# Ex Parte Cowabunga, Inc.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · January 21, 2011 · 67 So. 3d 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780347

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte COWABUNGA, INC., D/B/A Domino’s Pizza (In Re Thomas W. Short v. Cowabunga, Inc., D/B/A Domino’s Pizza.)
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 21, 2011
- **Citations:** 67 So. 3d 136; 2011 WL 190051
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bryan
- **Judges:** Thompson, Pittman, Bryan, Moore, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780347

## Opinion text

BRYAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from the main opinion insofar as it (1) determines that the trial court’s order is subject to the requirements found in § 25-5-88, Ala. Code 1975, mandating findings of fact and conclusions of law and (2) requires the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to § 25-5-88. Section 25-5-88 provides, in pertinent part:
“At the hearing ... the [trial] court ... shall decide the controversy. This de *141 termination shall be filed in writing with the clerk of [the trial] court, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner as in civil actions tried in the [trial] court and shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by [the trial] judge.”
Section 25-5-88, by referencing a “judgment,” requires a final judgment to contain findings of facts and conclusions of law. However, I do not read that section as requiring an interlocutory order, such as the one in this case, to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. This court has stated, albeit in dicta, that § 25-5-88 applies to final judgments only. See Sign Plex v. Tholl, 863 So.2d 1113, 1117 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (“Of course, because the trial court has not entered a final judgment in this case, § 25-5-88 has not yet come into play.”); and SCI Alabama Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Hester, 984 So.2d 1207, 1211 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (per curiam opinion with one judge concurring and four judges concurring in the result) (stating that “the trial court’s failure to enter a final judgment precludes our consideration of the trial court’s compliance with § 25-5-88”). Based on the plain language of § 25-5-88, I would hold that that section applies to final judgments only. I concur with the main opinion in all other respects.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780347. Public record. Not legal advice.