November/December 2024
Marc A. Starrett
Marc A. Starrett is an assistant attorney general for the State of Alabama and represents the state in criminal appeals and habeas corpus in all state and federal courts. He is a graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law. Starrett served as staff attorney to Justice Kenneth Ingram and Justice Mark Kennedy on the Alabama Supreme Court, and was engaged in civil and criminal practice in Montgomery before appointment to the Office of the Attorney General. Among other cases for the office, Starrett successfully prosecuted Bobby Frank Cherry on appeal from his murder convictions for the 1963 bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.
J. Thomas Richie
J. Thomas Richie is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, where he co-chairs the class action team. He litigates procedurally-complex and high-stakes matters in Alabama and across the country. Richie is a 2007 summa cum laude graduate of the Cumberland School of Law and former law clerk to the Hon. R. David Proctor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Recent Civil Decisions - J. Thomas Richie
From the Supreme Court of Alabama
Mootness
Ex parte Martin, No. SC-2023-0902 (Ala. Aug. 23, 2024): The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed a mandamus petition as moot. The petitioner sought mandamus relief of the trial court's denial of her motion to quash a writ of restitution or possession of a house in which the petitioner was living, but she did not move to stay the underlying litigation. The trial court later granted a motion to allow the house to be sold, and it was sold. With the house sold, the Court found it no longer could grant relief as to restitution or possession and that all other issues could be raised by appeal.
Services of Process
Hoffman v. City of Birmingham Retirement & Relief Sys., No. SC-2023-0803 (Ala. Aug. 23, 2024): While the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determination that the plaintiff had failed to properly serve a copy of his petition for mandamus on the defendants—first by certified mail and then by Sheriff's Deputy as process server—the Court reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's writ of mandamus with prejudice. It found that the trial court exceeded its discretion in dismissing with prejudice when the record evidence established that the plaintiff had diligently attempted to perfect service on the defendants.
Probate Jurisdiction
Skidmore v. Skidmore, No. SC-2024-0048 (Ala. Aug. 23, 2024): While the Supreme Court of Alabama determined that it had appellate jurisdiction over the case, it found that the probate court's judgment on appeal was void because it exceeded the probate court's statutory jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that, while probate courts can determine title to real property under Alabama Code § 12-13-1(b)(5), probate courts do not have statutory authority to decide disputes over real property. Instead of deciding the dispute, the Supreme Court of Alabama opined that the probate court, upon learning of adverse claims of title to the property, should have declined to exercise jurisdiction over a petition to sell the subject property. The Court reversed the circuit court's decision not to set aside the probate court's judgment denying the motion brought by the appellant under Rule 60(b)(4).
Civil Procedure
A&W Contractors, LLC v. Colbert, No. SC-2024-0037 (Ala. Sept. 13, 2024): Homeowners sued a construction company that refused to honor a builder's warranty. The company appealed a judgment as a matter of law entered against it on the breach-of-contract claim and a jury awarding damages on the homeowner's fraudulent-misrepresentation and fraudulent-suppression claims. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's entry of judgment as a matter of law, finding that the trial court erroneously based its ruling on the defendant's failure to offer any witness testimony. Specifically, the Court found that although the homeowners presented prima facie evidence to support their breach-of-contract claim, the defendant elicited sufficient testimony on cross-examination to contradict that evidence and create a conflict warranting jury consideration, even without offering its own witness testimony. However, the Court affirmed the jury's allocation of damages on the fraudulent-misrepresentation and fraudulent-suppression claims finding that the defendant did not preserve its objections for appeal.
Default Judgment
Mobile Investments, LLC, v. Corporate Pharmacy Servs., Inc., No. SC-2024-0115 (Ala. Sept. 13, 2024): After the trial court entered a default judgment as a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) for the defendant's repeated failure to comply with multiple discovery requests and orders regarding a corporate representative's deposition, the defendants appealed. Although the current counsel for defendants argued that the former counsel did not inform them of the discovery requests and orders, the Supreme Court of Alabama made clear that any knowledge the former counsel had was imputed to the new counsel, regardless of whether the new counsel had actual knowledge or notice of the discovery orders. Further, the Court found the defendants' argument that their corporate representative was not aware of the consequences for failing to sit for a deposition to be unavailing. Thus, the Court found that the defendants' failure to comply with the trial court's discovery orders was willful and affirmed the trial court's decision to enter a default judgment under Rule 37(b)(2)(C).
Summary Judgment
Powers v. Chadwell Homes, LLC, No. SC-2024-0269 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2024): The plaintiffs purchased a residence from the defendant in exchange for a promissory note and granted the defendant a mortgage on the property to secure payment of the promissory note. After the plaintiffs defaulted on their payment, the parties engaged in multiple lawsuits over the rightful owner of the land. In March 2023, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, declaring that the defendant had a right to the possession of the property, directing the plaintiffs to vacate the property, and authorizing the local sheriff's office to remove the plaintiffs from the property, if necessary. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment, finding that the undisputed evidence showed that the defendant held legal title to the property and that the plaintiffs unlawfully withheld possession of the property. In addition, the Supreme Court of Alabama awarded sanctions in the amount of $7,070.54 to the defendant for having to defend a frivolous appeal.
Radiance Capital Receivables Twelve, LLC v. Bondy's Ford, Inc., No. SC-2023-0683 (Ala. Aug. 23, 2024): The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed summary judgment relating to a garnishment, finding that disputes of material facts existed. The Court clarified that the "appropriate inquiry under the garnishment statutes" is whether a business owes money to the debtor, not whether the debtor was an employee of the business. The Court then determined that the summary judgment evidence showed questions of fact as to whether the debtor had misused the corporate form to hide payments received from the business to the debtor.
Appellate Jurisdiction
Brewer v. Fairchild, No. SC-2024-0302 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2024): After entering summary judgment in an ejectment action, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to surrender possession of the property and certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b), but reserved jurisdiction to award additional damages for any waste that may be discovered on the property. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to award additional damages rendered the order nonfinal and, as a result, dismissed the appeal. Further, because the plaintiff's attorney filed a frivolous appeal, made unsubstantiated representations in the appellate brief, and knowingly misrepresented multiple facts to the Court, the Court entered sanctions in an amount equal to double the costs of the appeal to be paid by the plaintiff's counsel.
Universal Dev. Corp. v. Dellinger, No. SC-2023-0645 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2024): After a real estate development project ended in foreclosure, the property owner, the development group, and the licensed general contractor for the project each appealed the verdicts entered against them and in favor of the project's supervisor in three consolidated cases. The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed the development group as a party to the appeal, making clear that although the cases were consolidated for the purposes of trial, none of the judgments that were appealed consisted of verdicts adverse to the development group. Similarly, the Court dismissed the property owner's appeals because (1) two of the judgments that he appealed did not consist of any rulings adverse to him and (2) the one judgment that did consist of an adverse ruling was untimely because it was filed more than forty-two days after the date of final judgment. However, because the project supervisor's breach claim against the contractor was based on an underlying contract that was void (the project supervisor did not have a general contractor's license as required by law), the Court reversed the trial court's entry of judgment on that claim.
Davis v. American Pride Properties, LLC, No. SC-2023-0419 (Ala. Aug. 30, 2024): The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an ejectment claim as improper under Rule 54(b). After entering judgment against the defendant on an ejection claim, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the plaintiff's demand for damages for the use and detention of the property at issue but certified its judgment as final under Rule 54(b). The defendant sought to set aside the trial court's judgment against him for ejectment. Because...
