Montgomery Piggly Wiggly, LLC and Scoggins v. Accel Capital, Inc., [Ms. 1200389, Jan. 14, 2022] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2022). The Court (Sellers, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, and Stewart, JJ., concur) dismisses an appeal from an order of the Montgomery Circuit Court denying a motion to quash a garnishment proceeding. The Court concludes that the order denying the motion to quash the garnishment proceeding is not a final judgment that will support an appeal. The Court reasons:
... only a judgment that disposes of a garnishment proceeding in favor of either the judgment creditor or the garnishee, standing in relation to the defendant, and that leaves nothing for further adjudication is a final, appealable judgment. See Steiner Bros. v. First Nat’l Bank of Birmingham, 115 Ala. 379, 384, 22 So. 30, 31 (1987) (noting that, like appeals in general, an appeal in a garnishment proceeding must determine the issues before the court and ascertain and declare the rights of the parties involved). In contrast, an order that merely addresses the disposition of a motion to quash a garnishment proceeding without concluding the rights of the parties is preliminary in character and will not support an appeal. See Miller Constr., LLC v. DB Elec., [Ms. 2190467, Jan. 15, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021) (“[A]n order denying a motion to quash garnishment proceedings without otherwise concluding the rights of the parties, such as by directing the garnishee to satisfy the garnishment, is not a final judgment capable of supporting an appeal.”)
Because the Montgomery Circuit Court’s order resulted in no final disposition of the garnishment, and contemplated additional discovery relative to whether the judgment creditor could seek evidence in aid of execution of its judgment, the appeal was premature and therefore required to be dismissed.