of the judgment would lie, and such time may be further extended for good cause shown. A failure by the trial court to render an order disposing of any pending postjudgment motion within the time permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof, shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of the period.” The record indicates that both the husband and Briskman filed motions to continue the hearing on Briskman’s postjudgment motion; however, those motions do not contain the parties’ express consent to extend the period for the trial court to rule on Briskman’s postjudgment motion. Thus, the motions to continue did not extend the 90-day period for the trial court to rule on Briskman’s postjudgment motion. See Burge v. Hayes, 964 So.2d 672, 675 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Briskman’s postjudgment motion
holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel