Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Darren Woods and his half sister Joni Wood, appealed a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of Karrie Hayes and against Joni in the amount of $437,761.52 and against Darren in the amount of $86,540.49 for violating the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("AUFTA"). In 2004, Karrie Hayes, then age 14, was alone inside the house where she resided with her mother in Florence. Jason Earl Pruitt, at the request and under the direction of Stevie Woods, the father of Darren and Joni, released a large amount of propane gas into the residence and then ignited the gas, causing the residence to explode into flames. As a result of the explosion, Hayes sustained severe burns to over 70 percent of her body. Investigators quickly learned of Pruitt's involvement, and Pruitt thereafter implicated Stevie Woods. In 2006, Stevie Woods was arrested and charged with arson for the burning of the residence in which Hayes was living. Both Stevie Woods and Pruitt were convicted of arson in the first degree. Hayes, through her mother, filed a civil action against Stevie Woods and Pruitt seeking damages for the injuries she sustained as a result of the destruction of the residence. In amended complaints Hayes added claims alleging the fraudulent transfer of assets against Stevie Woods, Darren, Joni, and Flower Wood Development, LLC ("Flower Wood"), and conspiracy to engage in the fraudulent transfers and seeking injunctive relief to bar further transfers. With regard to these claims, Hayes specifically alleged that, with the knowledge of the existence of Hayes's claims against him, Stevie Woods fraudulently transferred real and personal property to various relatives, including Darren and Joni, as well as to Flower Wood. A jury awarded Hayes $5 million against Stevie Woods and Pruitt on her personal-injury claims. Stevie Woods did not appeal the verdict. The trial court determined that 11 deeds had been used to fraudulently transfer 9 parcels of real property from Stevie Woods to Darren, Joni, and Flower Wood, and the trial court set aside those deeds. The defendants did not challenge the order on appeal. Darren and Joni argued that the judgments based on the fraudulent transfers claims should be reversed on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence highly prejudicial photographs, medical records, and testimony concerning Hayes's injuries and photographs and testimony concerning the explosion. Upon review of this issue, the trial court's admission of evidence that was entirely irrelevant to Hayes's fraudulent-transfer claims and that was highly prejudicial to Darren and Joni. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that warranted reversal of the jury verdicts against Darren and Joni. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new trial. View "Wood v. Hayes " on Justia Law

While represented by counsel, Defendant Stanford Earl Pritchett pled guilty to murder. Defendant then filed a pro se motion to set aside his guilty plea, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court denied Defendant's motion without conducting a hearing and without making a determination that he had validly waived his right to counsel with respect to the motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari as to that decision, asserting that it conflicted with "Berry v. Alabama," (630 So. 2d 127, 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)). The Court granted the petition, and reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case. View "Pritchett v. Alabama " on Justia Law

Lawton Higgs, Sr., formerly a pastor and pastor emeritus at the Church of the Reconciler ("COR"), a United Methodist church, brought an action against Tom Bole, a lay member of COR, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During the proceedings, Higgs filed a civil subpoena requesting the production of certain documents from Reverend Ron Schultz, the district supervisor of the South Central District of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church ("the Conference"). Reverend Schultz filed a verified objection to and a motion to quash the civil subpoena based on First Amendment concerns. Subsequently, Bole filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him, alleging that the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the trial court denied Bole's motion. The trial court later entered an order in which it granted in part and denied in part Reverend Schultz's motion to quash. In case no. 1110868, Bole petitioned for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court dismiss Higgs's claims against him. In case no. 1110892, Reverend Schultz petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to quash the subpoena in its entirety on the basis that the records subpoenaed by Higgs were privileged, ecclesiastical records of the United Methodist Church. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the petition in case no. 1110868 and dismissed the petition in case no. 1110892. View "Higgs, Sr. v. Bole" on Justia Law

