Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Eleanor Williams appealed a probate court order denying her request for redemption of certain real property. In 2003, the State purchased property located in Birmingham ("the property") at a tax sale after the then owners, Benjamin and Marzella Rosser, failed to pay ad valorem taxes. The State sold the property in 2016 for $1,000 to Waynew Global Holdings, LLC ("WGH"). In February 2017, WGH sold the property to Mari Properties, LLC ("Mari"), for $5,000, and Mari recorded the deed to the property. Williams claimed that she inherited the property from the Rossers in or around March 2003. In September 2017, Williams petitioned for redemption of the property under section 40-10-120, Ala. Code 1975, with which she tendered $1,100. The probate court granted Williams petition, thereby ordering Mari to compute and submit the amount of those items and stated that, upon receipt of those figures, the probate court would enter an amendment to the order and direct payment by Williams. The probate court did not vest title of the property in Williams. Mari, however, moved to vacate the probate's order, arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the redemption petition because, it argued, Williams was required under 40-10-120 to redeem the property through statutory redemption within three years of the May 13, 2003, tax sale. Mari contended in the motion that the only redemption process available to Williams was judicial redemption under section 40-10-83, Ala. Code 1975, and that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over that process. Despite Mari's filing of the notice of appeal to the circuit court, the parties continued filing documents in the probate court. By March 6, 2020, the probate court reversed course, vacating its earlier judgment in favor of Williams for redemption under 40-10-120, and holding that Williams should have filed her redemption petition with the circuit court. The Alabama Supreme Court determined that once Mari appealed to the circuit court, the probate court's jurisdiction was divested, making all orders filed after Mari's circuit court suit void. View "Williams v. Mari Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Varden Capital Properties, LLC ("Varden"), appealed an interlocutory circuit court order denying Varden's motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Alexis Reese alleges that, on October 29, 2016, she suffered a fall on real property owned or maintained by Varden. On October 29, 2018, exactly two years later, on the last day before the statute of limitations expired, Reese sued Varden, alleging negligence and wantonness. Reese did not request the circuit clerk to serve the complaint and summons by certified mail. Instead, she submitted a summons along with her complaint indicating that a private process server would be used to accomplish service. A process server served the complaint and summons at an address in Montgomery on February 6, 2019, 100 days after the complaint was filed. The address to which the materials were served was not Varden's; notwithstanding, Varden learned of the suit and appeared for the sole purpose of filing a motion to quash service. The trial court gave Reese more time to serve Varden's agent at the correct address. On June 14, 2019, Reese served Varden by certified mail by the deadline set by the trial court. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, finding that although Reese used a process server in an attempt to ensure that service was made at the correct address, she pointed to no evidence of intent, no evidence establishing when she hired a process server, and no evidence demonstrating that any steps at all were taken to discover the proper address for service. Indeed, even 100 days after filing the complaint, she simply served it at the incorrect address she had when the complaint was filed, "indicating that any effort to identify the correct address was minimal at best." View "Varden Capital Properties, LLC v. Reese" on Justia Law

The State of Alabama appealed a temporary restraining order ("TRO") allowing Gary Lamar Smith, Jr., and SOS Towing, Inc. ("SOS"), the family business owned and operated by Smith, Jr., to recover seized personal property during the pendency of a forfeiture action. SOS would sometimes tow vehicles for the Mobile Police Department; in September 2019, the Smiths were arrested in Mobile for alleged insurance fraud regarding that work. The City of Mobile alleged that the Smiths had committed fraud by charging insurance companies towing and storage fees that were greater than the maximum fees allowed under a city ordinance. The police seized three tow trucks owned by SOS and a tow truck owned by Smith, Sr., and used by SOS. The State later filed a complaint seeking the forfeiture of the four trucks. Smith, Jr., and SOS moved for a TRO or a preliminary injunction, seeking the return of the tow trucks during the pendency of the forfeiture action. The parties disagreed about whether Alabama's forfeiture statutes provided the exclusive means of obtaining the return of seized personal property during forfeiture proceedings. The trial court concluded that section 28-4-287 did not provide such means for a claimant to obtain possession of seized property during forfeiture proceedings. Thus, the trial court issued the TRO under Rule 65, ordering the return of the tow trucks. The trial court did order Smith, Jr., and SOS to post a $5,000 bond to receive their trucks, to which they complied. The Alabama Supreme Court determined section 28-4-287 was indeed the exclusive means for obtaining seized personal property during the pendency of a forfeiture action, and injunctive relief under Rule 65 was unavailable as a means for a claimant to obtain such property. Accordingly, the Court concluded the trial court erred by entering a TRO ordering the trucks to be returned to Smith, Jr. and SOS. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Alabama v. Two White Hook Wreckers et al." on Justia Law

