Mandate Rule

S&M Associates, Inc. and Sadler v. Players Recreation Group, LLC, [Ms. SC-2023-0394, Apr. 12, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Wise, J.; Parker, C.J., and Stewart and Cook, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs specially, with opinion) reverses the portion of the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order entered following remand holding that a debt Players Recreation Club, LLC owed to Jason and Felix McCarty had priority over a debt Players Recreation owed to S&M Associates, Inc. The Court reiterates:

“It is the duty of the trial court, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the directions given by the reviewing court. No judgment other than that directed or permitted by the reviewing court may be entered .... The appellate court’s decision is final as to all matters before it, becomes the law of the case, and must be executed according to the mandate, without granting a new trial or taking additional evidence ... 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error § 991 (1962).”

Ms. *15, quoting Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 (Ala. 1983). The Court holds “when it took judicial notice of the mortgage executed by the LLC in favor of Jason and Felix and when it purported to determine the priority of that mortgage, the trial court exceeded the scope of our remand instructions.” Ms. **15-16. Accordingly, that portion of the order “is void for lack of jurisdiction.” Ms. *16.