Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Family Security Credit Union ("FSCU") appealed the trial court's denial of its motions to compel arbitration in eight separate but closely related cases. Action Auto Sales ("Action Auto") was a car-financing group that financed the vehicle inventory of Pine City Auto ("Pine City"), a used-car dealership. Action Auto held titles to the vehicles in inventory, and released a title only when a vehicle was sold, and Pine City paid off a proportional amount of the inventory financing. Pine City eventually went out of business without paying off the inventory financing on some of the vehicles it had sold. Action Auto sued Pine City and the purchasers of eight vehicles who had purchased vehicles from Pine City and financed those purchases through FSCU. Action Auto sought possession of the vehicles and money damages. The purchasers each filed counterclaims and cross-claims against Action Auto and Pine City and third-party claims against FSCU, alleging negligence, wantonness, and conspiracy. The purchasers' third-party claims against FSCU were based on FSCU's alleged failure to perfect its security interest in the vehicles before financing the purchasers of the vehicles. FSCU moved for each of those third-party claims to be submitted to arbitration. The purchasers opposed the motions to compel arbitration, but they did not submit any evidence. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying FSCU's motions to compel arbitration in each of the eight cases, and remanded all for further proceedings. View "Family Security Credit Union v. Etheredge" on Justia Law

Lamar Ragland appeals the dismissal of his bad-faith claim against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Ragland sought punitive damages from State Farm based on State Farm's alleged bad-faith failure to pay and related failure to subject his claim for underinsured-motorist ("UIM") benefits to a cognitive review. State Farm moved to dismiss Ragland's claims, because Ragland had filed a separate civil action in 2014 that had not yet been resolved. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed Ragland's claim as being from a nonfinal judgment. View "Ragland v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Julie Gerstenecker borrowed money from her mother-in-law Janice Gerstenecker, for help in repaying her student loans. According to Janice, Janice agreed to repay Julie's student loans and Julie agreed to repay Janice by "pay[ing] [Janice] $700 a month until [Julie and Adam's child] turned one. And then the payments would rise to $1,000." Janice testified that the terms of the agreement between her and Julie were not reduced to writing. Julie testified that she had never borrowed money from Janice and that she does not recall Janice telling her that Janice would lend her money to repay her student loans. Adam Gerstenecker, Janice's son and Julie's husband, also testified at trial; his testimony supported his mother's version of the agreement. Adam and Julie would eventually divorce. Some repayments were made, but ultimately Janice sued Julie for the balance owed. The trial court found Julie breached the agreement she had with Janice. However, the Alabama Supreme Court found the trial court erred in reading an acceleration-of-payments clause into the agreement between Janice and Julie. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's damages award and remanded this case for the trial court to determine the amount owed based on the accrued payments as of the date of the judgment and not the full amount of the outstanding loan balance. View "Gerstenecker v. Gerstenecker" on Justia Law

Three matters consolidated for review resulted from separate automobile accidents between either an Allstate or a GEICO insured with Underinsured-Motorist (UIM) coverage and allegedly underinsured tortfeasors. In each case, it was undisputed that the applicable insurance policy contained a "consent-to-settle" clause requiring the provision of notice to, and the consent of, the affected insurer prior to the insured's settlement of any claims against the alleged underinsured tortfeasors and/or a release of the tortfeasors' liability. After review of the specific facts of each case, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that because the insurers, in following the express directives of the Court, were deprived of their contractual rights as well as the benefit of the procedures set forth in the controlling case law, the insurers demonstrated a clear legal right to their requested relief. In case no. 1150511 and 1151266, the Court directed the applicable circuit court to vacate its respective orders purporting both to "enforce" the pro tanto settlement agreements against the insurer's consent and to dismiss the tortfeasors. In case no. 1150269, the Court dismissed the petition. View "Ex parte GEICO Indemnity Company." on Justia Law

In 2004, Deborah and Brian Blackmon executed an agreement establishing a home-equity line of credit with Renasant Bank secured by a mortgage on the Blackmons' house. In addition to making withdrawals on the home-equity line of credit, the Blackmons also made payments on the home-equity line of credit during that time. In 2013, Brian Blackmon died. Following Brian’s death, Deborah made five separate payments on the home equity line of credit. The payments made did not satisfy the entirety of the money the Blackmons owed Renasant Bank under the terms of the home-equity line of credit, and Deborah failed to make any additional payments. Deborah denied that she had executed the home-equity line of credit or the mortgage and, thus, denied liability for any outstanding balance due under the home-equity line of credit. Renasant Bank sued Deborah and the estate seeking a judgment declaring that the Blackmons had executed the agreement establishing a home-equity line of credit with Renasant Bank and a mortgage on the Blackmons' house securing the home-equity line of credit and asserting a claim of breach of contract seeking to recover the amount of money owed under the terms of the home-equity line of credit. Deborah and the estate filed an answer to Renasant Bank's complaint and asserted a counterclaim, requesting a judgment declaring that the mortgage on the Blackmons' house was not enforceable. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the bank and the Blackmons appealed. After review, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal as the Blackmons’ appeal was of a nonfinal judgment. View "Blackmon v. Renasant Bank" on Justia Law

