Terry L. Butts

In Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters, the plaintiff Rex Waters sued the mobile home seller Allstar and its agents for misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violation of federal law after allegedly being induced to accept a higher interest rate and receiving a defective used unit instead of a new one. Allstar moved to compel arbitration under a clause in the purchase contract that covered disputes arising from the contract or its validity. The trial court denied the motion and ordered further proceedings to determine the validity of the arbitration clause itself. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the Federal Arbitration Act and Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., a court may first resolve challenges specifically to the making of the arbitration agreement before ordering arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Cecil and Sue Horton suing Alfa Life Insurance Corporation for fraud, alleging that its agent made misrepresentations to induce them to buy unnecessary life insurance policies that replaced their existing whole life coverage without their knowledge, using the policies' cash values to pay premiums. During discovery, the Hortons sought the full names and addresses of the agent's Alabama clients over the prior 10 years to demonstrate a pattern and practice of similar misconduct supporting their punitive damages claim, but the trial court limited production to every fourth name on the list. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the Hortons' petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering full disclosure of the client list. The court reasoned that the discovery request was closely tailored to the alleged fraud, would not be oppressive or burdensome to produce, and was necessary for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages to show the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct under the standards from BMW of North America v. Gore.

proceduretorts & liability

Jimmy Davis, Jr. was convicted of capital murder during a robbery and sentenced to death by an Alabama trial court, with the jury recommending death by an 11-1 vote. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed after remands to address sentencing order issues and the prosecution's peremptory strikes of black jurors. On certiorari, the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed claims of error in the guilt and sentencing phases, including the trial court's use of juvenile adjudications to negate a mitigating factor of no significant criminal history. The court held that any such error was harmless because Davis's adult convictions, including a prior robbery felony, independently supported the same conclusion, and it found no other reversible or plain error in the record.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Allen and Margaret Brislin suing Dennis Mortimer and Bradley and Associates for intentional, reckless, and innocent fraud; deceit; negligence; and fraudulent suppression after purchasing two retail stores based on allegedly inaccurate gross sales figures in a confidential business report prepared by Mortimer. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants, which the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Brislins had presented substantial evidence creating genuine issues of material fact regarding their claims, including that they reasonably relied on the financial representations despite disclaimers in the purchase agreement, as the agreement itself stated that statements in delivered documents were representations and warranties, and Mortimer had assured the figures were conservative.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge to the results of a 1996 municipal election for city council district four in Bay Minette, Alabama, between incumbent John C. Cox, Jr., and challenger Regina R. Taylor. After the trial court counted nonabsentee votes as favoring Taylor by three but upheld four contested absentee ballots for Cox based on their notarized or witnessed signatures, it declared Cox the winner by one vote. Taylor appealed, arguing that the absentee ballots were invalid under Ala. Code § 17-10-4 because the voters had not personally signed the ballot applications. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the statute's plain language requires each applicant to manually sign the application form, with no exceptions noted for the voters at issue, and therefore reversed the trial court's ruling on the validity of those ballots and remanded for further proceedings.

