lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. However, none of the parties to the district-court actions filed an appeal of the June 11, 2012, orders to the trial court to challenge the district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the drivers’ appeals. See § 12-12-71, Ala. Code 1975 (“[A]ll appeals from final judgments of the district court shall be to the circuit court for trial de novo.”). Rather, the drivers and the city proceeded in the trial court, apparently under the assumption that the district court could properly transfer the three actions to the trial court. In fact, a district court may transfer an action that it determines is not within its jurisdiction but, rather, is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court: “If a case filed in the circuit p. 2008) (<HOLDING>); cf. Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 767-68
holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment holding that because the circuit court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the unlawfuldetainer action the district courts unauthorized transfer of the action could not transfer jurisdiction over that action to the circuit court holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action