Rel: February 20, 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 printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026
_________________________
SC-2025-0526 _________________________
Global Environmental Group, Inc., d/b/a Global Trash Solutions, and Peter Spano II
v.
Braxton L. Kittrell IV
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (CV-22-900290)
MENDHEIM, Justice. SC-2025-0526
Global Environmental Group, Inc., d/b/a Global Trash Solutions
("GTS"), and GTS's owner and CEO, Peter Spano II, appeal from an order
of the Mobile Circuit Court that denied their Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.,
motion for relief from a default judgment entered against them and in
favor of Braxton L. Kittrell IV. We dismiss the appeal.
I. Facts
On February 24, 2022, Earth Resources and Recycling, A
Greenwise LLC ("Earth Resources"), and Kittrell, Earth Resource's
owner and CEO, commenced an action in the Mobile Circuit Court
against GTS, Spano, Michael Mearman, Charles B. Neil, and fictitiously
named defendants. The complaint listed Mearman as "Director of
Operations" for GTS, Neil as "National Accounts Manager" for GTS, and
Spano as "the CEO" of GTS. The complaint listed GTS as a "foreign
corporation" that "did in fact sell their products in the State of Alabama,
County of Mobile."
Earth Resources and Kittrell alleged that on December 7, 2020,
Kittrell, as the owner of Earth Resources, contracted with GTS "to
purchase a 60[-inch] Horizontal Baler, left hinge chamber door -- Heavy
Duty" for a cost of $79,750, a price that included shipping and
2 SC-2025-0526
installation.1 A signed copy of the contract was attached to the complaint.
Under the contract, Kittrell agreed to make a $40,000 down payment
followed by 24 monthly installment payments of $1,562.06 to purchase
the baler. In the complaint, Earth Resources and Kittrell alleged that
Kittrell made the $40,000 down payment on December 16, 2020, and
that, after that payment, the baler was supposed to be delivered "to his
place of business at 709 Western Dr., Mobile, AL 36607," after which he
would begin making the installment payments. It is undisputed that GTS
never delivered the baler to Earth Resources. The complaint asserted
claims of fraud, conversion, and violations under the Alabama Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("the ADTPA"), § 8-19-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
A signed certified-mail receipt shows that the original complaint
was served on Neil on February 28, 2022. It listed Neil's address as 824
U.S. Highway 1, Suite 100, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408.
Likewise, a signed certified-mail receipt dated February 28, 2022,
shows that the original complaint was served on "Global Environmental
1In a hearing on April 17, 2023, Kittrell testified that a baler "basically compacts all the -- you know, whether it be plastic or cardboard, it compresses it into a big block and makes it ready for transport." 3 SC-2025-0526
Group, LLC"; the same address is listed on that certified-mail receipt as
was listed for Neil -- except that it did not list "Suite 100" as part of the
address. The initials signed on the mail receipts look similar or nearly
identical to one another. In a deposition, the designated corporate
representative for GTS, Tammy Torres, stated that she could not identify
the signature on the certified-mail receipt sent to "Global Environmental
Group, LLC."
A signed certified-mail receipt dated April 7, 2022, shows that the
original complaint was served on Spano. That certified-mail receipt listed
Spano's address as 907 Lake Shore Drive, #111, Lake Park, Florida
33403. Torres testified that the address was an apartment Spano was
renting at that time. However, Torres also testified that Spano currently
lives in Connecticut and that she believed that he first moved there in
September 2021.
On April 7, 2022, Mearman and Neil filed a "Motion to Dismiss or
for More Definite Statement" in the circuit court. That motion argued
that the complaint claimed that both Earth Resources and Kittrell could
"maintain the exact same cause of action for damages" even though,
"[h]ad the transaction been completed as anticipated, the company
4 SC-2025-0526
[Earth Resources] -- not Mr. Kittrell -- would have owned the equipment."
