Mobile Investments, LLC v. Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc., No. SC-2025-0958, 2026 WL 2451415 (Ala. Aug. 21, 2026) (Cook, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, McCool, and Parker, JJ., concur. Sellers, J., concurs in the result). The Court dismisses the appeal of Mobile Investments and The Broadway Group ("TBG") for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Etowah Circuit Court's order denying their amended Rule 60(b) motion was not a final judgment. Id. at *1.
The circuit court entered a default judgment against Mobile Investments and TBG as a discovery sanction, requiring conveyance of leased property to Corporate Pharmacy Services (CPS) for $110,000; the Court affirmed that judgment in a prior appeal. Id. at *1–2. Mobile Investments and TBG later moved under Rule 60(b)(4) to set the default judgment aside as void, then amended the motion to add Rule 60(b)(6) grounds after the circuit court flagged unresolved questions about the property's correct legal description. Id. at *2–3. On December 2, 2025, the circuit court denied the amended motion in major part but expressly reserved two issues — the correct legal description and the corresponding purchase price — for a follow-up hearing set for December 17, 2025. Id. at *3–4. Before that hearing could occur, Mobile Investments and TBG appealed and sought an emergency stay. The circuit court continued the reserved-issues hearing but held a hearing on the stay motion, at which it determined that its December 2 order was interlocutory because it "contemplate[d] further proceedings." Id. at *4–5.
Applying the settled rule that a final judgment must conclusively determine the issues before the court and leave nothing further for adjudication, the Court holds the December 2 order does not qualify as a final judgment. Id. The order's own caption reflected its provisional nature — denying relief "except for specified limited relief to be granted, and setting hearing on such limited relief" — and it expressly scheduled further proceedings on the legal description and purchase price. Id. at *4. The Court rejects each of the defendants' three arguments for finality: that the underlying 2023 default judgment was itself final is irrelevant to the finality of a later, distinct order; that none of the order's enforcement language altered the 2023 judgment does not establish finality either; and analogizing to sale-for-division case law fails both because this is not such an action and because unresolved issues indisputably remained pending before the circuit court. Id. at *5.
Accordingly, because the legal description and purchase price remained undetermined and the proceedings between the parties had not been “put to an end,” the Court holds it lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal. Id. at *5.