Tasha Robinson and Eddie Robinson v. Sovran Acquisition Limited Partnership et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/11/11 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 , A l a b a m a 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 ((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 2090916 Tasha Robinson and Eddie Robinson v. Sovran A c q u i s i t i o n L i m i t e d Partnership e t a l . Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-09-131) BRYAN, Judge. Tasha R o b i n s o n a n d E d d i e R o b i n s o n , t h e p l a i n t i f f s appeal from a summary judgment Acquisition Limited Partnership Storage, Kathy Cruso, and Gary entered i n favor below, o f Sovran ( " S o v r a n " ) , U n c l e Bob's Vandervent, Self the defendants 2090916 below. On We a f f i r m . M a r c h 1, 2008, T a s h a R o b i n s o n e n t e r e d into a rental agreement w i t h Sovran i n w h i c h she r e n t e d a s t o r a g e u n i t a t U n c l e Bob's S e l f S t o r a g e , The rental provided, a storage f a c i l i t y owned b y S o v r a n . a g r e e m e n t c o n t a i n e d an e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e , 1 which in pertinent part: "ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY IS STORED BY TENANT AT TENANT'S SOLE RISK. INSURANCE IS TENANT'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY. TENANT UNDERSTANDS THAT OWNER WILL NOT INSURE TENANT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY. Any i n s u r a n c e protecting thepersonal property stored within the s t o r a g e s p a c e a g a i n s t f i r e , t h e f t o r damage must be p r o v i d e d by t h e Tenant. Tenant e x p r e s s l y r e l e a s e s Owner f r o m a n y l o s s e s , c l a i m s , s u i t s a n d / o r damages o r r i g h t o f s u b r o g a t i o n c a u s e d b y ... t h e f t ... u n l a w f u l e n t r y o r any o t h e r cause whatsoever, n o r s h a l l Owner be l i a b l e t o t e n a n t a n d / o r t e n a n t ' s g u e s t s f o r a n y p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s o r p r o p e r t y damage s u s t a i n e d b y t e n a n t a n d / o r t e n a n t ' s g u e s t s w h i l e on o r a b o u t owner's p r e m i s e s . " ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n and b o l d t y p e f a c e When t h e r e n t a l a Sovran employee, i n original.) a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d informed into, Vandervent, Tasha R o b i n s o n t h a t t h e s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y was p r o t e c t e d b y s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras 24 h o u r s a day. The Robinsons subsequently began storing their personal "An e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e ' r e l i e v [ e s ] a p a r t y f r o m l i a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n e g l i g e n t o r w r o n g f u l a c t . ' B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 608 ( 8 t h ed. 2 0 0 4 ) . " F o x A l a r m Co. v . W a d s w o r t h , 913 So. 2 d 1070, 1076 ( A l a . 2005) . 1 2 2090916 property 22, i n the rented storage unit. On approximately 2008, S o v r a n b e g a n r e n o v a t i n g t h e s t o r a g e manager o f t h e that storage facility, facility. Andrew M a r c Ney, " [ t ] h e s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras t h a t m o n i t o r e d facility were renovations functioning began approximately on August properly or 13, about until July 2008, the them. informed According that 2008." On broke into to subsequently a employee the sued Sovran and the other of c o n t r a c t . The R o b i n s o n s s o u g h t damages t h e l o s s o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y t h a t had b e e n s t o l e n the storage inoperable. As unit while we will the discuss s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras i n more d e t a i l d e f e n d a n t s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on and t h e t r i a l on a l l c l a i m s . and Sovran a l l e g i n g c l a i m s of n e g l i g e n c e , wantonness, f r a u d , d e c e i t , and b r e a c h from Robinson, belonging renovation." Robinsons defendants, for Tasha the h e r t h a t t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras d i d n o t r e c o r d b r e a k - i n "due The to storage time R o b i n s o n s ' s t o r a g e u n i t and s t o l e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y to The testified the 22, someone July the below, various Robinsons appealed supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e 3 the