The motion contended that the asserted cause of action was contrary to
Alabama limited-liability-company law because, under that law, an LLC
is a separate legal entity from its members, and a member has no interest
in any specific property purchased by the LLC. Based on that law,
Mearman and Neil contended that the complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The circuit court set Mearman and Neil's motion for a hearing to be
held on April 22, 2022. However, on April 21, 2022, Earth Resources and
Kittrell filed a "First Amended Complaint." The amended complaint
asserted that, "at all relevant times referenced herein, [Kittrell was] the
owner and principal of [Earth Resources]." The amended complaint
reasserted the claims of fraud and violations under the ADTPA, but it
removed the claim of conversion because, it stated, "[a]fter this lawsuit
was filed, Plaintiff Earth Resources received a refund for the $40,000
from Peter Spano." That refund is confirmed in the record with a cashed
check from GTS to Earth Resources dated March 29, 2022, in the amount
of $40,000. With respect to the fraud claim, the amended complaint
requested "lost revenue damages plus costs associated with this filing
5 SC-2025-0526
and attorney's fees" because Earth Resources and Kittrell allegedly
"suffered consequential damages in terms of opportunity costs, fines, and
penalties associated with operating [the] business" and were limited in
their "ability to perform ... normal business operations."2 (Id. at C. 73.)
On April 21, 2022, Kittrell, "individually and as principle of [Earth
Resources]" also filed a response to Mearman and Neil's motion to
dismiss.
On January 27, 2023, Earth Resources filed in the circuit court a
"Motion for Default" against GTS and Spano in which it asserted that
GTS and Spano had been served with the original complaint on February
28, 2022, and April 7, 2022, respectively, but that neither defendant had
responded to the complaint. Earth Resources requested an entry of
default and a hearing to determine damages.
On February 3, 2023, the circuit court granted the motion for an
entry of default against GTS and Spano, and the circuit court set a
hearing to prove damages for March 10, 2023.
2It appears that the amended complaint was sent to the defendants
by regular United States mail rather than by certified mail. 6 SC-2025-0526
On March 7, 2023, Mearman and Neil filed a "Motion for Summary
Judgment" concerning the claims asserted against them. In their
summary-judgment motion, Mearman and Neil contended that they
"were merely employees of [GTS]," that "they only acted within the line
and scope of their employment with [GTS]," that "they did not personally
enter into a contract with [Earth Resources and Kittrell]," that they did
not commit fraud against Earth Resources or Kittrell, and that they did
not "knowingly commit any act or knowingly engage in any activity which
constitutes a violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act."
Both Mearman and Neil attached affidavits in support of their summary-
judgment motion.
The circuit court set a hearing for the summary-judgment motion
and for proving damages for the entry of a default judgment for April 14,
2023. On April 17, 2023, the circuit court entered a summary judgment
in favor of Mearman and Neil.
On the same date, April 17, 2023, the circuit court entered a "Final
Order and Default Judgment" against GTS and Spano. The default
judgment assessed net compensatory damages of $416,012 based on
"testimony presented by [Kittrell] in open court." The default judgment
7 SC-2025-0526
also assessed attorneys' fees in favor of Kittrell and Earth Resources and
against GTS and Spano in the amount of $25,000 based on the ADTPA
claim. Thus, the total amount of damages awarded under the default
judgment was $441,012.
On July 21, 2023, counsel for "Global Environmental Group, Inc.
(erroneously identified in the Complaint as Global Environmental Group,
LLC), and Peter Spano" filed a notice of appearance in the circuit court.
On August 4, 2023, GTS and Spano filed a "Motion for Relief from
Default Judgment" "pursuant to Rules 60(b)(1), 60(b)(4) & 60(b)(6), Ala.
R. Civ. P." In their Rule 60(b) motion, GTS and Spano conceded that "a
return of service was filed indicating service of process on Defendant
[GTS] via certified mail on February 28, 2022," but they asserted that
"[t]he signature on the receipt is illegible." They also conceded that "a
return of service was filed evidencing proof of service on Defendant Spano
via certified mail on April 7, 2022." GTS and Spano further asserted that
"the court record does not reflect that service of the Amended Complaint
was ever issued to [GTS] or Spano by certified mail or any other means."
