Kyndra Granillo, Tyler Pittman, and Allison Ace v. Marie Garrison and Leassia Hanback

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: CL-2025-0303
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: February 13, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________

CL-2025-0303 _________________________

Kyndra Granillo, Tyler Pittman, and Allison Ace

v.

Marie Garrison and Leassia Hanback

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court (CV-24-40)

FRIDY, Judge.

Kyndra Granillo, Tyler Pittman, and Allison Ace appeal from a

judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court ("the circuit court") ordering

them to vacate certain real property in Phil Campbell ("the property")

that the circuit court found was owned by Marie Garrison. As discussed CL-2025-0303

herein, the judgment from which they appeal is not final, and, therefore

we dismiss the appeal.

Background

The record indicates that Granillo; Pittman, who was Granillo's

boyfriend; and Ace, who is Pittman's mother ("the defendants"), lived on

the property that Sammy Garrison ("Sammy") and Marie Garrison

("Marie") had owned since the 1980s.1 On September 28, 2024, Sammy

and Marie provided written notice to the defendants that they were

selling the property and demanded that the defendants vacate the

property no later than October 5, 2024, or Sammy and Marie would

commence an eviction action to have them removed. The defendants did

not leave the property, so on October 7, 2024, Marie commenced an action

for eviction and unlawful detainer in the Franklin District Court ("the

district court") against them demanding possession of the property,

$1,861.84 in unpaid rent, and court costs. In the preprinted form

complaint, Marie, who at that time was appearing pro se, wrote that the

defendants no longer had the right to possess the property and that she

1Some court documents refer to Sammy as Danny Garrison; however, in testimony and other documents, including his obituary, he is referred to as "Sammy." 2 CL-2025-0303

had the right to sell the property. Marie also alleged that the defendants

had damaged the property, that there were unauthorized occupants on

the property, and that there had been unauthorized use of electricity.

On October 10, 2024, Granillo, also acting pro se, filed an answer in

the district court using a preprinted form "answer to landlord's claim"

seeking eviction and alleging unlawful detainer. On October 23, 2024,

Pittman filed a handwritten answer, saying that he did not agree with

the statements made in the complaint and that he did not agree with

being evicted and denying that any amount of rent was past due "as it

ha[d] already been paid." Pittman wrote that Ace also disagreed with the

eviction claim but that she was in the hospital and would not be able to

attend court and, further, that she had a mental disability that made it

difficult for her to communicate.

After filing her answer, Granillo hired an attorney who filed a

motion to dismiss the action in the district court on the ground that,

because there was no written lease, the action had to be brought in the

circuit court. On October 24, 2024, the district court denied the motion to

dismiss, but it transferred the action to the circuit court. After retaining

an attorney, Sammy and Marie, by and through their power of attorney,

3 CL-2025-0303

Leassia Hanback,2 filed an amended complaint in the circuit court on

November 8, 2024, to add an ejectment claim against the defendants.

Sammy died on December 7, 2024, and a suggestion of death was filed in

the circuit court on January 8, 2025.

The circuit court held a trial on March 4, 2025. A recitation of the

evidence is not required for resolution of this case. On April 15, 2025, the

circuit court entered a judgment ejecting Granillo from the property and

requiring her to remove all of her personal property, including fixtures

and any structures she had placed on the property, by May 31, 2025. The

circuit court found that the value of the improvements that Granillo had

made to the property was approximately the same as the fair-market

rental value of the property during the time that she had lived there and

declined to award money damages. In the judgment, the circuit court took

no action regarding Pittman and Ace. In other words, there is no

language in the judgment to indicate that Pittman and Ace were bound

2In the notice of appeal, Leassia Hanback's name is spelled "Leissia"; however, documents filed in the circuit court, including Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, which is Hanback's power of attorney over Sammy, her name is spelled "Leassia." We have opted to use that spelling, which appears to be the correct one. Hanback is Sammy and Marie's daughter and Granillo's aunt. 4 CL-2025-0303

by the judgment. The only mention of them is the circuit court's

observation that they had not been present at the trial and that Marie

and Hanback had moved to dismiss them from the case.

On April 21, 2025, Marie filed a motion to amend the April 15, 2025,

judgment, pointing out that Pittman had been present and had testified

at the trial and that, while Ace had not been present, her attorney had

advised the circuit court that she had been admitted to the hospital and

was unable to attend the trial. Marie also advised the circuit court that

there had been no motion to dismiss Pittman and Ace from the action.

She asked the circuit court to amend the judgment to correct the errors

she pointed out. On the next day, April 22, 2025, the circuit court granted

the motion to amend, but an amended judgment is not contained in the

record. Granillo, Pittman, and Ace filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

The parties do not challenge this court's jurisdiction to consider the

appeal, but before we can reach the merits, we must first determine

whether the appeal is from a final judgment so as to properly invoke this

court's jurisdiction. Richey v. Morris, 389 So. 3d 347, 348 (Ala. 2023).

"The question whether a judgment is final is a jurisdictional question,

5 CL-2025-0303

and the reviewing court, on a determination that the judgment is not

final, has a duty to dismiss the [appeal]." Owens v. Owens, 739 So. 2d

511, 513 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).

A final judgment is "one that conclusively determines the issues

before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties

involved." Bean v. Craig, 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). Here, Marie

and Hanback, the plaintiffs remaining in this case after Sammy's death,

sought to eject not only Granillo, but also Pittman and Ace, from the

property. Pittman answered the complaint, denying the ejectment claim

as it applied to Ace and him. However, the circuit court's April 15, 2025,

judgment does not resolve the ejectment claim or any other claim

asserted against Pittman and Ace; therefore, it is not a final judgment

capable of supporting an appeal. Owens, 739 So. 2d at 513.

Conclusion

Because the appeal is from a nonfinal judgment, this court does not

have jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. Sikes v. Kirkland,

415 So. 3d 658, 661 (Ala. 2024).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Bowden, JJ., concur.