Vivian Marsheila Woods, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Vernon H. Gilchrist, deceased v. SunTrust Bank (Appeal from Lauderdale Circuit Court: CV-06-151)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/24/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 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, 2010-2011 2090627 V i v i a n M a r s h e i l a Woods, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Vernon H. G i l c h r i s t , deceased v. SunTrust Bank 2100034 Ex p a r t e V i v i a n M a r s h e i l a Woods, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the e s t a t e o f Vernon H. G i l c h r i s t , deceased PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : V i v i a n M a r s h e i l a Woods, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Vernon H. G i l c h r i s t , deceased v. SunTrust Bank) 2100089 V i v i a n M a r s h e i l a Woods, as the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Vernon H. G i l c h r i s t , deceased v. SunTrust Bank A p p e l l a t e proceedings from Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court (CV-06-151) THOMAS, J u d g e . V e r n o n H. G i l c h r i s t a n d W i l l a Mae G i l c h r i s t collectively referred t o a t times o b t a i n e d a $25,000 e q u i t y line as "the G i l c h r i s t s " ) of credit f r o m S u n T r u s t Bank ( " S u n T r u s t " ) i n 1987, w h i c h was s e c u r e d b y t h e i r G i l c h r i s t home"); t h e G i l c h r i s t s with SunTrust. durable son, powers and V i v i a n I n December of attorney Marsheila attorneys-in-fact. (hereinafter home ("the a l s o had a checking account 2003, naming Woods, the G i l c h r i s t s executed Kenneth G i l c h r i s t , their their d a u g h t e r , as j o i n t The G i l c h r i s t s e x e c u t e d a s e c o n d a n d t h i r d 2 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 power o f a t t o r n e y f o l l o w i n g naming Woods Gilchrists as both Kenneth's suffered from i n April 2005, attorney-in-fact. the G i l c h r i s t s ' death The significant health problems, r e q u i r i n g in-home c a r e f r o m c a r e g i v e r s a n d r e q u i r i n g Woods t o h a n d l e many o f t h e i r financial I n J a n u a r y 2005, K e n n e t h affairs. accompanied Vernon t o SunTrust, where V e r n o n s i g n e d a c h e c k w i t h d r a w i n g $8,000 f r o m t h e e q u i t y line o f c r e d i t ; Woods q u e s t i o n e d t h e v a l i d i t y withdrawal. The G i l c h r i s t s o f t h e $8,000 t h e n s t o p p e d m a k i n g p a y m e n t s on t h e e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t , a n d t h e d e b t became d e l i n q u e n t a n d in default. the I n November 2005, S u n T r u s t w i t h d r e w $1,899 Gilchrists' delinquent checking account equity-line-of-credit to offset debt. part SunTrust from of the d i d not r e c e i v e any more p a y m e n t s on t h e d e b t . I n t h e s p r i n g o f 2005, S u n T r u s t b e g a n c o l l e c t i o n on t h e d e l i n q u e n t e q u i t y - l i n e - o f - c r e d i t d e b t . efforts SunTrust made numerous t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o t h e G i l c h r i s t home i n r e f e r e n c e t o the d e l i n q u e n t debt. various 1 The t e l e p h o n e calls were a n s w e r e d b y c a r e g i v e r s o r Woods; t h e c a r e g i v e r s w o u l d relay the A c c o r d i n g t o Woods, S u n T r u s t made 104 t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o t h e G i l c h r i s t home. 1 3 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 content of the telephone Woods. Some Gilchrists' calls that they had r e c e i v e d t o of the c o l l e c t i o n calls were d i r e c t e d to the attorney. SunTrust t o d i r e c t Woods a n d t h e c a r e g i v e r s i n s t r u c t e d a l l of i t s telephone calls regarding the debt t o t h e G i l c h r i s t s ' a t t o r n e y ; however, S u n T r u s t to call the G i l c h r i s t home. Willa Mae d i e d continued on O c t o b e r 1, M a r c h 2006, S u n T r u s t b e g a n f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s on 2005. In the Gilchrist her i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , as a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r V e r n o n , a n d as the executrix complaint home. On A p r i l of 5, 2006, V e r n o n a n d Woods, i n the estate i n the Lauderdale of W i l l a Circuit Mae, Court. 3 2 filed In a their On June 12, 2006, t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y Woods as t h e r n e y - i n f a c t f o r V e r n o n were d i s m i s s e d as were t h e c l a i m s atto o f t h e e s t a t e o f W i l l a Mae " t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e s u i t a l l e g e s c a u s e s o f a c t i o n t h a t d i d n o t s u r v i v e h e r d e a t h . " The t r i a l c o u r t l a t e r e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f S u n T r u s t on t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s o f t h e e s t a t e o f W i l l a Mae. Those c l a i m s a r e n o t a t i s s u e i n t h e s e a p p e a l s . 2 2 I n a d d i t i o n t o naming S u n T r u s t as a d e f e n d a n t , V e r n o n a n d Woods named S u n T r u s t B a n k s , I n c . , S u n T r u s t M o r t g a g e , I n c . , SunTrust Real E s t a t e C o r p o r a t i o n , SunTrust P e r s o n a l Loans, Inc., S u n T r u s t Bank T e n n e s s e e V a l l e y , a n d J e f f K e l s e y as defendants. The t r i a l court dismissed a l l t h e named defendants, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f SunTrust, as p a r t i e s . Vernon a n d Woods a l s o a s s e r t e d claims against several fictitiously named p a r t i e s , but they never subsequently 3 4 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 complaint, Vernon injunctions Gilchrist to home. and Woods s o u g h t prevent SunTrust V e r n o n and temporary from Woods a l s o j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t V e r n o n was requiring SunTrust transactions the to a further asserted of moneys, collection practices," breach breach wantonness, and of a the fiduciary tort of punitive all declaring that invasion title, Vernon of breach relationship, outrage. and Vernon and privacy, "outrageous contract, r e q u e s t e d a j u r y t r i a l on t h e i r c l a i m s and of invalid. of of the declaratory accounting of slander on not i n d e b t e d t o SunTrust, was claims conversion peace, sought a detailed foreclosure permanent foreclosing r e l a t i n g t o V e r n o n ' s a c c o u n t , and p e n d i n g mortgage Woods make and of debt the negligence, and Woods sought compensatory damages. s u b s t i t u t e d any a c t u a l p a r t i e s f o r t h o s e f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants. B e c a u s e " [ t ] h e b e g i n n i n g o f t r i a l o p e r a t e s as a d i s m i s s a l o f f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s , " Ex p a r t e D y e s s , 709 So. 2d 447, 452 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c i t i n g R u l e 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P . ) , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s does n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e trial court. 5 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 On A u g u s t 10, 2007, Woods with the t r i a l SunTrust court, and, i t s foreclosure on September counterpetition, i n which determining the G i l c h r i s t s that a suggestion of death s t a t i n g t h a t V e r n o n was d e c e a s e d . stopped complaint, filed efforts, 19, i t sought answered t h e 2007, filed a declaratory were indebted judgment t o SunTrust, t h a t SunTrust had a v a l i d and e x i s t i n g r i g h t t o p r o c e e d a foreclosure due in against the G i l c h r i s t a home, a n d t h a t with t h e sums u n d e r t h e e q u i t y l i n e o f c r e d i t h a d become due a n d p a y a b l e full on J a n u a r y 28, 2007. On November 19, 2007, Woods f i l e d t h e e s t a t e o f V e r n o n H. G i l c h r i s t "the estate"), representative, in place by and ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as through the estate's of Vernon. i n favor The t r i a l court parties, o f i t on e a c h complaint declaratory estate's Woods, as one o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s On J u l y 10, 2009, S u n T r u s t f i l e d judgment a motion t o s u b s t i t u t e and judgment. on and a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g t r i a l court entered i n the case, granted the motion. a m o t i o n f o r a summary claim i n Woods's i t s counterpetition Following personal extensive a hearing briefing and t h e for a by t h e on t h e m o t i o n , t h e a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t on November 30, 6 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 2009. The t r i a l court entered S u n T r u s t on a l l t h e e s t a t e ' s negligence The trial a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f claims except f o r i t s claims of a n d w a n t o n n e s s r e l a t i n g t o t h e $8,000 court also entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f S u n T r u s t on e a c h o f Woods's i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m s claim of invasion of withdrawal. privacy. In except f o r her i t spartial summary j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o d e n i e d Woods's a n d t h e e s t a t e ' s c l a i m s f o r d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . further The t r i a l court determined: " [ S u n T r u s t ' s ] m o t i o n f o r D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t on i t s [ c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n ] e s t a b l i s h i n g a v a l i d d e b t owed b y the G i l c h r i s t s under t h e e q u i t y l i n e agreement f o r w h i c h t h e G i l c h r i s t [ s ] a r e i n d e f a u l t i s GRANTED. [ S u n t r u s t ] has a v a l i d and e x i s t i n g r i g h t t o p r o c e e d w i t h the remedies a v a i l a b l e t o i t , d e s p i t e a j u r y question r e g a r d i n g t h e $8,000 o f t h e $24,157.83 indebtedness." In January foreclose 2010, SunTrust on t h e G i l c h r i s t e s t a t e moved t h e t r i a l home. renewed i t s efforts On F e b r u a r y court to enter to 4, 2010, t h e a temporary i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n t S u n T r u s t f r o m f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e G i l c h r i s t home. I n i t s m o t i o n , t h e e s t a t e s t a t e d t h a t S u n T r u s t was c l a i m i n g an u n p a i d p r i n c i p a l b a l a n c e o f $137,320.10, c o m p r i s i n g $16,157.83 on The e s t a t e t h e d e b t a n d $121,162.27 i n attorneys 7 fees. 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 requested t h a t the t r i a l court e n j o i n the f o r e c l o s u r e "pending a j u r y determination issues before of a reasonable this court." on F e b r u a r y 5, 2010. attorney's The t r i a l f e e and o t h e r court denied the motion On F e b r u a r y 8, 2010, t h e e s t a t e f i l e d a motion t i t l e d "Motion t o Set A s i d e Mortgage F o r e c l o s u r e Redeem Mortgage," foreclosure attempted sale i n which had taken t o tender the estate place alleged and t h a t that the the estate had $16,157.83 a t t h e s a l e , w h i c h h a d b e e n r e f u s e d i n f a v o r o f S u n T r u s t ' s b i d o f $137,320.10. claimed that associated "until a the with jury reasonableness the indebtedness i s empaneled determination." foreclosure sale fraudulent." was The the hear estate n o t be claimed illegal, fees determined [the] case also requested The e s t a t e attorneys fees are presented "unlawful, The e s t a t e of could to reasonableness of the attorney for and t o and t h e to the j u r y that the unauthorized, and that the t r i a l court set a s i d e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e a n d d e t e r m i n e t h a t any f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d i s s u e d f o l l o w i n g t h e s a l e w o u l d be v o i d . The Woods's estate's claim claims of invasion of negligence of privacy and wantonness proceeded t r i a l , w h i c h b e g a n on F e b r u a r y 10, 2010. B e f o r e 8 to a and jury t h e t r i a l , on 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 January 28, 2010, S u n T r u s t requesting that the t r i a l had f i l e d court a motion exclude i n limine, any evidence or t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e frequency and content o f telephone calls made received t o the G i l c h r i s t by i n d i v i d u a l s submitted a brief arguments o f counsel, home other by SunTrust than Woods. SunTrust i n support o f i t s motion. the t r i a l court that After granted were later hearing SunTrust's motion. The estate's claim jury returned a verdict i n favor of SunTrust on t h e c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e a n d w a n t o n n e s s a n d on Woods's of invasion of privacy. The t r i a l j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t on F e b r u a r y court entered a 22, 2010. Woods and t h e e s t a t e s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t on A p r i l 1, 2010. for We t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal back t o t h i s 7(6), to A l a . Code 1975. Our supreme c o u r t c o u r t pursuant t o § 12-2- T h i s c o u r t a s s i g n e d c a s e number 2090627 the appeal. On A u g u s t 27, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o deny t h e e s t a t e ' s F e b r u a r y 8, 2010, m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e and p u r p o r t e d t o s e t t h e amount r e q u i r e d f o r r e d e m p t i o n o f t h e 9 2090627, 2100034, Gilchrist for 2100089 home a t $ 1 3 7 , 3 2 0 . 