Robert J. Russell

This case concerns post-divorce proceedings where the mother sought modification of child support to include post-minority support and college expenses for their daughter. The trial court ordered the father to pay increased monthly support continuing through the daughter's first four years of college, plus half of tuition and books not covered by grants. The father appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of the daughter's aptitude and his financial ability. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that while the criteria for post-minority support were satisfied, the trial court's order was overly broad and risked imposing undue hardship by not capping expenses for potentially costly colleges.

family law

The case involved Shelby County seeking a permanent injunction to stop property owners Charles and Ileane Matthews from constructing commercial buildings on their land in violation of the county's zoning ordinance for Beat 12, which had been administered by the Shelby County Planning Commission. The Matthews raised constitutional challenges to the authorizing legislation and counterclaimed for inverse condemnation, alleging an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, and sought damages. The trial court granted the injunction, ordered removal of signs, and denied all counterclaims after an ore tenus hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the zoning remained valid under a subsequent legislative act that ratified prior actions, that no taking had occurred based on the evidence of property value, and that procedural objections regarding parties were waived by not being raised at trial.

propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over a real estate sales contract in which Andrew Kaufman agreed to buy property from William Wilkens at $3 per square foot and paid $5,000 in earnest money, but failed to close after two extensions despite Wilkens rezoning the land and securing financing. Kaufman sued for return of the earnest money, while Wilkens counterclaimed for breach damages; the trial court granted summary judgment to Wilkens on liability but awarded no damages and ordered the earnest money returned, finding the liquidated damages clause void as a penalty. On appeal, the court affirmed the liability ruling, holding that summary judgment was proper because no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding encroachments, zoning, or development conditions in the contract. It reversed on damages, ruling that the proper measure is the difference between contract price and market value at breach (plus proven out-of-pocket costs), that Wilkens had presented undisputed evidence of increased market value through testimony, and that the earnest money was not recoverable because Wilkens had not agreed to cancel the contract.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Celeste Hice sued Michelle Driver for conversion after Driver allegedly failed to return or account for antique furniture and glassware that Hice had consigned to her for sale under an oral agreement. The trial court, after hearing ore tenus testimony, entered judgment for Hice and awarded $8,325 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported a finding that Driver either wrongfully refused to return the property after demand or exercised dominion over it inconsistent with Hice's rights, constituting conversion. The court emphasized that the trial judge was the sole arbiter of witness credibility and that its findings were presumed correct on review unless palpably wrong or unsupported by evidence. Other issues raised by Driver, such as the statute of frauds, were deemed inapplicable because the claim sounded in tort rather than contract.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved the recommitment of Sandra Thompson to Bryce Hospital for treatment of her paranoid schizophrenia after the director petitioned for renewal of her commitment. The probate court granted the petition, finding clear and convincing evidence that Thompson posed a real and present threat of substantial harm to herself or others, was unable to make rational decisions about her treatment, and that inpatient commitment was the least restrictive alternative. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the evidence, including testimony about her hallucinations, assaultive behavior when unmedicated, history of setting fires, and noncompliance with treatment for other conditions like diabetes, sufficiently supported the probate court's findings under applicable statutes and precedent.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

This case involved the recommitment of Joseph Taylor to inpatient custody with the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation following a petition by the director of Searcy Hospital. After an ore tenus hearing, the probate court renewed the commitment for up to one year, and Taylor appealed on the grounds that no recent overt act had been shown to demonstrate he posed a threat of substantial harm to himself or others. The court affirmed the probate court's order, holding that the testimony of Taylor's treating psychologist provided a sufficient factual basis under the standards from Lynch v. Baxley and Alabama statutes. The psychologist described Taylor's ongoing schizophrenia, delusions, and specific incidents such as throwing milk at staff, striking another patient, and combative behavior, which supported the finding of dangerousness in the recommitment context. The court noted that the requirement of a recent overt act is interpreted more broadly for recommitments than initial commitments.

healthcarecivil rights