adjudication is fraught with an inherent risk of inconsistent results, making them inappropriate for Rule 54(b) certification. See Winecoff v. Compass Bank, 854 So.2d 611, 614 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (determining a Rule 54(b) certification to be inappropriate when a counterclaim related to the claim the trial court had ruled upon remained pending in the trial court). See also First Southern Bank v. O’Brien, 931 So.2d 50, 53 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (noting that “ ‘ “[a]p-pellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored, and trial courts should certify a judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), only in a case where the failure to do so might have a harsh effect” ’ ” (quoting other cases) (emphasis omitted)); and Ann Corp. v. Aerostar World, Inc., 781 So.2d 231, 234 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because the trial court’s Rule 54(b)
holding that rule 54b certification was inappropriate where appeal and remaining counterclaim both arose from a contract dispute regarding moneys due from alleged unauthorized repairs holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification holding that dismissal of some but not all claims or parties not immediately appealable absent rule 54b certification holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification