Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

S & M, LLC, d/b/a Huntsville Cab Company ("Huntsville Cab"), petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review of a decision of the Court of Civil Appeals which affirmed a judgment in favor of Kevin Burchel, as personal representative of the estate of Roy William Burchel on Huntsville Cab's claim against the estate damages for loss of use of a commercial vehicle. The issue before the Court was whether the measure-of-damages rule set forth in "Hunt v. Ward," (79 So. 2d 20 (1955)), was consistent with the purpose of compensatory damages, which is "'to make the plaintiff whole by reimbursing him or her for the loss or harm suffered.'" Because the Court concluded that the rule stated in "Hunt" was not consistent with this purpose, the Court modified the rule, reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "S & M, LLC v. Burchel " on Justia Law

The Housing Authority of the Birmingham District ("HABD") appealed the judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court which awarded Logan Properties, Inc., $350,000 on its inverse condemnation claim against HABD, as well as an additional $100,000 for litigation expenses, and awarding the intervening plaintiff Alamerica Bank $10,000 for litigation expenses. Logan Properties is a real-estate and property-management company that purchases, renovates, rents, and maintains single-family and multi-family residences. In January 2002, Logan Properties purchased "Patio Court," a 30-unit apartment complex for approximately $101,000. Logan Properties began renovating the vacant units in the complex with the plan of transferring current tenants into the newly renovated units until the entire complex was eventually renovated and leased. Logan Properties financed the purchase and rehabilitation of Patio Court by obtaining a construction loan from Alamerica Bank. In February 2003, Logan Properties obtained an adjacent parcel of property including a triplex unit with the same goal of renovating and leasing the units. Sometime in 2004, Logan Properties learned that HABD had obtained a federal grant to redevelop "Tuxedo Court," a multi- block public-housing complex located across the street from Patio Court. That project entailed the demolition of the existing Tuxedo Court housing complex and the construction of new housing in its place. After the plans for the Tuxedo Court project were made public, tenants started leaving Patio Court, telling Logan Properties that HABD was going to condemn Patio Court as part of the project. As residents in Tuxedo Court left as well, the general area deteriorated, and the vacant Patio Court apartments became the subject of theft and vandalism. Though Logan Properties had completely renovated 18 of the units, it eventually stopped renovation work, and, at trial conceded that the entire property had become unlivable. The parties tried to negotiate salvaging the area, but Patio continued to deteriorate. HABD subsequently initiated condemnation proceedings, and simultaneously filed a lis pendens notice on the properties. The probate court granted HABD's application for condemnation and appointed three disinterested commissioners to determine the compensation due Logan Properties for the condemnation of its property. The probate court failed to enter an order adopting the commissioners' report within a seven-day period required by statute and Logan Properties moved for a dismissal of the condemnation action. The probate court granted that motion and dismissed the action. Logan Properties then initiated an inverse-condemnation action against HABD, alleging that HABD had taken or injured property owned by Logan Properties. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that because no evidence was presented at trial indicating that HABD was responsible for a direct physical injury upon Logan Properties' property, that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to enter a judgment as a matter of law in favor of HABD. View "Housing Authority of the Birmingham District v. Logan Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

A.G. and K.G. ("the paternal grandparents") appealed a juvenile court judgment denying their petition that alleged dependency as to A.L.G. ("the child") without holding an evidentiary hearing. "The fact that a divorce proceeding, at which custody will be determined, is pending and that a trial date for that proceeding has been set does not confer jurisdiction on the circuit court to determine allegations of dependency because the juvenile court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings in which a child is alleged to be dependent." Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court and remanded the case for the juvenile court to vacate its judgment denying the dependency petition, to reinstate the paternal grandparents' dependency petition, and to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petition. View "A.G. and K.G. v. Ka.G. and N.G. " on Justia Law

Jeff Snider ("Jeff"), as administrator of the estate of Thelma June Smith Snider, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his complaint against Marquita S. Morgan ("Morgan"), both as executrix of the estate of Troy Ray Snider and on behalf of the estate of Harold Snider and First Bank of Boaz for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The matter stemmed from accusations over the execution of a power of attorney, the "seizure" of the decedents' estates and the repayment of loans from the estates. Upon review of the lower court's record, the Supreme Court affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Jeff's claim against Troy's estate for money had and received (count IV) and the portion of count III representing Jeff's unjust-enrichment claim against Harold's estate. The trial court's judgment of dismissal of the remaining counts, however, were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Snider v. Morgan" on Justia Law

John Earl Brandon ("father") petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court to transfer the portion of a custody-modification action filed by Carolyn Anne Brandon ("mother") involving the parties' minor son to the Pickens Circuit Court. In June 2012, the mother petitioned the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court for emergency relief to enforce her right to five weeks of summer visitation with the minor son, as provided in the agreement; to hold the father in contempt for violating visitation orders; and to modify postminority-support provisions of the agreement by transferring control of funds for the older daughter's postsecondary education to the mother. The father answered the petition, filed a counterpetition seeking to hold the mother in contempt and seeking clarification of court orders regarding postsecondary educational costs for the older daughter, and moved to transfer to the Pickens Circuit Court all issues in the mother's petition that related to the minor son. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the father demonstrated a clear legal right to select the venue for adjudication of the claims pertaining to his son, and the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court was without discretion to deny his choice. The Court issued the writ and remanded the case to the Tuscaloosa court to vacate its order denying the father's motion to transfer the claims related to the minor son and to enter an order transferring those claims to the Pickens Circuit Court. View "Brandon v. Brandon" on Justia Law