Mark Caton appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of the City of Pelham ("the City"), in his action alleging retaliatory discharge against the City. In approximately 2001, he was hired as a police officer by the City. In 2004, while he was still a police officer, Caton injured his neck when he was wrestling with a suspect. Caton did not receive treatment for his neck at the time, but the pain from the injury gradually increased. In April 2006, Caton transferred from the Police Department to the Pelham Fire Department. In 2012, Caton had a vertebrae-fusion surgery. In 2015 and 2016, Caton would have periods of excruciating pain leading to unexcused absences from work. He received reprimands and suspensions. Caton would consult with multiple doctors and pain specialists for rehabilitation therapy and pain management each time he was reinjured as a result of his work. In 2016, Caton was referred to Dr. Michelle Turnley, a physiatrist at the Workplace Occupational Health Clinic located on the campus of the University of Alabama at Birmingham ("UAB"). Dr. Turnley and Caton tell differing stories of an encounter at the UAB clinic September 2016. Caton testified that he asked Dr. Turnley for pain medication for the next time his pain became too intense, but Dr. Turnley reminded Caton that on his first visit he had not signed a pain contract and he had refused to provide a urine sample, so she declined to give him pain medication. Caton denied the doctor's account, but Dr. Turnley's clinical notes described her encounter with Caton as him being "fairly aggressive requesting pain medication... he was fairly loud and refused to leave the clinic and UAB police were called. ... He did not appear to have any functional deficits. Additionally, someone in the waiting room saw him sling the door open like he was about to 'pull it off the hinges'; therefore, obviously he has no strength deficits." In October, Dr. Turnley sent Caton a letter dropping him as a patient. By November, the City terminated Caton's employment, citing in part, the visit to Dr. Turnley's office. His unemployment application was denied because of his discharge from the City for misconduct. Caton sued, alleging procedural issues with the unemployment compensation hearing, adding a retaliatory-discharge claim. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the City, finding Caton had a full opportunity to litigate his retaliatory-discharge claim at the unemployment hearing, thus he was barred from raising it again by collateral estoppel. The Alabama Supreme Court determined application of collateral estoppel did not violate Caton's right to a trial by jury, and concurred estoppel barred his retaliatory-discharge claim against the City. "Caton does not present any other reason why the trial court's judgment should be reversed. Therefore, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the City." View "Caton v. City of Pelham" on Justia Law

Winston Guthrie sued David Ray Fanning seeking damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation. In August 2009, Guthrie entered a guilty plea to the charges of sodomy and sexual abuse of several minor boys, including Fanning's son ("the victim"). Guthrie was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment; that sentence was split and Guthrie served 1 year followed by 3 years' supervised probation. As a convicted sex offender, Guthrie was required to comply with all parts of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act ("the ASORCNA"). At issue in this appeal was section 15-20A- 16(c), Ala. Code 1975, a part of the ASORCNA, which provided that "[n]o sex offender shall make any harassing communication, directly or indirectly, in person or through others, by phone, mail, or electronic means to the victim or any immediate family member of the victim." Any person who knowingly violated section 15-20A-16(c) was guilty of a Class C felony. In April 2018, Guthrie sent a letter addressed to Fanning and Fanning's wife that Fanning perceived as harassing. A district-court magistrate issued a complaint against Guthrie charging him with the offense of harassing communications, a violation of section 13A-11-8(b)(1)(a), Ala. Code 1975, which is a Class C misdemeanor. The district attorney assigned to prosecute the case determined that Guthrie should not have been charged with the misdemeanor offense of harassing communications, instead, he should have been charged with the felony offense of contacting the victim's family with the intent to harass under the ASORCNA. At that time, Guthrie also had another indictment pending charging him with two counts of failing to properly register as a sex offender as required by the ASORCNA. Guthrie entered into a plea agreement as to the ASORCNA violations, and he was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment; that sentence was split, and Guthrie was ordered to serve one year in a community-corrections program followed by four years' probation. While serving time in the community-corrections program, acting pro se, Guthrie sued Fanning seeking the damages at issue in this appeal. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Fanning in the defamation case. Finding no reversible error, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed judgment. View "Guthrie v. Fanning" on Justia Law

The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Anniston ("the Board") petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Calhoun Circuit Court ("the trial court") to vacate its order entering a partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Betty Milner and Teresa Holiday. In 2018, plaintiffs sued the Board seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on claims of breach of contract, nuisance, continuing trespass, negligence, and wantonness. Plaintiffs alleged that in February 2016 they instructed the Board to cut off water supply to a house they owned; that plaintiffs "returned to reopen" the house in February 2018 and discovered that the water supply to the house had not been completely cut off; and, that the Board's failure to properly cut off the water supply caused severe damage to the house. The Board filed an answer that included general denials of plaintiffs' allegations and asserted a number of "affirmative defenses," including that plaintiffs' injuries were the result of the "intervening and superseding" actions of an individual or entity other than the Board or anyone under its control. Viewing the evidence before it in a light most favorable to the Board, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court could have assigned some culpability to the Board. However, the Court determined the Board could not have known plaintiffs would initiate litigation against the Board once it was discovered that, at least from the Board's perspective, water was running to plaintiffs' house only because a third party had tampered with the cap and lock device, not because the Board had failed to properly cut off the water in 2016. Moreover, the Court concluded plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that fundamental fairness required the most severe sanction available to the trial court to impose upon the Board. Therefore, the Court determined the Board established a clear legal right to mandamus relief. The petition was granted and the writ issued. View "Ex parte The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Anniston." on Justia Law

