Bon Harbor, LLC and Michael F. Hinds v. United Bank

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed two appeals arising from a dispute over loans, guaranties, and related claims between Bon Harbor, Michael F. Hinds, and United Bank. The court held that the first appeal was taken from a nonfinal partial summary judgment because claims remained pending, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a later order while the first appeal was pending. The later order was therefore void and could not support an appeal.

Holdings

1. A trial court's order is generally not final for purposes of appeal unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties, subject to the Rule 54(b) exception. A partial summary judgment that leaves claims pending is not a final, appealable judgment absent a proper Rule 54(b) determination.
2. After an appeal is taken, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to act concerning a matter involved in the appeal and subject to adjudication by the appellate court. An order entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void.
3. A void order or judgment will not support an appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the March 20, 2008, summary-judgment order was a final, appealable judgment when it did not dispose of Bon Harbor and Hinds's counterclaim.
2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the March 25, 2008, order purporting to dispose of the counterclaim while the appeal from the March 20 order was pending.
3. Whether either appeal could be maintained when the underlying order was nonfinal or void.

Disposition

dismissed