1 0 . The e s t a t e filed a petition a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h e supreme c o u r t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e trial c o u r t ' s A u g u s t 27, 2010, o r d e r , of appeal the f r o m t h a t same o r d e r . petition court. with a notice Our supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a n d t h e a p p e a l This mandamus together court case assigned number the p e t i t i o n 2100034 to this for a and t h e appeal writ case of number 2100089. Analysis I. D e n i a l o f i n j u n c t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g mortgage f o r e c l o s u r e The e s t a t e f i r s t trial court erred a r g u e s i n c a s e number 2090627 b y n o t i s s u i n g an i n j u n c t i o n S u n T r u s t f r o m f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e G i l c h r i s t home. in i t s complaint, SunTrust from requested that the t r i a l f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e G i l c h r i s t pendency o f t h e a c t i o n . The t r i a l request for injunctive relief partial summary j u d g m e n t . preventing The e s t a t e , court enjoin home d u r i n g t h e court denied the estate's i n i t s November On F e b r u a r y that the 30, 2009, 4, 2010, t h e e s t a t e a g a i n moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , requesting conducting that the trial court enjoin SunTrust from a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e o f t h e G i l c h r i s t home u n t i l , t h e 10 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 estate said, attorney a jury could fees associated determine with the a reasonable foreclosure. amount The of trial c o u r t denied the e s t a t e ' s second request f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f on F e b r u a r y 5, 2010. Rule from 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order f i l e d w i t h i n 14 d i d not appeal its request App. days of the P., provides denying an t h a t an injunction shall e n t r y of the order. i n j u n c t i o n w i t h i n the insofar as requests f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . See R u l e 4(a) ( 1 ) . the i t challenges o f a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f an exercise Miller the Props., of this LLC court's v. G r e e n , 958 trial court's appeal denying limit i s untimely denial of its Because the i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e to appellate So. be estate 14-day t i m e p r e s c r i b e d i n Rule 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; t h e r e f o r e , i t s appeal filing The from e i t h e r of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s orders f o r an appeal jurisdiction, 2d 850, 851 see ( A l a . 2006), t h i s c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n over the e s t a t e ' s appeal i n s o f a r as i t c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , and, that the SunTrust should property attorneys until c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of i t s requests t h u s , we cannot c o n s i d e r i t s argument have b e e n e n j o i n e d a jury could f r o m f o r e c l o s i n g on determine the fees a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f o r e c l o s u r e . 11 for reasonable 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 M o r e o v e r , t h e e s t a t e c a n no l o n g e r be a w a r d e d t h e r e l i e f i t s o u g h t i n i t s r e q u e s t f o r an i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n t SunTrust f r o m f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l a j u r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the a t t o r n e y s fees a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f o r e c l o s u r e . A f t e r the trial court with entered i t s order a l l o w i n g SunTrust the f o r e c l o s u r e , SunTrust f o r e c l o s e d on to proceed the property. Thus, t h e e s t a t e ' s r e q u e s t f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i s now "This an Court injunction will dismiss when an e v e n t injunction renders appeal from the d e n i a l moot. of an the d e n i a l of the appeal the occurring after Employees moot." of the Montgomery C n t y . S h e r i f f ' s Dep't v. M a r s h a l l , 893 So. 2d 326, 330 ( A l a . 2004). Because the e s t a t e ' s appeal 2090627, i n s o f a r as i t c h a l l e n g e s t h e t r i a l its request for injunctive relief court's d e n i a l of and i t s r e q u e s t jury determination of attorneys fees before sale i s untimely, and the because dismiss the e s t a t e ' s appeal II. argues issue t o have a the f o r e c l o s u r e i s now moot, we as t o t h a t i s s u e . Denial of jury t r i a l The e s t a t e n e x t i n c a s e number on a t t o r n e y s fees i n c a s e number 2090627 that the i s s u e o f what c o n s t i t u t e d r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y s f e e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h SunTrust's f o r e c l o s u r e of the G i l c h r i s t 12 home s h o u l d have 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 been d e t e r m i n e d by a j u r y . 