Appellate Law

Rule 60(a) Did Not Allow Trial Court to "Amend" Non-Final Judgment

In Crutcher v. Williams, released May 30, 2008,  the Alabama Supreme Court held that Rule 60(a) did not allow the trial court to simply "amend" a putative final judgment that failed to adjudicate cross claims.  

In the first installment of this medical malpractice case, the doctor defendant appealled from a judgment against him.  The court, however, found that that judgment was not final because it failed to adjudicate indemnity claims that the hospital at which the doctor practiced had filed against him.  The trial court's order did not address the hospital's indemnity claims, nor did it direct the entry of a final judgment against the doctor and hospital in accordance with Rule 54(b).  Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to make its judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b) or to adjudicate the cross claims. 

On remand, the trial court entered an order styled an "Amended Judgment," which purported to correct the original order pursuant to Rule 60(a).  In this second appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected this use of Rule 60(a), however, noting that that provision deals solely with the correction of clerical errors, not with errors of a "more substantial nature."  In the instant case, determining how to adjudicate the cross-claim in light of the law, the jury's answers, and any stipulations by the parties required judicial discretion.  There was no indication in the record that such discretion had been exercised.  As Rule 60(a) cannot be used to make the judgment say something other than what was originally pronounced, it did not permit the judgment to be merely corrected or amended.

The "Amended Judgment" was therefore insufficient and the court remanded for a second time, again ordering the trial court to either make the judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b) or adjudicate the cross claims. 

Full post as published by Alabama Appellate Watch on June 04, 2008 (boomark / email).