Alva Hugh Maddox

This case arose from a funeral home's mix-up of bodies after a car accident, resulting in the cremation of Matthew Miller's body instead of burial as requested by his wife Megan and mother Teresa. The Millers sued Akins Funeral Home for negligence, wantonness, outrage, breach of contract, trespass, and abuse of a corpse, settling with another funeral home but proceeding to trial against Akins, where a jury awarded them compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly allowed a non-psychologist witness to offer expert testimony, that the compensatory awards were not against the great weight of the evidence of emotional distress tied to religious beliefs, and that the punitive awards were not excessive under the Hammond/Green Oil factors.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned an oral contract for the sale of a mobile home and 4.86 acres of land for $110,000, under which the buyer was to assume two promissory notes and make a cash down payment, with closing to occur within about 30 days. The buyers sued for specific performance after the seller refused to close, also seeking incidental damages including lost profits from a planned mobile home sales venture. The trial court granted specific performance but, after reconsideration, denied the request for incidental damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that a trial court has discretion to decide whether to award such damages in a specific performance action and that the claimed lost profits were too speculative given the new business venture and lack of prior records, consistent with prior precedent.

property

In Lee v. Minute Stop, Inc., plaintiff Douglas Lee sued multiple defendants including store clerk Twanda Nobles, corporate entities operating the store, and Mobile police officers after he was arrested for first-degree robbery based on an early-morning incident at a Conoco station; the charges were later dismissed at the preliminary hearing for lack of probable cause. Lee asserted claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, defamation, negligence in training and supervision, wantonness, and abuse of process. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Lee without a warrant for a felony under Ala. Code § 15-10-3(a)(3) because he was present with and did not disassociate from individuals who threatened the clerk, and that the officers' actions were therefore protected by discretionary-function immunity under § 6-5-338. The court also rejected the claims against the private defendants, finding no duty breached in reporting the events or identifying Lee.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case was a taxpayer lawsuit filed by Alabama resident Roger Broxton against Governor Don Siegelman and other state officials, challenging proposed landscaping changes to the state capitol grounds—including narrowing Bainbridge Street and altering slopes—as violating a statute that assigns primary restoration authority to the Alabama Historical Commission and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment on standing grounds, submitting affidavits showing that all project funding came from federal Transportation Enhancement grants administered through state agencies, with suppliers paid by the Historical Commission and then reimbursed solely from federal sources and no state funds involved. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Broxton lacked standing as a state taxpayer because no state moneys were being expended and that Alabama law does not recognize federal taxpayer standing to challenge state actions under state law.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case concerned the administration of Effie Roney Wilson's estate and whether a specific bequest in her will of CD Account #005-0001274 at First Bank of Dothan adeemed when she transferred the funds from that account into two new certificates of deposit with different numbers before her death. The legatee, Marguerite Bozian, sued the executrix, Sara Parker, seeking a declaration that the funds in the new accounts passed to her under the will. After a bench trial with conflicting evidence about the testatrix's reasons for the transfer, the trial court ruled for Bozian. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the funds remained traceable to the original account, the transfer was done to obtain better interest rates without intent to revoke the bequest, and therefore no ademption occurred.