electionsprocedure

Mary Catherine Colburn sued Winn Dixie and its pharmacist Robert Hagan for negligence and wantonness, claiming Hagan improperly substituted Fiorinal #3 (which contained codeine) for her prescribed Sedapap despite her known codeine allergy, causing her to suffer anaphylactic shock requiring emergency treatment. The jury returned a general verdict for Colburn awarding $130,000 in damages, and the trial court entered judgment on that verdict. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the judgment imposing liability but remanded for the trial court to make written findings on the excessiveness of any punitive portion of the award under the Hammond and Green Oil factors, because the general verdict did not separate compensatory and punitive damages and the record lacked the required analysis.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a lawsuit by Jeff Thompson against Frontier Corporation and related entities, alleging a fraudulent scheme of automatically charging customers for wire maintenance and repair services without authorized contracts. On the same day the complaint was filed, the trial court entered an ex parte order conditionally certifying the case as a nationwide class action without notice to the defendants or a hearing. Frontier petitioned for a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied its motion to vacate the certification but allowed for later discovery and a potential decertification hearing. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that an ex parte conditional class certification requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a compelling reason under Rule 23, which was not shown here, and directed the trial court to vacate the order.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved home buyers who sued Stewart Title of Mobile and Stewart Title Guaranty Company over alleged defects in a title examination and title insurance policy for property in Mobile, Alabama, asserting claims including misrepresentation, suppression, negligence, and breach of contract. The trial court granted Stewart Title Guaranty's motion to compel arbitration under the policy's arbitration clause but denied a similar motion by Stewart Title of Mobile. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the denial of arbitration for Stewart Title of Mobile in a no-opinion order. A dissent contended that the local company had standing to enforce the clause as an authorized signatory and that the claims arose out of or related to the policy, warranting arbitration under federal policy favoring arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved two plaintiffs suing Kmart Corporation and its employee Doug Sharp for malicious prosecution, false arrest, conversion, and assault and battery after the plaintiffs were detained on suspicion of shoplifting merchandise and returning it for cash refunds without receipts. A jury returned general verdicts awarding $2 million to each plaintiff, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the judgments. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to prove key elements of malicious prosecution, including lack of probable cause, and that insufficient evidence supported the conversion and assault and battery claims, so the defendants were entitled to directed verdicts or judgments notwithstanding the verdict; it also noted that a post-trial order granting a new trial was untimely under procedural rules and thus a nullity.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Laura Steen, a hotel groundskeeper, against Central Parking System after she was struck by a large wooden object that fell from a parking garage managed by the defendant. Steen alleged negligence in the handling of the object by a Central Parking employee, and the jury awarded her $260,000 after finding she was a licensee rather than a trespasser on the property. The trial court denied the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the negligence claim. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Steen had presented substantial evidence creating a factual question for the jury as to whether Central Parking had impliedly consented to her presence through acquiescence, making her a licensee to whom a duty of care was owed.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved two instructors at Wallace State Community College who sued the college and its president, claiming they had earned tenure under the Fair Dismissal Act and were entitled to full-time contracts and protection from partial termination of employment without notice and a hearing. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants on grounds of exhaustion of administrative remedies and sovereign immunity under the Alabama Constitution, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on different grounds related to the applicability of the Act versus the State Board of Education's Revised Hearing Procedure. The Alabama Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgments and to compel performance of legal duties were not barred by sovereign immunity, as they fell within recognized exceptions to that doctrine. The court further examined whether the Fair Dismissal Act or the Revised Hearing Procedure governed tenure determinations for community college instructors.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose when Evelyn Crocker sued Union Security Life Insurance Company after it denied a credit life insurance claim following her husband's death from heart disease, citing undisclosed health issues on the application that had been completed by the bank's agent; the denial led to foreclosure on her home. A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages against the insurer for fraud and related claims. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court following BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, the Alabama Supreme Court reconsidered whether the punitive damages award was grossly excessive under the Due Process Clause, examining the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, the reprehensibility of the conduct, and other guideposts from BMW. The court applied these standards to determine if the award should be reduced while reviewing the underlying facts of the agent's knowledge and the insurer's practices.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