Law firm Petway Olsen, LLC, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to set aside its order granting the motion filed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA"), seeking to disqualify the firm from representing the plaintiffs in the underlying case and to enter an order allowing the firm to represent the plaintiffs. In 2017, Valisha Cartwell was driving a 1998 Mercedes ML320. As she was pulling into a parking space in front a dental office operated by Vital Smiles Alabama, P.C., the vehicle suddenly accelerated and crashed into the front of the dental office, killing a six-year-old child and injuring others. Grelinda Lee, as personal representative of the child's estate, sued Cartwell and the owner of the Mercedes ML320 (and other fictitiously named defendants) for wrongful death. An amended complaint added Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. The second amended complaint was signed by D. Bruce Petway of Petway Olsen and included the names of other attorneys with different law firms who were also representing the plaintiffs. Both Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. ("MBUSI") and MBUSA asserted as a defense that Petway Olsen was "disqualified [from representing the plaintiffs] because one of its members [was] a former in-house attorney and general counsel for MBUSI." After review, the Supreme Court determined the trial court erred when it granted MBUSA's motion to disqualify Petway Olsen from representing the plaintiffs. The petition for mandamus relief was granted and the trial court directed to vacate its previous order granting MBUSA's motion. View "Ex parte Petway Olsen, LLC." on Justia Law

Michael Falligant, as next friend of Michelle McElroy, who Falligant alleged was an incapacitated person, filed an action against TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. ("TitleMax"), alleging that TitleMax wrongfully repossessed and sold McElroy's vehicle. TitleMax filed a motion to compel arbitration of Falligant's claims, which the circuit court denied. TitleMax appealed. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court determined TitleMax met its burden of proving that a contract affecting interstate commerce existed, and that that contract was signed by McElroy and contained an arbitration agreement. The burden then shifted to Falligant to prove that the arbitration agreement was void. But the Court concluded Falligant failed to present substantial evidence indicating that McElroy was permanently incapacitated and, thus, lacked the mental capacity to enter into the contracts. Because Falligant failed to create a genuine issue of fact, the circuit court erred in ordering the issue of McElroy's mental capacity to trial. Accordingly, the circuit court's decision was reversed, and the matter remanded back to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. v. Falligant" on Justia Law

Margaret Stockham, as personal representative of the estate of Herbert Stockham, deceased ("Stockham"), appealed a circuit court judgment denying her motion for reimbursement for costs and attorney fees. The costs and fees at issue in this appeal related to a lawsuit brought by a beneficiary of three trusts that each held preferred and common stock in SVI Corporation, on whose board of directors Stockham served. Judgment was entered in favor of Stockham and other defendants. Stockham filed a motion for reimbursement of fees and expenses for defense of the beneficiary's action against Herbert Stockham. The Alabama Supreme Court determined the circuit court erred indenting Stockham's motion for reimbursement of costs and attorney fees based on the beneficiary's newly-revised argument Herbert had willfully and wantonly committed material breaches of the trusts. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded this case for the circuit court to reconsider Stockham's motion for reimbursement without consideration of the beneficiary's newly raised arguments. View "Stockham v. Ladd" on Justia Law

Henry Bradshaw, a defendant in a personal–injury action, petitioned for mandamus relief to direct the circuit court to vacate its order denying his motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff, Princeton Gregory, and to enter an order dismissing Gregory's claims against Bradshaw for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties were involved in a car accident in Mississippi. Gregory was a resident of Mobile, Alabama; Bradshaw was a resident of Florida. Bradshaw entered a limited appearance in the negligence action brought against him for the purpose of asking the court to dismiss the claims. Bradshaw argued that Gregory's complaint failed to allege that Bradshaw's contacts with Alabama were sufficient to support personal jurisdiction over him. Relying on Bradshaw's deposition testimony, Gregory filed a further response in opposition to Bradshaw's amended motion to dismiss in which he argued that Bradshaw's connection to and activities in Alabama, as described above, were sufficient to suggest that Bradshaw should have anticipated that he might be sued in Alabama or, at the very least, created a jury question on the issue of general personal jurisdiction. The trial court apparently agreed and, following a hearing, denied Bradshaw's motion to dismiss. After review of the facts entered in the circuit court record, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court's conclusion, finding Bradshaw demonstrated a clear lack of general personal jurisdiction over him in connection with Gregory's claims. The Court thus granted Bradshaw's petition for mandamus relief. View "Ex parte Henry W. Bradshaw." on Justia Law