Greg Colbert and Beth Colbert v. First National Bank of Atmore d/b/a First National Bank and Trust

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/11/2011 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2090842 Greg C o l b e r t and Beth C o l b e r t v. F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f Atmore d/b/a F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank and Trust Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-900020) THOMAS, Greg Judge. Colbert and Beth Colbert a m a t t e r o f l a w ("JML") e n t e r e d appeal from a judgment as by t h e Escambia C i r c u i t Court 2090842 in favor National of the F i r s t National Bank and T r u s t Facts and P r o c e d u r a l The B a n k o w n e d a o n e - s t o r y informed the building. existed In late b u i l d i n g i n downtown A t m o r e . The when that Bank the or After continued with Before the i t sd e m o l i t i o n demolishing surveying company property. The s u r v e y i n g line to May i t intended offered purchase Colberts' early to b u i l d i n g ; however, the p a r t i e s c o u l d price. History o f the Bank's b u i l d i n g April Colberts First affirm. walls of the C o l b e r t s ' b u i l d i n g . already constructed. We d/b/a b u i l d i n g located to the east of the C o l b e r t s ' b u i l d i n g ; one w a l l building of Atmore ("the B a n k " ) . The C o l b e r t s own a t w o - s t o r y one o f t h e o u t e r Bank building was the Bank demolish to i t s the not agree negotiations The B a n k ' s 2005, purchase abutted Colberts' on a ended, purchase the Bank plans. i t s building, determine the the Bank boundary lines hired a of i t s company d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y between the Bank's p r o p e r t y and the C o l b e r t s ' property ran between t h e C o l b e r t s ' b u i l d i n g and t h e Bank's b u i l d i n g . The Colberts also boundary of t h e i r hired a property. surveying company The s u r v e y 2 to company survey the h i r e d by the 2090842 Colberts also determined Colberts' property that the property and t h e Bank's p r o p e r t y line between t h e r a n b e t w e e n t h e two buildings. The Bank building. building Gulf abutting In wall Gulf Construction, initially except building. first hired by hand, using concern wall building the On Gulf the small over laid demolishing the After the the Colberts The Bank of the Colberts' unevenly decided a n d some o f to continue to i t s wall. October 30, 2005, b r i c k s were m i s s i n g , Gulf Colberts Colberts' revealed by the d e m o l i t i o n of had been mortar. Bank's the condition of the wall had b r i c k s lacked the wall, The w a l l that the jackhammers. of the abutting t o t h e Bank uncovered a p o r t i o n wall. began o f t h e Bank's b u i l d i n g . joints demolish abutted Gulf o f t h e i r b u i l d i n g t h a t was b e i n g the a l l of that 2005, day o f d e m o l i t i o n expressed demolished f o r the wall October LLC, t o demolish i t s stopped as t h e d e m o l i t i o n work continued, o f t h e C o l b e r t s ' w a l l where r e s u l t i n g i n a hole i t s demolition efforts some o f i n the Colberts' and n o t i f i e d the and t h e Bank o f t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e C o l b e r t s ' w a l l . No f u r t h e r d e m o l i t i o n was d o n e on t h e B a n k ' s 3 wall. 2090842 On trial April 14, Colberts filed a complaint court a s s e r t i n g claims of f r a u d , n e g l i g e n c e , "willfulness," named p a r t i e s . the 2007, the Bank had and trespass In t h e i r 1 damaged their fictitiously the C o l b e r t s a l l e g e d t h a t property so that rainwater begun e n t e r i n g t h e b u i l d i n g t h r o u g h t h e w a l l and suffered d i s r u p t i o n s to anguish. The Colberts their lives requested and that had the an attorney complaint, The for a claims. At the court counsel favor of suffered trial The Gulf for entered Pursuant from the 1 The Bank answered JML. trial court and the denied case After hearing parties, B a n k on award costs, Colberts' f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on