Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Paul R. Steinfurth and Paul C. Steinfurth (collectively, "the guarantors") appealed the denial of their postjudgment motion requesting that a judgment entered against them and in favor of Ski Lodge Apartments, LLC, be amended insofar as the judgment held that the guarantors had waived their personal exemptions under 6-10-123, Ala. Code 1975. On or about February 13, 2009, Styles Manager, LLC purchased from Vintage Pointe Apartments, LLC an interest in an apartment complex located in Montgomery. As part of this transaction, Styles Manager executed a promissory note promising to pay Vintage Pointe $800,000. Paul C. signed the promissory note in his official capacity as "manager" of Styles Manager. As security for the performance of the payment of the promissory note, the guarantors, in their individual capacities, executed a "guaranty of payment and performance" of the promissory note. Styles Manager defaulted on the promissory note in 2011. Pursuant to the note, the entire principal amount and all accrued interest was then due on February 13, 2011. Neither Styles Manager nor the guarantors cured the default. Accordingly, on September 27, 2012, Ski Lodge sued the guarantors, alleging breach of the guaranty agreement, in order to collect the outstanding debt on the promissory note. Ski Lodge requested $804,333.36, together with additional accrued interest, in damages. In its complaint, Ski Lodge did not expressly allege that the guarantors had waived their right to a personal exemption. However, Ski Lodge did attach to its complaint copies of the loan documents, which included the promissory note and the guaranty agreement, and stated that each was "incorporated herein by reference." The guarantors filed an answer and counterclaims against Ski Lodge alleging misrepresentation and suppression. The guarantors moved to dismiss Ski Lodge's suit against them, then filed a Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's judgment insofar as the circuit court held that the "judgment is entered pursuant to Alabama law with a waiver of exemptions, according to the terms expressed in the [p]romissory [n]ote and [the] [g]uaranty [agreement] which are the subject matter of this action, as the same were incorporated and adopted into the complaint." The guarantors argued that "waiver was not properly [pleaded]" and that the guaranty agreement did "not provide for waiver of exemptions by" the guarantors. The circuit court ultimately denied the guarantors' postjudgment motion, leading to this appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court's holding that the guarantors waived their personal exemptions was in error. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Steinfurth v. Ski Lodge Apartments, LLC" on Justia Law

Richard M. Gilley sued his former employer, Southern Research Institute ("SRI"), seeking compensation he alleged he was owed as a result of his work leading to SRI's procurement of United States Patent No. 5,407,609. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of SRI, and Gilley appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court found that because Gilley did not timely assert a claim based on a January 2005 transaction in his complaint and because the money received by SRI in a July 2007 transaction was not intellectual-property income subject to sharing under the SRI awards policy, the summary judgment entered by the trial court was proper and was therefore affirmed. View "Gilley v. Southern Research Institute" on Justia Law

Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company ("Travelers") appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dianne and Martin Gray in the Grays' action arising from injuries Dianne suffered as the result of a motor-vehicle accident. In 2010, Lawana Coker and Dianne were involved in a motor-vehicle accident in Elmore County; Coker was without motor-vehicle insurance at the time of the accident. Two years later, the Grays filed in the trial court a three-count complaint naming as defendants Coker and Travelers and a fictitiously named defendant. Travelers answered the complaint, denying the material allegations therein and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Coker, however, failed to answer the complaint. In 2013, the Grays moved the trial court to enter a default judgment in their favor and against Coker, requesting that the trial court assess damages in the amount of $500,000 for Dianne and $50,000 for Martin. The Grays' motion requested no relief as to Travelers. Shortly thereafter, the Grays filed a new summary-judgment motion in which, for the first time, they sought relief against Travelers. The Grays did not base their summary judgment motion against Travelers on the ground that there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether tortious conduct by Coker caused them to suffer injury. Instead, they based their summary-judgment motion against Travelers solely on the fact that they previously had obtained a default judgment against Coker. In this regard, the Grays argued that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Travelers because, they said, "Travelers as a party defendant had notice and adequate opportunity to intervene and present any defenses and arguments necessary to protect its position with respect to the entry of or the amount of damages in the Default Judgment. By failing to do so, Defendant Travelers legally is bound by the judgment." After review, the Supreme Court reversed: because Travelers as the Grays' UM carrier, was not bound by the default judgment entered against Coker, Travelers was not required to submit evidence in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment that relied solely on that default judgment. Consequently, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the Grays and against Travelers. View "Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gray" on Justia Law

