Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Montgomery County Board of Education (the Board), several of its members, and a teacher in the school system petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacated its order that denied their motion for summary judgment. Third-grade student "S.K." went to the restroom with two friends. Her teacher did not accompany them. S.K. claims that when she attempted to leave the restroom stall, the door jammed. She tried to climb over the door to get out of the stall but slipped and fell, cutting her face on a metal hanger on the back of the door. S.K. (by and through her mother Tetrina Capehart) sued the Board, its members individually and in their official capacities, and the teacher asserting negligence and wantonness claims, and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The Board and teacher argued that there were no genuine issues of fact, and that S.K. was contributorily negligent from "playing" in the restroom. The circuit court denied the Board's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Board demonstrated that under the state constitution, it had absolute immunity from suit for claims asserted against it. The Court granted the Board's petition and issued the writ to direct the circuit court to rule in the Board's favor. View "In re: S.K." on Justia Law

Altaf Virani filed an action against 600, L.L.C. (the LLC), attempting to redeem real property the LLC purchased from the bank that had foreclosed on that property. After a bench trial, the circuit court entered a judgment establishing the amount Virani was required to pay to redeem the property. The LLC appealed, arguing that the amount the judgment required him to pay was incorrect. Because the trial court erred in setting the redemption price under 6-5-253(a), Ala. Code 1975, and in not including interest in the redemption price, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "600, LLC v. Virani " on Justia Law

Respondents James Casey, Sr. and his daughter Julie Toner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss Petitioner Jo Ann Casey's (Julie's mother) petition to remove a guardianship and conservatorship proceeding from probate court to the circuit court. In 2008, Jo Ann filed for divorce. In her petition, Jo Ann alleged that James Sr. had committed domestic violence against her. According to James Sr. and Julie, the divorce proceeding was initiated as the result of undue influence exerted on Jo Ann by James Casey Jr. James Sr. moved to dismiss the divorce on the grounds that the then 74-year-old Jo Ann was mentally incompetent. The domestic-relations court held that James Sr.'s motion was moot, but the record never reflected why. Nevertheless, the court set the divorce for trial. James Sr. moved to have Jo Ann undergo an independent medical examination and for the court to appoint her a guardian ad litem. Jo Ann refused the examination, and moved the probate court to remove the guardianship proceeding to the circuit court. James Sr. and Julie argued on appeal that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to remove the guardianship proceeding when it entered the removal order. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the probate court had not entered an order creating a guardianship or conservatorship for Jo Ann. "Logically, because no guardianship or conservatorship has been created for Jo Ann, there [was] no 'administration or conduct' of such guardianship or conservatorship to be removed from the probate court to the circuit court." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the removal petition and issued the writ. View "Casey v. Casey" on Justia Law

Wright Brothers Construction Company, Inc. and GIBCO Construction petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate its order that denied their motion to transfer their case to another circuit court. In 2008, Rogers Whited was involved in a two-vehicle accident at a quarry located in Jefferson County. Both Whited and the driver of the other vehicle were employed by GIBCO, who, along with Wright Brothers, was engaged in a project at the quarry. In 2010 Whited filed a complaint against Wright Brothers, GIBCO, and Sharon Gilbert, the owner and president of GIBCO, in the Walker Circuit Court seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the accident. In May 2010 Wright Brothers moved to transfer the action to Jefferson County, stating that Whited alleged in his complaint that he was a resident of Blount County, that the accident occurred in Jefferson County, and that therefore Jefferson County, not Walker County, was the proper venue for Whited's action. In June, Whited filed his response in opposition to Wright Brothers' motion, stating that he was a resident of Walker County, not Blount County. Contemporaneously with that response in opposition, Whited also filed an amendment to his complaint stating that his statement that he was a resident of Blount County was a "clerical error." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the proper venue for this case was Jefferson County, and that the trial court had "an imperative duty to transfer the case and refused to do so." Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted Wright Brothers' petition and issued the writ. View "Whited v. Wright Brothers Construction Company, Inc." on Justia Law

John McGee (Jack) appealed the grant of summary judgment and a judgment as a matter of law in favor of his brother Willis McGee individually and in his capacity as executor of their mother Elizabeth's estate. Wills appealed the trial court's denial of his request for attorney fees when his brother contested their mother's will. Shortly after Willis presented the will for probate, Jack filed suit to contest the will. He claimed it was not executed as required by law, Mrs. McGee lacked testamentary capacity, and that the will was the product of undue influence. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Willis on all counts of Jack's complaint except the undue-influence count, which was tried to a jury. However, at the close of Jack's case, the trial court entered a judgment as a matter of law (JML) in favor of Willis on that count, "with leave for [Willis] to prove reasonable costs and fees." Upon careful review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed part, and reversed part of the trial court's decision. The Court found that Jack presented no credible evidence to support any ground upon which he challenged his mother's will. Therefore, the Court concluded the trial court erred in refusing to award Willis fees and costs. The Court remanded the case with regard to an issue of whether Jack converted certain items from his mother's estate prior to her death, but in all other respects, affirmed the trial court's decisions. View "McGee v. McGee" on Justia Law