the a l l the trial the to motion a jury t h e Bank moved extensive court a l l the Bank's proceeded c l o s e of the C o l b e r t s ' case, for a mental court the had Colberts' material allegations. a motion judgment, for both the The a l l the filed summary trial. trial denying Bank Colberts' fee. had that they them c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, p u n i t i v e damages, i n t e r e s t , and the wantonness, a g a i n s t t h e Bank and complaint, in argument entered Colberts' claims. The a JML the by in Colberts C o l b e r t s l a t e r amended t h e i r c o m p l a i n t , s u b s t i t u t i n g one o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y n a m e d p a r t i e s . Gulf later into a pro tanto settlement with the Colberts. to the settlement, the t r i a l court d i s m i s s e d Gulf lawsuit. 4 2090842 appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. Our supreme t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s court, pursuant to § Ala. Code court 12-2-7(6), 1975. Standard of Review "When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g o n a m o t i o n f o r a J M L , t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n i t i a l l y i n d e c i d i n g whether t o g r a n t or deny t h e m o t i o n f o r a JML. P a l m H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v . Crawford, 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1997). Regarding questions of f a c t , the u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e nonmovant has p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v . H e n d e r s o n , 598 S o . 2 d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . The n o n m o v a n t m u s t h a v e p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n order to withstand a motion f o r a JML. See § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 ; W e s t 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 S o . 2 d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989). A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 5 3 . In r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g o n a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t v i e w s t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y would have been f r e e t o draw. I d . Regarding a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , h o w e v e r , t h i s C o u r t i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g . R i c w i l , I n c . v . S.L. P a p p a s & C o . , 599 So. 2 d 1126 ( A l a . 1992)." Waddell So. 2d & Reed, 1143, 1152 I n c . v. United Investors Life ( A l a . 2003). Analysis I. Direct and indirect 5 trespass I n s . Co., 875 2090842 The Colberts when i t e n t e r e d argue on a p p e a l that a JML o n t h e i r t r e s p a s s the t r i a l erred We w i l l claims. court first address t h e C o l b e r t s ' argument t h a t they p r e s e n t e d evidence i n "'Trespass' another 474, has been without Parking (Ala. support of defined express 475 on direct-trespass '[a]ny implied entry The their Colberts' At that I n c . v. Steen, Colberts property part by wall Orrell, he h a d b e e n argue removing that the t h e Bank's Bank wall s u b s t a n t i a l evidence wall was located a professional hired by t h e Bank o f t h e Bank's p r o p e r t y . had determined property Central 707 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 , 228 first o f t h e Bank's Sidney that boundary l i n e s he of on t h e property. trial, testified on t h e l a n d authority.'" because, the Colberts say, they presented indicating claim. F o u s t v . K i n n e y , 202 A l a . 3 9 2 , 3 9 3 , 80 S o . (1918)). trespassed as or Sys. of Alabama, 1997)(quoting their substantial that the boundary l i n e and the C o l b e r t s ' of the Colberts' solely on i t s p r o p e r t y their property. Orrell property 6 to survey the testified between Orrell, that t h e Bank's t h e Bank's and t h e C o l b e r t s ' to surveyor, r a n down t h e f a c e building, placing According land of the building building solely he reached on his 2090842 conclusion regarding t h e l o c a t i o n o f the boundary e x a m i n i n g t h e o l d p l a t s and deeds t o t h e p r o p e r t y surveying the property, preexisting boundary-line Orrell corner the stated of According that boundary line with measurements and by then and l o o k i n g f o r line a cap and n a i l between t h e two t h e cap provides between respect after markers. he h a d p l a c e d the property to Orrell, testified taking line the properties. a reference two point f o r properties. t o the placement a t one Orrell o f t h e cap and n a i l : "When you have two b u i l d i n g s that are joined together i t ' s i m p o s s i b l e t o s t r i k e a l i n e between t w o p o i n t s b e c a u s e t w o b u i l d i n g s -- t h e r e was [ n o ] air between these b u i l d i n g s . They were butted t o g e t h e r s o , y o u know, we p u t o u r p o i n t s t o t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e w a y we c a n i n l i n e w i t h t h e f a c e o f t h o s e b u i l d i n g s where t h e y j o i n together." When a s k e d b y t h e B a n k ' s a t t o r n e y w h e t h e r " r e g a r d l e s s a p h o t o g r a p h may r e f l e c t the bottom line map, s h o w s t h a t the face o f [the Bank's a t t o r n e y William i s that that that [cap and n a i l ] the property i t divides those Colberts'] line, o f where i s located according t o your two b u i l d i n g s and runs wall," Orrell down responded that the was c o r r e c t . Whittle, a professional been h i r e d by t h e C o l b e r t s , surveyor who h a d also t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l . Whittle 7 land 2090842 stated that the location of and Bank's the the Colberts boundary had line property. the Colberts' property building. According location of the existing buildings original, iron pin that the l o c a t i o n of a corner had been placed c o u l d be placed located by by on supported block had by represent a the the the the property and property Colberts' on the l o c a t i o n of the the location and According piece of cap to and of an Whittle, nail that information that boundary l i n e of a l o c a t i o n of the part of of the This Orrell property; corner line Bank's and nail wall was is Whittle. not Orrell m a r k e r as b e s t a s he that calculated. n a i l a t i s s u e were o n l y a p i e c e 8 cap assertion or he W h i t t l e t e s t i f i e d t h a t placement of corner cap of the had the property. testimony he controlling. that Colberts' that determined found. was not shows property had m a r k e r , s u c h as t h e Orrell, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p l a c e d to the face the he based a s s e r t t h a t the Orrell the down t h e line s a i d , i t was Colberts Colberts' testified Whittle, he determine l i n e between the Bank's used i n determining h o w e v e r , he The to to between the ran property on him Whittle determined t h a t the p r o p e r t y and hired had could m a r k e r s s u c h as of i n f o r m a t i o n used the to 2090842 determine a property line. Both surveyors property line property r a n down t h e f a c e the testified between t h e Bank's p r o p e r t y Colberts does n o t r e p r e s e n t the Bank's wall property. was and t h e C o l b e r t s ' of the Colberts' b u i l d i n g . assertion regarding nail partially the located indicating The property Colberts Colberts' have Colberts the not provided evidence i n support the Colberts Bank c r o s s e d the wall the had they wall of i t s the Colberts' wall. that a substantial hole the hole building. that Instead, that the and c r e a t e d a hole i n t h e Bank However, does n o t support i n the because, evidence i n d i c a t i n g b u i l d i n g when d i d not t e s t i f y "revealed i t s wall. presented onto the C o l b e r t s ' property t o by t h e C o l b e r t s testified the presented of the Colberts' Ms. C o l b e r t in claim that upon t h e of their claim of direct trespass say, they abutting pointed when t h e B a n k d e m o l i s h e d also that on s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e Bank e n t e r e d Colberts' Thus, t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e cap and s u b s t a n t i a l evidence Therefore, that the that demolished the contention. t h e Bank h a d c r e a t e d she t e s t i f i e d [Colberts'] that wall." evidence a hole t h e Bank She also "had s t a r t e d o u t as a s m a l l p l a c e f a rend and [that they could] 9 see i tbeing revealed." on Ms. 2090842 Colberts' an testimony inference demolition apparent created that of the the h o l e had been r e v e a l e d the hole Bank's in wall the hole contractor contention the Colberts' and i n the Colberts' also rely friend of wall that supports preexisted the hole removed, n o t t h a t the became t h e Bank wall. on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M y l e s the Colberts, to Reed, support a their that they presented s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g Bank created a hole counsel presented and a s k e d w h e t h e r i t appeared damaged. the and o n c e t h e B a n k ' s w a l l was The C o l b e r t s that that Reed i n the Colberts' a photograph wall. The of the w a l l t o Reed t h a t the C o l b e r t s ' w a l l had been stated: " I t appears that [ t h e Bank] g o t a l i t t l e c a r r i e d away i n t h i s a r e a r i g h t i n h e r e . I f t h i s plane i s t h e same a s t h i s p l a n e , w h i c h i t a p p e a r s t o be, l o o k s l i k e t h e y g o t i n t o -- y o u know, g o t i n t o h i s w a l l f r o m h e r e , y o u know." On cross-examination, opinion solely inspected h e was Reed admitted on t h e p h o t o g r a p h , that he t h a t he h a d n o t t h e a l l e g e d damage t o t h e C o l b e r t s ' uncertain which portions basing h i s personally wall, of the w a l l i n the were t h e C o l b e r t s ' w a l l and w h i c h 10 was and that photograph were t h e r e m a i n i n g p a r t s of 2090842 the Bank's w a l l . R e e d a n s w e r e d "no" when a s k e d by t h e Bank's counsel: "Okay. You h a v e n ' t gone b a c k o u t t h e r e t o i n s p e c t i t to v e r i f y t h a t that i s indeed the case, t h a t those b r i c k s a r e i n d e e d -- t h i s a r e a w h e r e we s e e m i s s i n g bricks are bricks t h a t were originally i n the C o l b e r t s ' w a l l , have you?" Reed's t e s t i m o n y Colberts' wall and apparently the wall, based i s mere have mere Turner v. Azalea Therefore, caused "'[E]vidence to warrant (quoting Roberts evidence been Box photograph was a hole i n the Bank. by Reed's which conjecture, submission Co., 508 v. C a r r o l l , i n support Reed's testimony So. affords nothing or guess of the case 2d 253, does not more i s wholly to the jury.'" 254 377 S o . 2 d 9 4 4 , 946 provide ( A l a . 1987) (Ala. 1979)). substantial of the Colberts' claims. Because the C o l b e r t s d i d not present to the t r i a l a there t h a t , because speculation, insufficient on h i s v i e w i n g s p e c u l a t i o n as t o t h e cause o f t h e h o l e i n Colberts' wall. than solely concluding i t must testimony the was t h a t t h e Bank had c a u s e d t h e h o l e i n t h e court indicating p r o p e r t y by d e m o l i s h i n g substantial evidence t h a t t h e Bank had e n t e r e d i t s wall 11 their or by damaging the C o l b e r t s ' 2090842 wall, the claim i s due The it trial court's t o be Colberts entered a argue Colberts' in favor of that the allowed rainwater indirect In recover trespass by Co. Henley, v. the Alabama i n v a s i o n a f f e c t i n g an property; in the done could So. an invasion; interest; 405 2) 2d at on assert 4) 145 the 3) that, wall through Thus, the to the the Colberts such i t s property, argument, 405 So. the that i t constituted cite W.T. 1981). In in order to "'1) an exclusive possession 2d of 141 (Ala. that a plaintiff i n t e r e s t i n the reasonable must p r o v e of the act which r e s u l t s foreseeability that invasion of s u b s t a n t i a l damages Borland 12 Colberts stated Court trespass (quoting when Bank. Supreme an when Colberts' Colberts' building. of erred the intruded i n t e n t i o n a l doing result in and Bank rainwater their for indirect his the court to enter the C o l b e r t s ' property, of Ratliff, trial the alteration support Ratliff direct-trespass i t exposed that Bank's the Colberts damaging t h e i r assert, an The i t s wall, wall, Colberts' that claim. demolished and the next JML rainwater on affirmed. indirect-trespass Bank JML v. plaintiff's to the res.'" Sanders Lead the act possessory Ratliff, Co., 369 2090842 So. that 2d 523, 529 ( A l a . 1979)). The Ratliff court also stated " ' " i t i s not necessary that the f o r e i g n matter should thrown d i r e c t l y enough that an substantial matter."'" and i m m e d i a t e l y upon t h e o t h e r ' s a c t i s done certainty Ratliff, Hooper-McDonald, (1974), quoting "Liability with result 405 So. in 2d I n c . , 293 knowledge the at entry 145 A l a . 56, i n turn Restatement 59, of 300 (Second) the to a foreign Rushing So. 2d v. 94, of Torts Land" It is i t will (quoting f o r I n t e n t i o n a l I n t r u s i o n s on supreme c o u r t h e l d i n R a t l i f f that land. be 97 § 158, (1965)). Our t h a t a l a n d o w n e r was liable for t r e s p a s s when t h a t l a n d o w n e r h a d p l a c e d s a n d a n d g r a v e l on i t s property that such the sand landowner's The 651 that and landowner gravel was would substantially flow also cite ( A l a . 1985) . The underbrush an J o h n s o n v. W a s h i n g t o n , defendant and trees landowner from his c o n s t r u c t e d a p a v e d d r i v e w a y . J o h n s o n , 474 changes to natural flow channeled onto certain adjoining property. Colberts removed that the onto defendant of water on landowner's his the p l a i n t i f f property, So. Johnson property 2d had and had So. 2d a t 653. The property landowner's 13 in 474 changed the causing i t to be property. Id. Our 2090842 supreme c o u r t liable when held for indirect this indicating with that ...channels liability surface may l i e water onto the would have a n d d i f f u s e d , a n d b y s o d o i n g c a u s e s damage t o case, that unlike This evidence water onto Colberts Bank's that case i s also the Colberts' claim entered Bank's p r o p e r t y , of evidence on i t s property unlike had of the rainwater property. t o be II. Colberts' there i s collected or channeled that property i t swall the The property. their onto Johnson because t h e Bank course court's flow rainwater as never a result entered the of the onto the a n d t h e B a n k h a d n o t i n a n y way c h a n g e d t h e the Colberts' trial i s no any m a t e r i a l the Colberts' onto there i t would indicating that demolition natural in Ratliff, t h e Bank p l a c e d t h e knowledge property. due noting held lower p r o p r i e t o r . " I d . In for trespass, o f a l o w e r p r o p r i e t o r , when i t o t h e r w i s e been s c a t t e r e d no t h e d e f e n d a n t l a n d o w n e r c o u l d be "an u p p e r p r o p r i e t o r property the that or channeled T h u s , we find indirect-trespass claim. JML o n t h e C o l b e r t s ' the rainwater no l e g a l support Accordingly, indirect-trespass claim i s affirmed. Negligence, wantonness, 14 the and " w i l f u l n e s s " claims 2090842 The Colberts' "wilfulness" are substantial Colberts' a building. causation, 2d 1250, this of and 1256 some duty, See So. on the 665, are 679 a duty, likely breach of I n s . Co. the from doing wall rainwater to damaged t h e We have of Colberts' penetrate structure already the of the wall Inc. v. elements that duty, So. been d e f i n e d some a c t or the or omitting The to building, and that do the and an Colberts act, argue exposing thereby Bank by omission existing conditions or p r o b a b l y r e s u l t . " ) . the the v . R o u s h , 723 a p p e a l t h a t t h e Bank damaged t h e i r b u i l d i n g by exterior damaged ("The of and presenting Servs., ("'Wantonness' has knowing that, Bank Bus. a conscious doing of while the ( A l a . 2001) d a m a g e . " ) ; A l f a Mut. the wantonness, Colberts' that Armstrong 2d claim conscious injury will negligence, indicating ( A l a . 1998) C o u r t as being on 817 negligence of a l l dependent evidence AmSouth Bank, of claims the allowing directly wall. concluded that the Colberts did not 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 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the Bank directly damaged t h e C o l b e r t s ' w a l l . claim direct damage t o the Therefore, structure 15 of their the C o l b e r t s ' wall cannot form of the 2090842 basis for their negligence, wantonness, or "wilfulness" claims. We now damaged thereby turn to the Colberts' the Colberts' allowing consequently, Wise, 241 A l a . Court wall by rainwater t o enter argument removing to the building. 612, 4 So. 2 d 149 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , t h e Bank t h e Bank's contact the Colberts' that wall, wall and, I n Nabers v. t h e Alabama Supreme stated: "When o n e a d j o i n i n g l o t o w n e r b u i l d s o n h i s own p r o p e r t y , one w a l l f l u s h w i t h t h e l i n e , b u t r e s t i n g wholly o n h i s own p r o p e r t y , t h e a d j o i n i n g owner a c q u i r e s n o i n t e r e s t n o r e a s e m e n t i n s u c h w a l l . He cannot acquire such i n t e r e s t other than by grant, o r b y p r e s c r i p t i o n r a i s i n g a p r e s u m p t i o n o f a g r a n t . He c a n n o t , a s o f r i g h t , u s e s u c h w a l l a s a common w a l l , or as l a t e r a l support f o r a b u i l d i n g thereafter e r e c t e d o n h i s own l o t . T h e o w n e r o f t h e w a l l may r a z e same a t w i l l . B i s q u a y v . J e u n e l o t , 10 A l a . 2 4 5 , 44 Am. D e c . 4 8 3 [ ( 1 8 4 6 ) ] ; M o o d y v . M c C l e l l a n d , 39 Ala. 4 5 , 84 Am. D e c . 770 [ ( 1 8 6 3 ) ] . " 241 Ala. a t 616, 4 So. 2d a t 149. evidence at trial entirely o n i t s own p r o p e r t y . its wall Colberts at will. showed Id. that t h e Bank's Thus, The only noted wall above, t h e was t h e Bank c o u l d duty t h e Bank located demolish owed t h e w a s t o n o t damage t h e w a l l o f t h e C o l b e r t s ' b u i l d i n g when i t r e m o v e d i t s own w a l l . to A s we be t h a t The C o l b e r t s ' t h e Bank h a d a d u t y 16 to protect argument appears the Colberts from 2090842 the no preexisting condition support the for Colberts. (Ala. this See order to secure a f f i r m a t i v e duty of showing see also and Schiesz a p o s i t i o n on JML for behalf the favor trial of affirm the the court B a n k on trial Schiesz, the of an claims t o be did not a l l the court's 431 find So. 941 2d a 1263, 1265 reversal error So. 2d by "the upon the 27 9, 28 9 court to appellant create a or when Colberts' to Therefore, of negligence, affirmed. err We f u n c t i o n of t h i s appellant."). on t h e C o l b e r t s ' " w i l f u l n e s s " i s due The v. 2006) ("It i s not argument wall. authorities cited in record"); court's i n the that an legal proposition own Nichols, has advocate Colberts' v. appellant C i v . App. the Tucker 1983)(stating (Ala. of the trial wantonness, 2 , 3 i t entered claims; a JML therefore, in we judgment. AFFIRMED. T h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o e n t e r e d a JML i n f a v o r o f t h e B a n k on t h e C o l b e r t s ' f r a u d c l a i m . The C o l b e r t s do n o t p r e s e n t a n y a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r f r a u d c l a i m ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e y have abandoned t h a t c l a i m . See Newson v. Protective I n d u s t r i a l I n s . Co., 890 So. 2 d 8 1 , 86 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . 2 B e c a u s e we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e C o l b e r t s d i d n o t 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 i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r c l a i m s , we pretermit t h e C o l b e r t s ' r e m a i n i n g a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . See Favorite M a r k e t S t o r e v . W a l d r o p , 924 So. 2 d 7 1 9 , 723 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). 3 17 2090842 Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 18 Bryan, and Moore, 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.