Timothy Bevel appeals from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration. In March 2015, Bevel financed the purchase of a used Bennington brand boat and a Yamaha brand boat motor from Guntersville Boat Mart, Inc., and he rented a boat slip on Lake Guntersville to dock the boat. The sale and boat-slip rental were documented by a one-page bill of sale, which contained an arbitration provision. According to Bevel, the boat was seized several months after the transaction for allegedly defaulting on payments on the boat and boat-slip rental. Bevel disputed that he owed those payments. The matter was submitted to arbitration. The Supreme Court found, however, that the arbitration provision at issue here did not become part of the contract between the parties, and, thus, it could not be enforced against Bevel. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration, and the case remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bevel v. Marine Group, LLC" on Justia Law

University Toyota and University Chevrolet Buick GMC (collectively referred to as "the University dealerships") appealed a circuit court order allowing Beverly Hardeman and Vivian Roberts to pursue their claims against the University dealerships in arbitration proceedings. conducted by the American Arbitration Association ("the AAA") instead of the Better Business Bureau of North Alabama ("the BBB"), the entity identified in the controlling arbitration agreements. In conjunction with their purchases of new vehicles from the University dealerships’ predecessor, Jim Bishop, Hardeman and Roberts purchased service contracts entitling them to no-cost oil changes for as long as they owned their respective vehicles. When the Jim Bishop dealerships were sold and rebranded as the University dealerships, initially the University dealerships honored the no-cost oil-change service contracts sold by the Jim Bishop dealerships. However, they eventually stopped providing no-cost oil changes to customers who held those contracts. On October 29, 2015, Hardeman and Roberts filed a demand for arbitration with the BBB, the dispute-resolution entity identified in arbitration agreements they had executed when they purchased their vehicles, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, based on the University dealerships' refusal to honor the service contracts. Because a trial court can compel arbitration only in a manner consistent with the terms of the applicable arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for the entry of a new order compelling Hardeman and Roberts to arbitrate their claims against the University dealerships before the BBB if they chose to pursue those claims. View "University Toyota v. Hardeman" on Justia Law

Myron Yarbrough appealed a circuit court judgment entered against him in his action alleging legal malpractice against Steven Eversole, Richard Perry, Jr., and Eversole Law, LLC ("the firm"). In 2006, Yarbrough was convicted of one count of first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sodomy. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for each conviction and ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Yarbrough appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished memorandum. At the time of the events giving rise to Yarbrough's cause of action, the firm employed both Eversole and Perry. In March 2012, Yarbrough retained the firm to explore the possibility of filing a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition on Yarbrough's behalf. Yarbrough alleged that Eversole and Perry represented to Yarbrough that "there was a basis in fact and law to file a Rule 32 petition." Yarbrough asserted, however, that the two attorneys "knew that there was no 'newly discovered' evidence as defined by Alabama case law and that the statute of limitations would be a complete bar to all claims of newly discovered evidence and for the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel." Yarbrough paid the firm $10,000 to file a Rule 32 petition on his behalf. The claims in that Rule 32 petition were ultimately denied as time-barred. Yarbrough filed this legal malpractice action against the firm, alleging that they misrepresented his chances of success in the Rule 32 petition. After review, the Supreme Court found that circuit court erred in concluding that Yarbrough's legal-malpractice action against the firm and Eversole failed as a matter of law. However, there existed a plain dispute of fact as to what Eversole told Yarbrough about the prospects of a Rule 32 petition and the subsequent appellate filings. Therefore, a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the firm and Eversole was not warranted. The summary judgment in favor of Perry was affirmed, but the judgment on the pleadings in favor of the firm and Eversole was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Yarbrough v. Eversole" on Justia Law

Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange ("PURE"), a Florida-domiciled insurance exchange, obtained a judgment, entered on a jury verdict, declaring that Peter Grayson was not entitled to coverage under the uninsured-motorist ("UM") portion of an automobile insurance policy under which Grayson's sister, Alice Grayson, was a named insured. The Circuit Court granted Grayson's motion to set aside that judgment on the basis that it was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. PURE now appealed. Finding that the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter, the judgment in favor of PURE was not void. The Court therefore reversed the Circuit Court and remanded. View "Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Grayson" on Justia Law

Todd Hill, Roy Hill, Brian Hill, and Debra Hill Stewart were the children of Leroy Hill, who died testate in 2009. Deborah D. Hill, Leroy’s second wife, offered Leroy's will for probate. The Hill children hired attorneys Vincent Kilborn III and David McDonald to bring a breach-of-contract action against the estate and Deborah, alleging breach of an agreement between Leroy and the Hills' mother at the time Leroy divorced the Hills' mother in 1984 to make a will leaving the Hills a coffee company and a family ranch. The Hills and the attorneys entered into a retainer agreement, which required the Hills to pay the attorneys "40% of any recovery, in the event there is a recovery, with or without suit." According to the agreement, "recovery" included cash, real or personal property, stock in the Leroy Hill Coffee Company, and all or part ownership in the family ranch. After a trial, a judgment was entered for the Hills ordering specific performance of the contract, which required the conveyance of the coffee company and the ranch to the Hills. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, without an opinion. At issue before the Supreme Court involved the attorney fee. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion when it failed to order the payment of the attorney fee in accordance with the retainer agreement. The Hills petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate two order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, they argued that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine the 40% contingency fee owed the attorneys was an administrative expense of the estate and, consequently, that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction when any subsequent order at issue in this case. The Supreme Court concluded the circuit court had jurisdiction over the administration of the estate, so the petition for a writ of mandamus (case no. 1150162) was denied; the orders pertaining to payment of the retainer were reversed (case no. 1150148) and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Hill v. Kruse" on Justia Law