Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In this case, Richard Mullen and Cheryl Mullen petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to transfer their case to the Walker Circuit Court. The case at hand arises from a dispute between the Mullens and Karl Leo and Fay Leo, who purchased a parcel of property from the Mullens in Walker County. The Leos alleged that the Mullens, unlicensed homebuilders, sold them a residence with multiple latent defects and refused to remedy these defects. The Leos filed a suit against the Mullens in the Jefferson Circuit Court, where the Mullens resided, claiming breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud, negligence, and fraudulent suppression.The Mullens sought dismissal or transfer of the case to Walker County, arguing that as the property in question was located there, it was the appropriate venue. The Jefferson Circuit Court, however, denied their motion. The Mullens then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing that Walker County was the proper venue due to the location of the property and the Leos' request for equitable relief in their complaint.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the Mullens' petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court found that the property sold by the Mullens to the Leos in Walker County was the "subject matter" of the action within the meaning of Rule 82(b)(1)(B). Therefore, the Court directed the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order denying the Mullens' motion to transfer the action and to transfer the case to the Walker Circuit Court. View "Ex parte Mullen" on Justia Law

This case involved an appeal by John William Riley against a judgment by the Autauga Circuit Court, Alabama. The judgment declared that Kenneth R. Boles had an easement by prescription across a road on Riley's property. Riley's property is a 25-acre parcel located in Autauga County, and the road in dispute leads back to the property owned by Boles. Boles sought to establish that he and his predecessors in title had used the road adversely to Riley for more than 20 years, a requirement for establishing a prescriptive easement under Alabama law.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's order denying Riley's motion to dismiss the case, on the grounds that the dispute between the parties constituted a justiciable controversy. However, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's declaration in favor of Boles. The court found that Boles had not established a prescriptive easement across Riley's property.Boles had relied on the use of the road by a friend and hunting partner, Edmondson, to establish a continuous 20-year period of adverse use. However, Edmondson was not a predecessor in title to Boles and had no title to any relevant real-property interest that he could have transferred to Boles. Thus, the court ruled that the relationship between Edmondson and Boles did not satisfy the legal requirement for "tacking" the periods of use to establish a prescriptive easement. Hence, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's declaration that Boles had established a prescriptive easement across Riley's property. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Riley v. Boles" on Justia Law

In Alabama, RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC contracted Construction Services LLC, d/b/a MCA Construction, Inc. ("MCA") to build infrastructure for a proposed housing subdivision. The relationship between the two parties deteriorated, leading to a lawsuit by RAM-Robertsdale against MCA for various claims including breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, among others. MCA counterclaimed and also filed third-party claims against Retail Specialists, LLC, a member of RAM-Robertsdale, and Rodney Barstein, a corporate officer for Retail Specialists and RAM-Robertsdale, for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and defamation. The RAM defendants moved for summary judgment on MCA's counterclaims and third-party claims, arguing that MCA was not properly licensed when it signed the contract, thus making the contract void for public policy. The circuit court granted the RAM defendants' motion for summary judgment and certified its judgment as final.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama found that the circuit court had exceeded its discretion in certifying its judgment as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., because the claims pending below and those on appeal were closely intertwined, arising from the same contract and the parties' performance under that contract. The Court noted that if the contract was indeed void for public policy, then neither party would be able to enforce it, impacting the remaining claims pending in the circuit court. As the Court found that deciding the issues at this stage would create an intolerable risk of inconsistent results, it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Construction Services, LLC v. RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case before the Supreme Court of Alabama, the plaintiffs were the children of Robert Crum Jr., who was killed when the concrete truck he was driving overturned due to a tire failure. The tire was a 10-year-old Hankook AH10 tire, and the plaintiffs sued the companies that allegedly designed, manufactured, and distributed the tire, Hankook Tire America Corporation and Hankook Tire & Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hankook"). The plaintiffs alleged that the tire was defective and caused the accident. They sought to depose Hankook's designated corporate representative, Won Yong Choi, and claimed that he provided evasive answers or did not answer at all. They also alleged that Hankook's attorney consistently interrupted the deposition, objected to questions, and instructed Choi not to answer. As a result, the plaintiffs moved the trial court to impose sanctions against Hankook.The trial court granted the motion and imposed sanctions that included prohibiting Hankook from having any corporate representative give testimony at trial that went beyond Choi's deposition testimony, barring Hankook from disputing at trial that the failed tire was defective, and striking 10 of Hankook's affirmative defenses. The trial court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence of the attorneys' fees and costs they had incurred in preparing for and taking Choi's deposition. After they did so, the trial court entered an order awarding the plaintiffs $66,550 in attorneys' fees.Hankook petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to direct the trial court to vacate the sanctions order and the fee order. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition, holding that the sanctions imposed by the trial court were not authorized by Rule 37(d) because Choi did not fail to appear for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Therefore, the court directed the trial court to vacate both its initial order sanctioning Hankook and its later order imposing a monetary sanction. View "Ex parte Hankook Tire America Corporation PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered an appeal by David C. Milton, Kelly O. Milton, and two associated entities, Southeastern Land Group, Inc., and Pinhoti Ridge Retreat, LLC, collectively referred to as "the defendants". The defendants appealed a preliminary injunction entered by the Talladega Circuit Court which required them to remove two gates they had erected across a road they claimed as private. The injunction was requested by plaintiffs Anthony D. Haywood and Sammy K. Gallman, who claimed that the public, including themselves, had used the road for many years to access County Road 600-2 and trails in Talladega National Forest. The trial court granted the injunction without requiring the plaintiffs to give security for costs, damages, or attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the trial court erred in not requiring the plaintiffs to give security upon the issuance of the preliminary injunction. The court noted that under Rule 65(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., the giving of security by the applicant is mandatory unless a valid exception applies. The court found that the trial court's determination that this case was of "great public concern" was not supported by the evidence and therefore did not constitute a valid exception to the security requirement. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Milton v. Haywood" on Justia Law

