Tara Grall v. William Grall and G-Team, P.C.

── Tara Grall v. William Grall and G-Team, P.C. ── Case No.: SC-2025-0346 Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: March 13, 2026 Author: Sarah Stewart Category: General Rel: March 13, 2026 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 printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0346 and SC-2025-0357 _________________________ Tara Grall v. William Grall and G-Team, P.C. Appeals from Lauderdale Circuit Court (CV-24-900070) STEWART, Chief Justice. These consolidated appeals arise from a dispute between Tara Grall and her former husband, William Grall, regarding a business in which they are the sole, coequal shareholders, G-Team, P.C. ("G-Team"). In appeal no. SC-2025-0346 ("the first appeal"), Tara filed a notice of appeal SC-2025-0346 and SC-2025-0357 seeking review of several interlocutory orders of the Lauderdale Circuit Court ("the trial court"). While the first appeal was pending, the trial court purported to enter a final judgment directing the winding up of G- Team, from which Tara also filed a notice of appeal -- appeal no. SC-2025- 0357 ("the second appeal"). For the following reasons, we dismiss both appeals. Facts and Procedural History G-Team is an Alabama professional corporation that had previously done business in Lauderdale County. In March 2024, during the pendency of the Grall's divorce proceedings and after G-Team had permanently ceased doing business, William commenced a derivative action against Tara under § 10A-2A-7.40 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, seeking to enforce the purported right of G-Team to sell its real property ("the property") to cover its mortgage debt. Following a hearing in which Tara asserted that the property could not be sold because it was subject to a lien from the Small Business Administration, the trial court ordered the sale of the property. It then set a hearing to determine the proper distribution of the sale proceeds and to complete G-Team's winding-up process. 2 SC-2025-0346 and SC-2025-0357 Tara, proceeding pro se, subsequently filed -- among many other motions -- a motion titled "Emergency Motion to Stay May 1, 2025 Hearing Due to Vehicle Safety, Financial Hardship, and Pending Federal Litigation," and a motion titled "Motion to Recuse Judge Ben Graves for Judicial Bias, Ethical Conflict, and Material Witness Involvement." The trial court entered orders denying both motions. On April 22, 2025, Tara, citing Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P., filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. She described her appeal as "interlocutory" and requested from the Court of Civil Appeals a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appellate review. That court denied Tara's request. Despite the pendency of Tara's appeal, the trial court conducted a final hearing to complete G-Team's winding-up process. On May 1, 2025, the trial court purported to enter a final judgment. Tara appealed that judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals transferred Tara's appeals to this Court based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Discussion 3 SC-2025-0346 and SC-2025-0357 Although neither party has raised the issue, we must determine whether this Court has jurisdiction over Tara's appeals before we can consider the merits of her arguments. See Nunn v. Baker, 518