property

This case concerns the probate of C.M. Smith's will, which devised a life estate in specific real property to his wife followed by particular divisions of the land among his siblings, with directions against selling it outside the family, but the successor executrix sought to sell the property because estate assets were insufficient to cover administration costs and debts. The trial court ordered the sale of the tract and equal distribution of net proceeds among the siblings' heirs. The appellate court affirmed the sale order in part but reversed the equal-distribution ruling, holding that specific devisees must contribute ratably to expenses according to the value of their respective interests rather than sharing proceeds equally, and remanded for proper valuation and allocation of shares while leaving certain unargued issues undisturbed.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether home buyers who sued a builder over defects in their new house could avoid an arbitration clause in their purchase contract by claiming the seller's agent fraudulently induced them to sign it through misrepresentations about how disputes would be resolved. The trial court denied the builder's motion to compel arbitration, but the appellate court reversed that decision. The court held that the buyers' fraud claim failed as a matter of law because they could not have reasonably relied on the agent's oral statements, which directly contradicted the clear written terms of the arbitration agreement they signed; buyers have a duty to read contract documents they voluntarily execute. The opinion emphasized that the buyers did not claim they were unable to read the documents or were prevented from doing so.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether Regions Bank breached its duty of good faith and fairness to Mt. Carmel Estates and its guarantors by bidding $1,242,000—less than the outstanding loan balance—at a foreclosure sale on two parcels of real property securing a $2 million promissory note, thereby creating a claimed deficiency of over $375,000. After the bank sued to recover the deficiency and the borrowers counterclaimed to set aside the sale or recover damages on the ground that the bid was so inadequate as to shock the conscience, the trial court granted summary judgment to the bank. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the undisputed facts showed the foreclosure process complied with applicable law and that the borrowers had not raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding any breach of duty. The court also rejected arguments that the deficiency amount was uncertain or that the summary judgment was premature.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a buyer of a manufactured home who sued the dealership's salesperson and general sales manager for repairs and damages related to the home's condition. The trial court compelled arbitration under agreements the buyer signed at purchase, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the salesperson had standing to enforce the arbitration clause as an agent of the dealership under principles of equitable estoppel and agency, that the transaction substantially affected interstate commerce, and that the agreements were enforceable despite challenges regarding arbitration costs, disclosure in warranties, and compliance with AAA due-process protocols.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned buyers Robert and Kisha Jackson who sued McConnell Automotive Corporation and its employees for fraud, misrepresentation, and related claims arising from the purchase of a used Cadillac, alleging they were falsely assured the vehicle had not been wrecked. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under a signed agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act, but the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the sale did not substantially affect interstate commerce. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed de novo the vehicle's chain of title and sale history, which showed it had been auctioned by a Michigan seller through an Alabama auction to the Alabama dealer, and considered precedents such as Wickard v. Filburn to evaluate whether local transactions could be aggregated for Commerce Clause purposes. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated sufficient interstate connections to support enforcement of the arbitration agreement.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a plaintiff who slipped and was injured at a gas station in 1997 and sued Conoco, Inc., along with fictitiously named defendants shortly before the two-year statute of limitations expired. After a default judgment against Conoco was set aside and it was revealed that Kayo Oil Company owned the station, the plaintiff amended the complaint in 2001 to substitute Kayo for the fictitious parties. The trial court granted Kayo's motion to dismiss (treated as a summary judgment), and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff had not exercised due diligence to identify Kayo earlier, so the amendment did not relate back under Rule 15(c) and the claims were time-barred. The core reasoning centered on the requirements of Rule 9(h) for fictitious-party practice and the lack of timely discovery efforts sufficient to ascertain the defendant's identity.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a Mobile police officer who sued his supervisor and the City of Mobile after the supervisor sent a negative reference letter on department letterhead to another law enforcement agency, allegedly causing the plaintiff to lose a job opportunity and creating a hostile work environment. The plaintiff asserted claims including defamation and the tort of outrage, and also referenced race discrimination and retaliation. The appeal addressed whether the trial court erred in dismissing the outrage claim and in dismissing the municipal defendants because the plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim with the city. The court held that the claims against the city were properly dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of providing sworn notice of the claim within six months, a condition precedent under Alabama law, and that the tort of outrage claim was also subject to dismissal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a 1999 lawsuit by the Boyetts against George Creel for breach of contract, fraud, and conversion involving funds and property for an entertainment facility; the trial court entered summary judgment for the Boyetts in April 2000, issued a certificate of judgment, and denied Creel's post-judgment motion, from which no appeal was taken. After Creel transferred the disputed property to Pratt Capital, Inc. (whose president was his attorney) shortly before the judgment, the Boyetts sought in September 2000 to amend their complaint to add Pratt Capital and others as defendants and to set aside the transfer. The dispositive issue on appeal was whether Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permitted such an amendment after final judgment. The Alabama Supreme Court held that it did not, because the original claims had been fully adjudicated against the sole defendant with no appeal, reversing the trial court's denial of Pratt Capital's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, while noting that any challenge to the transfer would require a separate action.

