Cindy Fountaine v. Hospice of Marshall County Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Shepherd's Cove, Karen Denton, and Stacy Higdon

Rel: June 12, 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-2025-0394
_________________________

Cindy Fountaine

v.

Hospice of Marshall County Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Shepherd's
Cove, Karen Denton, and Stacy Higdon

Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court
(CV-20-900196)

McCOOL, Justice.
SC-2025-0394

Cindy Fountaine, who is acting pro se, attempts to appeal the

DeKalb Circuit Court's summary judgment in favor of Hospice of

Marshall County Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Shepherd's Cove, ("the

Foundation") and two of its employees -- Karen Denton and Stacy Higdon

(the Foundation and its employees are referred to collectively as "the

hospice defendants"). However, that judgment was entered before Cindy

became a party to this action, and, thus, the judgment was not against

her. Because the judgment was not against Cindy, she cannot appeal the

judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Facts and Procedural History

Max Fountaine was married to Kelley Fountaine at the time of his

death on January 29, 2019. According to the findings of the circuit court,

Kelley's deposition testimony "could lead a reasonable person to the

conclusion that Max and Kelley's marriage was rocky." Cindy and Angela

Fountaine are adult children of Max. Kelley is not the biological mother

of Angela or Cindy. Max and Kelley shared one biological child, Ben

Fountaine.

On January 22, 2019, Max was admitted to Shepherd's Cove, a

hospice facility that provides care to terminally ill patients. On January

2
SC-2025-0394

25, 2019, while Max was in the hospice defendants' care, Kelley obtained

a durable power of attorney from Max that named her as his agent. Max

died on January 29, 2019. One day before Max died, Kelley used the

power of attorney to transfer real property and other assets from Max to

herself.

On August 4, 2020, Angela, in her capacity as the administrator of

Max's estate, sued Kelley. The complaint contained eight counts -- two

counts alleging breach of fiduciary duty, one count seeking to "set-aside

the warranty deed," one count seeking a declaratory judgment, one count

alleging "negligent and fraudulent power of attorney," one count alleging

fraud, one count alleging conversion, and one count alleging unjust

enrichment. On January 23, 2021, Angela, as the administrator of Max's

estate, amended the complaint to add the hospice defendants and to add

two claims involving those defendants -- one alleging negligent hiring,

training, retention, and supervision and one alleging conspiracy.

On October 17, 2022, the hospice defendants moved for a summary

judgment. On February 13, 2023, the circuit court entered a summary

judgment in favor of the hospice defendants and against Angela, as the

administrator of Max's estate, who was the only plaintiff at the time.

3
SC-2025-0394

On March 7, 2023, Angela, as the administrator of Max's estate,

moved to join herself, individually, Cindy, and Ben as necessary parties

under Rule 19(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 27, 2023, the circuit court

granted that motion, and Angela, Cindy, and Ben were added as

plaintiffs.

The day after she was added, Cindy filed a pro se motion asking the

circuit court to reconsider the summary judgment in favor of the hospice

defendants. On July 17, 2023, the circuit court denied Cindy's motion

and stated that

"nothing in the Summary Judgment Order or this Order
disposes of any claims that may exist as a result of the
disputed facts by and between Cindy Fountaine, Ben
Fountaine, and Angela Fountaine and the Defendants. These
parties were not added before the Summary Judgment Order,
they are necessary and indispensable, and there was no
jurisdiction to dispose of their claims at that time. The
recently added parties will need to file the appropriate
pleadings, effectuate service upon any defendants they deem
appropriate, and proceed with those claims."

(Capitalization in the original.)

On July 25, 2023, Cindy and Angela filed a motion asking the

circuit court to clarify the disposition of the claims. The circuit court

denied the motion and stated that "[t]he Orders speak for themselves."

4
SC-2025-0394

On September 15, 2023, Cindy filed a pro se motion to compel the

Foundation and Kelley to respond to discovery requests. The circuit court

granted the motion in part. The Foundation then moved to set aside the

order on the motion to compel to the extent that the order applied to it.

The circuit court granted the Foundation's motion and stated: "Pursuant

to the Summary Judgment Order, Hospice of Marshall County

Foundation d/b/a Shepherd's Cove was dismissed from this case and it

has not been served with any new pleadings or allegations as required."

Cindy then moved to amend that order. The circuit court denied Cindy's

motion and stated: "If the parties wish to file causes of action against the

Defendant(s) that were previously dismissed, then they will need to file

the appropriate pleadings and serve them in accordance with the

Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure."

On March 19, 2024, Cindy filed a pro se "motion to compel [the

Foundation] to comply with subpoena." The Foundation objected to that

motion and moved for attorney's fees under the Alabama Litigation

Accountability Act, § 12-19-270 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.

On January 7, 2025, Angela moved for a summary judgment

against Kelley. On March 25, 2025, the circuit court entered a summary

5
SC-2025-0394

judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against Kelley. First, that

summary-judgment order made clear that the claims that remained

pending were against Kelley and that the claims against the hospice

defendants had been disposed of by summary judgment. Further, the

circuit court adjudged, as follows:

"1. That Plaintiff Angela Fountaine's Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

"2. That the Warranty Deed with Right of Survivorship
recorded in the DeKalb County Probate Office at Deed Book
1796, Page 480, dated January 28, 2019, by and between Max
Fountaine and Kelley Fountaine, Grantees, unto Max
Fountaine and Kelley Fountaine, for and during their natural
lives and upon the death of either of them, then to the survivor
of them in fee simple is VOID and is hereby SET ASIDE.

"3. That the Certificate of Title to the Ford Fusion and
Chevrolet Van executed by Kelley Fountaine in her role as
agent for Max Fountaine is SET ASIDE.

"4. That a judgment is hereby issued in favor of the
Plaintiff against the Defendant, Kelley Fountaine, in the
amount of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-
TWO DOLLARS AND NINETY-TWO CENTS ($2,532.92),
which represents the amount of money taken out of Max
Fountain's financial account the day before his death.

"5. That the pending Motion to Compel filed by Cindy
Fountaine is MOOT.

"6. That all other relief requested by either party not
specifically granted herein is DENIED.

6
SC-2025-0394

"7. That the cost of this action is taxed to the party th[at]
prepaid the same.

"8. That this is a final order in this case."

(Capitalization in the original.)

On April 18, 2025, Cindy filed a "motion to amend or clarify

summary judgment order pursuant to Rule 59(e)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]." Cindy

alleged that the March 25, 2025, "order does not expressly address

whether all claims have been resolved against all parties," and she

sought clarification. On April 20, 2025, the circuit court issued an order

stating: "MOTION TO CLARIFY the Summary Judgment Order filed by

CINDY FOUNTAINE is hereby MOOT because the questions raised were

addressed in paragraphs 6-8 of the Summary Judgment Order."

(Capitalization in the original.)

Cindy alone appealed to this Court, and she named as appellees

only the hospice defendants. No other parties or claims are the subject

of this appeal.

Discussion

On appeal, Cindy raises two claims in her pro se brief. Cindy

alleges (1) that "the trial court erred in dismissing the hospice defendants

7
SC-2025-0394

without addressing the breach of contract claim"1 and (2) that "the trial

court erred in dismissing the estate's tort claims [against the hospice

defendants], which survive under Alabama law." Cindy's brief at 18, 20.

Both of those claims attack the summary judgment entered in favor of

the hospice defendants and against Angela, as the administrator of Max's

estate. However, Cindy was not a plaintiff when that judgment was

entered for the hospice defendants, and a party cannot appeal a judgment

that is not against him or her.

This Court has stated:

"Only a party prejudiced or aggrieved by a judgment can
appeal. Robino v. Kilgore, 838 So. 2d 366, 369 (Ala. 2002); Sho-
Me Motor Lodges, Inc. v. Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co., 466 So.
2d 83, 88 (Ala. 1985); Hunt v. Houtz, 62 Ala. 36 (1878). 'A
party cannot claim error where no adverse ruling is made
against him.' Holloway v. Robertson, 500 So. 2d 1056, 1059
(Ala. 1986). Generally, a prevailing party does not have
standing to appeal, except as to the adequacy of damages. Ex
parte Moebes, 709 So. 2d 477, 479 (Ala. 1997). '[W]hen an
error applies only to a party who does not appeal therefrom,
another party cannot make any such error an issue on appeal.'
Sho-Me Motor Lodges, 466 So. 2d at 88."

1This allegation is factually incorrect.
Assuming that a breach-of-
contract claim was even alleged in the complaint, the circuit court made
clear that it had entered a summary judgment in favor of the hospice
defendants on all the claims against them.
8
SC-2025-0394

Alcazar Shrine Temple v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 868 So. 2d

1093, 1094 (Ala. 2003).

In the present case, the summary judgment in favor of the hospice

defendants was not entered against Cindy. Cindy was not even a party

when that judgment was entered. That judgment applied only to Angela,

as the administrator of Max's estate, who chose not to appeal. Further,

Cindy was not prejudiced by the judgment. The circuit court made it

abundantly clear that "nothing in the Summary Judgment Order …

disposes of any claims that may exist as a result of the disputed facts by

and between Cindy Fountaine … and the [hospice] [d]efendants" and that

Cindy was free to "file the appropriate pleadings, effectuate service upon

any defendants [she] deem[ed] appropriate, and proceed with those

claims." (Capitalization in the original.) Thus, Cindy was not precluded

from pursuing any claims that she had against the hospice defendants.

Because Cindy chose not to take advantage of that opportunity and

pursue claims against the hospice defendants, she cannot now claim

prejudice, and only a party prejudiced or aggrieved by a judgment can

appeal.

Conclusion

9
SC-2025-0394

Because Cindy cannot appeal the summary judgment in favor of the

hospice defendants, the appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur.

10