Deborah Brady v. Roebuck Honda

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/2/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2090082 Deborah Brady v. Roebuck Honda Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-04-4583) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Deborah Brady appeals o f R o e b u c k Honda. Circuit In f r o m an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d i n f a v o r We t r a n s f e r t h e a p p e a l to the Jefferson Court. July 2004, Brady sued Roebuck Honda and Honda 2090082 Corporation in wantonness, the and circuit claims Manufacturer's L i a b i l i t y alleged she had under the Doctrine. been alleging negligence, Alabama I n her i n j u r e d i n an Extended complaint, accident Brady when the b r a k e s o f h e r Honda A c c o r d a u t o m o b i l e had f a i l e d w h i l e she was driving that court, i t . I n November 2004, Roebuck Honda f i l e d a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n , and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d that motion in Corporation F e b r u a r y 2005. was dismissed Also from i n F e b r u a r y 2005, Honda the action pursuant to a settlement agreement. On A u g u s t 28, 2009, t h e f a v o r o f Roebuck Honda. appeal Brady, notice of Brady also circuit appeal an a w a r d i n i t i s u n c l e a r , the r e c o r d clerk Because T h i r t y days l a t e r , se, to filed judgment of the court. 2009. a c t i n g pro n o t i c e of a p p e a l . the Although rendered suggests t h a t Brady r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of the a w a r d on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2009, arbitrator this a copy filed court of entered circuit this the from the the T h e r e i s no in indication the a r b i t r a t i o n court. court The appeal determined 2 arbitration on O c t o b e r circuit court arbitration arbitration record a w a r d as t h e 9, a award. award w i t h i n the on her that final proceeded i n t h i s that i t lacked 2090082 jurisdiction the under § 1 2 - 3 - 1 0 , A l a . Code 1975, appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s a p p e a l t o t h e supreme c o u r t . The court, which defines i t t r a n s f e r r e d the supreme c o u r t subsequently t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975. Initially, we address whether Brady followed the proper p r o c e d u r e by f i l i n g h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t . Rule 71B, A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e F e b r u a r y 1, 2009, e s t a b l i s h e s the procedure f o r appealing in this case. R u l e 71B " s u p e r s e d e s § 6-6-15[, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . " Co. o f F l o r i d a , 24 So. 3d t h e a r b i t r a t i o n award the procedure s e t out i n Parham v. A m e r i c a n B a n k e r s I n s . 1102, 1104 n.2 ( A l a . 2009); see a l s o C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e 71B E f f e c t i v e F e b r u a r y 1, 2009 ( " [ R u l e 71B] clarifies t h e method f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l f r o m an arbitration award supersedes Ala. Code 1975, Section and the procedure provided by § 6-6-15."). § 6-6-15 p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: " E i t h e r p a r t y may a p p e a l f r o m an a w a r d u n d e r this division. Notice of the appeal to the a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n 10 days a f t e r r e c e i p t o f n o t i c e o f t h e a w a r d and [ 1 ] 1 (Ala. I n H o r t o n Homes, I n c . v. S h a n e r , 999 So. 2d 462, 466 2008) o u r supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t " R u l e 4 [ , A l a . R. 3 2090082 s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k o r r e g i s t e r c i r c u i t c o u r t where t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g (Emphasis added.) 462 the " I n H o r t o n Homes, I n c . v. S h a n e r , 999 So. ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , our supreme c o u r t c l a r i f i e d and m o d i f i e d procedure f o r appealing Ala. Code 1975. arbitration the circuit However, Horton award i n i t i a t e d court, appellate court." Homes, the clerk a Homes did not notice that challenge of appeal to modify to then So. required by the the filing, in "appropriate Pursuant t o the p r o c e d u r e s e t out i n Horton of the 2d a t 467. to the challenge circuit court then entered a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d as t h e " c o n d i t i o n a l " j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t . 999 2d an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d u n d e r § 6-6-15, r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r § 6-6-15 t h a t a p a r t y s e e k i n g an of "file The [ R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] circuit p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g the award i n the appropriate circuit motion to a l t e r , the court was a amend, v a c a t e , o r s e t a s i d e t h e a w a r d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e o f appeal o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d and conditional circuit Civ. for from from judgment b a s e d court denied the thereon." t h a t R u l e 59(e) c l e r k ' s e n t r y of the Id. the at 468. m o t i o n o r i t was If denied P.,] ... o p e r a t e [ d ] t o e x p a n d t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e p e r i o d t a k i n g an a p p e a l o f an a r b i t r a t o r ' s a w a r d f r o m 10 d a y s t h e d a t e o f r e c e i p t o f n o t i c e o f t h e a w a r d t o 42 d a y s that date." 4 2090082 by operation conditional "processed of law, judgment see Ala. R. and noted, by established by appellate court. this case Rule 71B, § 6-6-15, R u l e 71B is governed which which P., the appeal was t h a t had been Id. by supersedes Horton Civ. the b a s e d on t h e p r i o r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l " established modified. 