In a dispute involving the foreclosure of a home, the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the decisions of the lower court in favor of the purchasers of the foreclosed property and the mortgagee. The original homeowners, the Littlefields, defaulted on their mortgage payments and the property was subsequently foreclosed on by Planet Home Lending, LLC ("Planet"), and then sold to Terry Daniel Smith and Staci Herring Smith. The Littlefields refused to vacate the property, leading the Smiths to initiate an ejectment action against them. The Littlefields responded with counterclaims against the Smiths and Planet, arguing that the foreclosure was void because Planet had failed to comply with the mortgage's notice requirements. The Supreme Court of Alabama rejected the Littlefields' arguments, holding that any alleged noncompliance with the notice requirements would have rendered the foreclosure voidable, not void. The court concluded that because the Littlefields did not challenge the foreclosure before the property was sold to the Smiths, who were considered bona fide purchasers, the foreclosure could not be set aside. The court also noted that the Littlefields failed to challenge other rulings related to their counterclaims against Planet and their forfeiture of redemption rights, leading to these aspects of the lower court's judgment being affirmed as well. View "Littlefield v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Alabama has reversed an order by the Dale Circuit Court, which held Omni Healthcare Financial, LLC in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena. This case arose from claims asserted by Amy Lee Walker against Eric Irvin Reese and SCP Distributors, LLC, following an automobile collision. Omni, a North Carolina-based factoring company, had purchased certain accounts receivable from a medical provider who had treated Walker. The accounts receivable are secured by an interest in any recovery that Walker obtains from her lawsuit against the defendants. The defendants had served a nonparty subpoena on Omni's registered agent in Alabama, seeking certain documents. Omni later responded with some documents but also asserted objections to the subpoena. The defendants then filed a motion asking the circuit court to hold Omni in contempt of court for failing to comply with the subpoena. The circuit court granted this motion, leading to Omni's appeal. The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial court erred by holding Omni in contempt, as the subpoena was invalid. It was determined that the subpoena seeking documents located in North Carolina needed to be issued by a North Carolina court and served in accordance with North Carolina law. As the defendants had not asked a North Carolina court to direct Omni to produce the documents, they had not complied with the requirements to hold Omni in contempt. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Omni Healthcare Financial, LLC" on Justia Law

In Alabama, an attorney was representing three individuals, Charles, John, and Linda Evans, in relation to a car accident. Following the accident, Charles was taken to Shelby Baptist Medical Center and discharged. He subsequently collapsed at home and died. The attorney filed a complaint asserting medical malpractice, negligence, wantonness, and recklessness on behalf of John as next friend of Charles. Eventually, an insurance company provided a settlement check and a general release relating to Charles. However, this check was signed by John and not Charles' personal representative, Bowers, who had been appointed after Charles' death. The trial court ruled that the settlement was binding on Bowers, and all claims against the defendants were dismissed.Bowers appealed, and the Supreme Court of Alabama partially reversed the trial court's decision. It ruled that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the malpractice defendants without a motion from them and without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the attorney had express or apparent authority to settle the wrongful-death claim against Short. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Short with respect to John's and Linda's individual claims. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Bowers v. BBH SBMC, LLC" on Justia Law

The circuit court entered a judgment on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Wayne Fagerstrom, individually and as the administrator of the estate of Sylvia Fagerstrom, deceased. The defendants were Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center ("MIMC") and Gulf Health Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Thomas Hospital. Defendants argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying their renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence, in which they asserted that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence demonstrating that the proximate cause of Sylvia's death was sepsis resulting from an infected pressure ulcer allegedly caused by the defendants' breaches of the standard of care. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed with defendants and reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Mobile Infirmary Association v. Fagerstrom" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Octavi Perez appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Roman’s Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Roman’s Night Club, on claims for damages under Alabama’s Dram Shop Act. In July 2019, 18-year-old Edgar Perez had been a patron of the nightclub and was killed when the vehicle he was driving left the roadway and hit a tree. An autopsy indicated Edgar was intoxicated at the time of his death. Plaintiff filed suit against Roman’s alleging it served alcoholic beverages to a minor, and Edgar’s subsequent intoxication precipitated Edgar’s death. Roman’s moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that: (1) Plainitff lacked standing to sue on Edgar’s behalf because Plaintiff was neither Edgar’s parent nor stood in loco parentis; and (2) Plaintiff could not maintain an action under the Dram Shop Act because plaintiff had not been “injured in person, property or means of support.” The court record reflected Plaintiff was Edgar’s uncle, and Edgar contributed to the household expenses in the apartment he shared with Plaintiff and his father, Rigoberto Perez. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in Roman’s favor and affirmed. View "Perez v. Roman's Restaurant, L.L.C." on Justia Law