The Appellate Corner, 1121 ALBJ, Vol. 82 No. 6 Pg. 444 (November, 2021)
| Position | Vol. 82 6 Pg. 444 |
RECENT CIVIL DECISIONS
From the Alabama Supreme Court
Appellate Jurisdiction
Dellinger v. Bryant Bank, No. 1190430 (Ala. Aug. 13, 2021)
Trial court's order of dismissal evidenced an intent to adjudicate all claims before it, triggering the time for appeal. A timely-filed Rule 59 motion was filed and denied, after which plaintiffs did not take immediate appeal, but instead sought to amend their complaint. The court dismissed the eventual appeal as untimely.
Compulsory Counterclaims
Harris v. Dubai Truck Lines, Inc., No. 1200426 (Ala. Aug. 19, 2021)
Plurality panel decision; "[c]ompulsory counterclaims for money damages are not subject to statutes of limitations [defenses]."
Summary Judgment: Evidence
James v. Assurance America Ins. Co., No, 1200462 (Ala. Aug. 19, 2021)
Plurality panel decision; insurer did not produce substantial admissible evidence (to support summary judgment) to establish that driver lacked a valid driver license at the time of the accident; supporting affidavit relied on an unofficial accident report which was inadmissible.
Preliminary Injunction Procedure
JT Construction LLC v. MW Industrial Services, Inc., No. 1200066 (Ala. Aug. 19, 2021)
Circuit court erred by consolidating trial on merits with preliminary injunction hearing for lack of sufficient advanced notice and preservation of right to jury trial, as required by Rule 65(a)(2).
Evidence
Cannon v. Lucas, No. 1190505 (Ala. Aug. 19, 2021)
Plurality per curiam decision; ruling granting absolute motion in limine (rather than preliminary motion in limine) was properly preserved for appeal despite lack of an offer of proof at trial. Trial court erred by excluding from evidence party's post-accident conviction for presenting forged drug prescription, which is a crime involving "dishonesty or false statemenf'and thus automatically admissible for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(2).
Will Contests: Circuit Court Jurisdiction
Branch v. Branch, No. 1200007 (Ala. Aug. 19, 2021)
Circuit court lacked jurisdiction over will contest filed in the Circuit Court, where the contestants originally filed their contest in Probate Court before admission of the will to probate, then filed a contest in Circuit Court before the Probate Court took any action upon the petition for admission of the will to probate or on their filed petition to remove the proceeding to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court's order directing the "transfer" of the probate case to the Circuit Court was without statutory authority; contestants did not follow the procedures in either Ala. Code § 43-88-198 or -199.
Finality of Judgments
Ex parte Utilities Board of City of Roanoke, No. 1200307 (Ala. Sept. 3, 2021)
Circuit court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate action on motion of plaintiff, filed 43 days after entry of judgment, against whom Circuit Court had granted summary judgment, but where final order had provided that Plaintiff had 45 days to seek reinstatement of the case.
State Immunity
Ex parte Jefferson County Bd. of Educ, No. 1200230 (Ala. Sept. 3, 2021)
Section 14 immunity barred claim against Board by school-locker vendor for breach of contract. The Court refused to overrule the line of cases holding County Boards are entitled to Section 14 immunity, and there is no conflict between Sections 14 and 95 of the Constitution (impairment of contracts).
Contract; Preservation of Error; Corporate Veil
Childs v. Pommer, No. 1190525 (Ala. Sept. 3, 2021)
(1) Non-party to contract could not be liable for breach of contract; (2) insufficiency of evidence regarding breach of contract and other issues was not properly preserved for failure of appellant's JML motion at close of all evidence to raise the issues; (3) trial court's refusal to pierce the corporate veil of GC was not clearly erroneous for lack of evidence of what would be adequate capitalization for a single-member LLC.
Structured Settlements; Transfers; Jurisdiction
Ex parte Scoggins, No. 1200102 (Ala. Sept. 3, 2021)
Among other holdings: (1) Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction in 2011 to"reopen"a 2002 dismissal of a wrongful death action in order to alter structured settlement terms which were not even before the Circuit Court at the time of the dismissal; (2) Probate Court's authority to appoint a legal conservator under the Alabama Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act ("the AUGPPA"), Ala. Code § 26-2A-1, did not empower the circuit court to revive an action that had so long ago ceased to exist; (3) appointment of special conservator by Probate Court did not empower the special conservator to effect a removal of the conservatorship proceedings to Circuit Court; (4) Circuit Court's 2011 orders purportedly authorizing the sale of certain structured-settlement-payment rights clearly implicated the brothers'estates, yet the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the brothers'estates when it entered those orders; (5) Circuit Court had jurisdiction to determine in 2012, in action brought under the Alabama Structured Settlement Protection Act ("the ASSPA"), Ala. Code § 6-11 -50, whether sale of structured settlement payment rights was in best interest of brothers'estates, because action was properly filed under Ala. Code §§ 6-11-53 and 6-11 -55(a) in the County where the payee resides; (5) although the Brothers were not served and given notice of the 2012 ASSPA action, the ASSPA suggests that failures to fulfill its"procedural requirements"are remedied by creating transferee liability, not be avoiding the transfer itself, under Ala. Code § 6-11 -54(a)(2)b, and the Brothers are pursuing the transferee in their own 2019 action against the transferee, and thus the orders approving the ASSPA transfers were not void on that basis.
Domestic Relations; Ancillary Jurisdiction
Ex parte Hillard, No. 1200452 (Ala. Sept. 3, 2021)
Claim preclusion did not bar counterclaim for fraud by ex-husband against ex-wife and ex-mother-in-law for fraud relating to breach of a promissory note entered into during the marriage. The counterclaim was neither asserted nor fully litigated in the DR case. Although the claim could possibly have brought in the DR proceeding, the right to trial by jury on claims at law, and its unavailability in a DR proceeding, might preclude the aggressive use of preclusion doctrines.
State Agent Immunity
Ex parte Williamson, No. 1200347 (Ala. Sept. 3, 2021)
Teacher was entitled to Cranman immunity on claim brought by student who was inappropriately touched by another student while in a school van, where the students were left unattended while accompanied two other students on school-related matter. Teacher was performing a discretionary function; there were no checklists or specific procedures at play on the supervision of students in this situation.
Fraudulent Conveyance; Mootness
623 Partners, LLC v. Bowers, No. 1191084 (Ala. Sept. 10, 2021)
Fraudulent conveyance action may not be maintained for non-payment of a 10+-year-old judgment presumed satisfied under Ala. Code § 6-9-191.
AMLA; Statute of Limitations
Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Assn., No. 1200200 (Ala. Sept. 10, 2021)
Complaint's medical liability claims were facially barred by the AMLA two-year statute of limitations in Ala. Code § 6-5-482(a). Events alleging substandard care as well as resulting pressure ulcers in the leg arose more than two years before action was filed, but resulting and eventual leg amputation occurred within the two-year period before filing. However, because amputation was causally related to not only the substandard care but to the initial ulcers, cause of action therefore accrued more than two years before filing.
Service of Process; Quiet Title; Constructive Notice
City of Birmingham v. Metropolitan Management of Alabama, LLC, No. 1200080 (Ala. Sept. 17, 2021)
Quiet-title plaintiff had constructive notice that city had interest in property due to recorded instrument reflecting that interest. Thus, service...
To continue reading
Request your trial