Paul Murphy Brantley v. Gerald P. Scrushy and Kimberly B. Scrushy (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: CV-07-900023 and CV-09-900726)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/24/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090706 Paul Murphy B r a n t l e y v. G e r a l d P. Scrushy and Kimberly B. Scrushy 2090778 Paul Murphy B r a n t l e y v. C a r l O. Meeks and P a t r i c i a Meeks Appeals from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-900023 and CV-09-900726) 2090706 a n d 2090778 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Paul Murphy B r a n t l e y appeals from t h e judgment of the Shelby C i r c u i t Court i n favor of P r u d e n t i a l R e l o c a t i o n , I n c . ("Prudential"), Scrushy have f o r whom G e r a l d been substituted appeals from a separate favor of Carl litigation. O. P. S c r u s h y on a p p e a l . Meeks and P a t r i c i a Meeks also i n t h e same and, f o r t h e them. when r e s o l v i n g an a p p e a l parcels of real property, issue. Brantley This c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d the appeals, Generally, relative 1 B. judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i n r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , we d i s m i s s the and K i m b e r l y involving multiple i t i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o d e s c r i b e locations of the various parcels of property at F o r purposes o f these appeals, we w i l l simplify the p r e s e n t m a t t e r b y s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e a l s i n v o l v e two p a r c e l s of p r o p e r t y , north an e a s e m e n t , a n d a r o a d . o f p a r c e l B. county highway. Parcel A lies to the P a r c e l B i s b o r d e r e d on t h e s o u t h A 60-foot by a easement c o n n e c t s P a r c e l A t o t h e The S c r u s h y s a r e s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o p r o p e r t y t h a t P r u d e n t i a l h a d owned t h a t h a d f o r m e d t h e b a s i s o f B r a n t l e y ' s claims against Prudential. 1 2 2090706 and highway. western 2090778 The easement runs the l e n g t h o f p a r c e l B a l o n g i t s boundary. Brantley's p a r c e l B. Sr., predecessors in interest owned p a r c e l A Those p r e d e c e s s o r s c o n v e y e d p a r c e l B t o Guy and Guy Burns, J r . , reserving to themselves easement a c r o s s p a r c e l B t o a c c e s s the highway. of t h e easement was W h i t e and C a r o l W h i t e , the Whites presently existing easement r e a d s , the Burnses 20-foot location conveyed p a r c e l B to J.C. s u b j e c t t o t h e u n d e f i n e d easement. conveyed to Brantley's predecessors 6 0 - f o o t easement. i n p a r t : "Grantors The property [(parcel A)]. deed c o n v e y i n g g r a n t h e r e i n an across [ p a r c e l B] o n l y f o r the purpose grantee's Burns, not d e f i n e d . I n F e b r u a r y 1982, 1983, The a and the the easement of g a i n i n g access Grantees In h e r e i n agree to to abandon any o t h e r means o f a c c e s s t o s a i d p r o p e r t y h e r e t o f o r e reserved across [ p a r c e l B ] . " In 1984, P a u l B r a n t l e y and one B i l l y B r a n t l e y , p u r c h a s e d p a r c e l A. it into multiple lots. At some of his family I n 1998, point, members, they subdivided Brantley built a 1 0 - f o o t - w i d e a s p h a l t d r i v e w a y t h r o u g h the easement from p a r c e l A to the county highway. 3 2090706 and 2090778 I n J a n u a r y 2006, t h e W h i t e s c o n v e y e d p a r c e l B t o M a v e r i c k Enterprises, LLC ("Maverick"). In April 2006, Maverick c o n v e y e d a p o r t i o n o f p a r c e l B t o R o n a l d W a l k e r and Walker. Thereafter, M a v e r i c k b e g a n c o n s t r u c t i n g a house f o r t h e W a l k e r s on t h e i r lot. parcel B that i t continued two Katherine Maverick subdivided t o own. I n May the p o r t i o n of 2006, M a v e r i c k s o l d o f t h e n e w l y d i v i d e d p o r t i o n s o f p a r c e l B t o C a r l Dewayne Meeks and S a n d r a Meeks and two other newly d i v i d e d p o r t i o n s p a r c e l B t o C a r l O. Patricia On J a n u a r y 22, Brantley. their Meeks and Meeks. an a c t i o n against They a l l e g e d t h a t i n November 2006 B r a n t l e y entered property access to h i s Brantley 2007, t h e W a l k e r s f i l e d and easement, d e s p i t e c u t down t h r e e the l a r g e t r e e s l o c a t e d on f a c t t h a t the t r e e s d i d not impair his filed an answer Brantley managing and added a In the counterclaim. Maverick member, as and Kenneth counterclaim for Brantley's down t h e easement, March three holes 30, trees located i n Brantley's 2007, the i n the water Walkers 4 line, filed a cutting Carter destroying motion Carter, defendants. Brantley alleged that, in r e t a l i a t i o n several the property. counterclaim, Maverick's of to i t . shot On dismiss 2090706 and 2090778 Brantley's counterclaim, did not seek r e l i e f On June 21, arguing that Brantley's against 2007, them. Brantley had begun s u b d i v i d i n g p a r c e l B. amendment to h i s I n i t , he a l l e g e d t h a t a n s w e r and h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m . his counterclaim filed an Carter B r a n t l e y a s s e r t e d t h a t he and a t t o r n e y had n o t i f i e d C a r t e r o f h i s o b j e c t i o n t o C a r t e r ' s p l a n n e d u s e o f t h e d r i v e w a y on t h e easement and t o Carter's a d v e r t i s i n g to others a r i g h t t o use t h a t d r i v e w a y . Brantley alleged been that he Walkers, Carter, destroyed On Carter trial 26, with be 2007, prejudice and M a v e r i c k entered between remaining the p a r t i e s intimidated as and t h e y r e q u e s t e d an o r d e r a that between the On A u g u s t 5, t h e W a l k e r s and B r a n t l e y with of the remaining as t h e p l a i n t i f f dismissing p a r t i e s as t h e y h a d the constructed. stipulation to a l l the claims as d e f e n d a n t s . by t h e y h a d damaged and filed r e a l i g n e d t o show B r a n t l e y court claims and and M a v e r i c k and t h a t W a l k e r s and B r a n t l e y , parties harassed p o r t i o n s o f t h e d r i v e w a y B r a n t l e y had June dismissal had and 2007, t h e prejudice the and r e a l i g n i n g t h e requested. On November 13, 2007, t h e W a l k e r s s o l d t h e i r p r o p e r t y Prudential. 5 to 2090706 and 2090778 On A u g u s t 27, 2009, B r a n t l e y in which he added Carl P r u d e n t i a l as d e f e n d a n t s . constructed had O. filed Meeks, an amended Patricia complaint Meeks, and He a l l e g e d t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y he h a d t h r o u g h t h e easement was a " p r i v a t e r o a d , " t h a t he m a i n t a i n e d t h e e a s e m e n t f o r more t h a n 20 y e a r s , that he had p o s t e d "no t r e s p a s s i n g " s i g n s on t h e r o a d on t h e e a s e m e n t , and t h a t he h a d p l a c e d easement. the a locked He a s s e r t e d gate across t h a t he had a " p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t " t o easement and t h e r o a d a c r o s s t h e Meekses were t r y i n g t o s e l l had been a d v i s i n g available Carl O. Meeks indicating Brantley that road and and in damaged the the that and t h a t they O. they t h e r o a d on t h e easement was alleged Brantley's easement was i n h i s previous Meeks had p o r t i o n s o f t h e r o a d on t h e e a s e m e n t . that Brantley and M a v e r i c k . Carl that alleged t h e r o a d on t h e easement and Carter Brantley their property the a l l e g a t i o n s regarding him i t . property. removed the Maverick, intimidated that their had asserted counterclaim Carter, others t o access t h e r o a d on t h e had damaged that signs private. amended He a l l e g e d that harassed and and destroyed He s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t i o n a " p r i v a t e r o a d " and 6 0 - f o o t easement was " a n e x c l u s i v e easement o f 6 was that Plaintiff 2090706 and 2090778 Paul Brantley f o r the B r a n t l e y Family s o u g h t an a w a r d o f damages a g a i n s t Subdivision." He also C a r t e r , M a v e r i c k , and t h e Meekses. On S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, C a r l O. action against Brantley. CV-09-900726. defining defining i t as the solely filed T h a t a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d I n h i s complaint, judgment Meeks Meeks easement as f o r ingress sought a permissive and a c a s e number declaratory in egress, separate nature, prohibiting B r a n t l e y from a s s e r t i n g e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l over t h e easement, and o r d e r i n g B r a n t l e y t o c e a s e a n d d e s i s t f r o m h a r a s s i n g and others signage sought who used Brantley an harassing had p l a c e d order him t h e easement from and the others on t h e easement. court using s i g n s on t h e easement w i t h o u t and t o remove Meeks a l lof the Meeks also enjoining Brantley from t h e easement, from placing Meeks's w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n , and f r o m e x e r c i s i n g any c o n t r o l o v e r t h e easement b e y o n d t h e mere use o f t h e easement f o r i n g r e s s and On O c t o b e r 13, 2009, B r a n t l e y Meeks's a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s pending therefore before Meeks's egress. filed a motion to that Brantley's action was 7 a c t i o n had been initiated c a u s e Meeks's a c t i o n t o a b a t e . dismiss and should Alternatively, he 2090706 and 2090778 argued that action. Meeks's action should be consolidated with h i s Meeks f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n w h i c h he i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e he f i l e d h i s a c t i o n , he was unaware t h a t B r a n t l e y had added h i m as a p a r t y i n Brantley's amended complaint. He a g r e e d t h a t h i s a c t i o n s h o u l d be c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h Brantley's action. Brantley's action Subsequently, the t r i a l court consolidated with Meeks's motion to dismiss action and indicated Meeks's a c t i o n was that Brantley's moot. On O c t o b e r 22, 2009, P r u d e n t i a l f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), A l a . R. C i v . P., and a supporting brief. P r u d e n t i a l a r g u e d t h a t t h e amended c o m p l a i n t made no claims against Prudential judgment a g a i n s t Brantley could "express, and that Prudential. not permissive state i t d i d not Prudential facts demand also argued that to convert his sufficient easement f r o m 1 9 8 3 " i n t o an " e x c l u s i v e easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n . " F i n a l l y , P r u d e n t i a l a s s e r t e d Brantley's res claims judicata Brantley's against based claims on the dismissal against predecessors i n i n t e r e s t . attached i t were b a r r e d the a that by the d o c t r i n e of with of Walkers, prejudice Prudential's To i t s s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f , P r u d e n t i a l deeds i n i t s c h a i n o f 8 title. 2090706 a n d 2090778 Brantley dismiss filed a response to Prudential's motion to i n w h i c h he a p p e a r e d t o a r g u e t h a t t h e easement was p r i v a t e a n d r e s e r v e d f o r h i s e x c l u s i v e u s e a n d t h a t t h e owners of the subservient properties were not e n t i t l e d t o use the easement a n d t h e r o a d t h a t r a n t h r o u g h t h e e a s e m e n t . argued that h i s claims Brantley a g a i n s t P r u d e n t i a l were n o t b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a b e c a u s e t h e d i s m i s s a l as t o t h e W a l k e r s r e l a t e d o n l y t o t h e i r c l a i m t h a t B r a n t l e y h a d c u t down some t r e e s i n t h e e a s e m e n t , b e c a u s e t h e r e h a d n o t b e e n a f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n t h e m a t t e r , a n d b e c a u s e t h e r e was no i d e n t i t y the parties. dismiss, I n support Brantley attached of h i s response an a f f i d a v i t , B r a n t l e y , D a v i d E i l a n d , and h i m s e l f . t o the motion t o executed by I n part, that Billy affidavit read: "Our names a r e P a u l B r a n t l e y , B i l l y B r a n t l e y , and D a v i d E i l a n d . P a u l B r a n t l e y a n d B i l l y B r a n t l e y a r e t h e owners o f t h e B r a n t l e y F a m i l y S u b d i v i s i o n and have been since 1984. The p r o p e r t y was p u r c h a s e d a t t h a t t i m e f r o m P a u l B r a n t l e y , R a l p h E. Coleman, and J . S h e r r i l l Hancock. The p r o p e r t y c o n s i s t e d o f 41.7 a c r e s . We h a d o u r homes b u i l t a n d l o c a t e d on t h e f a m i l y s u b d i v i s i o n a n d have l i v e d t h e r e f r o m 1985 f o r w a r d a n d have been i n p o s s e s s i o n of the p r o p e r t y since that time. David E i l a n d p u r c h a s e d l o t 3 w h i c h i s 5.43 a c r e s i n 1998 a n d h a d l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y a n d been i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e same s i n c e t h a t t i m e . I n order t o access the p r o p e r t y , we b u i l t a 60 f o o t r i g h t o f way w i t h a 9 of 2090706 and 2090778 p e r s o n a l 10 f o o t a s p h a l t d r i v e way a l o n g w i t h a 3 i n c h w a t e r l i n e f o r u t i l i t y p u r p o s e s and power l i n e s f o r p e r s o n a l use. The c o u n t y r e q u i r e d t h e 60 f o o t r i g h t o f way t o e s t a b l i s h t h e F a m i l y S u b d i v i s i o n i n 1998 " " The C o u n t y a c c e p t e d t h e s u b d i v i s i o n w i t h t h e p r i v a t e d r i v e b e i n g p r i v a t e l y m a i n t a i n e d and t h e C o u n t y t o have no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s m a i n t e n a n c e and u p k e e p . " S i n c e t h a t t i m e and p r i o r t h e r e t o , a c c e s s has b e e n by p r i v a t e r o a d and m a i n t a i n e d by t h e a f f i a n t s . The p r i v a t e 60 f o o t r i g h t o f way has a t e n f o o t asphalt d r i v e w h i c h was b u i l t and paid for by a f f i a n t , P a u l B r a n t l e y , and had b e e n t a k e n c a r e [ o f ] by t h e a f f i a n t s and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . "The p r o p e r t y has b e e n p o s t e d a t a l l t i m e s as a p r i v a t e r o a d and a c c e s s has been c o n t r o l l e d a t various t i m e s by a cabled entrance and video surveillance. Our m a i l b o x e s a r e l o c a t e d on C o u n t y R o a d 22 and o u r g a r b a g e c o l l e c t i o n i s a t C o u n t y R o a d 22. We have no p u b l i c t r a f f i c and have had none f o r t h e s e 22 y e a r s o f o u r s o l e o w n e r s h i p . A f f i a n t P a u l B r a n t l e y i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the p r e v i o u s usage of s a i d r o a d and p r i o r t o t h i s t i m e t h e r o a d has been p r i v a t e as h i s f a m i l y has owned t h e p r o p e r t y s i n c e t h e 1930s. The r i g h t o f way and p r i v a t e r o a d was d e s i g n a t e d 60 f e e t t o t h e w e s t s i d e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n the 1980s." Brantley also attached r o a d on the a t i s s u e had t o the response s e v e r a l p i c t u r e s of e a s e m e n t and deeds i n d i c a t i n g how been t r a n s f e r r e d over 10 time. the the properties 2090706 and 2090778 Prudential filed a reply i n support dismiss i n which deciding t h e motion t o d i s m i s s , " t h e C o u r t can s i m p l y the i t a r g u e d , among of i t s motion express easement, note matter of law t h a t dispose clear unambiguous including Brantley On January i t s clarity things, I t argued on i t s face an e x c l u s i v e 12, that 2010, the that, in review and d e t e r m i n e t h e easement i s n o t e x c l u s i v e of the matter." and other "[t]he and to as which will easement i s gives no one -¬ motion to r i g h t of access." Meekses filed a dismiss or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , adopted Prudential's arguments i n s u p p o r t o f i t s motion dismiss as the well as support of that motion. evidence Prudential Brantley f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . material Prudential to submitted i n had s u b m i t t e d , B r a n t l e y d i d easement o v e r t h e s e r v i e n t property. f i l e d a response t o the Meekses' motion i n which he a d o p t e d t h e r e s p o n s e he h a d f i l e d to Prudential's To h i s r e s p o n s e , B r a n t l e y attached p l a t t h a t , when c o n s i d e r e d i n conjunction the They The M e e k s e s a r g u e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h e and B r a n t l e y n o t h a v e an e x c l u s i v e a a copy of a subdivision with other evidence p a r t i e s had s u b m i t t e d , demonstrated t h a t o n l y Prudential and t h e M e e k s e s owned p o r t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n a l s e r v i e n t 11 motion. estate 2090706 and 2090778 through which t h e easement r a n and t h a t M a v e r i c k owned any p o r t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l On F e b r u a r y no longer servient estate. 19, 2010, t h e t r i a l court entered an order g r a n t i n g P r u d e n t i a l ' s m o t i o n and d i s m i s s i n g B r a n t l e y ' s a c t i o n against i t . pursuant appeal The t r i a l t o Rule to the transferred c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e j u d g m e n t as 54(b), A l a . R. supreme Brantley's court appeal C i v . P. of that to this Brantley order; court final filed that pursuant an court to § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. On A p r i l 30, 2010, t h e t r i a l court granted the Meekses' m o t i o n and e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e i r f a v o r as t o a l l B r a n t l e y ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. summary j u d g m e n t as f i n a l The t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e pursuant to Rule 54(b). The trial c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t C a r l O. Meeks's c l a i m s a g a i n s t B r a n t l e y , which the t r i a l court r e f e r r e d t o as a c o u n t e r c l a i m , s t a y e d p e n d i n g any a p p e a l f i l e d an a p p e a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t . of the t r i a l Although This to t h i s court pursuant to court consolidated Brantley's no p a r t y Brantley c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t o t h e supreme court, which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal § 12-2-7(6). were has r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s e a p p e a l s , 12 appeals. whether t h i s "we may t a k e n o t i c e 2090706 and 2090778 of a l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n So. 3d 478, court's 480 (Ala. appellate judgments. ex mero motu." Civ. App. jurisdiction § 12-22-2, A l a . Code L a n e y v. Garmon, 2009) . Generally, extends only 25 this to final 1975. "A judgment i s g e n e r a l l y not final unless a l l c l a i m s , or the r i g h t s or l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l p a r t i e s , have b e e n d e c i d e d . Ex p a r t e H a r r i s , 506 So. 2d 1003, 1004 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987). The only e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e o f f i n a l i t y i s when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t s the e n t r y of a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P." L a n e y v. Garmon, 25 With regard to So. 3d a t 480. a trial court's certification of j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., supreme c o u r t has w r i t t e n : "This Court looks with some c e r t i f i c a t i o n s under Rule 54(b). disfavor "'It bears repeating, here, that " ' [ c ] e r t i f i c a t i o n s u n d e r R u l e 54(b) s h o u l d be e n t e r e d o n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s and s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d r o u t i n e l y . ' " S t a t e v. L a w h o r n , 830 So. 2d 720, 725 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g B a k e r v. B e n n e t t , 644 So. 2d 901, 903 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n B r a n c h v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . "'"Appellate review i n a p i e c e m e a l f a s h i o n i s not favored."'" Goldome C r e d i t C o r p . [v. P l a y e r , 869 So. 2d 1146, 1148 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] ( q u o t i n g Harper Sales Co. v. Brown, Stagner, R i c h a r d s o n , I n c . , 742 So. 2d 190, 192 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Brown v. 13 upon a our 2090706 and 2090778 W h i t a k e r C o n t r a c t i n g C o r p . , 681 So. 2d 226, 229 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)) (emphasis added).' "Dzwonkowski v. S o n i t r o l o f M o b i l e , I n c . , 892 So. 2d 354, 363 (Ala. 2004). Also, a Rule 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d i f t h e i s s u e s i n t h e c l a i m b e i n g c e r t i f i e d and a c l a i m t h a t will r e m a i n p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' " a r e so c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d t h a t s e p a r a t e a d j u d i c a t i o n w o u l d p o s e an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results."' Clarke-Mobile C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t . v. P r i o r E n e r g y C o r p . , 834 So. 2d 88, 95 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g B r a n c h v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373, 1374 (Ala. 1987))." Schlarb v. The Lee, 955 partial So. 2d 418, summary 419-20 judgment Brantley's seeking, i n e f f e c t , a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t he was did not, of the however, Brantley. identical Those facts against favor resolved e x c l u s i v e use claim in ( A l a . 2006). easement. resolve claims and The Carl involve, issues them seeking partial O. Meeks's in of large underlying the Meekses damages and e n t i t l e d to the summary j u d g m e n t claims part, against virtually Brantley's claims a g a i n s t the Meekses, i . e . , the p a r t i e s ' ownership i n t e r e s t s i n the e a s e m e n t and exclusive closely whether B r a n t l e y c o n t r o l over the intertwined with was easement. Carl O. entitled Brantley's to exercise claims Meeks's u n r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t B r a n t l e y , and t h e p i e c e m e a l r e s o l u t i o n o f t h o s e 14 are claims claims 2090706 and 2090778 does n o t a d v a n c e j u d i c i a l economy; t h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e the trial c o u r t e r r e d when i t d i r e c t e d t h e e n t r y o f a judgment, p u r s u a n t Brantley's 598 to Rule claims. ( A l a . C i v . App. See 54(b), G r e g o r y v. 2008). i s due final i n f a v o r of the Meekses Ferguson, As a r e s u l t , f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t and that 10 So. 3d 596, B r a n t l e y ' s appeal t o be d i s m i s s e d . on is See i d . B r a n t l e y ' s appeal from the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order d i s m i s s i n g h i s c l a i m s a g a i n s t P r u d e n t i a l , f o r whom t h e S c r u s h y s substituted on appeal, is likewise due to have b e e n be dismissed. B r a n t l e y ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t P r u d e n t i a l were v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o i t s c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e M e e k s e s , who to Prudential. Specifically, P r u d e n t i a l a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t he was use of the Brantley sought adjacent against e n t i t l e d to the e x c l u s i v e easement. Because Prudential owned p r o p e r t y a separate would pose a d j u d i c a t i o n of an unreasonable the risk claims against of i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s r e l a t i v e t o an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t the M e e k s e s , B r a n t l e y ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t P r u d e n t i a l and t h e M e e k s e s are too t i g h t l y intertwined to allow for a c e r t i f i c a t i o n finality of the pursuant to Rule d i s m i s s a l of 54(b). See the claims W h e e l e r v. 15 against Bice, of Prudential [Ms. 2081180, 2090706 and 2090778 June 18, (holding 2010] that intertwined So. claims 3d , against two we fail t o s e e how 2010) p a r t i e s were too tightly of f i n a l i t y as t o claims to allow c e r t i f i c a t i o n a g a i n s t o n l y one o f t h e p a r t i e s ) . appeal, ( A l a . C i v . App. M o r e o v e r , as w i t h t h e o t h e r review of t h i s case i n piecemeal f a s h i o n w o u l d p r o m o t e j u d i c i a l economy i n r e a c h i n g a c o m p l e t e r e s o l u t i o n of the present court erred when P r u d e n t i a l as f i n a l , litigation. certifying we an interest judgment note i n real 591 So. 2d 844, favor of Brantley's appeal that o u r supreme court stated has judgment w i l l a f f e c t property, a l lparties i n t e r e s t i n t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y must be j o i n e d . " Smith, in dismissed. t h a t " i n c a s e s where t h e f i n a l of the and, f o r t h a t r e a s o n , f r o m t h a t j u d g m e n t must be Separately, As a r e s u l t , t h e t r i a l 846 ( A l a . 1991). ownership claiming Byrd an Cos. v. Although c o n c l u s i v e on t h i s p o i n t , t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e not may be o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s whose o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t s i n t h e e a s e m e n t c o u l d be i m p a c t e d b y a f i n a l remand, the trial court judgment i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . and whether, i f such i s the case, the those 16 parties should On consider p a r t i e s s h o u l d be j o i n e d 2090706 a n d 2090778 to the action as i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s . D a w k i n s , 19 So. 3d 241 Based ( A l a . C i v . App. on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we See A l l b r i t t o n v. 2009). conclude that t h e judgments f r o m w h i c h B r a n t l e y a p p e a l s a r e n o t f i n a l j u d g m e n t s a n d do n o t support the present dismissed. brief appeals. A c c o r d i n g l y , the appeals are The m o t i o n f i l e d b y t h e M e e k s e s t o f i l e a s u r r e p l y i s denied. 2090706 APPEAL DISMISSED. 2080778 -- APPEAL DISMISSED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 17 writing.

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.