procedureproperty

The case involved claims by Ophelia Randolph against her former pastor, Walter Phillips, for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and the tort of outrage after Phillips, acting under a power of attorney, allegedly misused over $200,000 in life insurance proceeds and other assets that Randolph inherited from her deceased daughter. Phillips was served with the complaint but failed to file an answer, leading the trial court to enter a default judgment; at a subsequent damages hearing, Phillips appeared without counsel, was advised of possible self-incrimination risks, and declined to present evidence. Phillips later moved to set aside the default, but the trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Phillips had not shown excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. The court noted that Phillips's failure to request a hearing on punitive damages also precluded review of that issue.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a nurse's lawsuit against her employer, Walker Regional Medical Center, alleging wrongful termination and related claims, with the employer seeking to compel arbitration under an employment contract. The trial court granted the plaintiff's request for broad discovery on contract defenses such as unconscionability and fraud before ruling on the motion to compel arbitration. The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the discovery order via mandamus and held that once a party makes a prima facie showing of an arbitration agreement affecting interstate commerce, the opposing party must provide a factually based predicate to justify discovery on the validity of the agreement. The Court directed the trial court to vacate its broad discovery order but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to meet the required standard for limited discovery. The appeal was dismissed as the proper vehicle for review was mandamus.

procedurelabor & employment

In Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Godsey, Charlotte Godsey sued Oakwood and related entities alleging that her signature on a mortgage securing financing for a mobile home purchased by her husband was forged, and that this forgery constituted a criminal offense giving rise to claims for damages, slander of title, and the tort of outrage. The defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed only by her husband, arguing that Godsey was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts or should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that denial, reasoning that Godsey, as a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate her claims under the facts presented, consistent with prior precedent in Equifirst Corp. v. Ware.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In this case, former school principal Scherrine Pitts sued two PTO officers for libel and slander after they presented school officials with an affidavit alleging her sexual misconduct, theft, and other wrongdoing on school premises, which she claimed harmed her reputation and led to her demotion and eventual nonrenewal. During discovery, Pitts sought to depose Board of Education members about the affidavit's effect on employment decisions and the truth or falsity of the allegations, but the trial court issued a protective order restricting the scope after the Board objected on relevance grounds. The Alabama Supreme Court granted Pitts's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting discovery because the questions were relevant to the subject matter under Rule 26 and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on damages and the claims.

proceduretorts & liability

Jo Ann Tolbert sued Keel Motors, Inc. and other defendants for unlawful imprisonment, intentional infliction of mental anguish, the tort of outrage, and wanton and malicious injury arising from the repossession of a car she had purchased. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under an agreement in the sales contract and sought limited discovery on the issue, arguing that the transaction substantially affected interstate commerce. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, relying on precedent from Tefco Finance Co. v. Green, which held that evidence of a used car's out-of-state manufacture and transport was insufficient to establish the required interstate commerce effect. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the facts were substantially similar to those in Tefco and related cases, that the defendants' affidavit evidence did not demonstrate a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and that the trial court properly denied both the motion to compel and the discovery request.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether investigative reports prepared by the Bureau of Special Investigations within the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation regarding a patient's death at Bryce Hospital were discoverable in a civil wrongful-death action brought by the patient's estate. The trial court conducted an in camera review and ordered production of the reports over the department's objections that they were protected from civil discovery under Ala. Code § 12-21-3.1 as law-enforcement materials. The Supreme Court denied the department's petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the petitioners had not shown the trial court abused its discretion in determining the reports were relevant and discoverable.

procedurecriminal lawhealthcare

In this case, attorney Judith S. Crittenden was held in criminal contempt by Judge R.A. Ferguson for willfully disobeying a court order by encouraging her client in a divorce action to move her children out of the Jefferson/Shelby County area without prior approval, in violation of the final divorce judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the contempt finding, concluding there was no evidence to support it. On certiorari review, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded, determining that the appeals court had erred in its application of the standard of review for criminal contempt, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on legal evidence from which a rational factfinder could conclude guilt. The Court reviewed the record, including testimony about statements made in chambers regarding the advice given to the client, and found sufficient basis for the trial court's contempt adjudication under Rule 70A, Ala.R.Civ.P.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure