John B. Crawley

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityproperty

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

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.

family lawprocedure

In Quick v. Burton, plaintiff Jerry Quick sued defendant Paula Burton for breach of contract over the purchase of a vehicle, seeking approximately $19,000 plus interest. The trial court held a non-jury trial, considered oral testimony, and entered judgment in favor of Burton. On appeal, Quick did not provide a transcript of the trial and his motion to supplement the record with a proposed statement of facts under Rule 10(d) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure was denied by the trial court, which found the proposal inaccurate. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that circuit courts are courts of record where transcripts are presumed available, that the absence of a transcript or approved statement requires conclusively presuming the evidence supported the trial court's decision, and that the record on appeal is limited to what was properly presented below.

procedure

The case concerned a dispute between neighbors Mark Smyth and Wade Bratcher over access to Lugo Road, a dirt road crossing Bratcher's property that Smyth had used for decades to reach his land. After Bratcher blocked the road in 2005, Smyth sued for injunctive relief and damages, later claiming the road had become public by prescription. The trial court ruled the road was not public because any use had been permissive, denied damages, and gave Smyth time to find another access route. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the land was improved during the relevant period, that Smyth had presented sufficient evidence of at least twenty years of adverse public use creating a presumption of dedication, and that Bratcher had failed to rebut the presumption by showing permissive use only.

property

In this case, the ex-wife sued her former husband to modify and enforce child support provisions from their 1997 divorce judgment. The trial court held a hearing but later entered an order reserving its ruling on child support until the parties submitted income affidavits under Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., and noted a future status conference. The ex-husband appealed after believing his post-judgment motions had been denied by operation of law, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The core reasoning was that the trial court's order was not a final judgment because it left the child support issue unresolved, consistent with precedents like Tomlinson v. Tomlinson and Wilson v. Glasheen requiring dismissal of appeals from nonfinal orders.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a divorce action between John S. Capone, Jr. and Beverly A. Capone, who were married for about 20 years before separating in 2004. The trial court granted the divorce on grounds including adultery by the husband, divided marital assets such as vehicles, real property, cash accounts, and Iraqi dinars, and awarded the wife monthly alimony plus 25% of the husband's future military retirement benefits. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the adultery finding, holding that the wife's uncorroborated suspicions and evidence of post-separation conduct were insufficient to prove infidelity during the marriage. The court also reversed the retirement benefits award because it failed to limit the division to only the portion of benefits accrued during the marriage, rather than including the husband's pre-marriage military service. Other aspects of the property division and alimony were left intact.

family law

This case concerned a father's petition to modify custody of his daughter following the parents' 2002 divorce, which had awarded sole physical custody to the mother. After the child was removed from the mother's home due to neglect, abuse by the mother's boyfriend, and the mother's drug issues, temporary placements occurred with the Department of Human Resources and then the father's sister while the father was deployed overseas; the father later obtained pendente lite custody and sought a permanent change. The circuit court denied the modification and returned the child to the mother under a temporary order that applied a best-interests standard for future changes. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court's order was a final custody judgment subject to the McLendon standard for modification and that the evidence of the mother's ongoing problems and the father's stable environment demonstrated that a change would materially promote the child's welfare.

family lawprocedure

This case involved HealthSouth Corporation, which had intentionally overstated its personal property assets on tax returns for 2001-2003 as part of a scheme to inflate reported earnings, leading to higher ad valorem taxes paid to Jefferson County. After amending its returns to remove the fictitious assets, HealthSouth sought refunds for the 2001 and 2002 taxes under Alabama Code § 40-10-160, arguing the overpayments resulted from mistake or error, and also claimed an illegal assessment and inequitable treatment compared to its 2003 adjustment. The probate court denied the refund petitions, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the refund statute does not cover intentional misrepresentations, that the clean hands doctrine bars equitable relief for a party's own fraud, and that the tax system cannot facilitate such schemes.

taxes

In Williams v. Fox Television Stations of Birmingham, Inc., the plaintiff sued a television station and two employees for defamation arising from news broadcasts but failed to properly serve the employees. The trial court granted summary judgment to the station, and the appellate court determined that this judgment became final on October 4, 2005, even though unserved defendants remained in the case. Because the plaintiff's postjudgment motion was filed more than 30 days after entry of the judgment and the notice of appeal was filed more than 42 days later, both were untimely under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and Appellate Procedure, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

procedure

The case involved a nursing home's appeal of the Alabama Medicaid Agency's denial of reimbursement for monthly software maintenance fees on its Medicaid cost report, which the Agency classified as capital expenditures rather than operating expenses. The nursing home had purchased computer software under an agreement that included both hourly user-initiated support fees (reimbursed) and fixed monthly vendor-initiated update fees (denied). The circuit court affirmed the Agency's decision, and the Court of Civil Appeals upheld it, applying a deferential standard of review under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act and finding the classification consistent with agency rules on property costs and the fair rental system for major equipment. The court reasoned that the monthly fees functioned as part of the software's acquisition cost rather than routine maintenance, based on the distinction between capital outlays and operating expenses.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In McConico v. Culliver, prisoners James McConico and Chalmus Wright sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law, alleging failure to protect them from inmate assaults, improper placement in segregation, and denial of meaningful court access while segregated. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but the trial court granted the motion before the scheduled hearing and without serving McConico with the motion. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment, reasoning that once a hearing date is set, the nonmoving parties must be given an opportunity to respond and be heard before the motion can be decided.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Keeton v. Keeton, the husband appealed from a trial court judgment divorcing him from his wife. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely, noting that it could address jurisdiction on its own. The husband's post-judgment motion was denied by operation of law on August 15, 2005, because the parties' consents to extend the 90-day period under Rule 59.1 were filed after that deadline had passed. His notice of appeal on October 3, 2005, came more than 42 days after the denial, making it late and depriving the court of jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over custody and potential adoption of a child born in Nebraska to a Nebraska mother and father. After the mother placed the child with an Alabama couple seeking adoption without the father's consent, the father obtained a Nebraska custody judgment and sought to register and enforce it in Alabama while the couple pursued adoption proceedings there. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that Nebraska has subject-matter jurisdiction to determine custody, that the Nebraska judgment should not have been registered in Alabama because the adoptive couple were not served with process in the Nebraska proceeding, and that the judgment therefore does not comply with the PKPA or Alabama's UCCJEA and is not enforceable in Alabama. The court further concluded that any substantive proceedings must be conducted in Nebraska.

family lawprocedure

AT&T challenged Alabama's business privilege tax and corporate shares tax deduction schemes, which permitted corporations to deduct from their net worth or taxable shares base only investments in entities doing business in Alabama. The company argued these provisions facially discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and sought refunds of taxes paid. The trial court upheld the taxes, concluding they did not violate the Commerce Clause, treated in-state and out-of-state interests equally, and were justified to avoid double taxation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the schemes were facially discriminatory, invoking strict scrutiny that the state failed to satisfy, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

HICA Education Loan Corporation sued Mark L. Fielding in Alabama circuit court to collect on defaulted student loans after voluntarily dismissing a prior Florida action. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) when HICA's counsel failed to appear at a routine docket call due to a calendaring error, and later denied HICA's motion to set aside the dismissal because associated local counsel had not filed a formal notice of appearance. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the record showed no clear pattern of delay or willful conduct by the plaintiff, as only four months had passed since filing and the failure to appear was inadvertent rather than contumacious. The court further reasoned that an attorney's appearance is presumed authorized absent contrary evidence, so the trial court should have allowed local counsel to represent HICA at the hearing.

procedure

The case involved Bradley Outdoor, Inc., a billboard company, seeking to compel the City of Florence to issue a permit for an off-premise sign on Bank Independent property after the city council imposed a moratorium on such permits in June 2001 while considering zoning changes. Bradley Outdoor applied for the permit around the time of the moratorium, had its application denied based on the moratorium, and then pursued a declaratory judgment action and petition for a writ of mandamus, along with appeals of other permit denials. The court determined that mandamus relief was unavailable because an appeal constituted an adequate remedy at law, even if the appeal was untimely, and that Bradley Outdoor had waived arguments on the other permit denials by failing to properly brief them. It therefore affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the city officials and zoning board.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure