AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
I agree with the Morgan Circuit Courts conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any “appeal” taken from a nonfinal judgment. I also agree that, based on the representations made to the trial court, the Morgan County Board of Equalization (“the Board”) is not equitably estopped from taking a contrary position.
I write separately to emphasize that the trial court, in rendering its judgment of dismissal, expressly relied on the Boards assurances that Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC (“Indorama”), “would have an additional avenue of appeal at the conclusion of the audit if there is a discrepancy” between the audit value and the assessed value. C. 120; see also R. at 14-15 (“[I]f the audit showed something in the variance, we [the Board] would file with them an escape valuation, and they [Indorama] would have another opportunity to appeal.”). The trial court had no reason to question the truth of that representation at the time it issued its ruling.
But Indorama now tells us that its most “recent communications with the [Board] indicate that the [Board] has abandoned” -- or intends to abandon -- “any plans to proceed with the [third-party] audit for 2022, apparently in order to avoid affording Indorama its statutory right to a hearing and appeal.” Indoramas reply brief at 11; see also id. at 9 n.1. We have no way of knowing what the parties will do in the future, but if Indoramas prediction holds true, then the Boards conduct would raise serious concerns. As the parties decide how to proceed, it bears emphasizing that misrepresentations to a trial court, if established, can have serious consequences, including justifying a motion for relief from judgment. See Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
With those observations, I concur in the decision to affirm the trial courts judgment.
MENDHEIM, Justice.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw and Bryan, JJ., concur.
Mitchell, J., concurs specially, with opinion.