Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Amanda Holderfield was convicted of second-degree assault. She was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment; that sentence was suspended, and Holderfield was ordered to serve 3 years' supervised probation, to undergo mental-health treatment and substance-abuse treatment, to pay $100 to the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Fund, and to pay restitution of $2,219.99 to the "City of Gardendale Municipal Works Comp Fund." Holderfield filed a "Motion to Set Aside Order of Restitution and Request Hearing," which the circuit court later denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Holderfield's appeal, without an opinion. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether a motion to modify or set aside a restitution order in a criminal case should be treated as a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1, Ala. R. Crim. P., with regard to tolling the time for taking an appeal. After review, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing the appeal in this case as untimely, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ex parte Amanda Holderfield." on Justia Law

D.W. and J.B. were married on January 25, 2011, and divorced over a year and a half later (June 14, 2012). Testimony at trial indicated that a child was conceived in late September or early October 2012, and born on June 17, 2013. J.B. did not disclose the identity of the child's biological father at delivery. D.W. did not register his intent to claim paternity of the child, pursuant to the Alabama Putative Father Registry Act ("PFRA"). Immediately after the birth of the child, J.B. placed the child for adoption. On June 19, 2013, the adoptive parents filed a petition in the probate court seeking to adopt the child. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the adoptive parents informed the probate court that J.B. and D.W. had applied for a marriage license a few months before the child's birth and that "[t]he natural mother's ex-husband [D.W.] will need to be served with a petitioner's notice of hearing because there is concern that [D.W. and J.B.] may have [been] married" when the child was born. D.W. received notice of the impending adoption, and intervened to stop it. The adoptive parents moved to dismiss D.W.'s adoption contest on the ground that he had failed to register pursuant to the PFRA before or within 30 days of the child's birth. Summary judgment was denied, and trial proceeded on whether D.W. and J.B. were common-law married in June 2013 when the child was born. The probate court ultimately found that D.W. and J.B. were not common-law married at the time the child was born. D.W. appealed the probate court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals. In a two-judge opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the probate court's judgment in part; reversed it in part; and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court determined that D.W. preserved for appellate review his contention that "he had demonstrated the requisite commitment to fatherhood before the birth of the child such that he retained a constitutional right to object to the adoption of the child by [the adoptive parents] regardless of the operation of the PFRA or the AAC [Alabama Adoption Code]," and that remand was required for the probate court to determine "whether [D.W.] had grasped his constitutionally protected 'opportunity interest' by his prebirth conduct toward [J.B.] and the child and his postbirth actions to protect his legal relationship with the child." The Supreme Court rejected that D.W. preserved his constitutional argument, and reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision. View "Ex parte J.W.B. and J.J.B." on Justia Law

Juakeishia Pruitt filed a legal-malpractice claim against Bobby Cockrell, Jr., and Cockrell & Cockrell ("the Cockrell law firm"). Cockrell appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Pruitt. The claims in this case arose from Byron House's representation of Pruitt from late 2000 until January 2012. House worked as an associate with the Cockrell law firm from September 1995 until January 2012. This case involved House's handling of Pruitt's claims with regard to four separate causes of action: Pruitt's discrimination and breach-of-contract claims against Stillman College; Pruitt's sexual-discrimination claims against her employer Averitt/i3; Pruitt's claims against Gwendolyn Oyler arising from an automobile accident; and Pruitt's breach-of-contract claims against A+ Photography. After the statute of limitations had run on Pruitt's underlying claims against Stillman College, Averitt/i3, and Oyler, House made intentional misrepresentations to Pruitt regarding the status of those cases. House also made intentional representations regarding the status of Pruitt's case against A+ Photography. Additionally, House continued to make such representations regarding the status of Pruitt's cases against Stillman College and Averitt/i3 until well after the time any legal-malpractice case against him would have been barred by the applicable statute of repose. "A fraud committed by an attorney that defrauds the attorney's client as to the status of the client's underlying claim is actionable under the ALSLA separate and apart from the attorney's failure to timely file a complaint on the underlying claim." Therefore, Alabama Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly denied the Cockrell defendants' motion for a summary judgment as to the malpractice claims alleging that the Cockrell defendants were vicariously liable for fraudulent misrepresentations House made to Pruitt to conceal the existence of an underlying legal-malpractice claim. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "Cockrell v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

Petitioners Interstate Freight USA, Inc., Interstate Specialized, Inc., Interstate Freight, Inc. (collectively referred to as "the Interstate companies"), Charles Browning, and Donald Raughton, Sr., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Baldwin Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion to transfer the underlying action to the St. Clair Circuit Court and to enter an order granting the motion. The plaintiff in the underlying action, Kevin Vogler, was hired as a vice president/general manager for Interstate Specialized and Interstate Freight USA. Vogler sued, alleging that: in December 2013, he was working for another company and had become interested in acquiring the transportation branch of the Interstate companies; that he had entered into negotiations with Browning, the president of Interstate Freight USA and Interstate Specialized, and Raughton, a business consultant for the Interstate companies; that Browning and Raughton were acting on behalf of the Interstate companies; that the parties had agreed that "Vogler could acquire a minority interest in the trucking business over a two year period and, after two years of employment with the Interstate companies, would have the option of buying out the interest of Defendant Browning"; that Browning and Raughton had made representations to him regarding his salary and benefits; and that, based on those representations, Vogler left his previous employment and entered into separate employment contracts with Interstate Specialized and Interstate Freight USA. In early 2014, however, the businesses were shut down for "financial reasons," and Vogler's position was terminated. Petitioners moved to dismiss Vogler's complaint, or in the alternative, for a change of venue. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Baldwin County was the proper venue, but that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion for change of venue on the "interest-of-justice" prong of the forum non conveniens statute. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to transfer this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court. View "Ex parte Interstate Freight USA, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Florian Hinrichs was riding in the front passenger seat of a 2004 GMC Sierra 1500 pickup truck that was owned and operated by his friend Daniel Vinson when they were involved in a motor-vehicle accident. Kenneth Smith was driving under the influence of alcohol and ran a stop sign, colliding with the passenger-side door of the Sierra. The Sierra rolled over twice, but landed on its wheels. Hinrichs suffered a spinal cord injury in the accident that left him a quadriplegic. The accident occurred in Geneva County. Hinrichs alleged that his injuries were caused by the defective design of the roof of the Sierra that allowed the roof over the passenger compartment to collapse during the rollover and by the defective design of the seat belt in the Sierra, which failed to restrain him. At the time of the accident, Hinrichs, a German citizen, was a member of the German military; he had been assigned to Fort Rucker for flight training. He and Vinson were in the same training program. Vinson had purchased the Sierra at Hill Buick, Inc., d/b/a O'Reilly Pontiac-Buick-GMC and/or Hill Pontiac-Buick-GMC in Pennsylvania in 2003. He drove it to Alabama in 2006 when he was assigned to Fort Rucker. General Motors Corporation, known as Motors Liquidation Company after July 9, 2009 ("GM"), designed the Sierra. GM Canada, whose principal place of business was in Ontario, Canada, manufactured certain parts of the Sierra, assembled the vehicle, and sold it to GM in Canada, where title transferred. GM then distributed the Sierra for sale in the United States through a GM dealer. The Sierra ultimately was delivered to the O'Reilly dealership for sale. Finding that the trial court properly concluded it lacked general nor specific jurisdiction over GM Canada, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of GM Canada from this case. View "Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd." on Justia Law

Kevin Kendrick, as director of compliance at Alabama State University (ASU), appealed the grant of summary judgment ordering him to provide The Advertiser Company d/b/a The Montgomery Advertiser ("the Advertiser") with redacted copies of each "request for reduction/cancellation of athletic financial aid" form submitted to the director involving the ASU football program since December 15, 2014. A reporter for the Advertiser initially sent a written request for the forms to the school's media relations director spoke. The media relations director to the reporter by telephone, advising the reporter that because the forms contained sensitive personal student information, the forms would be heavily redacted. The reporter emailed the media relations director stating that he would "take just the list of names of players whose scholarships have been revoked since December [2014]." Later that day, the media relations director, under advice of university counsel, informed the reporter he could not even provide a list of names, citing privacy concerns under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Legal counsel for the Advertiser and legal counsel for ASU exchanged correspondence regarding whether the financial aid forms were subject to disclosure. When the parties could not agree, the Advertiser filed a declaratory judgment suit and petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the records' disclosure. The Supreme Court, after review, reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment: "We commend the trial court for its efforts to comply with both FERPA and the Open Records Act by requiring ASU to redact the requested financial-aid forms in the manner it directed. However, the release of the redacted financial-aid forms to the Advertiser would nonetheless disclose information that is protected by FERPA, and the Advertiser did not argue that the release of the redacted financial-aid forms is authorized by any other exception in FERPA. Because FERPA prohibits the very release of the redacted financial-aid forms and because FERPA takes precedence over the Open Records Act, the director is entitled to a summary judgment." View "Kendrick v. The Advertiser Company" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over who was the proper beneficiary of an individual retirement account ("IRA") owned by decedent Edward F. Dees, Sr. ("Dees"). Timothy Dees, Edward Dees, Jr., and Donna Dees Maddox, Dees's adult children, appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Dees's surviving spouse, Martha Lafaye Dees. Martha cross-appealed the dismissal of her claims against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, the financial-services firm that managed the IRA. The children argued that it was their father's intent to pass the funds in the IRA to his natural children. They contended that, because no copy of a signed IRA agreement had been produced, there was no evidence indicating that Dees had assented to any default-beneficiary provision. Thus, they argued, the funds in the IRA should have passed through Dees's estate. In her cross-motion for a summary judgment, Martha argued that the default-beneficiary provisions of the IRA agreement applied. Specifically, she argued that, even if Dees had originally executed a beneficiary-designation form naming the children as contingent beneficiaries, there was uncontradicted evidence that Dees had executed a new beneficiary-designation form naming her as the sole beneficiary. The trial court concluded that neither side had established that Dees had provided Morgan Stanley with a beneficiary-designation form and that, therefore, the default provisions of the IRA agreement applied. Thus, in accordance with those provisions, the trial court ordered Morgan Stanley to distribute the proceeds of the IRA to Martha. The court dismissed all remaining claims sua sponte, including Martha's tort claims against Morgan Stanley. After review of the trial court record, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded there were "a myriad" of genuine issues of material fact that made summary judgment improper in this case. As such, summary judgment granted to Martha was reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Dees v. Dees" on Justia Law

Defendant Alfa Mutual Insurance Company petitioned for mandamus relief when a circuit court denied its motion to strike an amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ronald and Mary Land on a dispute between the parties on a dispute arising out of a farm-owner's policy insurance issued to the Langs by Alfa. The matter was set for trial and was continued on at least four occasions. Thereafter, in connection with further discovery efforts by the Langs, Alfa asked whether the Langs intended to amend their original complaint and allegedly received no response from the Langs' attorney. Almost exactly two years from the filing date of their original complaint, the Langs filed an amended complaint, which added a fictitiously named defendant identified as the party "whose responsibility it was to inspect the property of the Langs, to insure their farm policy provide[d] adequate coverage and/or that the Langs were not paying for insurance to property which they did not own." The Langs' complaint, as amended, added new counts asserting negligence and fraudulent/reckless misrepresentation and an additional breach-of-contract claim. Alfa moved to strike the amended complaint on numerous grounds. The Supreme Court granted Alfa's application and issued the writ, finding that the Langs failed to demonstrate good cause ("or, in fact, any cause") for the excessive delay in amending their complaint when they knew or should have known of the claims before or at the time they filed their original complaint. "Further, the claims were actually suggested by Alfa's counsel." At the time the Langs filed their amendment, the case had been set for trial on several occasions, and the amendment would unduly prejudice Alfa, who, as a result of the Langs' excessive delay, could not fully and fairly defend against the claims added by the amendment because a key witness had died.The trial court exceeded its discretion in allowing the Langs to amend their complaint so near the trial date in order to add claims based on facts that were or ought to have been known to the Langs well prior to that date. View "Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Company." on Justia Law

Sabrina Jackson, as the administratrix of the estate of Tony Lewis, Jr., deceased, filed a verified petition requesting preaction discovery from defendants the City of Montgomery ("the City") and QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care ("Quality"). Lewis was being held in the Montgomery municipal jail when he died unexpectedly on the night of January 12, 2015, or the early morning hours of January 13, 2015. Petitioner believed jail authorities and health care personnel were negligent and deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Lewis, and thereby denied him treatment needed to save his life, if said treatment had been administered promptly. The petition also alleged that Lewis was given some medication by the health care personnel, which may have caused him to stop breathing, and that this act "may have amounted to negligent malpractice and/or deliberate indifference." The circuit court granted the preaction discovery petition, but the defendants applied for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court granted the petitions and issued the writs, finding that Jackson could not establish that she was unable to bring an action or that preaction discovery was necessary to preserve evidence in her case. View "Ex parte QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care." on Justia Law

Defendant Kelly Lucas applied for mandamus relief, requesting that the Alabama Supreme Court direct Shelby Circuit Court to vacate its December 7, 2015, order denying her motion for a summary judgment and to grant the motion. This application arose out of the court case surrounding two related automobile accidents in 2011: in the first, Megan Gragg failed to stop her vehicle and allowed the front bumper of her vehicle to collide with the rear bumper of Diana McKee's vehicle. Shortly thereafter, in the second accident, Lucas failed to stop her vehicle and allowed the front bumper of her vehicle to collide with the rear bumper of Gragg's vehicle, which then collided with the rear bumper of McKee's vehicle a second time. All three drivers spoke with the law enforcement officer who responded after the accidents, and the officer later completed two accident reports. McKee sued Gragg, alleging negligence and wantonness in connection with the accidents. Lucas filed an answer to the amended complaint. She denied McKee's allegations and also asserted affirmative defenses, including the expiration of the statute of limitations. After review of the trial court record, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Lucas met her burden for mandamus relief, and that the Circuit Court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. The Court therefore granted Lucas' application and issued the writ. The Circuit Court was directed to vacate its order and enter summary judgment in Lucas' favor. View "Ex parte Kelly Martin Lucas." on Justia Law