2009, and F e b r u a r y requests 5, The t r i a l 2010, o r d e r s to enjoin Suntrust's effectively denied court's denying November 30, the foreclosure of the property the estate's request t o have d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e o f what c o n s t i t u t e d r e a s o n a b l e fees associated with attempts t o challenge the foreclosure. has explained challenging for that fees the a also jury attorneys Although the estate court's failure to on a p p e a l t h e t r i a l present the issue of attorneys court estate's t o t h e j u r y , o u r supreme appropriate the d e n i a l of a j u r y - t r i a l vehicle for request i s a p e t i t i o n a w r i t o f mandamus. "'The r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s s e c u r e d b y those s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s [ p r o v i d i n g f o r a r i g h t t o a trial by j u r y ] a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e e n f o r c e m e n t b y mandamus i n v i e w o f the by f a c t t h a t as a r u l e t h e r e w o u l d n o t be an a d e q u a t e remedy appeal from t h e f i n a l 2d 1131, Bank Moore, 880 So. 1133-34 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e M e r c h a n t s N a t ' l of Mobile, (1952))(emphasis After 257 sale fees, A l a . 663, 664, 60 So. 2d 684, 685 added). the t r i a l foreclosure attorneys j u d g m e n t . ' " Ex p a r t e court denied and have the estate, a jury i t s request to enjoin the determine t h e amount o f on F e b r u a r y 13 9, 2010, f i l e d a 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 motion t i t l e d "Motion t o Set A s i d e Mortgage F o r e c l o s u r e Redeem M o r t g a g e . " In i t s reply b r i e f on a p p e a l , and t o the estate c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h i s m o t i o n as "an a t t e m p t ... t o g e t t h e t r i a l court t o c o r r e c t i t s Order of f o r e c l o s u r e on the estate's estate's trial motion court's injunctive attorneys order own the t o be a " m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r " t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y order fees. Thus, based c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the motion, appears relief " denying i t s request f o r a n d t o have a j u r y d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f " [ A ] motion t o reconsider does n o t t o l l the presumptively an i n t e r l o c u t o r y reasonable time period t h a t a p a r t y h a s t o p e t i t i o n an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus." Ex p a r t e 833, 834 filing (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . of a motion t o reconsider its request did not t o l l mandamus. for Onyx Waste S e r v s . a writ denying attorneys for a jury t r i a l t h e time of Florida, Therefore, the t r i a l 979 So. 2d the estate's court's denial of on t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y s f o r i t to petition fees for a writ of Because t h e e s t a t e f a i l e d t o f i l e a t i m e l y p e t i t i o n o f mandamus c h a l l e n g i n g i t s request fees, t o have and because a jury the t r i a l determine the issue 14 court's order the issue of i s not proper f o r 2090627, 2100034, consideration 2100089 on a p p e a l , we n e e d n o t f u r t h e r consider this issue. III. J u r i s d i c t i o n of t r i a l aside The after trial entry purported aside court, of court t o r u l e on m o t i o n t o s e t foreclosure on A u g u s t i t s judgment sale 27, 2010, o v e r following the s i x months jury trial, t o e n t e r an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e e s t a t e ' s m o t i o n t o s e t the redemption $16,157.83 foreclosure at sale and $137,320.10, i n loan debt setting which amount a n d $121,162.27 t h e amount f o r consisted i n attorneys of fees. The e s t a t e a r g u e s i n i t s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, c a s e number 2100034, t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter i t s A u g u s t 27, 2010, o r d e r . We a g r e e , a l t h o u g h f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons than those a s s e r t e d by t h e e s t a t e . "A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e p r o p e r method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f a t r i a l court's a u t h o r i t y t o r u l e on a p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n b e y o n d t h e t i m e p e r i o d s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. See Ex p a r t e Chamblee, 899 So. 2d 244, 244-45 ( A l a . 2004) ( g r a n t i n g p e t i t i o n s f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus t h a t ' i m p l i c a t e [ d ] t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e t r i a l judge u n d e r R u l e 5 9 . 1 . . . . ' ) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e D a v i d s o n , 782 So. 2d 237 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t i s s u e d t h e w r i t o f mandamus s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s order, e n t e r e d a f t e r p o s t t r i a l motions had been d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w p u r s u a n t t o Rule 59.1, as v o i d . " 15 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n Hosp. & C l i n i c , (Ala. 2010). The which, estate's as n o t e d motion estate's the the foreclosure i t characterizes as a sale, "motion t o court's i n t e r l o c u t o r y order denying the request f o r i n j u n c t i v e trial entry to set aside earlier, reconsider" the t r i a l jury I n c . , 49 So. 3d 1210, 1211 on t h e i s s u e of a f i n a l r e l i e f a n d i t s demand f o r a of attorneys f e e s , was f i l e d b e f o r e judgment i n t h e c a s e . Once t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s F e b r u a r y 22, 2010, j u d g m e n t , the estate's m o t i o n q u i c k e n e d i n t o a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . See R i c h a r d s o n v . I n t e g r i t y B i b l e Church, App. filing to a f i n a l judgment, would a n o t i c e o f appeal from a f i n a l P., R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) judgment i s e n t e r e d . " ) . rule (Ala. Civ. 2 0 0 4 ) ( " [ A ] premature postjudgment motion t h a t , i f i t had been d i r e c t e d App. I n c . , 897 So. 2d 345, 347 on the motion. toll judgment the time f o r ( s e e A l a . R. ' q u i c k e n s ' on t h e d a y t h a t t h e f i n a l The t r i a l See R u l e c o u r t t h e n h a d 90 days t o 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("No p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 50, 52, 55, o r 59 shall (90) remain pending i n the t r i a l days A failure c o u r t f o r more t h a n by the t r i a l court ninety t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f any p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h i n t h e 16 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 time permitted constitute a hereunder, denial of or such any extension motion as of thereof, the date shall of the e x p i r a t i o n of the p e r i o d . " ) . The 22, trial 2010. court