Synovus Bank appealed a circuit court order denying Synovus's motion to set aside a joint stipulation of dismissal. Synovus sued Tom James Mitchell d/b/a Mitchell Motors ("Mitchell") seeking damages for Mitchell's alleged default on a promissory note. Mitchell moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to another circuit court. Mitchell argued that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that, should the case nevertheless be allowed to proceed, venue was proper only in Jefferson County. The Walker Circuit Court entered an order denying Mitchell's motion to dismiss and transferring the case to the Jefferson Circuit Court. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court reviewed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to determine whether, in denying the motion, the trial court exceeded its discretion. However, in this case, the trial court based its denial of Synovus's Rule 60(b) motion not on the merits of the motion but, rather, on the trial court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Because the trial court did not consider the merits of Synovus's motion, the Supreme Court could not address Synovus's argument that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion; "indeed, there was no exercise of discretion for this Court to review." Thus, the Court reversed the order denying Synovus's Rule 60(b) motion and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the merits of Synovus's Rule 60(b) motion and to enter a judgment in accordance with its consideration of the merits of that motion. View "Synovus Bank v. Mitchell" on Justia Law
The post Synovus Bank v. Mitchell appeared first on Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries.