In this case, following a 2004 divorce judgment awarding the ex-wife $100,000 in alimony-in-gross payable in $2,000 monthly installments, the ex-wife obtained a certificate of judgment and garnishment for the full amount while an appeal was pending. The trial court quashed both the certificate and garnishment, ordering the ex-wife to remove any liens, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the ex-wife could only enforce garnishment for amounts actually past due at the time, not the entire future award, as the debt must be due absolutely without contingency, and she could obtain a proper certificate reflecting the installment terms.
The case concerned the dismissal of Mary Beth Brackin, a magistrate for the City of Dothan municipal court, after the city found her guilty of two major offenses under its Personnel Rules: insubordination for contacting a suspended colleague despite a direct order, and negligence for failing to properly account for a traffic ticket. The city's Personnel Board upheld the termination based on these offenses occurring within 24 months of a prior major offense, but the Houston Circuit Court reversed that decision. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama applied a substantial-evidence standard of review to the administrative record and determined that one of the charges could not support dismissal due to timing while remanding for further findings on whether the insubordination charge alone justified the action.
LaWanda McDonald sued Lighami Development Company and its vice president after falling and breaking her ankle on shifting concrete stepping stones in a common walkway area at a tenant's apartment complex on a wet night. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both negligence and wantonness claims. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the wantonness ruling because no evidence showed the defendants consciously disregarded a known risk. It reversed the negligence ruling, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the defendants knew or should have known of the specific hazard of the stones shifting in mushy ground, given prior tenant complaints about slippery conditions in wet weather and the landlord's duty to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition.
This case involved a dispute over whether a buy-sell agreement existed requiring the estate of a deceased shareholder to sell his stock in Fausak's Tire Center, Inc., and his membership interest in FTC Properties, L.L.C., to the entities upon his death. The probate court ruled that no legally binding agreement was in effect because the parties' oral discussions and unexecuted drafts violated the Statute of Frauds under Ala. Code § 8-9-2, making the shares and interest assets of the estate instead. The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the probate court's judgment under the ore tenus standard, noting undisputed facts that the shareholders had discussed but never finalized or signed any buy-sell agreement before the decedent's death in 2003, despite obtaining life insurance policies. The court affirmed that partial performance, such as paying insurance premiums, did not remove the agreement from the Statute of Frauds bar, and the estate was entitled to the assets.
In Pattans Ventures, Inc. v. Williams, the pledgor sued the pawnshop for breach of contract and conversion after it repossessed and sold his vehicle following a title pawn transaction for $700, alleging improper handling of redemption rights under the pawn ticket and related documents. The trial court found the claims meritorious and awarded $39,000 in damages. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama reversed the judgment on the construction of the Alabama Pawnshop Act, determining that the pledgor had a statutory 30-day grace period after the pawn ticket's maturity to redeem the title before the pawnshop could sell the vehicle, and remanded for reconsideration of whether the pledgor attempted timely payment.
In this case involving post-divorce proceedings between former spouses over alimony, child support, contempt, and custody modification, the State Department of Human Resources appealed a trial court judgment that credited Social Security benefits received by the former wife against the former husband's alimony arrearages and future payments. DHR had initiated a separate action for child-support contempt that was dismissed, but was not named as a party in the two cases where the appealed judgment was entered. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that DHR lacked standing because it was not a party to the underlying judgments and had not intervened. The court also declined to treat the filing as a mandamus petition due to its untimeliness.