entered Therefore, operation of law thereafter lost on the May i t s final estate's 24, jurisdiction motion 2010, to rule j u d g m e n t on and on jurisdiction jurisdiction to to enter rule any on the further the denied trial the motion. m o t i o n i s so d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , loses was February 237, 241 27, 3d 2010, void. Id. granted, trial , ( q u o t i n g Ex order (Ala. 2000)). and is Davidson, then 'without i n [ t h e ] case A c c o r d i n g l y , the t r i a l after 7, 782 2011] So. 2d c o u r t ' s August o r d e r p u r p o r t e d l y r u l i n g on t h e e s t a t e ' s m o t i o n i s Therefore, and, the estate's a c c o r d i n g l y , we court to vacate issue i t s A u g u s t 27, petition i s due the directing 2010, writ to be the order. The 9 0 t h day f o l l o w i n g F e b r u a r y 22, 2010 was Sunday, May 2010. T h e r e f o r e , t h e m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d on Monday, 24, 2010. See F i r s t A l a b a m a S t a t e Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 1116 ( A l a . C i v App. 2 0 0 ) , and R i c h b u r g v. C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . 4 23, May 2d 2d parte "If a 4 t h a t d a t e . ' " Ex p a r t e L i m e r i c k , [Ms. 1091783, J a n u a r y So. court 'the t r i a l j u d g e motion' by 17 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 I n c a s e number 2100089, f i l e d a l o n g w i t h i t s p e t i t i o n f o r a writ o f mandamus challenges 27, for the t r i a l 2010, o r d e r . a (case writ number court's 2100034), jurisdiction the estate t o enter B e c a u s e we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t o f mandamus i s the appropriate also i t s August a petition vehicle for c h a l l e n g i n g t h e t r i a l court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enter i t s August 27, 2010, o r d e r , the estate's moot a n d i s due t o be IV. appeal on t h a t same i s s u e i s dismissed. Grant of SunTrust's motion i n l i m i n e e x c l u d i n g of t e l e p h o n e evidence calls I n c a s e number 2090627, Woods a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l e r r e d when i t g r a n t e d S u n T r u s t ' s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e , court excluding e v i d e n c e a n d t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g c e r t a i n t e l e p h o n e c a l l s made to the G i l c h r i s t various home caregivers telephone calls by SunTrust of the G i l c h r i s t s . were relevant that were received Woods a r g u e s t h a t t h e to her individual claim invasion of privacy. "Alabama recognizes that a person h a s an a c t i o n a b l e r i g h t t o be f r e e f r o m t h e i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y . N o r r i s v . M o s k i n S t o r e s , I n c . , 272 A l a . 174, 132 So. 2d 321 (1961) . The d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r a s p e c t o f t h i s r i g h t has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s : 18 by of 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 "'"the wrongful intrusion into one's p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s i n s u c h a manner as t o o u t r a g e o r c a u s e m e n t a l s u f f e r i n g , shame o r humiliation to a person of ordinary s e n s i b i l i t i e s . " ... ' " S m i t h v. D o s s, 251 A l a . 250, 253, 37 So. 2d 118 (1948) ( q u o t i n g w i t h a p p r o v a l 41 Am.Jur. P r i v a c y , § 2 p. 925 ( 1 9 4 2 ) ) . " J a c k s o n v i l l e S t a t e Bank v. B a r n w e l l , 481 So. 2d 863, 865 ( A l a . 1985). A l a b a m a c o u r t s have a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t " [ t ] h e mere e f f o r t s o f a c r e d i t o r ... t o c o l l e c t a d e b t c a n n o t w i t h o u t more be c o n s i d e r e d a w r o n g f u l and a c t i o n a b l e i n t r u s i o n . A c r e d i t o r has and must have t h e r i g h t t o t a k e r e a s o n a b l e a c t i o n t o p u r s u e h i s d e b t o r and c o l l e c t h i s d e b t . But the r i g h t t o pursue the debtor i s not a l i c e n s e to outrage the debtor. The p r o b l e m o f d e f i n i n g t h e s c o p e o f t h e r i g h t of p r i v a c y i n the d e b t o r - c r e d i t o r s i t u a t i o n i s the problem of b a l a n c i n g the interest of the c r e d i t o r i n c o l l e c t i n g h i s debt a g a i n s t t h a t of the d e b t o r i n h i s own p e r s o n a l i t y . Some c o u r t s a p p e a r t o have s t r u c k t h a t b a l a n c e on t h e s o - c a l l e d ' r u l e of reason.' Thus i n t h e r e c e n t c a s e o f Housh v. P e t h , 99 O h i o App. 485, 135 N.E.2d 440, 4 4 9 , [ ( 1 9 5 5 ) ] a f f i r m e d 165 O h i o S t . 35, 133 N.E.2d 340 [ ( 1 9 5 6 ) ] , t h e O h i o a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a s s e r t e d t h a t 'a c r e d i t o r has a r i g h t t o t a k e r e a s o n a b l e a c t i o n t o p u r s u e h i s d e b t o r and p u r s u a d e payment, a l t h o u g h t h e s t e p s t a k e n may r e s u l t t o a c e r t a i n d e g r e e i n t h e i n v a s i o n of the debtor's r i g h t of p r i v a c y , ' but t h a t the d e b t o r has a c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r i n j u r i o u s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e c r e d i t o r w h i c h e x c e e d s t h e bounds o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . We a p p r o v e t h i s s t a t e m e n t . " N o r r i s v. M o s k i n S t o r e s , I n c . , 272 A l a . 174, 321, 323 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . 19 177, 132 So. 2d 2090627, 2100034, In Barnwell, 2100089 t h e bank Barnwell owed numerous telephone employment. attempted t o i t . 481 So. 2d a t 865. Id. calls The to Barnwell's bank also a u t o m o b i l e s owned b y B a r n w e l l attempted to collect to representative repossess the o f t h e bank debt placed and p l a c e fraudulently automobiles. went The b a n k home as c o l l a t e r a l on a added of two on t h e d e b t a n d Id. t o Barnwell's When place a of employment a n d a t t e m p t e d t o r e p o s s e s s one o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e s , the bank's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and used "coarse, "caused a great inflammatory, d e a l o f commotion" malicious, and t h r e a t e n i n g language" i n f r o n t of Barnwell's c o w o r k e r s . I d . a t 865, The b a n k ' s a c t i o n s place Barnwell at Barnwell's t o be t w i c e o f employment r e p r i m a n d e d a t work. 866. caused I d . a t 865. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h a t e v i d e n c e was s u f f i c i e n t to support the jury's determination that t h e bank's actions d i r e c t e d a t B a r n w e l l were " o u t r a g e o u s t o a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y sensibilities." In Norris, attempting I d . a t 866. supra, a representative o f a merchant, i n t o c o l l e c t a debt from N o r r i s , c a l l e d N o r r i s ' s w i f e and s i s t e r - i n - l a w , c l a i m i n g t o be a woman t h a t h a d b e e n d a t i n g Norris. 272 A l a . a t 175-76, 20 132 So. 2d a t 322. The 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 representative believing " ' l e d persons that activities [Norris] contrary t o whom she was had engaged, speaking o r was to the recognized into engaging, in conventions of h i s m a r i t a l s t a t u s . ' " 272 A l a . a t 176, 132 So. 2d a t 322. Norris sued t h e merchant a l l e g i n g i n v a s i o n 175, So. 2d a t 3 2 1 . the trial court of privacy. 272 A l a . a t The m e r c h a n t moved t o d i s m i s s granted A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t the merchant's reversed the t r i a l holding that N o r r i s ' s complaint, the c l a i m ; motion. Id. court's The dismissal, i n w h i c h he h a d a l l e g e d that the merchant had c o n t a c t e d N o r r i s ' s w i f e and s i s t e r - i n - l a w and had made them b e l i e v e t h a t N o r r i s h a d b e e n u n f a i t h f u l i n h i s marriage, set forth activities of the "sufficient [merchant] 'harassment' [fell] beyond and t h a t the the realm of r e a s o n a b l e a c t i o n and i n t o t h e a r e a o f w r o n g f u l and a c t i o n a b l e intrusion." In t h i s 272 A l a . a t 178, 132 So. 2d a t 325. c a s e , Woods, who i s n o t t h e d e b t o r , i s alleging t h a t SunTrust i n v a d e d h e r p r i v a c y by p l a c i n g t e l e p h o n e t o t h e G i l c h r i s t home, d i r e c t e d t o t h e G i l c h r i s t s , a d e b t owed b y t h e G i l c h r i s t s . Unlike i n Barnwell there SunTrust placed a r e no a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Woods's residence or place of 21 employment, calls regarding or N o r r i s , any c a l l s that to SunTrust 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 claimed t h a t Woods owed t h e d e b t , o r t h a t comments regarding Suntrust's actions Gilchrists. SunTrust were In short, in activities"; only Woods's any directed there way rather, personal right "intruded toward a l lof the [Woods's] private i n t r u s i o n w o u l d have b e e n or a f f a i r s i s a personal c o u r t s have] n o t r e c o g n i z e d the debtors, into any p o s s i b l e of privacy affairs i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t to the private a c t i v i t i e s "[T]he S u n T r u s t made any of the G i l c h r i s t s . right, and [Alabama a 'relational right to privacy.'" F i t c h v . V o i t , 624 So. 2d 542, 543 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . Because a l l t h e t e l e p h o n e c a l l s e x c l u d e d f r o m e v i d e n c e were p l a c e d tothe G i l c h r i s t home, d i r e c t e d t o t h e G i l c h r i s t s , a n d were i n r e g a r d to a debt owed b y t h e G i l c h r i s t s , the telephone calls that were r e c e i v e d b y t h e c a r e g i v e r s c a n n o t s u p p o r t , a n d , t h u s , a r e n o t r e l e v a n t t o , t h e c l a i m b y Woods t h a t S u n T r u s t h a d v i o l a t e d her i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t of privacy. "The within t h e sound decision court d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t o r deny a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e will exceeds Persall, d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d the l i m i t s on a p p e a l court, unless rests and that the t r i a l of i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " Guthery v. 26 So. 3d 1250, 1254 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( c i t i n g Ex 22 2090627, 2100034, parte Jackson, 2100089 836 So. 2d 979, 985 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . e x c l u d e d t e s t i m o n y and evidence at i s s u e were privacy, concerning the telephone the t r i a l court d i d not exceed the l i m i t s of i t s SunTrust's motion i n l i m i n e . V. P r o p r i e t y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t on Woods's claims of negligence court calls n o t r e l e v a n t t o Woods's c l a i m o f i n v a s i o n o f d i s c r e t i o n when i t g r a n t e d In Because t h e individual and wantonness c a s e number 2090627, Woods n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l e r r e d when i t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f S u n T r u s t on h e r c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and w a n t o n n e s s . In her b r i e f , Woods c l a i m s t h a t S u n T r u s t was n e g l i g e n t a n d w a n t o n i n its attempted c o l l e c t i o n (1) listed failed the attorney foreclosed determination of attorney contact residence internal on after the G i l c h r i s t s ' SunTrust's who was a n d Woods an i t e m i z e d a c c o u n t i n g "unlawfully" Gilchrist debt because i t t h e wrong a d d r e s s i n i t s f o r e c l o s u r e n o t i c e ; (2) to provide Gilchrists of the G i l c h r i s t s ' the fees; being attorney, property representing the of the debt; (3) without (4) c o n t i n u e d informed that a to c a l l jury the i t should a l l e g e d l y i n v i o l a t i o n of r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s ; a n d (5) v i o l a t e d 23 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 its internal rules and r e g u l a t i o n s funds from t h e G i l c h r i s t s ' "To must p r o v e : (1) (2) a b r e a c h o f t h a t d u t y ; a n d (4) damage o r i n j u r y . A l b e r t v . 