Carol Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:5/6/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((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 2100104 C a r o l Mahoney v. Loma A l t a Property Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-06-415) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Carol Circuit Mahoney appeals from a judgment o f t h e B a l d w i n C o u r t a w a r d i n g h e r $500 a s an a t t o r n e y p u r s u a n t t o t h e Alabama L i t i g a t i o n f e e and c o s t s Accountability Act, § 12- 2100104 19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 ("ALAA"). We reverse and remand. This i s the t h i r d t h i s court. So. time these p a r t i e s have been I n Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y before Owners A s s ' n , 4 3d 1130 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ("Mahoney I " ) , we s e t o u t t h e f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h e c a s e as f o l l o w s : "Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ('LAPOA'), sued Carol Mahoney i n the Baldwin D i s t r i c t Court, c l a i m i n g breach of contract, account s t a t e d , and a p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s - a s s o c i a t i o n l i e n on r e a l e s t a t e o c c u p i e d b y Mahoney. LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner o f u n i t C-1 i n Loma A l t a Townhomes; t h a t Ms. Mahoney was, t h e r e f o r e , b o u n d b y an agreement c o n t a i n e d within t h e condominium d e c l a r a t i o n f o r t h e Loma A l t a s u b d i v i s i o n t o p a y property-owners-association f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , and l a t e c h a r g e s ; a n d t h a t Ms. Mahoney h a d f a i l e d t o p a y those fees, assessments, and c h a r g e s . LAPOA a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r f r o m Ms. Mahoney damages, i n c l u d i n g l a t e fees, i n t e r e s t , c o s t s , a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e , a n d t o have a l i e n on t h e r e a l e s t a t e o c c u p i e d b y Ms. Mah oney. "Ms. Mahoney a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , admitted t h a t she 'owe[d] some money, b u t n o t t h e t o t a l amount c l a i m e d b y [LAPOA],' a n d a s s e r t e d t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o a s e t o f f b e c a u s e LAPOA h a d f a i l e d t o make n e e d e d r e p a i r s on t h e u n i t . On A p r i l 11, 2006, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r o f LAPOA i n t h e amount o f $5,390, p l u s c o s t s a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e o f $500. Ms. Mahoney a p p e a l e d t h a t j u d g m e n t t o t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t on A p r i l 25, 2006, f o r a t r i a l de novo. "On May 19, 2006, Ms. Mahoney f i l e d an amended answer i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g t h e 2 2100104 a l l e g a t i o n s o f LAPOA's c o m p l a i n t and asserting, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t she d i d n o t have a c o n t r a c t w i t h LAPOA. I n a d d i t i o n , Ms. Mahoney a s s e r t e d a c l a i m under the Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ('ALAA'), § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. On December 21, 2006, LAPOA amended i t s c o m p l a i n t , n a m i n g Ms. Mahoney's f o r m e r h u s b a n d , J o s e p h Mahoney, as a d e f e n d a n t . LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Mr. Mahoney was t h e 'owner' o f u n i t C-1 i n Loma A l t a Townhomes and t h a t Ms. Mahoney was a ' r e s i d e n t ' of the u n i t . LAPOA a l s o added a c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h a t , by v i r t u e o f the f o r e c l o s u r e of i t s property-owners-association l i e n , i t was e n t i t l e d t o have Ms. Mahoney ' e v i c t e d ' f r o m u n i t C-1. "The c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a b e n c h t r i a l on J a n u a r y 26, 2007, a t w h i c h o n l y one w i t n e s s -- Mary Garey, the secretary/treasurer of LAPOA -¬ testified. Garey explained that the property-owners-association fees and assessments r e p r e s e n t the u n i t owners' p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of t h e c o s t o f m a i n t a i n i n g and p r e s e r v i n g t h e common a r e a s o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m . G a r e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney had r e s i d e d i n u n i t C-1 o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s i n c e M a r c h 2000 and t h a t she had p a i d some o f t h e fees and assessments but that she had stopped p a y i n g , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o s e t o f f a g a i n s t the b a l a n c e the c o s t of needed r e p a i r s t h a t LAPOA had f a i l e d t o make on t h e u n i t Ms. Mahoney was o c c u p y i n g . Garey s t a t e d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g to the condominium d e c l a r a t i o n , r e p a i r s t o a u n i t are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u n i t owner, n o t LAPOA. G a r e y i d e n t i f i e d a document s h o w i n g t h e p a s t - d u e f e e s and a s s e s s m e n t s t h a t , LAPOA c l a i m e d , were owed by Ms. Mahoney. G a r e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney had n e v e r r e t u r n e d t h e i n v o i c e s f o r f e e s and assessments to Garey w i t h a request that the invoices be forwarded to someone e l s e . Nor, a c c o r d i n g t o G a r e y , had Ms. Mahoney e v e r i n f o r m e d LAPOA t h a t she was n o t t h e owner o f t h e u n i t i n w h i c h she r e s i d e d . G a r e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t LAPOA, by v i r t u e o f i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owner o f e a c h u n i t , 3 2100104 has a l i e n on any u n i t f o r w h i c h t h e r e a r e u n p a i d f e e s and a s s e s s m e n t s . G a r e y s a i d t h a t LAPOA had f o r e c l o s e d i t s l i e n on u n i t C-1. 1 "On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , Garey acknowledged t h a t t h e owner o f e a c h u n i t i s s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment o f t h e p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s - a s s o c i a t i o n f e e s and assessments. G a r e y a d m i t t e d t h a t LAPOA had no d e e d s h o w i n g t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner o f t h e u n i t i n w h i c h she r e s i d e d , t h a t LAPOA had no contract w i t h Ms. Mahoney, and t h a t LAPOA had no document s t a t i n g t h a t someone o t h e r t h a n t h e owner o f t h e u n i t was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment o f t h e f e e s and a s s e s s m e n t s on t h e u n i t t h a t Ms. Mahoney o c c u p i e d . On r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , G a r e y a f f i r m e d t h e t r u t h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i n q u i r y by LAPOA's c o u n s e l : 'We're s i m p l y a s k i n g [the c i r c u i t c o u r t ] t o c o n f i r m t h a t we've g o t a j u d g m e n t on t h i s u n i t , w h e t h e r i t ' s owned [by] Ms. Mahoney o r w h o e v e r i t i s , b e c a u s e t h a t u n i t has n o t p a i d any dues and a s s e s s m e n t s , i s that right?' "The circuit court admitted the following d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by LAPOA: (1) the condominium declaration for the Loma Alta s u b d i v i s i o n ; (2) a s t a t e m e n t o f f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , and l a t e c h a r g e s s e n t by LAPOA t o Ms. Mahoney on J a n u a r y 24, 2007, i n d i c a t i n g a b a l a n c e due of $6,150; and (3) a ' S t a t e m e n t o f L i e n ' f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n P r o b a t e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 4, 2004, n a m i n g C a r o l Mahoney as t h e owner o f 'Lot C-1, Loma A l t a , as r e c o r d e d i n Map Book 11, Page 176, i n t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge o f P r o b a t e , B a l d w i n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . ' "At t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f G a r e y ' s t e s t i m o n y , LAPOA rested and Ms. Mahoney's c o u n s e l moved f o r a 'directed v e r d i c t , ' arguing: 2 " ' [ T ] h e r e ' s b e e n no p r o o f o f o w n e r s h i p [by] my c l i e n t , C a r o l Mahoney, ... o r t h a t s h e ' s b o u n d by any c o n t r a c t t h a t t h e y have f a i l e d 4 2100104 to present i n c o u r t showing responsible for anything .... that she's "'[LAPOA has] gone against the wrong person, and t h a t ' s why we move f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and ask f o r award of reasonable attorney's fees f o r having to fight this.' "The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . On A p r i l 13, 2007, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA and a g a i n s t Ms. Mahoney i n t h e amount o f $6,279.10 and a w a r d e d LAPOA an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e o f $5,000. The court did not rule on Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c o u n t e r c l a i m , b u t we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was i m p l i c i t l y d e n i e d . See H a r r i s v. Cook, 944 So. 2d 977, 981 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) . On t h e same day, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t f o r t h e same amount i n f a v o r o f LAPOA and a g a i n s t J o s e p h Mahoney. Ms. Mahoney f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on May 15, 2007. " S e c t i o n 3 5 - 8 - 1 7 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f a c h a p t e r e n t i t l e d 'Condominium O w n e r s h i p , ' p r o v i d e s that '[l]iens for unpaid assessments may be f o r e c l o s e d by an a c t i o n b r o u g h t i n t h e name o f t h e [ p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' ] a s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e same manner as a f o r e c l o s u r e o f a m o r t g a g e on r e a l p r o p e r t y . ' 1 " I n a c t i o n s t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y , the proper m o t i o n i s one f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P." 2 Mahoney I, Property 4 So. Owners 3d Ass'n, 2009)("Mahoney I I " ) , procedural at 1131-33. 52 So. In 3d Mahoney v. 510 (Ala. Loma Civ. t h i s c o u r t f u r t h e r s e t out the f a c t s h i s t o r y of the c a s e as f o l l o w s : 5 Alta App. and 2100104 "[In Mahoney I,] [ t ] h i s court reversed the j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ('LAPOA'), h o l d i n g t h a t LAPOA h a d w h o l l y f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t Ms. Mahoney was b o u n d t o pay t h e f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , a n d l a t e c h a r g e s c l a i m e d by LAPOA b e c a u s e LAPOA's c o n t r a c t o b l i g a t e d t h e owner o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t t o p a y t h o s e c h a r g e s and t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney was n o t t h e owner o f t h e u n i t . This court remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e c i r c u i t court with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o a d j u d i c a t e Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m . "On remand, t h e c i r c u i t court vacated i t s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA, e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Ms. Mahoney, a n d s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m on S e p t e m b e r 17, 2008. Ms. Mahoney f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 2, 2008, complaining that the c i r c u i t c o u r t had, 'without evidence or testimony entered a v e r d i c t f o r [LAPOA] as t o t h e ALAA c l a i m . ' She a t t a c h e d t o h e r motion a f o r e c l o s u r e deed e x e c u t e d by LAPOA's a t t o r n e y on O c t o b e r 10, 2006, a n d f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n P r o b a t e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 16, 2006, a v e r r i n g t h a t J o s e p h Mahoney h a d b e e n t h e r e c o r d t i t l e owner o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y s i n c e May 10, 2005. "Ms. Mahoney s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on her postjudgment motion. The c i r c u i t c o u r t s e t t h e m o t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 21, 2008. The r e c o r d b e f o r e us c o n t a i n s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g . The p a r t i e s a g r e e , h o w e v e r , t h a t Ms. Mahoney d i d n o t a p p e a r , t h a t no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d , and t h a t c o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d o r a l argument t o the t r i a l c o u r t a t the h e a r i n g . On O c t o b e r 28, 2008, the c i r c u i t court denied Ms. Mahoney's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Ms. Mahoney t i m e l y a p p e a l e d on November 13, 2008." Mahoney I I , 52 So. 3d a t 513-14. I n Mahoney I I , we h e l d t h a t , 6 2100104 " [ i ] n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , as i n S a n d e r s o n G r o u p [ , I n c . v. S m i t h , 809 So.2d 823 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ] , t h e r e c o r d shows i n d i s p u t a b l y t h a t LAPOA's a c t i o n a g a i n s t Ms. Mahoney was g r o u n d l e s s i n l a w . A l l f o u r o f LAPOA's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Ms. Mahoney -- b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , a c c o u n t s t a t e d , p r o p e r t y owner's l i e n , a n d e v i c t i o n -- h i n g e d upon i t s p r o v i n g t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . LAPOA n o t o n l y f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner, b u t i t a l s o p r e s e n t e d as i t s o n l y w i t n e s s a t t h e c i r c u i t - c o u r t t r i a l someone who a c k n o w l e d g e d ' t h a t LAPOA h a d no d e e d s h o w i n g t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner' o f t h e p r o p e r t y . Mahoney [ I ] , 4 So. 3d a t 1132. LAPOA h a d a c c e s s t o i t s own c o n d o m i n i u m d e c l a r a t i o n , w h i c h "'makes i t c l e a r t h a t LAPOA's remedy i s s t r i c t l y a g a i n s t t h e owner. As A r t i c l e V I I , S e c t i o n 7, o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , e n t i t l e d "Effect o f Nonpayment of Assessments: R e m e d i e s o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n , " s t a t e s : "No owner may waive or otherwise escape l i a b i l i t y f o r the assessments provided f o r h e r e i n b y n o n - u s e o f t h e Common A r e a o r abandonment o f h i s l o t . " ' "Mahoney [ I ] , 4 So. 3d a t 1134. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t LAPOA knew, before December 2 1 , 2006, when i t amended i t s c o m p l a i n t i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h a t Ms. Mahoney's f o r m e r h u s b a n d , J o s e p h Mahoney, was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e LAPOA's a t t o r n e y h a d , on O c t o b e r 16, 2006, f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n P r o b a t e C o u r t a f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d a v e r r i n g t h a t J o s e p h Mahoney h a d b e e n t h e r e c o r d t i t l e owner o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y s i n c e May 10, 2 0 0 5 . " Mahoney I I , 52 So. 3d a t 517. We r e v e r s e d the t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m a n d remanded t h e c a u s e 7 2100104 to the t r i a l court t o make an a p p r o p r i a t e award p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. I d . a t 517-18. LAPOA p e t i t i o n e d t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r t h e w r i t of certiorari, affirmed which that our c o n c l u s i o n d e n y i n g Mahoney's c l a i m court that granted. the t r i a l Our supreme court court had e r r e d i n f o r an a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA, noting that " t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y LAPOA against Mahoney i n t h e amended complaint were g r o u n d l e s s r e s u l t s from r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t ownership o f t h e p r o p e r t y was a r e q u i r e d l e g a l e l e m e n t o f e a c h c l a i m a n d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e LAPOA amended t h e complaint, LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Mahoney's former h u s b a n d , a n d n o t Mahoney h e r s e l f , was t h e owner o f the p r o p e r t y . " Ex parte (Ala. Loma A l t a Prop. Owners A s s ' n , Woodall and J u s t i c e Murdock d i s s e n t e d m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a . they So. 3d 518, 524 2010). Justice and 52 J u s t i c e Murdock o p i n e d i n t h e i r would determining groundless have h e l d that that LAPOA's i n law or f a c t , Both J u s t i c e Woodall respective dissents the t r i a l lawsuit court against vexatious, that d i d not e r r i n Mahoney was or interposed improper purpose; t h e r e f o r e , they opined, 8 from the the t r i a l not f o r any court d i d 2100104 not err i n declining t o a w a r d Mahoney an a t t o r n e y f e e a n d c o s t s u n d e r t h e ALAA. On remand, the t r i a l court held a hearing, Mahoney p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y a n d e v i d e n c e incurred by Mahoney as a result of at which regarding the costs LAPOA's lawsuit, the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h o s e c o s t s , and o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s t h a t would support testimony Mahoney's an and award evidence counsel's under t h e ALAA. regarding charges stated reasons and Mahoney reasonableness factors set forth of that i t f e l t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r an a t t o r n e y f e e o f $500. i n i t s judgment presented award. Following the hearing, the t r i a l awarding the and o t h e r would support o n l y a minimal LAPOA that i t s award The t r i a l was based court on " t h e i n t h e [Alabama] Supreme C o u r t ' s d i s s e n t s [LAPOA's] r e c e n t s u b m i s s i o n s , [and] w h i c h i s i n l i n e w i t h t h e amount a w a r d e d [as an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l ] b y t h e C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s . " Mahoney f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t the t r i a l c o u r t denied. motion, which Mahoney 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 court. On because, appeal, Mahoney Mahoney says, argues that i t failed 9 the t r i a l court t o make s p e c i f i c erred findings 2100104 s t a t i n g t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e award i n i t s judgment and because t h e a w a r d was i n s u f f i c i e n t . The ALAA r e q u i r e s a t r i a l c o u r t t o s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h the r e a s o n s f o r i t s award and t o c o n s i d e r c e r t a i n enumerated, but nonexclusive factors. S e c t i o n 12-19-273 provides: " I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f an a w a r d o f c o s t s or a t t o r n e y s ' fees, the court s h a l l e x e r c i s e i t s s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n . When g r a n t i n g an a w a r d o f c o s t s and a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s , t h e c o u r t s h a l l s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t f o r t h t h e r e a s o n s f o r such award and s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s , among o t h e r s , i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t o assess a t t o r n e y s ' fees and c o s t s a n d t h e amount t o be a s s e s s e d : "(1) The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n y e f f o r t was made t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y o f any a c t i o n , c l a i m o r d e f e n s e b e f o r e i t was a s s e r t e d ; "(2) The e x t e n t o f a n y e f f o r t made a f t e r t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n t o r e d u c e t h e number o f c l a i m s b e i n g a s s e r t e d o r t o d i s m i s s c l a i m s t h a t have been f o u n d n o t t o be v a l i d ; "(3) The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f a c t s t o a s s i s t i n determining t h e v a l i d i t y o f an a c t i o n , c l a i m o r defense; "(4) The r e l a t i v e parties involved; financial p o s i t i o n of the "(5) Whether o r n o t t h e a c t i o n was p r o s e c u t e d o r defended, i n whole o r i n p a r t , i n bad f a i t h o r f o r improper purpose; "(6) Whether or not issues of fact, determinative of the v a l i d i t y of a p a r t i e s ' claim or d e f e n s e , were r e a s o n a b l y i n c o n f l i c t ; 10 2100104 "(7) The e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e p a r t y p r e v a i l e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e amount o f a n d number o f c l a i m s or defenses i n c o n t r o v e r s y ; "(8) The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n y a c t i o n , c l a i m o r d e f e n s e was a s s e r t e d b y an a t t o r n e y o r p a r t y i n a good f a i t h a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h a new t h e o r y o f l a w i n t h e s t a t e , w h i c h p u r p o s e was made known t o t h e court a t t h e time o f f i l i n g ; "(9) The amount o r c o n d i t i o n s o f a n y o f f e r o f j u d g m e n t o r s e t t l e m e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e amount o r c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e u l t i m a t e r e l i e f granted by t h e court; "(10) The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a r e a s o n a b l e effort was made t o d e t e r m i n e p r i o r t o t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g o f an a c t i o n o r c l a i m t h a t a l l p a r t i e s s u e d o r j o i n e d were p r o p e r p a r t i e s o w i n g a l e g a l l y d e f i n e d d u t y t o any p a r t y o r p a r t i e s a s s e r t i n g t h e c l a i m o r a c t i o n ; "(11) The e x t e n t o f a n y e f f o r t made a f t e r t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n t o r e d u c e t h e number o f p a r t i e s i n t h e a c t i o n ; and "(12) The p e r i o d o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g any d e f e n s e b e f o r e s u c h d e f e n s e was i n t e r p o s e d . " (Emphasis added.) In this case, the t r i a l court d i d not s e t forth r e a s o n s f o r i t s a w a r d r e l a t i n g t o t h e 12 f a c t o r s l i s t e d 12-19-273. reasons A trial in§ court's f a i l u r e to s p e c i f i c a l l y set forth f o r t h e amount reversible any of i t s award e r r o r . See S c h w e i g e r 11 under t h e ALAA i s v . Town o f H u r t s b o r o , [Ms. 2100104 2090947, Feb. 2011) 4, 2011] (reversing a So. trial 3d , court's award remanding the cause " f o r the t r i a l findings on the r e c o r d o r by 2005) ( r e v e r s i n g an under separate So. a w a r d o f an order" set f o r t h i t s reasoning i n support App. 1992) the cause attorney ( r e v e r s i n g an f o r the fees ... 2d 735, 738 attorney trial court its (Ala. Civ. fee under the court f a i l e d to 2d 1272, 1276 Williams (Ala. Civ. a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA and remanding amount of reasons fo "to reconsider the t o i s s u e a statement of the t h e amount i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § The and necessary o f i t s a w a r d ) ; and So. App. court trial and ALAA to support ALAA and r e m a n d i n g t h e c a u s e b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l v. Capps T r a i l e r S a l e s , I n c . , 607 the c o u r t t o make t h e a w a r d ) ; B e l c o u r t v. B e l c o u r t , 911 App. (Ala. Civ. did state 12-19-273"). i n i t s judgment t h a t i t had a w a r d e d Mahoney $500 " f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d i s s e n t s , " b e c a u s e t h i s had c o u r t a w a r d e d Mahoney $500 as an attorney fee on appeal i n Mahoney LAPOA's " r e c e n t s u b m i s s i o n s . " are s u f f i c i e n t to support However, none o f t h e s e the t r i a l by Justice Woodall and 12 based F i r s t , the Justice Murdock on reasons court's determination t h e amount o f i t s a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA. authored I I , and of dissents do not 2100104 represent Court. their the view of the majority views. I t i s axiomatic value expressed J u s t i c e Woodall dissents also by or that authority. and a dissent Therefore, carries the J u s t i c e Murdock c a n n o t be u s e d b y t h e t r i a l court as remind the t r i a l court of t h i s that no views in their justification a w a r d i n g Mahoney what a p p e a r s t o be a n o m i n a l amount. f o r t h by t h e o p i n i o n s II, Supreme In f a c t , the m a j o r i t y of the court expressly r e j e c t e d precedential for o f t h e Alabama We t h e f a c t s a n d l a w as s e t c o u r t i n Mahoney I a n d Mahoney t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a , r e p r e s e n t t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e a n d that the t r i a l court i s not allowed to d i s r e g a r d the holdings o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s on remand. "'"The i s s u e s d e c i d e d by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e on remand t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s n o t f r e e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h o s e i s s u e s . " Ex p a r t e S.T.S., 806 So. 2d 336, 341 ( A l a . 2001) ( c i t i n g M u r p h r e e v. M u r p h r e e , 600 So. 2d 301 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , on remand, " ' t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y i s t o comply w i t h t h e a p p e l l a t e mandate " a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t a n d m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t . " ' " Ex p a r t e J o n e s , 774 So. 2d 607, 608 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) (quoting W a l k e r v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s Lumber Co., 441 So. 2d 980, 982 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . ' " 13 2100104 Giardina v. Giardina, 2009)(quoting App. 39 Brown v. So. 3d Brown, 20 204, 208 (Ala. Civ. So. 3d 139, the trial 141 (Ala. Civ. 2009)). The s e c o n d r e a s o n o f f e r e d by o f i t s j u d g m e n t was court i n t h i s c o u r t ' s a w a r d o f $500 as an support attorney f e e on a p p e a l i n Mahoney I I . This reason i s a l s o not a consideration i n determining an decision attorney to exercise our f e e on a p p e a l award under discretion to the i s u n r e l a t e d to the a w a r d o f an account attorney only f e e on appeal a party's the ALAA, which the entire award under costs related to are groundless this for requires legal our appeal, proceeding. court the Moreover, lawsuits that have Plus I n t ' l , I n c . v. P a c e , 689 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ALAA s i m p l y p r o v i d e s 14 of an an a w a r d u n d e r d e t e r m i n e d . See ("The an into unlike consideration f e e on a p p e a l , supreme contained court takes as a s a n c t i o n t o d i s c o u r a g e and an Furthermore, i n l a w , s u c h as t h i s c a s e -- a l e g a l court Our Mahoney factors this expenditures u n l i k e an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y t h e ALAA i s d e s i g n e d by valid ALAA. award i n § 12-19-273 o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e ALAA. that App. So. conclusion previously 2d 160, 162 a t o o l to be 2100104 used by the court to sanction p a r t i e s who bring frivolous litigation."). The its f i n a l r e a s o n o f f e r e d by t h e t r i a l award -- the recent submissions of court i n support LAPOA specificity r e q u i r e d by § 12-19-273. Therefore, insufficient to provide justification f o r the a w a r d t o Mahoney. See 911 So. 2d a t Because Schweiger, So. lacks amount o f i t s 3d a t ; Belcourt, 738. the trial court did not make any findings r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 12-19-273, and the in proper listed f a c t o r s t o be the trial considered court's judgment not attorney i n a w a r d i n g an are fee r e v e r s e the judgment of the court to remand t h e determination Mahoney's cause that court in because and c o s t s u n d e r t h e ALAA, we and the i t also i s compliance w i t h the reasons of trial f o r i t t o make a o f an a w a r d p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. request for an attorney fee on appeal is denied. REVERSED AND Thompson, REMANDED. P.J., and Pittman, concur. 15 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,

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.