Stephanie Webb v. Jefferson County Board of Health and David Hicks, D.O., Health Officer of Jefferson County

Rel: December 12, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026
_________________________

CL-2025-0387
_________________________

Stephanie Webb

v.

Jefferson County Board of Health
and David Hicks, D.O., Health Officer of Jefferson County

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-23-900682)

HANSON, Judge.

Stephanie Webb appeals from a default judgment, a contempt

judgment, and a show-cause order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court
CL-2025-0387

("the trial court").1 We dismiss the appeal.

Before we consider the issues presented in the appeal, we must

determine whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. 2 Richey

v. Morris, 389 So. 3d 347, 348 (Ala. 2023); and Denault v. Federal Nat'l

Mortg. Ass'n, 284 So. 3d 913, 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (holding that it is

a settled jurisprudential principle that an appellate court must initially

consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal). The

timely filing of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional act. Allen v.

Holmes, 439 So. 2d 166 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983); and Thompson v. Keith,

365 So. 2d 971 (Ala. 1978). Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P., requires that a

notice of appeal be filed within 42 days of the date of the entry of the

judgment or the order being appealed. See also Rudd v. Rudd, 467 So. 2d

964, 965 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985). "[A]n untimely filed notice of appeal

1The judgments and order were also entered against Derrick Webb.

He, however, has not filed an appeal.

2Before this appeal was submitted for our review, this court
conducted an initial review for appellate jurisdiction and decided to allow
the appeal to proceed. Such permission, however, "does not preclude
reconsideration of the fundamental question of appellate jurisdiction
after an appellate court has had an opportunity to review the record."
Smith v. Smith, 919 So. 2d 315, 316 n. 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).

2
CL-2025-0387

results in a lack of appellate jurisdiction, which cannot be waived."

Parker v. Parker, 946 So. 2d 480, 485 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).

In this case, the trial court entered the default judgment on May

21, 2024, and the contempt judgment on January 31, 2025. Thus, for

Webb's appeal of those judgments to be timely, she was required to file

her notice of appeal within 42 days of the entry of the May 21, 2024,

default judgment and within 42 days of the entry of the January 31, 2025,

contempt judgment. Webb did not file a notice of appeal of those

judgments until May 20, 2025, which is more than 42 days after the entry

of the challenged judgments.

The "lack of appellate jurisdiction resulting from a party's failure

to timely file a notice of appeal 'cannot be waived'; indeed, 'this court can

raise the issue ex mero motu.' Carter v. Hilliard, 838 So. 2d 1062, 1063

(Ala. Civ. App. 2002)." Smith v. Smith, 4 So. 3d 1178, 1180-81 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2008). See also Luker v. Carrell, 25 So. 3d 1148, 1150 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2006), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Luker, 25 So. 3d 1152 (Ala.

2007); and Kennedy v. Merriman, 963 So. 2d 86, 88 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).

The failure to appeal within the prescribed time is fatal and requires

dismissal of the appeal. See Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P. (providing that

3
CL-2025-0387

an appeal must be dismissed if the notice of appeal is not timely filed to

invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court); and Kennedy, 963 So. 2d

at 88. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction to address Webb's appeal

of the default judgment and the contempt judgment, the appeal, insofar

as it relates to those judgments, is dismissed.3 See Venturi v. Venturi,

233 So. 3d 982, 983-84 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016); and R.P.M. v. P.D.A., 112

So. 3d 49, 51 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).

On July 7, 2025, Webb filed a letter brief in this court indicating

that she sought appellate review of a June 2, 2025, order that awarded

an attorney fee to the Jefferson County Board of Health. That order,

however, was entered after Webb filed her May 20, 2025, notice of appeal

and, consequently, cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction.

On July 11, 2025, Webb filed another letter brief in this court,

arguing that her notice of appeal was timely filed because "[t]he May 2,

3Considering our lack of appellate jurisdiction, we express no
opinion on the issues raised concerning the trial court's jurisdiction and
the validity of the challenged judgments. But see Ex parte K.R., 210 So.
3d 1106 (Ala. 2016) (addressing the issue of a probate court's lack of
jurisdiction that was raised in an untimely mandamus petition, despite
the petitioner's failure to show good cause for the untimeliness). If Webb
wishes to collaterally attack the validity of those judgments, the proper
method would be to file in the trial court a motion pursuant to Rule
60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P.
4
CL-2025-0387

2025, hearing (on the April 24, 2025, contempt order in CV 2023-900687

was the operative final judgment triggering the appeal period." The

record includes a show-cause order entered by the trial court on May 2,

2025, which states:

"Because the Plaintiffs were unable to serve the
Defendants with a copy of the SHOW CAUSE ORDER issued
by the Court on April 24, 2025, within the deadline set by that
Order and because the Defendants failed to appear for the
May 2nd Show Cause Hearing set by that Order, the Show
Cause hearing is CONTINUED to May 23, 2025, at 10:30
A.M. All Counsel and all unrepresented Parties shall appear
before the undersigned at this time.

"Defendants STEPHANIE WEBB and DERRICK
WEBB are ORDERED and DIRECTED to appear personally
and show cause why they should not be sanctioned for
continuing to operate their restaurant in violation of this
Court's ORDER dated May 21, 2024.

"FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THIS HEARING MAY
RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF FINES AND/OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

"The Plaintiffs are ORDERED and DIRECTED to cause
a copy of this Order to be served upon Defendants
STEPHANIE WEBB and DERRICK WEBB by personal
service no later than May 19, 2025, and to certify the fact of
service no later than May 21, 2025."

(Capitalization in original.) Assuming that Webb has attempted to

appeal from the show-cause order (which this court does not hold that

she has done), Webb's appeal from that order must nevertheless be

5
CL-2025-0387

dismissed because an appeal from a nonfinal judgment does not invoke

this court's jurisdiction. A show-cause order is "[a]n order directing a

party to appear in court and explain why the party took (or failed to take)

some action or why the court should or should not impose some sanction

or grant some relief," see Black's Law Dictionary 1323 (11th ed. 2019),

and is not a final judgment. See Foster v. Greer & Sons, Inc., 446 So. 2d

605, 609-10 (Ala. 1984) (recognizing that, for an appellate court to

exercise jurisdiction, the appeal must be from a final judgment or from a

judgment certified as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.); and Sikes

v. Kirkland, 415 So. 3d 658, 660-61 (Ala. 2024) ("A final judgment is one

that 'conclusively determines the issues before the court and ascertains

and declares the rights of the parties involved.' Bean v. Craig, 557 So. 2d

1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). In other words, a final judgment 'is one that puts

an end to the proceedings between the parties ... and leaves nothing

further for adjudication.' Ex parte Wharfhouse Rest. & Oyster Bar, Inc.,

796 So. 2d 316, 320 (Ala. 2001)."). Thus, Webb's appeal, to the extent

that it might seek review of the May 2, 2025, show-cause order, must be

dismissed because that order is not a final judgment that will support an

appeal. See B.J. v. Calhoun Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 372 So. 3d 1213,

6
CL-2025-0387

1217 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022) (dismissing an appeal because, "[w]hen a party

appeals from a nonfinal judgment, this court does not acquire jurisdiction

over the appeal"). S.M. v. C.A., 267 So. 3d 851 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018)

(dismissing an appeal because an appeal from a nonfinal order will not

invoke an appellate court's jurisdiction); and R.H. v. J.H., 778 So. 2d 839,

841-42 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).

Because this court does not have jurisdiction, this appeal is

dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.

7