Mutual Savings Life Insurance v. Smith

I must respectfully dissent.

After the trial court granted Smith’s motion for a new trial, MSLIC filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. That motion was denied by operation of law, see Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., and MSLIC appealed. This court, on October 17, 1997, dismissed MSLIC’s appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed our judgment, holding that MSLIC’s appeal was timely because the trial court’s grant of Smith’s motion for a new trial was a “new ‘judgment’ ” from which the aggrieved party could appeal or could file a posttrial motion. Ex parte Mutual…