One petition for the writ of mandamus and three appeals were brought before the Supreme Court to challenge a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court awarding Hugh McInnish $196,625 in attorney fees and costs in his action against: (1) the Governor of the State of Alabama, (2) the State finance director, (3) the State comptroller, and (4) the State treasurer, all in their official capacities. The underlying case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the community-services grant-making process set forth in Ala. Code 1975, section 29-2-123. There, the Court held that "section 29-2-123, which authorizes a permanent joint legislative committee to award community-services grants, [as well as that portion of the annual education-appropriations act] by which those grants are funded," violated the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, 925 So. 2d at 188, and the Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case. Subsequently, McInnish filed a series of motions in the trial court, seeking "an award of attorney fees, reasonable expenses, and costs against the [State officials]." He also sought an order declaring that he was "a prevailing party, that this litigation provided a common benefit to all taxpayers of the state of Alabama, and that the amount that was prohibited from being disbursed illegally was in an amount of approximately $13.4 million." The State officials opposed McInnish's motions, arguing that "[t]he clear holding in Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro[, 950 So. 2d 1203 (Ala. 2006),] is that section 14 of the Alabama Constitution prohibits the awarding of attorney fees and expenses in any state court action against the State of Alabama or against state officials in their official capacities." The trial court entered a judgment awarding "counsel for Plaintiff McInnish a judgment for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $196,625.00 to be paid by the [State officials]." Upon review, the Supreme Court held that section 14 bars an award of attorney fees and costs even if a plaintiff has prevailed on a claim against State officials in their official capacities for a violation of the State constitution that results in preservation of significant funds in the State treasury. The trial court lacked authority to award such attorney fees and costs. Consequently, the judgment was reversed. View "McInnish v. Bentley " on Justia Law

John Woodruff appealed a circuit court order dismissing his malicious-prosecution, false imprisonment, and tort-of-outrage claims against the City of Tuscaloosa ("the City") and several of its employees. On October 16, 2006, Woodruff went to the Tuscaloosa Police Department headquarters to resolve a warrant that had been sworn against him for harassing communications. After presenting himself, Woodruff was arrested and handcuffed by a Tuscaloosa police officer and told to wait until another officer could arrive to complete the booking process. While waiting in the public lobby of police headquarters, Woodruff became involved in a verbal altercation with an off-duty Tuscaloosa police officer, and he was subsequently charged by Officer Canterbury with disorderly conduct, another Class C misdemeanor. Woodruff was thereafter booked and transported to the county jail, where he was released on bond later that night. On October 19, 2006, Woodruff returned to the Tuscaloosa Police Department to file a written complaint regarding the events surrounding his arrest and booking on October 16. The Tuscaloosa Police Department ultimately determined that Woodruff's complaint was without merit. On November 15, 2006, Woodruff was convicted of disorderly conduct. He thereafter sought a trial de novo on the charge in Circuit Court; however, in December 2008, while the matter was still pending, Woodruff and the City apparently reached an agreement to nol-pros the charge if Woodruff would undergo counseling. On January 2, 2009, the disorderly conduct charge was formally dropped. On January 3, 2011, Woodruff filed the this action. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it was "evident" that Woodruff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court affirmed the circuit court in denying his claims. View "Woodruff v. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

Dawn Elaine Patterson and her husband Brooks appealed the judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing their claims against Consolidated Aluminum Corporation ("CAC") and its corporate owner Lonza America, Inc. ("Lonza"), as being barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On September 11, 2008, Dawn Patterson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. On August 13, 2009, the Pattersons initiated this legal action, alleging that Dawn's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos. The Pattersons did not allege that Dawn had been directly exposed to materials containing asbestos at her home or workplace; rather, they alleged that Dawn was a victim of secondary exposure to asbestos as a result of her close contact with her father, Jerry Dison, and her grandfather, Melvin Lester, who they alleged had worked around materials containing asbestos for many years and who had allegedly brought home the asbestos dust that ultimately caused Dawn's mesothelioma. The Pattersons accordingly named Dison's and Lester's employers as defendants in their complaint, as well as various manufacturers of asbestos-containing products that Dison and Lester were alleged to have been exposed to in the course of their employment. The complaint also asserted claims against unknown defendants that had not yet been identified. The Pattersons sought to amend their complaint to substitute them for fictitiously named defendants. The trial court initially allowed the amendment but, in response to a motion filed by CAC and Lonza, subsequently held that the Pattersons' claims against them was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed: because the Pattersons did not promptly move to amend their complaint to substitute CAC and Lonza as defendants after learning of their identity and potential liability, they were not entitled to the benefit of the relation-back doctrine. View "Patterson v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp. " on Justia Law