James Stanley Wilbanks appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of United Refractories, Inc. ("United"), a company supplying equipment used in the repair of coke-oven batteries, in Wilbanks's action against United seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained from an explosion involving a ceramic welding machine supplied to Wilbanks's employer by United. On the day of the accident, Wilbanks was a member of a three-person welding team engaged in the process of repairing a coke oven. However, as he attempted to remove a powder hose from the mixing chamber, an explosion occurred, causing the loss of his left hand and burns to other portions of his body. Wilbanks sued United alleging that Wilbanks was injured as the result of the "fail[ure]" of "the subject equipment" and that United had "negligently and/or wantonly fail[ed] to properly inspect and maintain the subject equipment and its component parts." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Wilbanks failed to produce evidence of any causal relationship between his injuries and any alleged acts or omissions of United. "United's summary-judgment motion was due to be granted. The judgment entered for United is, therefore, affirmed." View "Wilbanks v. United Refractories, Inc. " on Justia Law

SSC Selma Operating Company, LLC, doing business as Warren Manor Health & Rehabilitation Center ("SSC"), and Bernard Turk, the administrator of Warren Manor Health & Rehabilitation Center ("Warren Manor") (referred to collectively as "the Warren Manor defendants"), appealed a circuit court judgment denying their joint motion to compel arbitration of the medical-malpractice wrongful-death claims asserted against them by Ethel Gordon ("Gordon"), the administratrix of the estate of Jimmy Lee Gordon, Gordon's husband, pursuant to an arbitration agreement they allege Gordon had entered into with SSC. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the circuit court properly denied the Warren Manor defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Gordon's claims against them because the trial court had yet to conduct a trial to resolve the issue identified by the Supreme Court in "Gordon I" — whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between Gordon and SSC. "Only if that issue is answered in the affirmative may the Warren Manor defendants properly move to compel arbitration. If that trial results in a judgment holding that there is no valid arbitration agreement, then the Warren Manor defendants may file a timely appeal challenging the trial court's ruling excluding any evidence they wished to submit at trial." View "SSC Selma Operating Company, LLC v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Southeast Construction, L.L.C. ("SEC") appealed a circuit court's judgment and WAR Construction, Inc. ("WAR") filed a cross-appeal (which was treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus). The matter came before the Supreme Court following the appeal of the entry of the arbitration panel's ruling on the parties' respective construction contract claims. The decision resulted in a net award to WAR of $373,929. SEC filed a motion for modification of the award. WAR responded with a "Motion for Clerk's Entry of Arbitration Award as Final Judgment" pursuant to Rule 71C, Ala. R. Civ. P. The circuit court entered an order in which it declined to have the award entered as a judgment at that time. Eventually the court did enter an order based upon the arbitration award, and the parties appealed. "Given the nature of the award made by the arbitrators in this case and the nature of the resulting judgment the circuit court properly ordered the clerk to enter, it is apparent that the circuit court must take some additional responsibility for enforcing that award and the resulting judgment. To the extent WAR complain[ed] in its petition of the circuit court's reluctance to do so, [the Supreme Court agreed] with WAR" and, accordingly, ordered the circuit court to take appropriate action to enforce the judgment it has entered based upon the arbitrators' award. View "Southeast Construction, L.L.C. v. WAR Construction, Inc. " on Justia Law

Anthony Ray Hinton petitioned the Jefferson Circuit Court for relief under Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., arguing that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to provide a qualified expert in his defense at his capital-murder trial. The circuit court denied Hinton's Rule 32 petition on the basis that Andrew Payne, the expert retained by defense counsel, was qualified to testify as a firearms-identification expert at Hinton's trial. Hinton appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals; the Court of Criminal Appeals, after remanding twice for the circuit court to address the issue, affirmed the circuit court's denial of Hinton's petition. Hinton then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did indeed base its determination that Payne was qualified to testify as an expert upon the "cold trial record." As a result, it was in no better position than was an appellate court to make the determination it made. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for it to apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing the circuit court's judgment that Payne was qualified to testify as a firearms-identification expert. View "Hinton v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, ("T&C"), appealed a summary judgment in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company which held that Amerisure was not obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of T&C and against Amerisure's insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, because, the trial court reasoned, the faulty construction of the T&C facility upon which the judgment was based was not an "occurrence" covered under the commercial general-liability ("CGL") insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. In October 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment entered by the trial court, agreeing that faulty construction did not in and of itself constitute an occurrence for CGL-policy purposes and that, accordingly, "Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams for the judgment entered against it insofar as the damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty work." However, the Court further recognized that if damages had been awarded T&C to compensate it for damage the faulty construction later caused to personal property or some otherwise nondefective portion of the T&C property, then "[t]hose damages would constitute 'property damage' resulting from an 'occurrence,' and they would be covered under the terms of the Amerisure policy ...." Upon a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that on remand, a $392,600 judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. The order ultimately entered by the trial court failed to specifically identify any personal property or nondefective portions of the T&C facility that were damaged as a result of the faulty construction. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered by the trial court on remand, and remanded the case once again to the trial court so that it could enter a final judgment in favor of T&C for $600. View "Town & Country Property, L.L.C. v. Amerisure Insurance Company" on Justia Law