59.1, final, became f i l e d to the a p p r o p r i a t e As Rule Homes the procedure the procedure clarified provides: "(a) Who may appeal. Any party to a r b i t r a t i o n may f i l e a n o t i c e of appeal from a w a r d e n t e r e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n . an the "(b) When f i l e d . The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l be filed within thirty (30) d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n award. F a i l u r e to f i l e w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a w a i v e r o f the r i g h t t o review. " ( c ) Where f i l e d . The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t where a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g the a r b i t r a t i o n i s pending or no a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h e n the o f f i c e of the c l e r k of the c i r c u i t c o u r t of c o u n t y where t h e a w a r d i s made. be the i f in the "(d) What f i l e d . W i t h t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a l l f i l e a c o p y o f t h e award, s i g n e d by t h e a r b i t r a t o r , i f t h e r e i s o n l y one, o r by a majority of the arbitrators, along with the s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e a r b i t r a t o r o r a r b i t r a t o r s and any s u p p o r t i n g documents o r r e c o r d o f t h e proceedings, if available. I f no r e c o r d i s a v a i l a b l e , t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a l l so s t a t e . I f a r e c o r d i s t o be prepared but i s not completed w i t h i n the time 5 and 2090082 provided i n paragraph (b) o f t h i s rule, the a p p e l l a n t s h a l l so s t a t e i n t h e n o t i c e o f appeal and s h a l l f i l e t h e r e c o r d w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s a f t e r the f i l i n g of the n o t i c e of appeal, u n l e s s the c o u r t f o r g o o d c a u s e shown s h a l l a l l o w a d d i t i o n a l t i m e . " ( e ) How s e r v e d . I f the a r b i t r a t i o n arose out of a pending a c t i o n , s e r v i c e s h a l l be made as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . I f t h e r e i s no a c t i o n p e n d i n g , s e r v i c e s h a l l be made as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e s 4 t h r o u g h 4 . 4 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] a n d upon any c o u n s e l who a p p e a r e d i n t h e a r b i t r a t i o n f o r t h e party being served. "(f) Procedure a f t e r f i l i n g . The c l e r k o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o m p t l y s h a l l e n t e r t h e a w a r d as t h e f i n a l judgment o f t h e c o u r t . T h e r e a f t e r , as a condition precedent to further review by any a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , a n y p a r t y o p p o s e d t o t h e a w a r d may f i l e , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 59, [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] a motion t o s e t a s i d e o r v a c a t e t h e judgment b a s e d upon one o r more o f t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-14, o r o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e l a w . The c o u r t s h a l l n o t g r a n t any such motion u n t i l a reasonable time after a l l parties are served pursuant t o paragraph (e) o f t h i s rule. The d i s p o s i t i o n o f any such m o t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o c i v i l and appellate rules applicable t o o r d e r s and judgments i n c i v i l a c t i o n s . "(g) A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . An a p p e a l may be t a k e n f r o m t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f a n y R u l e 59 m o t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e award by f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l to t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t pursuant t o Rule 4 , [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . " Rule 71B(c) provides that "[t]he notice of appeal shall be f i l e d w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , " b u t t h e t e x t o f t h a t r u l e does n o t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t o w h i c h c o u r t t h e a p p e a l 6 2090082 is filed. Effective However, t h e Committee Comments t o Rule F e b r u a r y 1, 2009, p r o v i d e , i n p e r t i n e n t 71B part: " I n h i s c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n B i r m i n g h a m News Co. v . H o r n , 901 So. 2d 27, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , J u s t i c e L y o n s i n v i t e d t h e S t a n d i n g A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e on t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e ' ( a ) t o e s t a b l i s h an e a s i l y understood t r i g g e r i n g date f o r the time f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l f r o m an a r b i t r a t o r ' s a w a r d a n d , should the proposed r e v i s i o n c o n f l i c t w i t h [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] § 6-6-15, t o recommend t h e a b r o g a t i o n o f § 6-6-15, a n d (b) t o r e c o g n i z e t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l w o u l d l i e as i n o t h e r c a s e s . ' The C o u r t p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r g u i d a n c e i n H o r t o n Homes .... The S t a n d i n g A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e s on t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e Procedure and t h e Rules o f C i v i l Procedure c o l l a b o r a t e d i n response t o those cases. The r e s u l t i n g r u l e c l a r i f i e s t h e method f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l f r o m an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d a n d s u p e r s e d e s t h e p r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e d b y A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-15. P u r s u a n t t o t h i s r u l e , t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y h a s no r i g h t t o a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d u n l e s s t h a t p a r t y has a p p e a l e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f r o m t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f s e r v i c e of t h e n o t i c e o f t h e award and has t i m e l y f i l e d a R u l e 59 m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . " ( I n i t i a l e m p h a s i s added.) Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Rule 71B r e q u i r e s a p a r t y s e e k i n g t o c h a l l e n g e an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d t o file an i n i t i a l court. notice of appeal t o the appropriate c i r c u i t The a g g r i e v e d p a r t y must f i l e s u c h an a p p e a l a n d f i l e a R u l e 59 m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e o r v a c a t e t h e judgment e n t e r e d 7 2090082 by the circuit clerk on the subsequent appeal to t h i s 71B(g) court indicates or the that, arbitration court to or the attain supreme c o u r t , an award t o p r e s e r v e supreme c o u r t . appellate aggrieved party second n o t i c e of appeal i n a d d i t i o n t o the appeal filed "Appellate to the review. d e n i a l o f any circuit An court. a p p e a l may be t o R u l e 4, [ A l a . R. App. P.]." Rule by this must f i l e i n i t i a l notice Rule 71B(g) the a of states: taken from the R u l e 59 m o t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g a n o t i c e of appeal t o the a p p r o p r i a t e review a grant a w a r d by or filing appellate court pursuant Therefore, u n l i k e the prior p r o c e d u r e g o v e r n i n g an a p p e a l f r o m an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d , R u l e 71B establishes a procedure i n which a p a r t y a w a r d must f i l e two court or the n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l t o a t t a i n r e v i e w by supreme c o u r t . f i l e d to the a p p r o p r i a t e party's second required notice of motion, i s f i l e d challenging circuit R u l e 59 first notice c o u r t , and, of i f the from the appropriate denial appellate of this appeal is aggrieved motion i s subsequently denied, appeal, to the The an the court. Rule the 59 2 I f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t s t h e R u l e 59 m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e a r b i t r a t i o n award, t h e nonmovant c o u l d then f i l e a n o t i c e of a p p e a l from the g r a n t of t h a t motion to the a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . Rule 71B(g). 2 8 2090082 We r e c o g n i z e So. t h a t i n H u r s t v . E a g l e s L a n d i n g I V , L t d . , 20 3d 143, 149 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s court, i n dicta, stated: " E x c e p t t h a t R u l e 71B r e q u i r e s a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m an a r b i t r a t i o n d e c i s i o n t o be f i l e d w i t h i n 30 days a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e o f n o t i c e o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d , r a t h e r t h a n 42 d a y s a f t e r r e c e i p t o f t h e n o t i c e o f t h e award, t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 71B i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n [ H o r t o n Homes]." However, our additional Rule decision today concludes that d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e p r o c e d u r e 71B a n d t h e p r o c e d u r e found i n Horton there are e s t a b l i s h e d by Homes. Thus, we o v e r r u l e any c o n t r a r y d i c t a i n H u r s t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t may be r e a d as c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h In t h i s arbitration this opinion. case, Brady f i l e d her n o t i c e award to this court. o f appeal from the However, based on o u r d e c i s i o n t o d a y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t B r a d y s h o u l d have f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 71B. 3 B r a d y ' s f i l i n g h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e wrong c o u r t i s understandable considering the lack of c l a r i t y i n the text o f R u l e 71B c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o p e r c o u r t t o w h i c h an a g g r i e v e d p a r t y s h o u l d f i l e i t s a p p e a l f r o m an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d ; t h e l o n g s t a n d i n g p r e - R u l e 71B p r o c e d u r e c a l l i n g f o r an a p p e a l f r o m an a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d t o be made " t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , " i . e . , t h i s c o u r t o r t h e supreme c o u r t , s e e § 6-6-15 and H o r t o n Homes; a n d t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n H u r s t i m p l y i n g t h a t an a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d u n d e r R u l e 3 9 2090082 Therefore, this court Brady's appeal. circuit See, court lacks Accordingly, for disposition appellate jurisdiction t o hear we t r a n s f e r t h e a p p e a l of the appeal to the u n d e r R u l e 71B. e . g . , F o o d W o r l d v . C a r e y , 980 So. 2d 404 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) (transferring district court's to a denial m o t i o n when t h e a p p e a l circuit of a Rule court an 60(b), appeal A l a . R. from a C i v . P., s h o u l d have b e e n b r o u g h t i n t h e c i r c u i t court). APPEAL TRANSFERRED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , 71B s h o u l d be f i l e d i n i t i a l l y t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p e l l a t e court, i n s t e a d of t o the appropriate c i r c u i t court. 10

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.