The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal by Demetria Moore, ruling that the trial court’s final judgment was void because it was based on proceedings held while the appellate court already had jurisdiction over the case. This complex procedural saga centers on the basic legal principle that once an appeal is properly filed, the lower court loses the authority—or jurisdiction—to make significant rulings until the appeal is resolved.
The case involves an ejectment action filed by Donnie Stewart against Moore and her son over property in Madison County. Stewart claimed sole ownership after the death of her joint tenant, Lucille King (Moore’s grandmother), and sought to remove Moore and her family, who had been living there.
The Initial Ejectment and First Appeal
The dispute escalated quickly. Following a hearing in October 2024 concerning Stewart’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Madison Circuit Court immediately granted Stewart “full and immediate possession” of the property on October 24, 2024, ordering the occupants ejected and directing the Clerk of Court to issue a writ of possession.
Moore immediately challenged this order, filing motions arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that the underlying deed was invalid. When the trial court denied these motions on November 4, 2024, Moore filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2024.
This first appeal was critical. According to established Alabama law, filing the notice of appeal generally “divests the trial court of its jurisdiction” over matters related to the appeal.
The Void Judgment
Despite the pending appeal, the trial court proceeded. On December 1, 2024, Stewart informed the court that possession had been executed, but that the issue of money damages remained. On December 4, the trial court scheduled a trial for December 23, 2024. Moore unsuccessfully sought a stay from the appellate court.
On December 23, 2024, the trial court held a trial (which Moore and her son failed to attend) and entered a judgment awarding Stewart $16,848.00 in damages.
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals later determined that this December 23rd judgment was entered while the court still had jurisdiction over the initial appeal (CL-2024-0896) because the first order was not a final judgment. In a January 27, 2025, order, the appellate court dismissed Moore’s first appeal as being taken from a nonfinal order. Crucially, the court explicitly instructed the trial court to vacate the December 23, 2024, judgment and to “refrain from reentering such order until this court issues its certificate of judgment.”
The Attempted “Reissue”
The appellate court’s January order confirmed that the December 23rd judgment was a “nullity” because it was issued when the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
After the appellate court issued its Certificate of Judgment in February 2025, Stewart asked the trial court to re-enter the December 23rd order to finalize the money judgment. On April 8, 2025, the trial court complied, “REISSUING” the exact same judgment from December 23, 2024.
Moore immediately appealed this April 8th judgment, arguing that reissuing a void judgment violated her due process rights.
The Appellate Court’s Final Decision
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals agreed with Moore regarding the jurisdictional flaw. Judge Hanson, writing for the court, emphasized the rule: a trial court is divested of jurisdiction during a pending appeal, except for matters entirely “collateral” to the appeal.
The court found that holding a trial on damages and entering a judgment on those damages on December 23, 2024, was not collateral; it was central to the litigation. Therefore, the December 23rd judgment was void.
While the appellate court had instructed the trial court to vacate that void order, the subsequent “reissue” on April 8, 2025, was equally invalid because it relied on evidence gathered during the jurisdiction-less hearing on December 23rd.
“Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court’s April 8, 2025, judgment is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the opinion stated.
The court dismissed the current appeal (CL-2025-0300) but issued specific instructions to the trial court: it must set aside the void April 8th judgment. Furthermore, before entering any new judgment on the damages, the trial court must conduct a completely new trial, unless both parties agree to stipulate the facts—ensuring that any new ruling is based on evidence gathered only after the trial court properly reacquired jurisdiction.
Case Information