Finality of Judgment For Money
Ex parte Ralph Eustace, et al., [Ms. 1171103, Apr. 5, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2019). The Court (Bolin, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Shaw and Bryan, JJ., concur in the result) vacates on certiorari review the Court of Civil Appeals’ no opinion affirmance of the Jackson Circuit Court’s judgment in an action alleging trespass, conversion of timber, and interference with contractual relationship claims.
The Court considered, ex mero motu, whether the appeal was from a non-final judgment such that the Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction. The Court determined “[t]he finality of the judgment is merely illusory, because it is conditioned upon the judgment in favor of the Wilbourns on the intentional interference with the contractual relationship claim being affirmed on appeal.” Ms. *9. The Court applied settled law that “‘a judgment for damages to be final must ... be for a sum certain determinable without resort to extraneous facts.’” Ms. *8, quoting Moody v. State ex rel Payne, 351 So. 2d 547, 551 (Ala. 1977) (some internal quotation marks omitted).