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

This case involved a petition by the director of the Thomasville Adult Adjustment Center to renew the inpatient commitment of Robert Mink to the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court granted the petition and renewed the commitment for up to one year. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that expert testimony established a recent overt act showing dangerousness through the appellant's history of threats, recent threats to harm another patient, delusional behavior, lack of insight into his illness, and prior noncompliance with medication outside the facility. The decision rested on the conclusion that this evidence met the clear and convincing standard for recommitment under applicable due process requirements.

civil rightshealthcare

This case concerns the recommitment of Elsie Camp to inpatient custody of the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation after the director of her treatment center petitioned to renew her commitment. Following an ore tenus hearing, the probate court granted the petition for up to one year, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that expert testimony from a psychologist established a recent overt act showing Camp's dangerousness to others, based on her chronic paranoid schizophrenia, ongoing delusions, history of violence, belligerence when challenged, refusal to accept treatment if released, and a specific threat to another patient in January 1992. This evidence met the Lynch v. Baxley standard requiring clear and convincing proof of substantial harm risk in recommitment proceedings, supporting the need for continued structured treatment.

civil rightshealthcare

Sarah Jean Upchurch sued Universal Underwriters Insurance Company and its claims adjuster, alleging intentional fraud after they did not include the value of her employer-paid health and life insurance premiums in calculating her average weekly wages for temporary total disability benefits following a 1988 work-related back injury. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed. Although Alabama's workers' compensation exclusivity provisions do not bar intentional fraud claims, the court held that Upchurch failed to present clear and convincing evidence of any false representation, intent to deceive, knowledge of the fringe benefits, or a duty to disclose the legal requirements for wage calculations under Ala. Code § 25-5-57(b) and related precedents like Ex parte Murray. The defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact on the fraud elements.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves a post-divorce dispute over unpaid alimony and child support. After the wife sought to hold the husband in contempt for arrears totaling $4,300, the trial court credited the husband $1,830 for other payments and ordered him to pay the remaining $2,470. The husband appealed, claiming additional credit for Social Security benefits received by the wife and son from his account, but the appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence did not conclusively establish the full amount attributable to his account and that the trial court's discretion in awarding credits was not abused.

family law

This case is a divorce appeal in which the husband challenged the trial court's rulings on visitation limits for the first six months after divorce and on the division of certain property assets. The appellate court affirmed the visitation restrictions, based on evidence of the husband's psychological distress, ongoing family conflicts, and expert testimony recommending gradual increases in visitation to serve the children's best interests. It also affirmed the awards to the wife of a brokerage account containing commingled inherited and marital funds and a half-interest in a pre-marital house, finding both to be marital assets used for the family's benefit. However, the court reversed the award of half the husband's retirement plan because Alabama law does not permit division of retirement benefits in property settlements, and it remanded the case for an adjusted equitable division of the marital estate.

family lawproperty

The case involved the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources petitioning to terminate the parental rights of F.L.L. (the mother) and the fathers of Z.C.L., a child previously found dependent, due to the mother's ongoing drug addiction and failure to comply with rehabilitation and visitation requirements. The trial court terminated the parental rights after an ore tenus hearing, determining that it was the least drastic alternative and in the child's best interest, awarding custody to the department for adoption. On appeal, the court affirmed, applying the presumption in favor of the trial court's judgment and finding clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unable or unwilling to care for the child, that the mother's condition was unlikely to change, and that all viable alternatives had been considered and rejected.

family law

This case involved a civil forfeiture action under Alabama Code § 20-2-93, in which the State sought to condemn $1,568 in U.S. currency seized from John Willie Griffin's residence and person during his arrest for cocaine possession. The trial court ordered forfeiture after an ore tenus hearing, finding the money was connected to drug activity. Griffin appealed, arguing insufficient proof linking the currency to controlled-substance violations, improper execution of the search warrant by a municipal officer also serving as a deputy sheriff, and other procedural errors. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence—including controlled buys, recovered cocaine, scales, Griffin's guilty plea, and marked bills intermingled with the seized funds—reasonably satisfied the statutory requirements, that the warrant was validly obtained and executed, and that unpreserved claims could not be raised on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Duane K. Herring, a Dothan police sergeant, who filed a grievance with the City Personnel Board claiming that a 1988 departmental salary plan created inequitable pay by allowing some lower-ranked or less-experienced officers to earn more than him after he bypassed the corporal rank in a promotion. The Board held an evidentiary hearing and denied the grievance, but the circuit court reversed on appeal, ruling the denial unreasonable and effectively requiring restoration of the prior "equal-to-but-not-less-than" policy. The appellate court reversed the circuit court, concluding that review was limited to determining whether substantial evidence supported the Board's decision and that the circuit court had impermissibly substituted its own judgment for the Board's. The court found that the new step-plan salary system, modeled on federal practices and applied uniformly, had reasonable justifications including incentives for advancement and recognition of experience, with no discriminatory application to Herring.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned a divorce proceeding in which the trial court awarded the husband all the parties' real property (valued over $70,000) and the wife $2,500 in alimony in gross. The wife appealed, arguing the property division was inequitable. The appellate court reversed, holding that although the husband had acquired much of the property before the marriage, it had been deeded into joint ownership, used for the benefit of both spouses, and maintained with contributions from the wife's income and the proceeds from her prior home; the trial court therefore erred in treating the assets as belonging solely to the husband and in failing to effect an equitable division under Alabama law.

family lawproperty

In Lee v. Lee, a divorce case, the trial court ordered the father to pay child support of $506 per month based on imputed income after finding him voluntarily unemployed or underemployed under Alabama's child support guidelines, and held him in contempt for failing to pay the mother's attorney's fees as previously ordered. The father appealed, challenging both the child support calculation and the contempt finding. The appellate court affirmed the child support award, reasoning that the trial court's ore tenus findings on the father's earning capacity and employment history were supported by the evidence and within its discretion under Rule 32, A.R.J.A. However, it reversed the contempt order, concluding that the father had not received proper notice or an opportunity to be heard regarding the indirect contempt, violating due process requirements under Rule 33.3, A.R.Crim.P. The case was remanded for entry of an order consistent with the opinion.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

In Thomas v. Thomas, the husband filed for divorce and the wife counterclaimed; the trial court granted the divorce and awarded joint legal custody of the child but primary physical custody to the husband. The wife appealed, claiming error in the custody award based on her work schedule and in the denial of her motion for reconsideration regarding post-trial changes to her hours. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's ore tenus judgment is presumed correct unless plainly wrong, that custody determinations rest on the child's best interests with both parents on equal footing, and that the trial court properly considered relevant factors such as family support and existing care arrangements without abusing its discretion on the motion.

family law

Roy G. Green, a truck driver for Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., injured his back on the job in 1990 and sued for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court, after an ore tenus hearing, found Green permanently and totally disabled based on his chronic pain, limited physical abilities, and inability to return to his former job or obtain other gainful employment, awarding corresponding compensation. Yellow Freight appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of permanent total disability and improper reliance on deposition testimony not formally entered into evidence. The appellate court applied a two-step review standard, confirmed the existence of supporting legal evidence including medical and vocational expert opinions, held that the parties had stipulated to the depositions' consideration, and affirmed the judgment.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between subcontractor Miree Painting and general contractor Woodward Construction over a $39,468 painting subcontract for a townhouse project. After paying $29,468, Woodward withheld the final $10,000, terminated the contract due to alleged defective work, and hired another subcontractor at additional cost, leading Miree to sue for the balance and Woodward to counterclaim for $14,611. The trial court ruled for Woodward after finding adequate contractual notice had been given, but the appeals court reversed, holding that the evidence showed only one valid written notice was received and that a second notice was required by the termination clause before termination and hiring a replacement. The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Miree in the amount of $10,000. The core reasoning centered on the contract's specific two-notice requirement, the rebuttal of any presumption of receipt for an unclaimed certified letter, and the determination that a standard punch list did not qualify as notice of default.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Ford Motor Credit Company sued Reaver S. Daniel to recover a deficiency balance of approximately $7,417 after repossessing and selling her financed automobile at a private wholesale dealers' auction for $3,500. Daniel denied the debt and counterclaimed, arguing that the disposition violated Alabama's Uniform Commercial Code provisions requiring commercially reasonable sales under §§ 7-9-504 and 7-9-507. The trial court entered judgment for FMCC, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the auction method was the usual and recognized practice among dealers, that proper notice had been given, and that a lower price alone does not establish commercial unreasonableness under the statute. The court rejected related claims under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act because the sale complied with UCC standards.

business & regulatoryproperty