602 So. 2d 895, 897 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " M a r t i n v . A r n o l d , So. 2d 564, 567 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . one of these [to establish negligence].'" So. 2d 950, 953 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) Ins. converting account. the p l a i n t i f f plaintiff; (3) p r o x i m a t e c a u s a t i o n ; Hsu, checking e s t a b l i s h negligence, a duty t o a foreseeable by a l l e g e d l y 278 A l a . Whether a l e g a l Rose v. M i l l e r establish insufficient F r a n k l i n v . C i t y o f A t h e n s , 938 (quoting Calvert Fire 673, 677, 180 So. 2d 269, 273 duty e x i s t s i s a question of law. & Co., 432 So. 2d 1237, 1238 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . "To wantonness, defendant, " ' [ t ] h e a b s e n c e o f any [elements] renders . t h e evidence Co. v. G r e e n , (1965)). Further, 643 with the p l a i n t i f f reckless must prove that the i n d i f f e r e n c e t o the consequences, c o n s c i o u s l y a n d i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i d some w r o n g f u l a c t o r o m i t t e d some known d u t y . proximately To be a c t i o n a b l e , t h a t a c t o r o m i s s i o n cause complains." Martin, The negligence the injury of which the must plaintiff 643 So. 2d a t 567. and wantonness claims that asserted i n v o l v e SunTrust's a c t i o n s i n attempting 24 Woods has to collect 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 a debt owed Gilchrists. she by on p r o p e r t y The b a n k a c c o u n t t h a t c o n t a i n e d a l l e g e s were account. the G i l c h r i s t s converted capacity Gilchrists and based alleged by t h e t h e funds that b y S u n T r u s t was t h e G i l c h r i s t s ' Thus, Woods i s a t t e m p t i n g individual owned on harms t o b r i n g an a c t i o n i n h e r alleged to duties the owed to the interests of the G i l c h r i s t s , n o t t o h e r own i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s . A p a r t y does n o t have s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g an a c t i o n b a s e d on harms t o a t h i r d party. 1289 See P r o c t o r v. C l a s s i c Auto., ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . As I n c . , 20 So. 3d 1281, this court explained i n Proctor: "'A p a r t y must a l l e g e an i n d i v i d u a l o r representative right and a redressable i n j u r y t o t h a t r i g h t as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o s e t t i n g i n motion the machinery of the court. See 59 A m . J u r . 2 d P a r t i e s § 31 (1987). I n o r d e r t o be a " p r o p e r p a r t y p l a i n t i f f , a p e r s o n must h a v e an i n t e r e s t i n t h e r i g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d . " E a g e r t o n v. W i l l i a m s , 433 So. 2d 436, 447 ( A l a . 1983) . As a g e n e r a l r u l e , "a l i t i g a n t may n o t claim standing to assert the rights of a third party." Jersey Shore Medical C e n t e r - F i t k i n Hosp. v. E s t a t e o f Baum, 8 4 N . J . 137, 417 A . 2 d 1003 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A party l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o i n v o k e t h e power o f t h e c o u r t i n h i s b e h a l f i n t h e a b s e n c e o f "a concrete stake i n t h e outcome o f t h e court's decision." Brown Mechanical 25 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . v . C e n t e n n i a l I n s . Co., 431 So. 2d 932, 937 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . ' " Proctor, 20 So. 3d a t 1288 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 2d 7 7 1 , 772-73 Because ( A l a . 1990)). Woods's negligence b a s e d on a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s she lacked without court I z u n d u , 568 So. standing standing acquires to the G i l c h r i s t s , to assert purports no and wantonness those subject-matter a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 1999). We that the t r i a l are not t o h e r s e l f , "When a p a r t y t o commence an a c t i o n , t h e Property note claims. claims jurisdiction." trial State v. 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 ( A l a . court d i d not e x p l a i n i t s r e a s o n s f o r e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f S u n T r u s t on Woods's negligence court affirm may a and wantonness summary claims; judgment however, f o r any v a l i d this legal ground, s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s not a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. Liberty Nat'l Life I n s . Co. v . U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . Therefore, we affirm Woods's n e g l i g e n c e VI. the t r i a l court's summary j u d g m e n t on and wantonness c l a i m s . P r o p r i e t y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t on Woods's claim of conversion and t h e e s t a t e ' s c l a i m o f 26 individual conversion 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 In c a s e number 2090627, Woods and t h e e s t a t e n e x t that the t r i a l on Woods's argue c o u r t e r r e d when i t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t claim of c o n v e r s i o n and the estate's claim of conversion. "Our r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. 'A m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d o n l y when the e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t " t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.' R e i c h e r t v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , 776 So. 2d 761, 764 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . We a p p l y 'the same s t a n d a r d as t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the c o u r t made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . ' B u s s e y v. John Deere Co., 531 So. 2d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; S y s t e m Dynamics I n t ' l , I n c . v. B o y k i n , 683 So. 2d 419, 420 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . I n o r d e r t o d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y supported motion for a summary judgment, the n o n m o v i n g p a r t y must p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t c r e a t e s a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact. ' S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' i s 'evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " B o r d e r s v. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 2003). 875 So. 2d 1168, 1776-77 ( A l a . F u r t h e r m o r e , when r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , appellate c o u r t must v i e w a l l the evidence i n a l i g h t the most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and must e n t e r t a i n a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t a j u r y w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o 27 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 draw. See N a t i o n w i d e P r o p . & C a s . I n s . Co. v . DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P.C., 792 So. Ingersoll-Rand Woods 2d 369, 372 ( A l a . 