grounds, c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e i r The were favor t o t h e supreme c o u r t , appeal to t h i s court, 2090916 p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. "In r e v i e w i n g the d i s p o s i t i o n o f a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , 'we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d as the t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e evidence b e f o r e [ i 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 ) , a n d w h e t h e r t h e movant was ' 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 . ' W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no 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 , t h e burden shifts to t h e nonmovant to present 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 s u c h an i s s u e . B a s s v . S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . E v i d e n c e i s ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i f i t i s o f 'such w e i g h t a n d 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 o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d . ' W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d a t 543 ( q u o t i n g 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 ) ) . Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w the record in a light most f a v o r a b l e to the nonmovant a n d must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. Wilma C o r p . v . F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 613 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412, 413 ( A l a . 1990)." Hobson v . A m e r i c a n (Ala. Cast Iron P i p e Co., 690 So. 2d 3 4 1 , 344 1997). I n m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , the defendants asserted t h a t t h e e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e i n t h e r e n t a l agreement b a r r e d t h e Robinsons' negligence claim. that the exculpatory clause On a p p e a l , t h e R o b i n s o n s does 4 not bar t h e i r argue negligence 2090916 claim. I n m a k i n g t h a t argument, t h a t the e x c u l p a t o r y t h e R o b i n s o n s do n o t c o n t e n d clause i s i n v a l i d . See, e.g., Morgan v. S o u t h C e n t . B e l l T e l . Co., 466 So. 2d 107, (establishing c r i t e r i a f o r determining 116-19 ( A l a . 1985) w h e t h e r an exculpatory c l a u s e a f f e c t s t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and i s t h e r e f o r e Rather, invalid). the Robinsons argue t h a t the e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e cannot be e n f o r c e d g i v e n t h e f a c t s o f t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e case. More specifically, exculpatory clause defendants' "active" negligence. committed does The the not Robinsons bar negligence, Robinsons a that claim to that because, the on the based opposed as contend a c t i v e negligence argue in this the "passive" defendants the Robinsons say, the d e f e n d a n t s d i s a b l e d t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras w h i l e t h e s t o r a g e facility record was on being appeal renovated. contains the The Robinsons argue s u b s t a n t i a l evidence negligence by defendants exculpatory c l a u s e does n o t b a r t h e n e g l i g e n c e I n B a k e r v. W h e e l e r , 128 So. 2d Huckabee, 721 266 (1961), Ala. 91, and, that of therefore, the active that the claim. L a c e y & Brown, I n c . , 272 A l a . 101, our 94 supreme c o u r t So. 2d 380 e s t a b l i s h e d a r u l e t h a t an e x c u l p a t o r y 5 construed (1957), clause Armi as contained v. having in a 2090916 residential passive l e a s e may negligence shield but a l a n d l o r d from not a c t i v e liability for negligence. Following Baker, our a p p e l l a t e courts a p p l i e d t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n active and p a s s i v e exculpatory clauses negligence i n certain i n residential cases leases. v. B i r d n e s t 1981); and I r v i n 1984). Although Apartments, concerning See M a t t h e w s v. M o u n t a i n Lodge A p a r t m e n t s , I n c . , 388 So. 2d 935 Walston between I n c . , 395 ( A l a . 1980); So. 2d 45 ( A l a . v. H o u s t o n , 444 So. 2d 878 no A l a b a m a c a s e has a d d r e s s e d ( A l a . C i v . App. the i s s u e , the d i s t i n c t i o n between a c t i v e and p a s s i v e n e g l i g e n c e , a t l e a s t i n the context of exculpatory clauses contained in residential l e a s e s , no l o n g e r a p p e a r s r e l e v a n t g i v e n t h e r e c e n t e n a c t m e n t of t h e Alabama U n i f o r m 35-9A-101 R e s i d e n t i a l L a n d l o r d and Tenant A c t , § e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 ("the A c t " ) . b r o a d l y p r o h i b i t s a n d makes u n e n f o r c e a b l e , The A c t in a residential- l e a s e a g r e e m e n t , any p r o v i s i o n i n w h i c h t h e t e n a n t "agrees t o t h e e x c u l p a t i o n o r l i m i t a t i o n o f any l i a b i l i t y o f t h e l a n d l o r d arising under law." § 35-9A-163(a)(4), A l a . Code 1975; s e e a l s o § 3 5 - 9 A - 1 6 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975; Comment t o § 35-9A-163, Ala. Code 1975 tenant who may ( i n d i c a t i n g t h e n e e d t o p r o t e c t an u n i n f o r m e d surrender or waive r i g h t s 6 against a landlord 2090916 f o r damages a r i s i n g f r o m a l a n d l o r d ' s n e g l i g e n c e ) ; v. Owen, 310 (stating So. that, l a n g u a g e as 2d 458, under that 459 a n.1 Florida (Fla. Dist. statute and C t . App. containing found i n § 35-9A-163(a)(4), an 1975) similar exculpatory c l a u s e would not s h i e l d a r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d l o r d from for Fuentes liability negligence). The Robinsons argue that the active/passive dichotomy a r t i c u l a t e d i n B a k e r s h o u l d be a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e t o p r e v e n t the enforcement negligence of the claim. exculpatory However, the cases Robinsons concern the s p e c i f i c context in r e s i d e n t i a l leases entered Act i n 2007. relying on Of course, Baker, this Baker does n o t as to relied on their by of e x c u l p a t o r y into before unlike case clause clauses the a d o p t i o n of and subsequent involve a noted, in distinction the context b e t w e e n a c t i v e and appears r e l e v a n t given now of residential passive residential context. We decline between active and to apply passive to this negligence negligence 7 to apply case the found unit. leases, no the a d o p t i o n of the A c t ; the a s k us t o r e v i v e t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n and the cases l e a s e ; r a t h e r , i t i n v o l v e s the r e n t a l of a s e l f - s t o r a g e As the the longer Robinsons i t in a new distinction i n Baker. In 2090916 d o i n g s o , we n o t e t h a t m a k i n g d i s t i n c t i o n s passive negligence i n determining between a c t i v e and whether t o uphold e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e h a s b e e n c r i t i c i z e d a s "somewhat and arbitrary." College Mobile Home P a r k artificial & Sales, Hoffmann, 72 W i s . 2d 514, 520, 241 N.W.2d 174, 177 See Edward also Standard Pitt. C. Fisch, Note, Exculpatory an I n c . v. (1976). Clauses in Form L e a s e s : A Need f o r D i r e c t J u d i c i a l A c t i o n , 28 U. L. Rev. 85, 87 (1966) ( n o t i n g t h a t some c o u r t s "make t h e dubious d i s t i n c t i o n between a c t i v e and p a s s i v e n e g l i g e n c e " i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o u p h o l d an e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e ) . we c o n c l u d e t h a t any d i s t i n c t i o n negligence i s inapplicable i n this argument negligence that the exculpatory claim f a i l s . established that the t r i a l j u d g m e n t on t h e i r Because between a c t i v e and p a s s i v e case, clause Therefore, the does the Robinsons' not bar their R o b i n s o n s have n o t c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary negligence claim. Next, t h e Robinsons argue t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i r w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m . 2 Our T h e d e f e n d a n t s do n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e bars t h e wantonness c l a i m . See B a r n e s v . B i r m i n g h a m I n t ' l Raceway, I n c . , 551 So. 2d 929, 933 ( A l a . 1989) ( s t a t i n g t h a t the e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e i n t h a t case, a l t h o u g h v a l i d as t o n e g l i g e n t c o n d u c t , was i n v a l i d as t o w a n t o n o r willful 2 8 2090916 supreme court has d e f i n e d "wantonness" "'as t h e conscious d o i n g o f some a c t o r t h e o m i s s i o n o f some d u t y , w h i l e of the e x i s t i n g conditions and b e i n g conscious d o i n g o r o m i t t i n g t o do an a c t , i n j u r y w i l l result.'" 601, 603 Bozeman v . C e n t r a l ( A l a . 1994) cite any e v i d e n c e 646 So. 2d i n d i c a t i n g that The R o b i n s o n s do the defendants with the r e q u i s i t e consciousness that the Robinsons' property merely was l i k e l y because Accordingly, from Stone v. S o u t h l a n d N a t ' l I n s . C o r p . , 589 So. 2d 1289, 1292 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . not that, l i k e l y or probably Bank o f t h e S o u t h , (quoting knowing acted personal t o be s t o l e n o r w o u l d p r o b a b l y be s t o l e n t h e s e c u r i t y cameras h a d become inoperable. t h e R o b i n s o n s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i r w a n t o n n e s s claim. 2007) See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e (equating wantonness known d a n g e r l i k e l y Essary, 992 So. 2d 5, 12 ( A l a . to "reckless to i n f l i c t indifference to a injury"). Next, t h e Robinsons argue t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e t h e i r c l a i m s a l l e g i n g f r a u d and deceit. In t h e i r complaint, following allegations regarding conduct). 9 the Robinsons those claims: made t h e 2090916 "4. [On M a r c h 1, 2008, when] t h e p a r t i e s n e g o t i a t e d t h e [ r e n t a l ] agreement, t h e Defendants r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e [ R o b i n s o n s ] , o r one o f them, t h a t [ t h e s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y was] s e c u r e a n d p r o t e c t e d b y continuous s u r v e i l l a n c e b y means o f v i d e o cameras owned a n d / o r m a i n t a i n e d b y t h e D e f e n d a n t s . "5. F u r t h e r , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n ... , the [Robinsons] inspected the [storage f a c i l i t y , ] w h i c h [ t h e R o b i n s o n s ] were c o n s i d e r i n g for the storage of t h e i r personalty. At s a i d time and i n said place, the [Robinsons] observed s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras s i t u a t e d upon s a i d p r e m i s e s . "6. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made b y t h e D e f e n d a n t s were f a l s e a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t s knew t h a t t h e y were f a l s e o r s a i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were made r e c k l e s s l y and[/]or n e g l i g e n t l y but with the i n t e n t that the [ R o b i n s o n s ] r e l y upon them. "7. The [ R o b i n s o n s ] r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d upon t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made b y t h e D e f e n d a n t s a n d e n t e r e d i n t o [ t h e r e n t a l ] agreement[,] and [ t h e R o b i n s o n s ] stored valuable personalty [ i n the rented storage unit]. "8. I n f a c t , on a n d f o r some t i m e p r i o r t o A u g u s t 12 o r 1 3 [ , ] 2008, s a i d s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras were i n o p e r a b l e o r n o t f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y . As a r e s u l t , t h i r d p e r s o n s were a l l o w e d t o e n t e r upon said premises without [being] subjected to s u r v e i l l a n c e or being detected. W h i l e upon s a i d premises[,] ... s a i d t h i r d p a r t i e s t o o k p o s s e s s i o n of [the Robinsons'] personalty[,] permanently d e p r i v i n g [them] t h e r e o f . "9. F u r t h e r , t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a d a d u t y t o inform the [Robinsons] that said surveillance cameras were i n o p e r a b l e o r n o t f u n c t i o n i n g p r o p e r l y so that [the Robinsons] could make other arrangements f o r t h e i r storage of s a i d p e r s o n a l t y . 10 2090916 "10. As a r e s u l t o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s [ ' ] f r a u d u l e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , d e c e i t and f a i l u r e t o a d v i s e t h e [Robinsons] of the t r u e f a c t s , the [Robinsons] s u f f e r e d t h e l o s s o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y and s u f f e r e d mental anguish." The R o b i n s o n s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e i r c o m p l a i n t s t a t e d c l a i m s a l l e g i n g b o t h f r a u d and d e c e i t . The elements of fraud are: "(1) a f a l s e representation (2) o f a m a t e r i a l e x i s t i n g f a c t (3) r e l i e d upon by t h e p l a i n t i f f (4) who was damaged as a p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t of the m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . E a r n e s t v. P r i t c h e t t - M o o r e , I n c . , 401 So. 2d 752 ( A l a . 1981) . I f f r a u d i s b a s e d upon a promise t o p e r f o r m or a b s t a i n from p e r f o r m i n g i n t h e f u t u r e , two a d d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t s must be p r o v e d : (1) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e n t i o n , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e alleged m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , not to do the act p r o m i s e d , c o u p l e d w i t h (2) an i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e . C l a n t o n v. B a i n s O i l Co., 417 So. 2d 149 ( A l a . 1982)." C o a s t a l C o n c r e t e Co. v. P a t t e r s o n , 1987). 6-5-101, See elements also of § fraud). "In 503 Ala. So. Code promissory 2d 824, 1975 826 ( A l a . (stating fraud, the material e x i s t i n g f a c t t h a t i s m i s r e p r e s e n t e d i s the defendant's of mind, perform when some perform i t . " Co., the act although Spring H i l l 662 So. The when Robinsons' the defendant 2d 1141, rental 1149 represents that he does Lighting in fact & S u p p l y Co. state intends to intend to v. S q u a r e D ( A l a . 1995). c o m p l a i n t may agreement not he the was 11 be r e a d as signed alleging i n March 2008, that, the 2090916 defendants misrepresented that the storage p r o t e c t e d by s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras. argued i n the t r i a l court, was t h e n However, as t h e d e f e n d a n t s the record contains that surveillance evidence cameras when t h e r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t was that the s u r v e i l l a n c e properly" before she 2008. signed renovations Also, "were to the storage that the surveillance claim that, camera functioning on t h e d a y that the defendants monitor monitoring f a c i l i t y was f u n c t i o n i n g . alleged Ney, f a c i l i t y began i n Tasha Robinson t e s t i f i e d entrance t o the storage fraud cameras by entered facility, t h e r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t , she o b s e r v e d a v i d e o indicating the was n o t p r o t e c t e d C o n v e r s e l y , t h e manager o f t h e s t o r a g e testified July facility no establishing into. the storage facility the I n s o f a r as misrepresented t h a t t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras were f u n c t i o n i n g when t h e r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d no evidence indicating representation Singleton (Ala. i n t o , t h a t c l a i m f a i l s because there i s that concerning v. P r o t e c t i v e the defendants that Life made existing fact. a false See, e . g . , I n s . Co., 857 So. 2d 803, 814 2003). The Robinsons' represented complaint that the storage alleged facility 12 that the defendants w o u l d be " p r o t e c t e d by 2090916 continuous claim surveillance." is based on an Insofar alleged as the promise Robinsons' to fraud maintain the s u r v e i l l a n c e c a m e r a s , t h e c o m p l a i n t a p p e a r s t o have a l l e g e d a promissory-fraud claim. To e s t a b l i s h promissory fraud, the R o b i n s o n s were r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , the defendants d i d not entered into, storage facility. i n t e n d , when t h e to continue See that Coastal was s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras a t t o use r e n t a l agreement the Concrete Co., 503 So. 2d at 826. However, t h e R o b i n s o n s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that the into, defendants, intended Therefore, The when t h e n o t t o use a summary argue t h a t judgment on the -- claim trial their p u r s u a n t t o § 6-5-104, A l a . Code 1975. "Deceit entered s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras i n t h e the Robinsons' p r o m i s s o r y - f r a u d Robinsons a l s o entering r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t was fails. court deceit future. erred claim, made That s e c t i o n , e n t i t l e d Fraudulent deceit," provides, in pertinent part: "(a) One who w i l l f u l l y d e c e i v e s a n o t h e r w i t h i n t e n t t o i n d u c e him t o a l t e r h i s p o s i t i o n t o h i s i n j u r y o r r i s k i s l i a b l e f o r any damage w h i c h he thereby s u f f e r s . is "(b) A d e c e i t w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h i s ... : 13 in section 2090916 "(3) The s u p p r e s s i o n o f a f a c t bound t o d i s c l o s e i t " by one who is I t appears t h a t the Robinsons contend t h a t the defendants are liable Robinsons for deceit under § 6-5-104(b)(3) s a y , t h e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o n o t i f y them t h a t surveillance cameras were not functioning r e n o v a t i o n of the storage f a c i l i t y . the because, during Before the t r i a l the the the court, d e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y owed no d u t y t o i n f o r m t h e R o b i n s o n s t h a t t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras were i n o p e r a b l e d u r i n g the that r e n o v a t i o n of the storage f a c i l i t y . the q u e s t i o n whether such a duty is a jury The R o b i n s o n s the defendants question. d e f e n d a n t s owed t h e R o b i n s o n s owed t h e However, contend Robinsons whether a d u t y t o i n f o r m them t h a t the the s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras were i n o p e r a b l e i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w t o be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l v. Owen, 729 decide factual So. whether, Greensboro, S t a t e Farm F i r e & C a s . 2d 834, 840 assuming as truth are sufficient assertions, legal duty."). court. they ( A l a . 1998) ("The a l l of judge the to give Co. should plaintiff's rise to a See a l s o F l y i n g J F i s h Farm v. P e o p l e s Bank o f 12 So. 3d 1185, 1192 ( A l a . 2008). In a r g u i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s owed them a d u t y t o i n f o r m them t h a t t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e cameras had become i n o p e r a b l e , t h e 14 2090916 Robinsons c i t e general p r i n c i p l e s regarding the suppression material facts. those general However, t h e R o b i n s o n s do n o t e x p l a i n p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e to the f a c t s of t h i s of how case t o c r e a t e a d u t y owed b y t h e d e f e n d a n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e d e c e i t claim. The R o b i n s o n s do n o t c i t e a u t h o r i t y e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s owed them a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e u n d e r t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s of t h i s case. An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t does n o t " c r e a t e l e g a l arguments party undelineated general p r o p o s i t i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y o r argument." Spradlin v. for Spradlin, conclude trial deceit In summarily the Robinsons erred claim. a based 601 So. 2d 76, 79 that court a on ( A l a . 1992). have i n entering not e s t a b l i s h e d a summary that judgment on we the their 3 single contend sentence that i n their the t r i a l court brief, erred summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i r b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t "'When issue, Therefore, the Robinsons i n entering a claim. an a p p e l l a n t fails t o p r o p e r l y argue that issue i s waived and w i l l not an be I n s o f a r as t h e R o b i n s o n s ' b r i e f may be r e a d as a r g u i n g that they a l l e g e d , i n a d d i t i o n to the d e c e i t claim, a f r a u d u l e n t - s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m u n d e r § 6-5-102, A l a . Code 1975, o u r d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g d u t y e q u a l l y a p p l i e s . See § 6-5-102 ( s t a t i n g t h a t a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e m a t e r i a l f a c t s i s an e l e m e n t of f r a u d u l e n t suppression). 3 15 2090916 considered. B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89 ( A l a . 1982).' Asam v . D e v e r e a u x , 686 So. 2d 1222, 1224 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . 'An a p p e a l s c o u r t will c o n s i d e r o n l y t h o s e i s s u e s p r o p e r l y d e l i n e a t e d as s u c h , a n d no m a t t e r w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l unless presented a n d a r g u e d i n b r i e f . Ex p a r t e Riley, 464 So. 2d 92 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . ' B r a x t o n v . S t e w a r t , 539 So. 2d 284, 286 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . " Tucker 317, v. C u l l m a n - J e f f e r s o n 319 issue ( A l a . 2003). Counties Therefore, Gas D i s t . , we 864 So. 2d do n o t c o n s i d e r that further. In conclusion, the t r i a l t h e R o b i n s o n s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d that c o u r t e r r e d i n 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t s on t h e R o b i n s o n s ' claims. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 16 Thomas, a n d 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.