Navy Federal Credit Union v. HMC Finance Corp., [Ms. CL-2024-0352, Dec. 20, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The court (Lewis, J.; Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur) dismisses Navy Federal Credit Union’s (“Navy Federal”) appeal from the Montgomery Circuit Court’s order in a garnishment proceeding which had originated in district court. The court concludes that district court order from which Navy Federal appealed to circuit court was not a final appealable order and consequently, the circuit court never obtained jurisdiction.
The court explains:
The district court’s June 7, 2023, order stated that it had “personal jurisdiction over [Navy Federal] as well as in rem jurisdiction over the res, the debt owed.” The order stated that “[Navy Federal] shall within 30 days of the date of this order respond using the Process of Garnishment Form as to the level of indebtedness by Defendant Collick” and “to pay any monies within its possession regarding this Defendant into court.” However, the district court did not proceed to “condemn[] and distribut[e the] garnished funds.” Montgomery Piggly Wiggly, LLC, 358 So. 3d [693, 694 (Ala 2022)]. Therefore, in accordance with our supreme court’s decision in Montgomery Piggly Wiggly, LLC, we conclude that the district court’s June 7, 2023, order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal to the circuit court.
Ms. *6.