Victor Deng and DM Technology & Energy, Inc. ("DM") appealed a judgment based on a jury's verdict in favor of Clarence "Buddy" Scroggins and Complete Lighting Source, Inc. ("Complete Lighting"), on their claims against Deng and DM alleging breach of contract and fraud. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment in favor of Scroggins and Complete Lighting on the fraud claim and remanded the case for the entry of an order granting a new trial as to that claim. The Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in all other respects. View "Deng v. Scoggins" on Justia Law

Tender Care Veterinary Hospital, Inc. ("TCVH"), appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of First Tuskegee Bank on breach-of-fiduciary-duty and fraud claims stemming from a construction loan TCVH received from First Tuskegee in September 2004. The gravamen of those claims was that TCVH was injured by First Tuskegee's alleged insistence that TCVH use PJ Construction as the general contractor on the project although PJ Construction was not licensed as a general contractor in Alabama, that PJ Construction's work product was below what one would expect from a properly licensed general contractor, and that using PJ Construction resulted in delays, cost overruns, and, TCVH argued, the ultimate failure of its business. However, because TCVH's claims accrued in approximately July 2005 and TCVH did not formally assert them until after it initiated this action in April 2009, those claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations that governed them. Accordingly, the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of First Tuskegee was affirmed. View "Tender Care Veterinary Hospital, Inc. v. First Tuskegee Bank " on Justia Law

The Alabama Supreme Court consolidated cases that arose out of an action brought by Guy Willis against three defendants: Alaska Bush Adventures, LLC ("Alaska Bush") and Hugh and Ryan Krank (collectively, the defendants). The Kranks are the owners and operators of Alaska Bush, an outfitter that provided guided hunting trips in Alaska. In December 2011, Willis entered into a written contract with Alaska Bush pursuant to which Alaska Bush would lead a guided hunting trip in Alaska. Willis also claimed that he entered into a separate oral contract to hunt black bears during that guided hunting trip. The guided hunting trip took place in September 2012. A few months after the trip, Willis sued the defendants in Alabama seeking damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and suppression. Willis's claims against defendants centered primarily on his allegations that the equipment Alaska Bush provided for the hunting expedition was inadequate in number, unsafe, and inoperable, and he also alleged that he lost hunting time because the defendants were providing services to other hunters who were apparently not included in the guided hunting trip. Willis claimed that he lost most of his personal hunting equipment and had to leave the trip early because he "was caused to be thrown from an improperly repaired, inspected, and/or working motorized boat ...." Willis further alleged that the defendants misrepresented the quantity of wild game that would be available on the hunt. Willis filed an application for the entry of a default judgment against Ryan, and, on the following day, he filed a similar application against Alaska Bush and Hugh. On December 21, 2012, defendants filed an answer to Willis's complaint and an objection to Willis's applications for entry of a default judgment. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion to compel Willis to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement found in the written contract. Defendants then each filed an individual motion to dismiss Willis's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court issued an order denying the defendants' respective motions to dismiss and their motion to compel arbitration. In case no. 1130184, defendants petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to challenge the denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; in case no. 1130231, they appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court concluded after review that defendants were not entitled to mandamus relief on the jurisdiction question, but met their burden in their motion to compel arbitration. View "Willis v. Alaska Bush Adventures, LLC et al." on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration in its dispute with Jerry Neighbors. Neighbors obtained a home loan from Regions in 1999. As part of the loan application, Neighbors executed a dispute-resolution agreement (DRA). In 2008, Neighbors modified the loan. Neighbors denied he signed the loan-modification agreement; he claimed that his signature on that document was forged. The loan-modification agreement also contained an arbitration provision. In 2013, Neighbors sued Regions, alleging that Regions had negligently and wantonly allowed an imposter to forge Neighbors's signature on the loan-modification agreement. Relying on the DRA, Regions moved to compel the arbitration of Neighbors's claims. Neighbors opposed the motion to compel, arguing that because the dispute in this case involved an alleged forgery, the dispute could not be subject to the provisions of the DRA. Neighbors also suggested that the DRA did not cover his claims because, pursuant to the terms of the judgment divorcing him and his wife, he stopped making payments on the original mortgage in 2006 when his ex-wife remarried. Although Neighbors characterized the dispute otherwise, the Supreme Court concluded that the dispute in this case concerned the scope of the DRA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Regions Bank v. Neighbors" on Justia Law

