Ex parte Melester Ford, No. CL-2026-0005, 2026 WL 2066902 (Ala. July 17, 2026). The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals (per curiam) grants the petition for writ of mandamus in part and denies in part, directing the Dallas Circuit Court to dismiss the untimely filed appeal of an unlawful-detainer claim and denies any other relief sought on the timely appeal of other claims.
On February 19, 2025, Melester Ford filed suit against Janae Mitchell in the Dallas County District Court alleging breach of contract, detinue, and a claim he was owed both possession and back payment for unpaid rent stemming from the sale of a mobile home. *1. Mitchell failed to appear for trial. The district court entered a judgment (“the district court judgment) on March 14, 2025, evicting Mitchell and awarding damages, possession of the mobile home, and possession of the lot upon which it sat to Ford. Mitchell, pro se, filed a post judgment motion which the court denied after a hearing. Id. On April 25, 2025, Mitchell appealed the district court judgment to the circuit court.
On October 29, 2025, Ford failed to appear for trial, and the circuit court entered an order (“the circuit court order”) in favor of Mitchell, awarding her possession of the mobile home and setting a later hearing for damages. *Id. Ford filed to vacate the circuit court order, stating he failed to appear because he did not have notice of the trial date. On December 2, 2025, Ford filed to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Mitchell filed her appeal untimely. The court denied the motion. On January 7, 2026, Ford filed a petition for writ of mandamus, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. *2.
Ford argued that the Alabama Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (AURLTA), gave Mitchell seven days to appeal the district-court judgment. The court disagrees that this is the relevant appeal period, finding that AURLTA did not apply because (1) contracts for sale of a dwelling are excluded from AURLTA and (2) there was no residential landlord-tenant relationship between Ford and Mitchell because Mitchell rented the land from Ford, not the dwelling. *3. A ground lease is a lease of the land only. Stockton v. CKPD Dev. Co., 982 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (Ala. 2007).
Instead, “a party aggrieved by an adverse judgment in an unlawful-detainer action has seven days to appeal the judgment.” See Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-350. *4. Mitchell’s post judgment motion was timely filed six days after the district court judgment. *4. However, a district court post judgment motion may pend for only fourteen days unless the time for ruling is properly extended. Ala. R. Civ. P. 59.1. The district court did not rule on the post judgment motion within fourteen days, resulting in its denial by operation of law. See Williams v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 192 So. 3d 4 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). Therefore, Mitchell had seven days from April 3, 2025 to timely appeal the judgment on the unlawful-detainer claim and fourteen days to appeal the other claims. *5. Mitchell filed her appeal untimely twenty-two days after the post judgment motion was denied by operation of law. Therefore, regardless of the applicable appeal period, the appeal on the unlawful-detainer claim was untimely. Id.
Mitchell tried to file her appeal on April 11, 2025, which would have been timely for her appeal of the breach of contract and detinue claims. The clerk however incorrectly rejected the filing because Mitchell had not posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of twice the judgment. *5. A bond in the amount for costs or an affidavit of substantial hardship may be made in lieu of a bond was required. Ala. R. Civ. P. 62(dc). See Mitchell v. Dexter Interiors, 381 So. 2d 90, 91 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). If a party makes “a bona fide attempt in good faith to timely initiate an appeal and during that process the party is prevented from doing so by an act or the inaction of the employee of the judiciary, equity requires that the appeal be considered timely filed.” Johnson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 375 So. 3d 1241, 1254 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022). *5.
Therefore, the court holds that the circuit court erred in failing to grant Ford’s motion to dismiss the unlawful-detainer claim, but correctly denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract and detinue claims because the appeal as to those claims was timely filed. *6.