In this case, Dr. Mark Hsu and Southeastern Cardiology petitioned for a writ of mandamus to vacate a trial court's order compelling production of their financial documents in a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by David and Anne Blackmon. The underlying suit alleged negligence, wantonness, and negligent supervision related to treatment of a heart condition, and the discovery request sought all documents showing the defendants' assets and liabilities. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the trial court erred by ordering pre-verdict production of the financial information. The core reasoning was that longstanding Alabama precedent and Ala. Code § 6-11-23(b) prohibit discovery of a defendant's wealth until after a punitive damages verdict is returned, as such evidence is irrelevant and highly prejudicial during the liability and compensatory damages phases of trial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved James and Rosie Parker suing Life Insurance Company of Georgia and its agent for intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent suppression after the agent allegedly encouraged them to cash in an existing policy and purchase new ones while failing to disclose that the new policies were graded death benefit policies that would not pay full benefits for three years due to the Parkers' age and health. The trial court granted summary judgment on a conversion claim but denied summary judgment, directed verdict, and JNOV motions on the fraud claims, allowing a jury to award $4,276 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama applied the substantial evidence standard of review, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Parkers, including the agent's statements about coverage amounts and the nondisclosure of policy limitations. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to create a jury question on the fraud claims and supported denial of the JNOV motion.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, Robert Bramlett sued Adamson Ford and Ford Motor Credit Company after purchasing a used car financed through them at 15.49% interest, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent suppression, unconscionability, and civil conspiracy based on the defendants' failure to disclose their 3% commission agreement under which FMCC bought the loan contract from Adamson. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed as to the misrepresentation, suppression, and conspiracy claims. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed the summary judgment, holding that there was no duty to disclose the commission agreement in this arm's-length transaction, particularly given a state statute explicitly providing no obligation to disclose such arrangements and noting that Bramlett had been informed of the interest rate and total loan cost.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved property owners in the Raintree subdivision suing Russell Corporation, Avondale Mills, and Alabama Power Company in Jefferson Circuit Court for nuisance, trespass, and interference with property use, alleging that industrial wastewater containing carcinogenic dyes polluted Lake Martin near their homes. The defendants sought to transfer the case to Tallapoosa Circuit Court under forum non conveniens and opposed class certification. The trial court certified a class of affected property owners, but the Alabama Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate the certification order. The Court reasoned that the named plaintiffs were inadequate class representatives because they had dismissed claims for injunctive relief and dismissed certain defendants solely to maintain venue in Jefferson County, which would conflict with the interests of a broader class that might pursue different remedies or venue considerations.

procedureenvironmentpropertytorts & liability

The case involved Jason Oric Williams, who was convicted of capital murder for killing four people by shooting them with a rifle after ingesting drugs and alcohol. Williams raised a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, claiming a borderline personality disorder combined with substance use prevented him from appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions, supported by his expert but contradicted by the state's expert. The trial court sentenced him to death following the jury's recommendation. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, finding no plain error in the proceedings, including the handling of witness testimony and grand jury matters, and upholding the jury's rejection of the mental defect defense.

criminal law

The Martins sued the seller of their mobile home and its manufacturer, Southern Energy Homes, for fraud, negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, and breach of warranty arising from the purchase. The seller moved to compel arbitration under a clause in the purchase contract, and Southern Energy Homes, though not a signatory, joined the motion; the trial court granted both. The Martins petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to vacate the order as to Southern Energy Homes. The court examined whether a non-signatory could enforce the arbitration agreement through estoppel or related doctrines given the close relationship of the claims to the underlying contract, but concluded the agreement applied only to its named parties and did not bind or benefit the manufacturer.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Levi Pace was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and quashed the indictment, finding racial discrimination in the selection of grand jury forepersons in Morgan County, along with other trial errors. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that Pace's motion to dismiss the indictment was untimely under Rule 12.9, Ala.R.Cr.P., as it was not filed before arraignment and no exceptions applied. The Court further reasoned that discrimination in grand jury foreperson selection, while unconstitutional, does not constitute plain error under Rule 45A unless it substantially affects the fairness of the trial proceedings, which was not shown here, and thus reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals on that ground while leaving other reversals intact.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs who had made down payments on a mobile home sued All Star Mobile Homes for fraud in the inducement, fraudulent suppression, and conversion after the company sold the reserved home and failed to refund the full amount. After nearly ten months of litigation including discovery and depositions, All Star moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the purchase agreement. The Alabama Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that All Star had waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the litigation process through its delay and participation in discovery, which prejudiced the plaintiffs by causing them unnecessary expense and delay. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration, emphasizing that waiver is determined by the facts of each case where a party uses litigation to its advantage before seeking arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory