on

the merits and to take such further action and to conduct such further

proceedings as are consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.