GTS and Spano asserted that they "first learned of the Default Judgment
on or about July 3, 2023, when Defendant Spano received notice of a
8 SC-2025-0526
garnishment issued to SeaCoast Bank." GTS and Spano argued that
defective service rendered the default judgment void. They contended
that service was defective because Earth Resources and Kittrell were
supposed to serve GTS's authorized agent for service -- Spano -- not the
company as an entity as the certified-mail receipt of February 28, 2022,
indicated. They also emphasized that "the signature on the [certified-
mail] receipt is illegible and [GTS and Spano] are uncertain as to who
signed the receipt. Whomever the unidentified person is, the paperwork
was not delivered to [GTS or Spano]." GTS and Spano also argued that
the default judgment was void because the amended complaint was never
served on either GTS or Spano and the amended complaint requested a
different amount of damages than the amount requested in the original
complaint. GTS and Spano also contended that they were entitled to
relief from the default judgment based on excusable neglect because GTS
was unable to deliver the baler because of detrimental economic impact
created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
GTS and Spano attached to their motion for relief from the default
judgment an affidavit from Spano in which he testified that he was the
registered agent for GTS in 2022. Spano also stated that he was
9 SC-2025-0526
"uncertain who signed the receipt" of service for GTS and that "[t]he
paperwork received by the unknown person was not delivered to me or
any other member, manager, or agent of [GTS]." Noticeably absent from
Spano's affidavit was any acknowledgment of the certified-mail receipt
for service of the original complaint that was addressed to him.
On August 8, 2023, the circuit-court judge who had been presiding
over the case, Judge Wesley Pipes, entered an order recusing himself
from the case and reassigning the case to the docket of Judge Vicki Davis.
On August 18, 2023, GTS and Spano filed an "Objection to Notice
of Intent to Issue Subpoena to AT&T Mobility, LLC." According to that
filing, on August 8, 2023, Earth Resources and Kittrell had filed a notice
of intent to issue a subpoena to "AT&T Mobility, LLC -- Subpoena
Compliance Center," apparently seeking mobile-phone records of GTS
employees in an effort to determine who had signed the February 28,
2022, certified-mail receipt for GTS. GTS and Spano objected to the
subpoena because, they said, the subpoena sought materials that were
subject to the attorney-client privilege and "this action was concluded on
April 17, 2023, upon entry of the Court's Final Order and Default
Judgment, therefore, no action is pending for issuance of a subpoena."
10 SC-2025-0526
On December 13, 2023, Kittrell filed a response opposing GTS and
Spano's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the default judgment, a motion
for limited discovery, and a motion to extend the deadline for responding
to the motion for relief from the default judgment.3 In that filing, Kittrell
noted that the original complaint had been mailed to GTS "at its
registered business location of 824 US Hwy 1, North Palm Beach, FL
33408. The certified mail was signed for by an employee of [GTS] ...." As
proof that GTS was aware of the filing of the complaint at that time,
Kittrell also pointed to correspondence from GTS's counsel dated April
13, 2022, in which GTS acknowledged receipt of the complaint and even
attached the summons and complaint to that correspondence. In addition
to those points, Kittrell requested
"limited discovery on this issue of service of the summons and complaint. Specifically, [Kittrell] moves the Court for leave to depose a 30(b)(6)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] representative of [GTS] on the issue of service, its office staff and their responsibilities (including receiving the business's mail) and the deposition of the individual who accepted the summons (once identified)."
3At some point in this litigation, Earth Resources stopped being a
named plaintiff in this action. The first filing in which the style of the case listed only Kittrell as the plaintiff was the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Mearman and Neil, even though that judgment still mentioned "Plaintiffs." It is unclear from the record filings exactly when and why the change to Kittrell as the sole plaintiff occurred. 11 SC-2025-0526
Kittrell also asked for the circuit court to extend the deadline for his full
response to the motion for relief from the default judgment until the
limited discovery was completed.
On December 15, 2023, GTS and Spano filed a reply to Kittrell's
response in opposition to the motion for relief from the default judgment.