Now defucnt Galt Industries, its former president, his wife, and a former employees sued Aegis Strategic Investment Corporation and its sole shareholder Mark Heisz, alleging Aegis failed to fulfill certain terms of an asset-purchase agreement. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a judgment awarding Galt $824,000 in damages, and held Aegis jointly and severally liable for those damages. Aegis appealed. Finding that the evidence presented at trial did not support the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Heisz v. Galt Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (JWR) sought a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tuscaloosa County Probate Court to record certain filings without the payment of a recording tax. Walter Energy, JWR's parent company, acquired Western Coal Corporation of Canada. As part of the acquisition, Walter entered into a credit agreement with Morgan Stanley, which required Walter's subsidiaries to execute contingent guaranties of Walter's financing debt in the event Walter defaulted. JWR secured its guaranty of Walter Energy's financing debt by executing mortgages on its real and leasehold properties. Also as part of the credit agreement, JWR was required to record the mortgages in the probate offices in the counties in which the properties were located. When JWR sought to record the mortgages and related UCC filings in Tuscaloosa, the Tuscaloosa County Probate Court refused to record the documents unless JWR paid the recordation tax. The probate judge maintained that there was no statutory requirement that under Alabama law that the debt being secured be the mortgagor's debt, and as such, because JWR was recording its financing statements for Walter's debt, JWR was still responsible for paying the tax. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that JWR's liability was contingent on Walter's default, and JWR's contingent guaranty did not constitute an unqualified promise to pay Walter's indebtedness under the credit agreement. The Court found the contingent guaranty was not within the scope of the applicable statute, and accordingly, the Court granted JWR's petition and issued the writ. View "Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. McCollum" on Justia Law

Retired district judge M. John Steensland, Jr. appealed a judgment of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ) that publicly censured him for misconduct that preceeded his retirement. In 2008, Judge Steensland had begun to serve a six-year term when the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) began an investigation based on complaints of his courtroom conduct and demeanor filed by several parties that had come before the judge in prior cases. In 2010 while the JIC's investigation was ongoing, the Judge voluntarily retired from office. On appeal, Judge Steensland did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or the nature of the discipline imposed. He merely renewed the grounds he originally asserted in his motion to dismiss the complaint: the absence of jurisdiction and the application of the doctrine of condonation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the COJ did not err in entering its judgment against Judge Steensland, and accordingly affirmed that decision. View "Steensland, Jr. v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Claudia Dabbieri filed a complaint at the Perry County circuit court naming Donald Wease, Alabama Cable and Fiber Repair, PDQ CATV, Inc., City Boy's Tire and Brake, Inc. (CBT), Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, and several fictitiously entities as defendants, asserting claims arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. CBT moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied that motion, and CBT petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to grant CBT's motion to dismiss. CBT is a Florida company, but operates a shop in Perry County. Plaintiff was driving a truck owned by Wease. Wease and Alabama Cable had all four tires on the van replaced. Plaintiff brought the van to CBT to replace the tires. Shortly thereafter, one of the tires failed, causing the van to leave the road and roll. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries. Later investigation would reveal that the tire failure was probably caused by tread separation which might have been caused by the improper sizing of the tires on the van. Finding that there was "limited evidence" that gave no indication that CBT "purposefully availed" itself of the protection of Alabama law, the Supreme Court granted CBT's petition and issued the writ. View "Dabbieri v. City Boy's Tire & Brake, Inc." on Justia Law

Harry and Bettye Coughlin appealed a circuit court's judgment dismissing Sheriff Mike Hale from an action they filed against him and several others. In 2008, the Coughlins sued Hale, among others, seeking money damages for numerous claims arising out of an ongoing dispute between the Coughlins and their neighbors. Hale moved to dismiss, arguing the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over them based on sovereign immunity. The circuit court entered its final judgment in 2010 disposing of all remaining claims against all remaining parties. Four days after that final judgment, the Coughlins filed a postjudgment motion, which the circuit court denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Coughlins filed their notice of appeal more than two years after the judgment they were appealing had been entered. The Court concluded that this was an untimely filing and dismissed the appeal. View "Coughlin v. Hale " on Justia Law