West v. Bagwell, [Ms. 2190780, Mar. 26, 2021], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). The court (Edwards, J.; Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur) dismisses West’s appeal of the Fayette Circuit Court’s judgment in a boundary line dispute. The court reiterates that “‘[t]here are only two methods listed in Rule 59.1 for extending the 90-day period: (1) the express consent of all parties to an extension of the 90-day period, [and] (2) the grant of an extension of time by an appellate court.’” Ms. *6, quoting Ex parte Davidson, 782 So. 2d 237, 241 (Ala. 2000). The court explains “West sought from the trial court an extension of the 90-day period, despite the fact that the Bagwells had refused to consent to the extension. The trial court lacked the authority under Rule 59.1 to extend the 90-day period for ruling on West’s postjudgment Motion....” Ms. **6-7. Consequently, West’s appeal was untimely.
