Ex parte Marcy Bradshaw Darnall III et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Marcy Bradshaw Darnall III et al. v. James Hughes, Jr., et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/16/2009 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 2080857 Ex p a r t e Marcy Bradshaw D a r n a l l III et a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Marcy Bradshaw D a r n a l l III et a l . v. James Hughes, J r . , e t a l . ) 2080919 Marcy Bradshaw D a r n a l l III et a l . v. James Hughes, J r . , e t a l . Appellate Proceedings from Lauderdale C i r c u i t (CV-06-402.80) Court 2080857; MOORE, 2080919 Judge. In case Darnall III, E l i z a b e t h D a r n a l l Champion, D o r o t h y D a r n a l l F r a n k s , and Trent Putman no. 2080857, (hereinafter Marcy referred petitioned Lauderdale Circuit Court to entered remand after the trial reversed [Ms. in part 2070349, Oct. by 17, 2008). In case part the judgment to of no. James Hughes, ordering declaring the a portion court's the appealed road remove to the Hugheses extent and to T y l e r affirmed that i t Calhoun. App. from that damages the to the gate Calhoun trial awarded With 2 Hughes. from the Hugheses court Hughes, History the This v. compensatory Procedural a w a r d i n g c o m p e n s a t o r y damages i n t h e ___ . appeal Shirley certain $5,000 judgment (Ala. Civ. Darnalls and and the i t s judgment Darnall 3d "the directing of and Darnalls to as original See remand a w a r d i n g and Darnalls mandamus So. ("Hughes"), a of court. 2008] on Facts judgment this 2080919, Jr. In D a r n a l l , the writ collectively vacate was a to Darnalls") on for Bradshaw be court's public blocking road, the road, amount o f $15,000 III. court's compensatory regard a trial to ___ So. judgment damages the 3d to at except to the award of 2080857; 2080919 c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, t h i s damages awarded evidence, and remanded the supported by the trial damages a w a r d i n g no trial not court being bars reversed cause the the for the the evidence. ___ entered a amount of ordered: the p u b l i c road themselves, being this [the of by the judgment and to enter a at ___ . On 3d awarding $9,262.50 to the With respect posts amount supported court's court So. t h a t the not judgment "The the and trial trial damages t o C a l h o u n . also concluded speculative on removed by of we court in was court remand, compensatory Hugheses and to the gate, holding n e e d n o t be judgment the cross bars the cross removed but p r o h i b i t e d o b s t r u c t i o n , must Darnalls] w i t h i n ten (10) days the from the be date [judgment]." C a s e No. 2 0 8 0 8 5 7 -- Petition for a Writ of Mandamus "A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , a n d i s a p p r o p r i a t e when t h e p e t i t i o n e r c a n show (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . " Ex parte The court's BOC Group, Inc., 823 So. D a r n a l l s argue t h a t the instructions on remand. 3 2d trial 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001). c o u r t went beyond Specifically, the this Darnalls 2080857; 2080919 challenge "The t h e j u d g m e n t on r e m a n d t o t h e e x t e n t posts need not h o l d i n g the be cross bars removed but prohibited obstruction, within (10) the ten Darnalls that ask p o r t i o n of cross must be days from the this court the to trial not bars the the p u b l i c by of t h i s direct on themselves, removed date court's being that i t states: [the being court the Darnalls] [judgment]." trial road to The vacate judgment. "It i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t , a f t e r remand, the t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d comply s t r i c t l y w i t h the mandate o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t by e n t e r i n g and i m p l e m e n t i n g the appropriate judgment. See Walker v. Humana M e d i c a l C o r p . , 423 So. 2d 8 9 1 , 892 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 982). I n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a P o w e r Co., 431 So. 2d 1 5 1 , 155 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , we h e l d : " ' " I t i s the duty of the t r i a l c o u r t , on remand, to comply s t r i c t l y with the mandate of the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e reviewing c o u r t . No j u d g m e n t o t h e r t h a n t h a t d i r e c t e d o r p e r m i t t e d b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may be e n t e r e d . ... The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n is final as to a l l matters before i t , b e c o m e s t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , a n d m u s t be executed a c c o r d i n g to the mandate, w i t h o u t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l o r t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e . . . . " 5 Am. J u r . 2 d , A p p e a l & E r r o r § 991 (1962).'" A u e r b a c h v. We Parker, agree permitted to that 558 the address on So. only 2d 900, issue r e m a n d was 4 902 that the (Ala. the issue 1989). trial of court was damages. We 2080857; note, 2080919 however, ordered that the Darnalls remand, t h e t r i a l original be provisions. a original judgment had I n i t s judgment court merely r e i t e r a t e d the d i r e c t i v e We find Thus, clear court's t o remove t h e g a t e . judgment by o r d e r i n g removed. shown the t r i a l we legal no that material conclude right the cross to difference that the bars of i n the of the gate i n the the Darnalls issuance on have a two not writ of mandamus. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , writ we d e n y D a r n a l l s ' p e t i t i o n o f mandamus. C a s e No. 2 0 8 0 9 1 0 On a p p e a l , in fora awarding Darnall, we the Darnalls any amount set forth of -- Appeal argue t h a t damages the evidence the t r i a l to the relating court Hugheses. In to compensatory damages as f o l l o w s : "Calhoun t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e most d i r e c t and c o n v e n i e n t r o u t e f o r h i m t o a c c e s s h i s p r o p e r t y was by t r a v e l i n g t h e r o a d t h a t t h e D a r n a l l s h a d b l o c k e d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e o n l y o t h e r way t o g e t t o h i s p r o p e r t y was b y a s k i n g a n o t h e r p r o p e r t y o w n e r f o r permission to cross h i s property. Calhoun t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v a l u e o f h i s p r o p e r t y was $144 , 0 00 w i t h access to the road; without access, i t w o u l d be 'pretty close to worthless.' [James Hughes, J r . , ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d m i s s e d t w o t u r k e y s e a s o n s a n d one d e e r s e a s o n b e c a u s e o f t h e D a r n a l l s ' b l o c k i n g t h e r o a d . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o u l d h a v e l e a s e d t h e 5 erred 2080857; 2080919 h u n t i n g r i g h t s t o h i s 260 a c r e s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $5 a n a c r e , o r $ 1 , 3 0 0 . H u g h e s a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had lost approximately $6,750 i n i n t e r e s t from m o n e y s t h a t he c o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d i f he h a d n o t been p r e v e n t e d f r o m u s i n g t h e r o a d t o remove t i m b e r f r o m h i s p r o p e r t y . Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v a l u e of h i s p r o p e r t y i s $265,000 w i t h a c c e s s t o t h e r o a d ; w i t h o u t a c c e s s , t h e v a l u e w o u l d be $ 1 5 5 , 0 0 0 . " So. 3d a t The had . Darnalls note that "five dollar argue amounts, Darnalls that testified also the p r i c e that probably." (Emphasis added.) Hughes was not argue that the have leased Hugheses the hunting had not b l o c k e d argue that of timber there had was gone exact to rights access rate The in his speculative. failed he $75,000" the p r e v a i l i n g hunting-lease because i f the Darnalls at t r i a l timber worth "about t h e r e s u l t i n g damages were would Darnalls whether acre that, further they property and t h a t d o l l a r s an Darnalls The Hughes been d e l a y e d from h a r v e s t i n g from h i s property is 1 The testify to to the their land. no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g up o r down during the We n o t e t h a t t h e $ 6 , 7 5 0 i n i n t e r e s t n o t e d i n D a r n a l l was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g an i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 6% p e r annum; h o w e v e r , i n t h e H u g h e s e s ' b r i e f t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e y a r g u e d t h a t an i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 6.5% p e r annum s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a p p l i e d . A p p l y i n g t h e 6.5% i n t e r e s t r a t e , t h e H u g h e s e s c a l c u l a t e d t h a t the t o t a l i n t e r e s t l o s t combined w i t h the t o t a l r e n t a l income l o s t would e q u a l $9,262.50. Because the D a r n a l l s have not r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f what i s t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r e s t r a t e t o t h i s c o u r t , h o w e v e r , we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r i t . 1 6 2080857; year 2080919 and a h a l f timber that on t h e i r We note, Ass'n 2003). We however, t h a t v. "[a] p l a i n t i f f Hobbs, 858 that So. that t h e Hugheses they have received the trial rights court's had from t h a t they had l o s t funds they hunting 2d the t r i a l determined the the i s not r e q u i r e d to to a mathematical c e r t a i n t y . " conclude could to harvest property. p r o v e h i s damages Auto. t h e Hugheses were u n a b l e 966, court lost -- PETITION 2080919 -- could have interest on properly t h e money timber c o u l d have r e c e i v e d from a w a r d o f damages Servs. ( A l a . C i v . App. s e l l i n g harvested to t h e i r property. 2080857 972 United Accordingly, we and leasing affirm to the Hugheses. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and DENIED. Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.