REL:
07/15/2011
Notice: This 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
SPECIAL TERM, 2011
2100542
J a c k i e McLeod
v.
S.M. McLeod and M i c h e l l e McLeod
Appeal from Dale C i r c u i t
(CV-10-41)
Court
THOMAS, J u d g e .
J a c k i e McLeod a p p e a l s f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n
favor
of
S.M.
McLeod
and M i c h e l l e
McLeod
(hereinafter
sometimes c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e McLeods").
sued
t h e McLeods,
alleging
that
S.M.
had "mentally
Jackie
and
2100542
p h y s i c a l l y a s s a u l t e d " J a c k i e by t h r e a t e n i n g him w i t h a p i s t o l
while
Jackie
hitting
pool.
was
Jackie
i n t h e swimming p o o l
with
the p i s t o l
I n h i s complaint,
once
Jackie
1
with
Jackie
alleged
Michelle
and b y
got out of the
that
Michelle
intentionally
f a i l e d t o warn J a c k i e o f h e r husband's
nature before
inviting
The
McLeods
judgment.
In
total
jealous
J a c k i e t o swim w i t h h e r .
filed
their
incident described
had
a
one-page
motion,
motion
t h e McLeods
b y J a c k i e was " a t o t a l
con and s o c i o p a t h
that
stated
summary
that
the
fabrication [by] a
i s attempting
f r o m h i s f a m i l y and i n s u r a n c e
for a
companies."
to extort
According
money
to the
McLeods' motion, J a c k i e "has a h i s t o r y of abusing the j u d i c i a l
system
to harass
and a t t e m p t
to extort
money" and t h a t
he
"uses the j u d i c i a l system t o a t t a c k i n n o c e n t i n d i v i d u a l s from
his
prison
cell."
The
McLeods
attached
no
evidentiary
s u b m i s s i o n s t o t h e i r m o t i o n and d i d n o t d i r e c t t h e t r i a l
court
t o any e v i d e n c e t h a t m i g h t have e x i s t e d i n t h e c o u r t ' s
file.
In
response
response
to
the
i n opposition
McLeods' motion,
and h i s own
Jackie
affidavit,
filed
a
i n which
he
J a c k i e amended h i s c o m p l a i n t a t l e a s t t h r e e
times,
a l t h o u g h , b y a n d l a r g e , t h e f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s and t h e l e g a l
c l a i m s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t s r e m a i n e d t h e same.
1
2
2100542
recounted
the events
complaint.
of the incident
Generally,
Jackie
averred
giving
that
rise
to h i s
he h a d gone t o
S.M.'s home t o s p e a k t o S.M. a b o u t r e n t i n g a h o u s e owned b y
S.M.,
that
that
Michelle
told
Jackie
that
S.M. was n o t home a n d
S.M. w o u l d be a t w o r k u n t i l 11:30 t h a t n i g h t ,
Michelle invited
the backyard.
and t h a t
J a c k i e t o go swimming w i t h h e r i n t h e p o o l i n
Jackie further t e s t i f i e d i nh i s a f f i d a v i t
he went swimming i n t h e p o o l w i t h M i c h e l l e , t h a t S.M.
home e a r l y a n d f o u n d J a c k i e
t h a t S.M. became a n g r y .
brandished a p i s t o l
i n the pool
According
at Jackie
with
arrived
M i c h e l l e , and
to Jackie's a f f i d a v i t ,
and, u s i n g
that
profanity,
S.M.
ordered
Jackie t o get out of the pool.
Jackie also t e s t i f i e d i n h i s
affidavit
i n t h e head w i t h
told
that
Jackie
threatened
The
the
S.M. h i t J a c k i e
t o never
to k i l l
trial
McLeods.
return
t o the McLeods'
the p i s t o l ,
home, a n d
J a c k i e i f he d i d r e t u r n .
court
Jackie
entered
a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f
a p p e a l e d t o t h e Alabama
Supreme
Court,
which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s
court, pursuant t o A l a .
Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) .
t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n
favor
We r e v e r s e
o f t h e McLeods.
3
2100542
We
r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de n o v o ; we
s t a n d a r d as was
applied
i n the t r i a l
summary j u d g m e n t i s t o be
material
f a c t e x i s t s and
court.
A motion
g r a n t e d when no
the moving p a r t y
j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w .
a p p l y t h e same
genuine
for a
issue
is entitled
of
to a
R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.
A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e
showing
fact
"that
t h e r e i s no
genuine
and t h a t [ i t ] i s e n t i t l e d
law."
Rule 56(c)(3);
1036, 1038
burden
shifts
as
t o any
t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f
to the
nonmovant
to
rebut the
'substantial evidence.'"
2d
omitted).
1038
(footnote
So.
I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n ,
p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g by
at
material
see Lee v. C i t y o f Gadsden , 592
( A l a . 1992).
then
issue
2d
"the
movant's
L e e , 592
So.
" [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s
e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t
fair-minded
persons
i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f 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 t h e
existence
Life
o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . "
Assurance
Co.
of
F l o r i d a , 547
1 9 8 9 ) ; see A l a . Code 1975,
Jackie
their
2d
870,
Founders
871
(Ala.
12-21-12(d).
a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e McLeods f a i l e d t o meet
initial
material
§
So.
West v.
fact.
burden
We
of showing a l a c k of a genuine i s s u e
agree.
of
"A mere g e n e r a l d e n i a l , w i t h o u t
4
2100542
more, does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y e n t i t l e a movant t o a j u d g m e n t as
a matter
of law."
( A l a . C i v . App.
C l a r k v.
1995).
Hackett,
A trial
674
So.
2d
1306,
1309
c o u r t d e c i d i n g a motion
for a
summary j u d g m e n t must e v a l u a t e t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e
in
support
of
and
i n opposition to
evidence
i s i n c o n f l i c t , the
Kitchens
v.
( A l a . 1984).
Winn-Dixie
the
motion;
i s s u e must
Montgomery,
Inc.,
go
456
to
So.
"where
the
2d
the
jury."
45,
" ' I t goes w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t "'"a c o u r t may
47
not
d e t e r m i n e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s on a m o t i o n f o r summary
judgment."'"'"
2d 1076,
1089
D a v i s v. S t e r n e , Agee & L e a c h ,
( A l a . 2007)
( q u o t i n g D i x o n v. B o a r d
Sewer Comm'rs o f t h e C i t y o f M o b i l e , 865
2
I n c . , 965
So.
o f Water &
2d 1161,
1166
( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n W i l s o n v. Teng, 786 So. 2d
498
( A l a . 2000),
66,
68
( A l a . 2000),
C o n t r o l Co.,
The
their
q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e U s r e y ,
623
McLeods
motion
777
n.
485,
So.
2d
q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l l i p s v. Wayne's P e s t
So.
2d 1099,
presented
for
So.
a
1102
nothing
summary
(Ala. 1993)).
but
judgment
bald
to
statements
support
their
e n t i t l e m e n t t o a summary j u d g m e n t on J a c k i e ' s c l a i m s .
"However, ' [ m ] o t i o n s and a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l
a r e n o t 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 ,
Inc.,
999
S.W.2d 836,
845
(Tex.
App.
1999).
' [ 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
5
in
2100542
t h e r e f o r e not e n t i t l e d to e v i d e n t i a r y w e i g h t . ' 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
in
support of motions are
not
evidence to
be
considered
by t h e C o u r t i n r e s o l v i n g a summary
j u d g m e n t 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.
1997)."
Fountain
F i n . , I n c . v. H i n e s , 788
Because
supporting
the
McLeods
their
did
2d 155,
not
present
any
Jackie
and
battery,
Jackie.
h i s own
that
the
t o damages f o r t h e
McLeods
failed
to
shift
alleged
the
assault
burden
to
Even s o , J a c k i e r e s p o n d e d t o t h e M c L e o d s ' m o t i o n w i t h
affidavit,
S.M.
after
2
entitled
incident
evidence
J a c k i e based h i s a c t i o n d i d not a c t u a l l y o c c u r or t h a t
legally
the
(Ala. 2000).
which
not
that
159
upon
was
assertions
So.
had
S.M.
Because the
i n w h i c h he
assaulted
found J a c k i e
and
presented evidence
battered
i n the
McLeods f a i l e d
Jackie
swimming p o o l
at
indicating
S.M.'s home
with
to e s t a b l i s h a l a c k of
Michelle.
a
genuine
Although
Jackie
referred
to
violations
of
his
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s and u s e d o t h e r t e r m s l i k e n e g l i g e n c e
and
w a n t o n n e s s i n h i s c o m p l a i n t and
amended c o m p l a i n t s ,
his
p r i m a r y c l a i m s a p p e a r t o be a c l a i m a g a i n s t S.M.
alleging
a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y and, a g a i n s t M i c h e l l e , a c l a i m o f " f a i l u r e
t o warn."
I n r e v e r s i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e
f a i l u r e o f t h e McLeods t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f a l a c k o f 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 , we e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n
on
w h e t h e r J a c k i e ' s c l a i m s have any m e r i t .
2
6
2100542
issue
of material
alleged
fact
as t o t h e c l a i m s
i n c i d e n t , the t r i a l
court
erred
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e M c L e o d s .
judgment
of the t r i a l
remanded f o r f u r t h e r
court
i s reversed,
arising
when
from t h e
i t entered
a
Accordingly, the
and t h e cause i s
proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Thompson,
P . J . , and
Pittman,
concur.
7
Bryan,
a n d Moore, J J . ,