America's Home Place, Inc. ("AHP") appealed a Circuit Court order denying AHP's motion to compel arbitration of the claims brought by the plaintiff below, Gregory Rampey. In August 2012, Rampey and AHP entered into a contract, the terms of which provided that AHP would construct a house for Rampey in Chambers County. AHP constructed the house; however, after he took possession of the house, Rampey began to notice "settlement and sinking of the foundation," which, according to Rampey, resulted in significant structural and other damage to the house. AHP attempted to stabilize the foundation and to repair the damage to the house that had occurred as a result of the unstable foundation; those efforts were unsuccessful. Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying AHP's motion to compel arbitration. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order granting AHP's motion to compel arbitration. View "America's Home Place, Inc. v. Rampey" on Justia Law

In 1999, Cooper and Robert L. Flowers formed C&F Enterprises, LLC. C&F owned a parcel of property in Huntsville, upon which it built a shopping center known as College Plaza. Pursuant to an "Amended and Restated Operating Agreement," MTA, Inc. became a member of C&F. The operating agreement provided that MTA, Flowers, and Cooper each owned a one-third interest in C&F. C&F borrowed $650,000 from the Southern Development Council, Inc. ("SDC"), a community-development program; that debt was memorialized by a promissory note. On the same day, SDC assigned the note to the Small Business Administration ("the SBA"). Cooper and Flowers personally guaranteed the indebtedness owed under the note. A few years later, C&F received a foreclosure letter with respect to the note. Counsel for MTA sent Cooper a letter informing him of MTA's intent to exercise its right of first refusal pursuant to section 16 of the operating agreement. In 2012, MTA filed a complaint against Cooper and Flowers, alleging multiple issues, but of pertinence for this appeal, the complaint alleged a count of contribution and "demand[ed] judgment in [MTA's] favor and against Cooper in the amount of $270,902.00, and Flowers in the amount of $270,902.00." In the alternative, "[MTA] demand[ed] judgment in its favor and against Cooper and Flowers for their individual pro rata contribution shares as determined at trial." Cooper filed a motion to dismiss; the trial court denied the motion. Cooper then answered the complaint. Thereafter, MTA filed a motion for a summary judgment against Cooper and Flowers. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting MTA's summary-judgment motion. Because genuine issues of material fact still remained at the time the trial court granted summary judgment, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in this respect. The trial court's order was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooper v. MTA, Inc." on Justia Law

Jeffrey Wright and Myron Allenstein filed separate complaints against A-1 Exterminating Company, Inc.; Terry Buchanan; Edward Wrenn; and David Wrenn (collectively, "A-1"). In the complaints, plaintiffs alleged that, on the date of the initial termite bonds they were issued, A-1 Exterminating promised to identify and recommend the appropriate services to protect the plaintiffs' houses or property from termites. Plaintiffs stated that in their contract with A-1, plaintiffs had paid for the initial service, the issuance of the termite bond, and annual renewal premiums. During subsequent periodic visits to the subject properties, A-1 sprayed liquids and either represented to plaintiffs or led plaintiffs to believe that those applications were treatments for termites. But in the last two years, A-1 had admitted that the periodic sprays were not to prevent or control termites; and that Buchanan, a State-licensed pest-control operator who worked for A-1 Exterminating, had admitted that the spray was a regular, watered-down pesticide that might only be strong enough to kill ants and possibly spiders. The two complaints included counts alleging fraud, including promissory fraud; breach of warranty; negligence, including negligence per se, and wantonness; breach of contract; and negligent training, supervision, and retention. It also included a request for "equitable relief, including unjust enrichment." The trial court entered an amended protective order in both cases. Plaintiffs then filed petitions for the writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court seeking a rescission. The Supreme Court found the protective orders overbroad: "the trial court should balance its interest in protecting A-1's right to a fair trial against the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Further, any protective order in this regard must be narrowly tailored so that it uses the least restrictive means necessary to protect A-1's right to a fair trial." The Court granted plaintiffs' petitions for mandamus relief, and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "Wright v. A-1 Exterminating Company, Inc., et al." on Justia Law