2000); Co., 591 So. 2d 486, 487 and the estate assert removed the funds delinquent Gilchrists. its debt from that the account SunTrust v. SunTrust converted c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t when i t to offset part claimed was owed of the by the Woods a n d t h e e s t a t e a r g u e t h a t S u n T r u s t v i o l a t e d own r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s b y r e m o v i n g t h e f u n d s f r o m t h e account because, t h e y a r g u e , t h e a c c o u n t c o n t a i n e d more t h a n 50% i n S o c i a l S e c u r i t y d e p o s i t s the Fuqua ( A l a . 1991) . that $1,899 i n f u n d s f r o m t h e G i l c h r i s t s ' and a t the time of the removal of funds. The r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e to the G i l c h r i s t s ' SunTrust checking account s t a t e : " I f y o u owe S u n T r u s t money as a b o r r o w e r , g u a r a n t o r , o r o t h e r w i s e , a n d i t becomes due, t h e Bank s h a l l have t h e r i g h t u n d e r t h e l a w ( c a l l e d r i g h t o f o f f s e t o r s e t o f f ) a n d u n d e r t h e s e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s (by w h i c h you g r a n t SunTrust a s e c u r i t y i n t e r e s t i n your A c c o u n t ) t o u s e t h e money f r o m y o u r A c c o u n t t o p a y t h e d e b t , e v e n i f w i t h d r a w a l r e s u l t s i n an i n t e r e s t penalty or dishonor of checks." SunTrust also has a p o l i c y that states that i t would not e x e r c i s e i t s r i g h t o f o f f s e t on " [ a ] c c o u n t s w i t h more t h a n 50% 28 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 of t h e d e p o s i t s coming from S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Funds." is c l e a r t h a t SunTrust had the a u t h o r i t y under Thus, i t i t s rules and r e g u l a t i o n s , t o w h i c h t h e G i l c h r i s t s ' a g r e e d when t h e y o p e n e d their a c c o u n t , t o o f f s e t t h e amount o f t h e d e l i n q u e n t provided t h a t the G i l c h r i s t s ' checking debt, account d i d not c o n t a i n more t h a n 50% i n f u n d s f r o m S o c i a l S e c u r i t y deposits. The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t f o r t h e s t a t e m e n t p e r i o d covering O c t o b e r 12, 2005, t h r o u g h November 8, 2005, d u r i n g w h i c h t i m e SunTrust exercised i t s right of offset, the Gilchrists' c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d e p o s i t s : a $1,546.37 deposit, which particular source, $732.82 d e p o s i t Social was Security not identified a $429.03 d e p o s i t of retirement benefits; Security benefits. question, the account contained of which are i d e n t i f i a b l e Thus, 37.9% of the Woods and t h e e s t a t e a for from $255 the in deposit statement Social Security the any of pension b e n e f i t s ; a of Gilchrists' as S o c i a l S e c u r i t y of Social period $4,357.22 i n d e p o s i t s , as b e i n g deposits a c c o u n t were i d e n t i f i a b l e coming b e n e f i t s ; a $1,394 d e p o s i t and Thus, as in $1,649 deposits. checking deposits. a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t t h e $1,546.37 d e p o s i t c o n s i s t e d of m i l i t a r y - r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s , which they 29 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 a s s e r t are a l s o not a v a i l a b l e and the estate SunTrust's also motion made for f o r purposes this argument summary judgment. of o f f s e t . in Woods opposition However, to their a r g u m e n t c o n s i s t e d o n l y o f s t a t e m e n t s made by c o u n s e l i n t h e supplemental b r i e f i n opposition to SunTrust's summary the was judgment; argument not motion supported for a by any e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e $1,546.37 d e p o s i t d i d , i n f a c t , consist military-retirement benefits. that It i s well settled of "'[m]otions and arguments of counsel are not e v i d e n c e . ' W i l l i a m s v. A k z o N o b e l C h e m i c a l s , I n c . , 999 S.W.2d 836, 845 (Tex. App. 1 9 9 9 ) . ' [ S ] t a t e m e n t s i n m o t i o n s a r e n o t e v i d e n c e and a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t entitled to evidentiary weight.' Singh v. I m m i g r a t i o n & N a t u r a l i z a t i o n S e r v . , 213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. 8 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . ' [ B ] r i e f s s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f m o t i o n s a r e n o t e v i d e n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d by the Court in resolving a summary judgment m o t i o n . ' D i r e c t M e d i a C o r p . v. Camden T e l . & T e l . Co., 989 F.Supp. 1211, 1217 (S.D. Ga. 1 9 9 7 ) . " F o u n t a i n F i n . , I n c . v H i n e s , 788 T h e r e f o r e , Woods and court with So. 2d 155, the e s t a t e f a i l e d substantial evidence 159 ( A l a . 2000). to present the indicating that trial the G i l c h r i s t s ' c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t c o n t a i n e d more t h a n 50% i n S o c i a l Security f u n d s when S u n T r u s t Accordingly, the trial exercised c o u r t d i d not 30 i t s right of offset. e r r when i t e n t e r e d a 2090627, 2100034, 2100089 summary j u d g m e n t on t h e e s t a t e ' s c l a i m o f c o n v e r s i o n a n d on Woods's c l a i m o f c o n v e r s i o n . Conclusion In it for c a s e number 2090627, we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l challenges the t r i a l injunctive determination court's d e n i a l of the estate's claim relief. to i n s o f a r as We exclude affirm certain the trial telephone court's calls from evidence, a n d we a f f i r m i t s e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e estate's claim conversion, In number conversion negligence, and on petition 2100034, we grant the p e t i t i o n court t o vacate the t r i a l Woods's claims of and wantonness. the estate's directing order. of We d i s m i s s a p p e a l for a writ o f mandamus, case and writ issue i t s August a 27, 2010, number 2100089 as moot. 2090627 AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART. 2100034 PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 2100089 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n Bryan, J . , concurs and Moore, J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without 31 writing.

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.