Defendant Noland Hospital Montgomery, LLC ("NHM"), petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order denying NHM's motion for a summary judgment and to enter a summary judgment in NHM's favor. NHM contended that it was entitled to a summary judgment on the basis that the applicable statute of limitations for this wrongful-death action barred the claims asserted against it by Wheatton K. Pynes, individually and as executor of the estate of Houston Earl Pynes. "The disposition of this petition require[d] an interpretation of the interplay between Rule 9(h), Ala. R.Civ. P., relating to fictitiously named parties, and Rule 15(c), pertaining to the relation back of amendments to pleadings." Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Pynes v. Jackson Hospital" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a circuit court's dismissal of Brandon Johnson's action against Gary Hetzel, warden of the Donaldson Correctional Facility; Sean Carlton, a correctional officer trainee at the facility; and correctional officers Dennis Johnson and Joe Binder. Johnson was serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole following a conviction for murder. He was seen fighting with another inmate and placed under "house arrest" pending a disciplinary hearing. Johnson argued that the defendants "deliberately plac[ed] him in 'house arrest' two cells from [another inmate with whom he had the fight], and [that] the defendants were responsible for the protection of both inmates, but instead opened the door to both cells at which time [Johnson] and [the other inmate] got into another fight," in which, Johnson argued, he was injured. Johnson filed an affidavit of substantial hardship, requesting that the initial docket fee for his case be waived. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for a summary judgment. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Johnson's complaint. Johnson has appealed the circuit court's judgment of dismissal, arguing, in pertinent part, that the circuit court never had jurisdiction over his case because he did not pay the necessary filing fee and the circuit court never approved either of the affidavits of substantial hardship he had filed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the filing of a court-approved verified statement of substantial hardship was not met in this case. Therefore, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to enter its judgment dismissing Johnson's complaint. The Court ruled the circuit court's judgment void. "[B]ecause a void judgment will not support an appeal," the Court vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal. View "Johnson v. Hetzel" on Justia Law

Highlands of Lay, LLC ("Highlands") appealed a default judgment entered in favor of Edward O. Murphree. Murphree sued Highlands and John J. Miller, who Murphree alleged was a member of Highlands and its authorized agent. Murphree alleged fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract, arising out of a real-estate transaction. After he amended his complaint, Murphree was not able to obtain service upon Highlands or Miller, and the trial court granted a motion to serve them by publication. Highlands and Miller answered, and Highlands filed a counterclaim alleging negligence. Murphree then served discovery requests on Highlands. Murphree later sent additional discovery requests to Highlands and Miller; Highlands and Miller did not respond. When Highlands and Miller continued to be unresponsive to the suit, Murphree moved for a default judgment. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court found that some of the issues presented in the then-still pending claim against Miller were the same issues presented in this appeal by Highlands. Highlands argued that the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment against it because it had a meritorious defense to Murphree's claims based on Miller's statements or e-mail from Miller and the timing of statements or e-mail to Murphree. "Appellate review in piecemeal fashion is not favored." The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying the judgment entered against Highlands as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). Highlands' appeal was therefore dismissed. View "Highlands of Lay, LLC v. Murphree " on Justia Law

Defendant Amy Bishop Anderson petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Madison Circuit Court to compel the Office of Indigent Defense Services and the Comptroller's Office within the Department of Finance to comply with the circuit court's orders and disburse interim payments of fees to her retained experts. Upon review, the Supreme Court denied the petition. Anderson was indicted on charges of capital murder and attempted murder after she shot several of her colleagues during a biology-department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2010. Defendant's defense counsel served notice that they indended to argue that Defendant was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The circuit court entered an order granting defense counsel's ex parte motion for extraordinary expenses. The circuit court authorized defense counsel to retain the services of a neuropsychiatrist who evaluated Defendant, and ordered the comptroller to make immediate payment to cover the expert's retainer. According to Defendant, the expert began working on the case with a reasonable expectation of being paid at a later date. No payment was made. The Supreme Court concluded that while the circuit court entered the orders directing interim payments for Defendant's experts, Defendant did not show that the circuit court refused to enforce those orders. Based on this, Defendant did not satisfy her burden that the circuit court refused to enforce its orders. View "Alabama v. Anderson" on Justia Law