In their reply, GTS and Spano contended that Kittrell's statement that a
GTS employee signed the certified-mail receipt for service of the original
complaint sent to GTS was "an unsupported assertion [that] is not
evidence and is due no consideration." GTS and Spano also opposed any
limited discovery as to service of the complaint upon GTS.
On the same date, December 15, 2023, Kittrell filed a supplemental
response in opposition to the Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the default
judgment in which he argued that the general appearance by counsel for
GTS and Spano on July 21, 2023, had waived any objection to improper
service of process.
On December 29, 2023, the circuit court entered an order that
granted Kittrell permission to conduct limited discovery concerning the
issue of service of process and that denied GTS and Spano's objection to
12 SC-2025-0526
the subpoena of telephone records sought by Kittrell as part of that
discovery.
In a hearing on May 10, 2024, the circuit court made it clear to new
counsel for GTS and Spano4 that the court had granted "limited discovery
to determine whether or not there was adequate service, that's all. We
don't get to the underlying issues of the basis of the case. That's not what
this is about." Counsel for GTS and Spano indicated that they would
comply with the circuit court's order concerning limited discovery.
On June 24, 2024, the circuit court entered an order granting a
motion to compel discovery that had been filed by Kittrell in relation to
the limited discovery he had been authorized to conduct. The order
directed GTS and Spano "to comply with [Kittrell's] request for limited
discovery as necessary" and provided that the parties had 75 days to
conduct the discovery.
On August 29, 2024, counsel for Kittrell deposed Torres, GTS's
designated corporate representative under Rule 30(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P.,
for purposes of the limited discovery concerning service of process. Torres
4On May 9, 2024, GTS and Spano retained new counsel to represent
them in this litigation. 13 SC-2025-0526
testified that she is the office manager for GTS; that GTS has had only
one corporate office since February 2022, which is located at 824 U.S.
Highway 1, Suite 100, North Palm Beach, Florida; that GTS had five
employees at the time the service of process was sent; that she did not
recognize the signature on the February 28, 2022, certified-mail receipt;
and that she was the only employee at the office on February 28, 2022.
She also testified that GTS's standard practice for certified mail was for
"whoever is at the front [of the office] to sign for it" and then to send it to
Spano. During the deposition, Kittrell's counsel presented Torres with
returns of service from other lawsuits that named GTS in which, Torres
admitted, she had accepted service of process.
On September 5, 2024, Kittrell filed a motion to extend the deadline
for limited discovery for an additional 75 days because GTS and Spano's
disclosures allegedly had not been helpful to the issue. On September 9,
2024, GTS and Spano filed a response opposing any extension of the
limited-discovery deadline, in which they blamed Kittrell and his counsel
for delays in completing discovery. The response insisted that GTS and
Spano
"do not recognize the illegible signature [on the February 28, 2022, certified-mail receipt] and do not know the identity of 14 SC-2025-0526
the person whose initials are on the certified mailing .... Instead, the certified mailing was not properly addressed, did not list a suite number, and was delivered to a multi-story corporate office complex with over forty (40) other businesses and a constant flow of traffic created by members of the public."
On June 5, 2025, GTS and Spano filed what they styled an
"Omnibus Brief in Support of and Amended Motion for Relief from
Default Judgment." That filing essentially constituted a reset of their
arguments concerning why they believed their Rule 60(b) motion for
relief from the default judgment should be granted. In the new filing,
GTS and Spano contended, among other things, that neither of them was
"properly served with the pleadings in this case," that "[t]he judgment
was based upon claims for which no relief could have been granted and a
breach of contract claim which had never been pled," and that "[t]he
judgment amount included calculations for damages not recoverable and
specifically prohibited by law." The new filing also contained allegations
against Neil and Mearman for allegedly conspiring against Spano and
insinuating that Neil perhaps signed the February 28, 2022, certified-
mail receipt to GTS but did not relay it to Spano. The new filing also
asserted for the first time that the default judgment was void for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by Kittrell in 15 SC-2025-0526
his individual capacity, not by Earth Resources, and that Kittrell "lacked
the legal authority, capacity, and standing to bring any claim and ... has
suffered no injury." GTS and Spano also contended, without
documentation, that Kittrell is a resident of the State of Washington, not
Alabama, and that "Alabama does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
over the tort claim (fraud) or statutory Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ('ADTPA') brought by a non-resident who was not a party
to the contract at issue and, therefore, had no standing to bring claims
flowing therefrom." GTS and Spano further asserted that the judgment
was void because, they said, Kittrell had failed to join Earth Resources
as a plaintiff even though, according to them, Earth Resources was an
indispensable party to the action. GTS and Spano also argued that the
circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over GTS because it is "a Florida
corporation, conducted no business in Alabama, and Kittrell's unilateral
contact with GTS is insufficient to confer jurisdiction."
On June 6, 2025, GTS and Spano filed a motion to recuse Judge
Davis from the case. On the same date, Judge Davis entered an order
denying the recusal motion.
On June 11, 2025, the circuit court entered an order that provided:
16 SC-2025-0526
"[GTS and Spano's] Objection to Notice of Intent to Issue Subpoena to AT&T Mobility, LLC is GRANTED.
"[GTS and Spano's] Objection to [Kittrell's] Subpoena to Non-Party Paychex, Inc., is DENIED.
"[Kittrell's] Motion to Extend Limited Discovery Deadline is GRANTED.
"[GTS and Spano's] Motion for Relief from Default Judgment and Omnibus Brief in Support of and Amended Motion for Relief from Default Judgment are DENIED."
(Bold typeface and capitalization in original.)
On July 11, 2025, GTS and Spano filed an "Instanter Motion to
Reconsider and for Evidentiary Hearing or, alternatively, for a Ruling on
the Merits." GTS and Spano attached to that motion an affidavit from
Spano that attempted to establish certain facts.
On July 23, 2025, GTS and Spano appealed from the circuit court's
June 11, 2025, order.
II. Analysis
In their appeal, GTS and Spano reiterate the arguments they raised
in their renewed motion for relief from the default judgment. We cannot
examine the merits of those arguments, however, because GTS and
Spano clearly have appealed from a nonfinal judgment. The circuit
court's June 11, 2025, order expressly denied GTS and Spano's motion 17 SC-2025-0526
for relief from the default judgment and their amended motion for relief
from the default judgment. However, the circuit court also expressly
granted Kittrell's motion to extend the limited-discovery deadline, and it
denied GTS and Spano's objection to a nonparty subpoena that was
directly related to that limited discovery.
As the rendition of the facts relates, the circuit court had permitted
Kittrell to perform limited discovery for the purpose of determining
whether adequate service of process was perfected upon GTS. Even
before the entry of its June 11, 2025, order, the circuit court had granted
discovery as to that issue, had granted an extension to conduct that
discovery, and had granted a motion to compel with respect to that
requested discovery because GTS and Spano had openly refused to
cooperate with Kittrell's efforts to conduct the discovery. Even after
Kittrell had deposed GTS's corporate representative, Kittrell argued that
further limited discovery was necessary. In granting Kittrell's request for
another extension to conduct limited discovery in its June 11, 2025, order,
the circuit court agreed that Kittrell was entitled to conduct more
discovery on the service-of-process issue. Thus, even though the circuit
court's June 11, 2025, order denied GTS and Spano's Rule 60(b) motion,
18 SC-2025-0526
the circuit court simultaneously ordered further limited discovery as to
the issue whether GTS received adequate service of process, which
constituted one basis for GTS and Spano's motion for relief from the
default judgment. Consequently, on its face, the circuit court's June 11,
2025, order was not a final judgment.
" ' "As this court has said many times previously, a final judgment is necessary to give jurisdiction to this court on an appeal, and it cannot be waived by the parties...."
" '....
" 'When it is determined that an order appealed from is not a final judgment, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.'
"Powell v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 293 Ala. 101, 102, 300 So. 2d 359, 360 (1974) (quoting McGowin Investment Co. v. Johnstone, 291 Ala. 714, 715, 287 So. 2d 835, 836 (1973))."
North Alabama Elec. Coop. v. New Hope Tel. Coop., 7 So. 3d 342, 344
(Ala. 2008).
GTS and Spano seem to recognize the problem with their appeal in
their appellate brief's "Statement of Jurisdiction," stating:
"[B]ecause the trial court's order of June 11, 2025, extended jurisdictional discovery for [Kittrell] to prove service and did not adjudicate all claims to all parties, this Court has authority to treat this appeal as a writ of mandamus in the 19 SC-2025-0526
interest of justice pursuant to Rule 21, Ala. R. App. P., and Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P."
GTS and Spano's brief, p. 4. But GTS and Spano do not clearly explain
on what basis a writ of mandamus should issue.
If the ground for a writ of mandamus is lack of jurisdiction based
on a failure to properly serve GTS, a final determination on that issue
clearly remains before the circuit court because discovery is ongoing as
to that issue. "Generally, the writ of mandamus will not issue to compel
a trial court to exercise its discretion in a particular manner." Ex parte
Monsanto Co., 794 So. 2d 350, 353-54 (Ala. 2001). GTS and Spano offer
us no compelling reason to decide the service-of-process issue before the
circuit court has done so.
If GTS and Spano take issue with the circuit court's decision to
grant further limited discovery on the issue of service of process, the
applicable standard of review is whether the circuit court exceeded its
discretion in allowing further discovery. See, e.g., Ex parte Ocwen Fed.
Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003) ("Discovery matters are
within the trial court's sound discretion, and this Court will not reverse
a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue unless the trial court has clearly
exceeded its discretion."). However, GTS and Spano present no argument 20 SC-2025-0526
beyond a general assertion in their appellate brief -- without further
explanation or any citation to authority -- that the circuit court exceeded
its discretion in that regard.5 Therefore, we see no basis for considering
such an argument. See, e.g., White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC,
998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008) ("Rule 28(a)(10)[, Ala. R. App. P.,]
requires that arguments in briefs contain discussions of facts and
relevant legal authorities that support the party's position. If they do not,
the arguments are waived. Moore v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd.
P'ship, 849 So. 2d 914, 923 (Ala. 2002); Arrington v. Mathis, 929 So. 2d
468, 470 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005); Hamm v. State, 913 So. 2d 460, 486
(Ala. Crim. App. 2002). 'This is so, because " 'it is not the function of this
5GTS and Spano's only attempt to argue that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in granting further limited discovery is a brief paragraph in their appellate brief's "Statement of Issues":
"V. When the issue of insufficient service of process was raised, the burden shifted to [Kittrell] to prove service was perfected. [Kittrell] had not met the burden of providing proof of service or satisfying [his] burden to prove the court had jurisdiction at the time of the trial court's order of June 11, 2025. Did the court err by extending the limited discover deadline for [Kittrell to] try and prove service?"
GTS and Spano's brief, p. 14. That paragraph consists of bald assertions followed by an implied argument raised in the form of a question. 21 SC-2025-0526
Court to do a party's legal research or to make and address legal
arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not
supported by sufficient authority or argument.' " ' Jimmy Day Plumbing
& Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Butler v.
Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Dykes v. Lane
Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994)).").
In sum, GTS and Spano have appealed from a nonfinal judgment
that will not support an appeal. Additionally, they have not offered an
adequate argument as to why we should construe their appeal as a
petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the appeal is due to be
dismissed.
III. Conclusion
The circuit court's June 11, 2025, order on its face is not a final
judgment. Limited discovery concerning whether adequate service of
process was provided to GTS is ongoing, and GTS and Spano have made
the alleged lack of service of process to GTS a central component of their
Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the circuit court's April 17, 2023, default
judgment against GTS and Spano. "It is well settled that, except in
limited circumstances not applicable here, this Court does not have
22 SC-2025-0526
jurisdiction to consider an appeal taken from a nonfinal judgment." Beam
v. Taylor, 149 So. 3d 571, 574 (Ala. 2014). Therefore, we dismiss the
appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and McCool, JJ., concur.