Stephany Kizer-Byers v. John P. Byers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 12/04/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 - 2010 2071003 Tanya H a r r i s v. Tuscaloosa Housing A u t h o r i t y Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CV-08-444) PITTMAN, Judge. AFFIRMED. See 45, Rule NO O P I N I O N . 53(a)(1) a n d ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , A l a . R. A p p . P.; R u l e A l a . R. A p p . P.; A l a . C o d e seq., Court & 3 5 - 9 A - 4 6 1 ; Woodward 1 9 7 5 , §§ 6 - 6 - 2 2 2 , v. Roberson, 6-6-280 e t 789 S o . 2 d 8 5 3 , 856 2071003 (Ala. 2001); 1994); D a v i s v . H e s t e r , 582 S o . 2 d 5 3 8 , 540 v. H a l l , v. P e r l e y v . T a p s c a n , I n c . 646 S o . 2 d 5 8 5 , 587 ( A l a . 245 A l a . 6 1 2 , 6 1 3 , 18 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 369 Rogers, Patterson, 210 975 A l a . 423, So. 2d (Ala. 1996); and Crim. App. This Goldsmith Thompson, So. 991-92 370 (1944); Solomon (1923); State, Martin ( A l a . C i v . App. C o . , 689 S o . 2 d 1 5 2 , 153 v. 709 Moss So. 2d v. 2007 ) ; ( A l a .C i v . 1352, 1353 1997). a p p e a l was Supreme C o u r t 98 984 , Palmer v. SunBank & T r u s t App. ( A l a . 1991); transferred pursuant to this t o A l a . Code c o u r t by t h e Alabama 1975, § 12-2-7(6). P . J . , a n d Thomas, J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , concurs specially, 2 which Bryan, J . , joins. 2071003 MOORE, J u d g e , Tanya Harris May 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 . ("the concurring specially. circuit 1 timely appeals from a judgment entered I n t h a t judgment, t h e T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t c o u r t " ) found, among o t h e r t h i n g s , that on Court Harris H a r r i s a l s o a t t e m p t s t o a p p e a l from two e a r l i e r o r d e r s denying h e r request f o r a waiver o f t h e f e e f o rmaking a j u r y demand b a s e d on h e r a l l e g e d i n d i g e n t s t a t u s . However, t h o s e o r d e r s can be r e v i e w e d b y t h i s c o u r t o n l y b y a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. S e e E x p a r t e M e l t o n , 837 S o . 2 d 8 1 9 , 821 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; a c c o r d G o l d s m i t h v . S t a t e , 709 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 2 , 1 3 5 3 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). T h i s c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n t o t r e a t an a p p e a l a s a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. S e e F o w l e r v . M e r k l e , 564 S o . 2 d 9 6 0 , 961 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) . However, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , a n d the filing of a "motion for reconsideration" of an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r does n o t t o l l t h e p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a petition f o r the writ o f mandamus. See Ex p a r t e Fibre T r a n s p o r t , L . L . C . , 902 S o . 2 d 98 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) . The c i r c u i t court entered the o r i g i n a l order denying the waiver request on A p r i l 25, 2008, and i t denied a motion to r e c o n s i d e r t h a t o r d e r on May 13, 2 0 0 8 . Harris d i d not f i l e h e r a p p e a l u n t i l June 18, 2008, o u t s i d e t h e p r e s u m p t i v e l y reasonable time for filing a petition f o r the writ of mandamus, see Rule 21(a)(3), A l a . R. App. P. ("The presumptively reasonable time f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n seeking r e v i e w o f a n o r d e r o f a t r i a l c o u r t ... s h a l l b e t h e same a s t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l . " ) , a n d s h e d i d n o t s t a t e a n y reasons i n h e r b r i e f t o t h i s court that would a l l o w t h i s court to excuse h e r d e l a y i n f i l i n g . Thus, I concur i n t h i s c o u r t ' s t r e a t m e n t o f H a r r i s ' s a p p e a l s o l e l y as an a p p e a l from t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s May 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , j u d g m e n t a n d i n t h e i m p l i c i t h o l d i n g that t h i s court cannot c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e whether t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o waive t h e jury-demand f e e . 1 3 2071003 had " v o l u n t a r i l y surrendered had been leasing ("THA"). Based on Harris's request to and restrain action to court the that finding, her full possession the THA from and appeal, Housing circuit any or Harris i n i t i a l l y her due-process preliminary-injunction Rule 65(a)(2), courts trial Ala. hearing; court combine must the R. threaten into P., however, a f f o r d the to See object, or ( q u o t i n g P u g h s l e y v. F.2d to 1055, 1057 provide (7th such to denied a 975 on 2d on trial with an our caselaw, the of i t s intent to special error, the grants parties 984, court merits. the merits to 1972)). is 4 other circuit the 991 have procedures.'" Coop. F a i l u r e by but ample (Ala. Civ. 3750 L a k e S h o r e D r i v e notice or THA. trial the suggest So. Cir. apartment The specifically that to transforming parties notice to the her. by pursuant so Patterson, 2007) rights Civ. proceedings v. court argues t h a t the c i r c u i t hearing "'opportunity Martin she Authority retaliatory the power t o c o n s o l i d a t e a t r i a l injunction apartment c o n t r o l of taking i n t i m i d a t e , harass, violated court Tuscaloosa f u r t h e r i s s u e d a w r i t of possession On 463 abandoned" the f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g THA restore to from and the App. Bldg., a error trial will 2071003 justify party his a reversal o f t h e judgment can demonstrate or her case. that the court See M a r t i n , did not failed implicitly conduct a trial court order on of affirmance, either that lease and t h a t and took possession the merits or THA h a d s u b s e q u e n t l y adjudicate been minimum, several given one, re-entered two, four, five, entitled. claims, but i t Harris's claims and s i x of her w h i c h a l l e g e t h a t THA b r e a c h e d t h e l e a s e , wrongfully premises, entered effectively i n counts and evicted, that THA the premises of Harris's notice had ousted, court claims, of the c i r c u i t when the locks. held a trial 5 from Therefore, on the i t s employees at a the merits and t h e p a r t i e s should court's t h a t she and excluded trespassed t o change the c i r c u i t has and abandoned "lawfully does, had Harris o f t h e p r e m i s e s " t o w h i c h i t was a t a minimum, court I n i t s May 30, 2 0 0 8 , j u d g m e n t , t h e a l l Harris's complaint, the majority that The j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t a d j u d i c a t e asserted prejudiced the c i r c u i t r u l e d that H a r r i s had surrendered the complaining 975 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 1 - 9 2 . holds t o show p r e j u d i c e . circuit i f the t h e l a c k o f n o t i c e has In i s s u i n g a no-opinion of only have i n t e n t t o do s o . of been 2071003 However, Harris failed a postjudgment motion t o show p r e j u d i c e . to alter, amend, o r v a c a t e 2008, judgment, b u t she d i d n o t p r e s e n t she had been injunction on prejudiced hearing appeal, what the into a trial Harris indicating by has also circuit to Harris's that testimony. The i t s factual Federal 1995)). reversed I hearing and agree on t h e b a s i s injunction Harris's Practice Hence, have record Under those circumstances, 975 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 1 - 9 2 (quoting that the that the c i r c u i t with a trial § judgment on court by presented reveals that entirely affect Civil brief on " ' i t i s clear 11A C h a r l e s Procedure: the prejudice findings c o n s o l i d a t i o n d i d not d e t r i m e n t a l l y Martin, al., based 30, of In her show she c o u l d would have b o l s t e r e d h e r case. the t h e May transformation failed that filed a n y a r g u m e n t a s t o how on t h e m e r i t s . a d d i t i o n a l evidence court Harris [Harris].'" A. W r i g h t e t 2950 (2d ed. should not consolidated be the the merits of some of t h e judgment should be reversed claims. Harris also argues that b e c a u s e , as a m a t t e r o f law, she d i d n o t abandon t h e p r e m i s e s . See Bowdoin So. 2d Square, 1091, 1100 LLC v. Winn-Dixie ( A l a . 2003) 6 Montgomery, (holding that I n c . , 873 "abandonment" 2071003 requires that tenant vacate however, that the c i r c u i t the leased court found premises). both that I note, Harris abandoned t h e premises and t h a t she had surrendered had the lease. H a r r i s m a k e s no a r g u m e n t i n h e r i n i t i a l b r i e f t h a t t h e c i r c u i t court erred i n finding that she had surrendered Because t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t court under t o address e i t h e r theory, Harris's I s e e no n e e d abandonment argument. S c h n a t z , 983 S o . 2 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 - 1 3 that when trial sufficient court grounds found would not review when trial court's would be judgment the decision error could court that not to reverse on t h e b a s i s that of v. of Estate and contract, this regarding be first affirmed on Therefore, t h e judgment the c i r c u i t (holding independent, real-estate ground, which a p p e l l a n t d i dnot address). in the merits Kellis two a l t e r n a t e , alleged justified ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) for voiding court See the lease. court second I concur of the erred ground circuit i n finding H a r r i s had abandoned t h e premises. Harris next argues that the c i r c u i t court a u t h o r i t y b y g r a n t i n g THA a w r i t o f p o s s e s s i o n evicting argues her that from the leased THA n e v e r filed premises. a counterclaim 7 exceeded i t s and e s s e n t i a l l y Harris basically seeking a writ of 2071003 possession issue a and writ premises. that of circuit requesting premises. has a would surrender forgo an of possession of of the case, THA, through i t s evidence indicating accordance entitled the lease the lease i n October action. that THA argued i n fact, exclusive without having to f i l e an e v i c t i o n raised by as Ala. may i f they R. pleadings had been C i v . P. possession of are they leased of shall THA, the action. tried Hence, t h e r e q u e s t argues any leased and 2007 t h a t that she by of the the lease i n therefore, leased express was premises "When i s s u e s or not implied be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s raised i n the pleadings." be i m p l i e d from t h e Harris 2007 surrendered possession consent of the p a r t i e s , the at the close agreement and t h a t to the filed i n e x c h a n g e f o r THA's a g r e e m e n t t o H a r r i s had, with presented never leased writ Harris, THA from a g r e e d w i t h H a r r i s i n December eviction that tenant to fact, H a r r i s had breached THA h a d m u t u a l l y jurisdiction in a of no that, However, a t t h e t r i a l cross-examination evidence court evicting possession I t appears pleading that a Rule f o r a w r i t of 15(b), possession evidence. that, because premises a landlord may following termination 8 recover of the 2071003 lease only court could circuit 3d v i a an u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r have issued court purported 1011, 1013 jurisdiction district the writ to issue. ( A l a . C i v . App. over action, only of § 6-6-350, district possession that See D a r b y v . S c h l e y , 2008) ("By unlawful-detainer courts. a actions A l a . Code c o u r t may n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n statute, o v e r an ... 8 So. original lies 1975. the A in the circuit unlawful-detainer a c t i o n u n t i l t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t has a d j u d i c a t e d t h e u n l a w f u l detainer circuit 1975, action court."). § except file i n case "[a] landlord o f abandonment, chapter." Hence, of the premises. preside over Harris's jurisdictional Bryan, an J., not may or take or otherwise ... , action of a recover o r as p e r m i t t e d surrender of in leased and Tenant A c t , A l a . e t s e q . , t h e l a n d l o r d does n o t have t o unlawful-detainer possession to the Code surrender, i n cases appealed Pursuant to A l a . by the Uniform L a n d l o r d 1975, § 35-9A-101 an o f t h e p a r t i e s has of the d w e l l i n g u n i t by premises covered Code one Harris i s incorrect. 35-9A-427, possession this and action in order to recover Because the c i r c u i t court d i d not unlawful-detainer action, argument l a c k s concurs. 9 merit. I concur that
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
