2026-09-09 · Alabama · Courts

An Alabama condominium association that collected $36,584.12 out of an owner's appeal bond has been ordered to give it back — not because the assessments were wrong, but because the trial court signed the judgment nine days too early in a sequence that had eight weeks left to run.

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals decided Ross v. West Wind Condominium Association, No. CL-2025-0534, on February 13, 2026, dismissing Howard Ross's appeal as taken from a void judgment and directing the trial court to vacate it.¹ Presiding Judge Moore wrote for a unanimous court; Judges Edwards, Hanson, Fridy and Bowden concurred.

What the trial court did, and when

The underlying case is an ordinary one. West Wind sued Ross in Madison Circuit Court and won a judgment on September 19, 2023 for $29,267.29 in unpaid condominium dues and assessments. Ross appealed and posted a cash bond as security.

The appellate history is where the problem starts. On November 8, 2024 the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Ross applied for rehearing; the court granted it and, on February 7, 2025, issued a substituted opinion that reversed the judgment for unpaid assessments, affirmed the judgment for unpaid dues, and remanded with instructions that the trial court "recalculate the amount of its judgment." Ross then filed a second rehearing application, which was overruled on March 21, 2025. The certificate of judgment issued on April 9, 2025.

The trial court did not wait. On February 14, 2025 — one day after the substituted opinion, and 54 days before the certificate — it granted West Wind's motion and entered an amended judgment against Ross for "$29,721.83, plus interest[] and costs." On April 17, 2025 it ordered the circuit clerk to satisfy that amended judgment out of Ross's appeal bond, and on May 1, 2025 a check for $36,584.12 was disbursed.

Why that made the judgment void

The rule the court applied is short and absolute. "It is well settled that a trial court does not have jurisdiction to enter any order on remand until this court has entered its certificate of judgment," the opinion says, quoting Ex parte Wynn, 227 So. 3d 534, 535 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).²

Because no certificate had issued on February 14, 2025, the amended judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction — not voidable, not merely erroneous. Everything built on it fell with it: "Because the trial court's February 14, 2025, amended judgment is void, its subsequent order to release funds from Ross's cash bond to West Wind, to the extent that that order is based on the trial court's February 14, 2025, amended judgment, is also void."

1. Ross v. West Wind Condominium Ass'n, No. CL-2025-0534 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 13, 2026) (slip op.) ↩
2. Ex parte Wynn, 227 So. 3d 534 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) — no jurisdiction on remand before the certificate of judgment ↩