Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants R & G, LLC, George D. Copelan, Sr., Gilman Hackel, and Robert Yarbrough appealed a $1.3 million circuit court judgment entered against them and in favor of RCH IV-WB, LLC ("RCH"). In July 2005, Wolf Bay Partners, L.L.C., executed a promissory note with Wachovia Bank in the original principal amount of $2.5 million. That note was secured by a mortgage on two parcels of property in Baldwin County and guaranteed by each of the appellants, as well as by Defendants GDG Properties, LLC, David W. Mobley, and George D. Gordon. By written agreement of the parties, the amount of the indebtedness was subsequently increased to $2.9 million. Wachovia Bank thereafter assigned its interest in the note and mortgage to RCH Mortgage Fund IV, LLC. Wolf Bay Partners subsequently defaulted on its payment obligations under the terms of the promissory note, and RCH Mortgage Fund IV accordingly commenced foreclosure proceedings on the property secured by the mortgage. In early 2009, RCH, a newly created affiliate of RCH Mortgage Fund IV, purchased the property at a foreclosure sale for $2 million and RCH Mortgage Fund IV thereafter assigned RCH all of its rights under the loan. In June 2009, RCH sued the defendants, seeking to recover $1.1 million allegedly still due on the promissory note, plus interest after the proceeds of the foreclosure sale were applied to the debt. A bench trial was held, at which the defendants challenged the evidence put forth by RCH indicating that the foreclosed-upon mortgage had been properly assigned to RCH Mortgage Fund IV by Wachovia Bank. The defendants also argued that it was improper for RCH Mortgage Fund IV to sell the foreclosed property as a single unit instead of as two separate parcels and that RCH Mortgage Fund IV accepted an allegedly unconscionably low purchase price at the foreclosure sale. The trial court ultimately excluded the evidence put forth by RCH indicating that the mortgage had been assigned to RCH Mortgage Fund IV and set aside the foreclosure and sale because, for all that appeared, the wrong party had conducted the foreclosure and sale. The trial court made no ruling on the defendants' other arguments because it found that RCH Mortgage Fund IV was the wrong party to conduct the foreclosure and sale. RCH appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court, which held that RCH's evidence of mortgage assignment should have been considered by the trial court. On remand, RCH in light of the Supreme Court's reversal, all that was left for the trial court but to enter a final judgment in RCH's favor. RCH's brief was served on all defendants; however none filed a response. The trial court entered judgment in favor of RCH. Defendants Hackel and Yabrough moved the trial court to alter, amend or vacate its judgment in favor of RCH. Unsuccessful, they appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concurred with the trial court's new judgment in favor of RCH, and affirmed. View "R & G, LLC v. RCH IV-WB, LLC " on Justia Law

Alamo Title Company ("Alamo"), petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order that denied Alamo's motion to dismiss an action filed against it by P.B. Surf, Ltd., and to enter an order dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. This dispute concerned the disbursement of proceeds from the sale of the an apartment complex in Houston, Texas. According to P.B. Surf, at the time the sale was scheduled to close in late 2011, a dispute arose over who was entitled to the net proceeds of the sale and where the net proceeds were to be deposited after the closing. After the closing, Alamo wired a portion of the net proceeds from the sale to a Birmingham Wells Fargo bank account pursuant to instructions from several of the sellers. P.B. Surf sued Alamo and several other defendants, alleging, among other things, conspiracy. Alamo moved the trial court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., to dismiss P.B. Surf's claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. In an amended complaint, P.B. Surf alleged that Alamo was partially responsible for what it alleged was the improper distribution of the proceeds among Defendants Guy Savage and Willem Noltes, and P.B. Surf. When the trial court denied its motion to dismiss, Alamo moved to reconsider which was also denied. Considering the minimum-contacts analysis in the context of specific personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court concluded that the requisite minimum contacts for the trial court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over Alamo did not exist. Furthermore, the Court found that Alamo's contacts with Alabama were not continuous and systematic so as to support the trial court's exercise of general personal jurisdiction over Alamo. Therefore, the petition for a writ of mandamus established clear legal right to dismissal of P.B. Surf's complaint. View "In re: P. B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage" on Justia Law

First Commercial Bank of Huntsville appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of various defendants on claims alleged by the Bank against those defendants. Because the summary judgment did not resolve all claims against all parties and because no part of the summary judgment was certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment. View "First Commercial Bank of Huntsville v. Nowlin, III." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Joe F. Watkins, Patricia M. Smith, and RE/MAX Lake Martin Properties, LLC sued Bear Brothers, Inc., ETC Lake Development, LLC ("ETC Lake"), and E.T. "Bud" Chambers, among others, asserting claims related to the construction and development of a condominium project on Lake Martin. ETC Lake and Chambers crossclaimed against Bear Brothers seeking to recover losses suffered on the project as well as indemnification for the costs of litigating the plaintiffs' action and any damages for which they might be found liable to the plaintiffs. In January 2010, Bear Brothers moved the circuit court to compel arbitration of the cross-claim against it. The circuit court did not rule on that motion. Bear Brothers renewed its motion in July 2011, and the circuit court granted the motion to compel arbitration of the cross-claim in December. Bear Brothers then moved the circuit court "to stay [the] proceedings [in the plaintiffs' action] pending the outcome of a related arbitration." After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to stay. Bear Brothers appealed the circuit court's order denying the motion to stay to the Supreme Court; ETC Lake and Chambers moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the motion at issue in this case was a motion to stay related proceedings pending the arbitration of a crossclaim between codefendants and was filed separately from the initial motion to compel arbitration of the cross-claim and subsequent to the circuit court's order granting the motion. Thus, Bear Brothers did not demonstrate a right to appeal the denial of the motion to stay at this time, and accordingly the Court dismissed the appeal as being from a nonfinal judgment. View "Bear Brothers, Inc. v. ETC Lake Development, LLC" on Justia Law

Miller Trucking, LLC, Ben Miller, and Miriam Miller ("the Miller plaintiffs) appeal a summary judgment in favor of APAC Mid-South, Inc. (APAC), Oldcastle Materials, Inc., and Steve Reynolds (defendants). The facts of this appeal were based on contracts between the Alabama Department of Transportation ("ADOT") and APAC and between APAC and Miller Trucking. ADOT hired APAC to provide aggregate materials for distribution to counties, and APAC, in turn, hired Miller Trucking to haul the aggregate materials to the counties purchasing the aggregate materials from the State. At issue in this appeal were adjustments to the compensation of APAC paid Miller Trucking based on the cost of fuel during the time of the contract. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings. A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a 2008 APAC-Miller Trucking contract and a 2009 hired-truck qualification agreement were modified to include fuel-price-adjustment agreements and, if so, what the terms of those agreements were. View "Miller Trucking, LLC, et al. v. APAC Mid-South, Inc., et al. " on Justia Law

Dr. Stephen L. Wallace appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Belleview Properties Corporation, IPF/Belleview Limited Partnership ("IPF"), HR/Belleview, L.P., and Infinity Property Management Corporation ("the defendants"). In August 1991, Wallace leased office space in the Belleview Shopping Center to use for his dental practice. Around 1996, the defendants purchased the shopping center and renewed Wallace's lease. The lease was renewed a second time in 2003 for a term of five years. In 2005, Wallace sued the defendants,1 alleging fraud and suppression; negligence; wantonness; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and negligent training, supervision, and retention. Wallace alleged that, during the term of the lease, he reported various maintenance problems to the defendants. He also alleged that, although the defendants assured him that the problems would be taken care of, but that they were not. Wallace asserted that, as a result of reported water leaks that were left unrepaired, the office was infested with toxic mold. Therefore, he had to close his practice to avoid exposing his employees and his patients to the toxic mold. The defendants successfully filed a motion for a summary judgment as to Wallace's claims against them. In 2010, Wallace filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that Wallace did not timely file his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wallace v. Belleview Properties Corp." on Justia Law

Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC ("Target Media"), and Specialty Marketing Corporation d/b/a Truck Market News ("Specialty Marketing"), both publishers of magazines directed to long-haul truck drivers and to the truck-driving industry, have been in a commercial-contract dispute since 2007 in which each party alleged breach-of-contract claims against the other. Specialty Marketing also alleged fraudulent-misrepresentation and promissory-fraud claims against Target Media and Ed Leader, Target Media's vice president of trucking, and sought punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Specialty Marketing on its breach-of-contract and promissory-fraud claims against Target Media, in favor of Leader on the promissory-fraud claim against him, in favor of Specialty Marketing on its fraudulent-misrepresentation claim against Target Media and Leader, and in favor of Target Media on its breach-of-contract counterclaim against Specialty Marketing. Target Media and Leader appealed that aspect of the judgment entered on the jury verdict in favor of Specialty Marketing on its claims against Target Media and Leader. Specialty Marketing did not appeal the judgment insofar as it found in favor of Target Media on Target Media's counterclaim. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order denying Target Media's motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JML)and/or a new trial as to Specialty Marketing's breach-of-contract claim. The Court reversed the trial court's order denying Target Media and Leader's motion for a JML as to Specialty Marketing's fraudulent-misrepresentation and promissory-fraud claims. The case was remanded back to the trial court for entry of a JML in favor of Target Media and Leader as to Specialty Marketing's fraudulent-misrepresentation claim and to enter a JML in favor of Target Media as to Specialty Marketing's promissory-fraud claim. Because the Court concluded that the trial court should have granted a JML as to Specialty Marketing's fraudulent-misrepresentation and promissory-fraud claims, the Court pretermitted consideration of the other arguments made by the parties regarding those claims. View "Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC v. Specialty Marketing Corp." on Justia Law

S & M, LLC, d/b/a Huntsville Cab Company ("Huntsville Cab"), petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review of a decision of the Court of Civil Appeals which affirmed a judgment in favor of Kevin Burchel, as personal representative of the estate of Roy William Burchel on Huntsville Cab's claim against the estate damages for loss of use of a commercial vehicle. The issue before the Court was whether the measure-of-damages rule set forth in "Hunt v. Ward," (79 So. 2d 20 (1955)), was consistent with the purpose of compensatory damages, which is "'to make the plaintiff whole by reimbursing him or her for the loss or harm suffered.'" Because the Court concluded that the rule stated in "Hunt" was not consistent with this purpose, the Court modified the rule, reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "S & M, LLC v. Burchel " on Justia Law

James Stanley Wilbanks appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of United Refractories, Inc. ("United"), a company supplying equipment used in the repair of coke-oven batteries, in Wilbanks's action against United seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained from an explosion involving a ceramic welding machine supplied to Wilbanks's employer by United. On the day of the accident, Wilbanks was a member of a three-person welding team engaged in the process of repairing a coke oven. However, as he attempted to remove a powder hose from the mixing chamber, an explosion occurred, causing the loss of his left hand and burns to other portions of his body. Wilbanks sued United alleging that Wilbanks was injured as the result of the "fail[ure]" of "the subject equipment" and that United had "negligently and/or wantonly fail[ed] to properly inspect and maintain the subject equipment and its component parts." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Wilbanks failed to produce evidence of any causal relationship between his injuries and any alleged acts or omissions of United. "United's summary-judgment motion was due to be granted. The judgment entered for United is, therefore, affirmed." View "Wilbanks v. United Refractories, Inc. " on Justia Law

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, ("T&C"), appealed a summary judgment in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company which held that Amerisure was not obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of T&C and against Amerisure's insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, because, the trial court reasoned, the faulty construction of the T&C facility upon which the judgment was based was not an "occurrence" covered under the commercial general-liability ("CGL") insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. In October 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment entered by the trial court, agreeing that faulty construction did not in and of itself constitute an occurrence for CGL-policy purposes and that, accordingly, "Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams for the judgment entered against it insofar as the damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty work." However, the Court further recognized that if damages had been awarded T&C to compensate it for damage the faulty construction later caused to personal property or some otherwise nondefective portion of the T&C property, then "[t]hose damages would constitute 'property damage' resulting from an 'occurrence,' and they would be covered under the terms of the Amerisure policy ...." Upon a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that on remand, a $392,600 judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. The order ultimately entered by the trial court failed to specifically identify any personal property or nondefective portions of the T&C facility that were damaged as a result of the faulty construction. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered by the trial court on remand, and remanded the case once again to the trial court so that it could enter a final judgment in favor of T&C for $600. View "Town & Country Property, L.L.C. v. Amerisure Insurance Company" on Justia Law