Nue Cheer Franklin v. Woodmere at the Lake

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/21/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100692 Nue Cheer F r a n k l i n v. Woodmere a t the Lake Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-10-328) Court PER CURIAM. Nue Cheer Franklin appeals Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d from t h e judgment ofthe i n f a v o r o f Woodmere a t t h e 2100692 L a k e ("Woodmere") a f t e r a j u r y t r i a l . For the reasons s t a t e d h e r e i n , we a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t judgment. 1 court's I n December 2008, F r a n k l i n began l e a s i n g a n d r e s i d i n g i n an a p a r t m e n t l o c a t e d i n an a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x known as Woodmere at the Lake. On July 21, unlawful-detainer action District I t alleged lease Court. agreement agreement. Franklin, acting pro the lease Woodmere filed an F r a n k l i n i n t h e Montgomery that F r a n k l i n had breached her t o make r e n t a l p a y m e n t s u n d e r t h e demanded Woodmere, a s s e r t i n g , breached against by f a i l i n g It 2009, se, possession filed among o t h e r agreement, a of the apartment. counterclaim things, that had breached against Woodmere h a d i t s"fiduciary d u t y " t o h e r by f a i l i n g t o make r e p a i r s she h a d r e q u e s t e d t o the negligent a p a r t m e n t , h a d been apartment evicted and o f t h e apartment h e r , and had invaded i n i t s maintenance grounds, of her had c o n s t r u c t i v e l y her privacy by repeatedly e n t e r i n g h e r apartment w i t h o u t her consent. In August 2009, December 1 1 , 2009, the d i s t r i c t i t entered court a judgment held a trial. awarding On possession T h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t what t y p e o f e n t i t y Woodmere is, a l t h o u g h i t i s c l e a r l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x i n Montgomery known a s Woodmere a t t h e L a k e . 1 2 2100692 o f t h e a p a r t m e n t t o Woodmere a n d f i n d i n g i n f a v o r o f F r a n k l i n on her counterclaims. damages f o r F e b r u a r y for the hearing, The d i s t r i c t 4, 2010. court set a hearing A f t e r F r a n k l i n d i d not appear the d i s t r i c t court reset the F r a n k l i n d i d not appear a t t h e second h e a r i n g . 2010, hearing. On M a r c h 3, a f t e r i t had h e l d t h e second h e a r i n g , the d i s t r i c t entered on court a j u d g m e n t f o r Woodmere i n t h e amount o f $8,540; i t awarded n o t h i n g t o F r a n k l i n on h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m s . filed to set aside a motion asserting that she h a d b e e n the d i s t r i c t 10 m i n u t e s late Franklin court's order, to the f i r s t h e a r i n g , a r r i v i n g j u s t a f t e r Woodmere's c o u n s e l h a d l e f t , a n d that she h a d n e v e r received notice of the s e t t i n g of the second h e a r i n g . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d F r a n k l i n ' s m o t i o n . Franklin a filed timely appeal t o t h e Montgomery Circuit Court. On A u g u s t 9, 2010, F r a n k l i n , who c o n t i n u e d t o a c t p r o s e , f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t denied. The c i r c u i t court s e t t h e case f o r a j u r y t r i a l F e b r u a r y 7, 2 0 1 1 . On F e b r u a r y a continuance unavailable. because Over court on 7, c o u n s e l f o r Woodmere s o u g h t one o f Woodmere's two w i t n e s s e s F r a n k l i n ' s o b j e c t i o n , the c i r c u i t 3 was court 2100692 c o n t i n u e d t h e t r i a l u n t i l F e b r u a r y 9, 2 0 1 1 . The c i r c u i t stated that the p a r t i e s appeared f o r the t r i a l return could depose any w i t n e s s judge who h a d on F e b r u a r y 7 a n d w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o on F e b r u a r y 9. At the t r i a l , Following the p a r t i e s the presentation called several witnesses. of the evidence, the j u r y returned a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f Woodmere on i t s u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a w a r d i n g i t $7,715. on Franklin's judgment The j u r y a l s o f o u n d i n f a v o r o f Woodmere counterclaims. i n favor claim, The c i r c u i t o f Woodmere b a s e d court entered on t h e j u r y ' s verdict. F r a n k l i n f i l e d a postjudgment motion, which the c i r c u i t denied. circuit Franklin also filed a motion Franklin a n d p r o se l i t i g a n t s court t o have t h e judge p r e s i d i n g over the a c t i o n recuse h i m s e l f b a s i s t h a t he h a d " d e m o n s t r a t e d p e r s o n a l for seeking a on t h e p r e j u d i c e and d i s d a i n i n general" and t h a t he " a l l o w s h i s contempt t o i n f l u e n c e h i s o v e r t l y b i a s [ e d ] r u l i n g s when p r e s i d i n g motion supreme as w e l l . court, over cases." The c i r c u i t Franklin filed which transferred a timely the appeal p u r s u a n t t o § 12-2-7, A l a . Code 1975. 4 court denied appeal to this that t o our court 2100692 Franklin appeal in c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e Woodmere d i d n o t f i l e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s her favor on her counterclaims, h o l d i n g on h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m s Similarly, holding court's became " t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e " and the r e l i t i g a t i o n o f her c o u n t e r c l a i m s therefore barred. the d i s t r i c t an i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t was she c o n t e n d s t h a t , b a s e d on t h e doctrine of res j u d i c a t a , the d i s t r i c t court's holding i n her favor on the relitigation court. We merits her counterclaims of the merits of her counterclaims barred the i n the c i r c u i t disagree. G e n e r a l l y , an a p p e a l results of in a trial from d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o c i r c u i t de novo. court See § 12-12-71, A l a . Code 1975 ( " E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 12-12-72 a n d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( e ) o f S e c t i o n 12-15-120, a l l a p p e a l s district novo."). court 2 novo a p p e a l shall Recently, from f i n a l judgments o f t h e be t o t h e c i r c u i t this court court described from d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o c i r c u i t for trial de t h e e f f e c t o f a de court: " S e c t i o n 12-12-71, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , with c e r t a i n exceptions that are not a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case, ' a l l appeals from f i n a l judgments of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l be t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r T h e e x c e p t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n § 12-12-72 a n d § 12-151 2 0 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975 a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e . 2 5 2100692 t r i a l de n o v o . ' ' " A l a b a m a c a s e s h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t a t r i a l de novo means an e n t i r e l y new t r i a l , ' a s i f no t r i a l h a d e v e r b e e n h a d , a n d j u s t as i f i t h a d o r i g i n a t e d i n t h e c i r c u i t court.' C l o v e r l e a f L a n d Co. v. S t a t e , 276 A l a . 443, 163 So. 2d 602 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . " ' S t a t e v . R e y n o l d s , 887 So. 2d 848, 853 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e P a l u g h i , 494 So. 2d 404, 408 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . 'A t r i a l de novo ... means " t r y i n g anew t h e m a t t e r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l h e a r i n g as i f t h e y h a d n o t b e e n h e a r d b e f o r e a n d a s i f no d e c i s i o n h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y entered."' Neal v. First Alabama Bank of H u n t s v i l l e , N.A., 440 So. 2d 1 1 1 1 , 1112 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983) ( q u o t i n g R u d o l p h v . S t a t e , 286 A l a . 189, 190, 238 So. 2d 542, 543 (1970)) (emphasis omitted)." Petersen 135, v. W o o d l a n d Homes o f H u n t s v i l l e , I n c . , 959 So. 2d 139 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . circuit court district court's not a final tries de novo Furthermore, "[b]ecause t h e case judgment, t h e d i s t r i c t appealed court's from the the judgment i s judgment f o r p u r p o s e s o f r e s j u d i c a t a . " Id. at 140. The e f f e c t o f F r a n k l i n ' s a p p e a l to the c i r c u i t to b r i n g t h e e n t i r e case t o the c i r c u i t the claims court. court, including a l l t h a t were p a r t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g i n the d i s t r i c t See Thurman v . Thurman, 454 So. 2d 995, 997 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . son c o u r t was I n Thurman, a f a t h e r f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s in district son's p o s s e s s i o n . court to recover personal property i n the The s o n f i l e d an answer a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m , 6 2100692 asserting ownership of the property, seeking the return of c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y t h e f a t h e r h a d t a k e n , a n d s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f damages. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d i n f a v o r o f t h e son on t h e father's claim counterclaim. and i n favor of the father The s o n f i l e d an a p p e a l the f a t h e r d i d not. The c i r c u i t on the to the c i r c u i t court t r i e d son's court; t h e c a s e de novo and e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g some o f t h e p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e to t h e f a t h e r , a w a r d i n g some o f t h e p r o p e r t y son, and finding i n favor of the father at issue to the on the son's counterclaim. On a p p e a l , appeal this court discussed the e f f e c t o f the son's from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o t h e c i r c u i t court, holding that both p a r t i e s ' claims i n the d i s t r i c t court, not j u s t the son's, were p a r t reviewing o f the case i n the c i r c u i t court. After t h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s , we s t a t e d : " A p p l y i n g these p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e case a t b a r , we o b s e r v e t h a t t h e s o n ' s a p p e a l o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t h a d t h e e f f e c t o f b r i n g i n g up t o the circuit court the e n t i r e judgment o f t h e district court, not j u s t the r u l i n g on t h e counterclaim. T h i s means t h a t t h e c a s e was t o be r e t r i e d c o m p l e t e l y i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . The f a t h e r was r e q u i r e d t o p r o s e c u t e h i s c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e s o n was r e q u i r e d t o p r o s e c u t e h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m . The c a s e c o u l d be t r i e d on p l e a d i n g s f i l e d i n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r amendments c o u l d be made t o t h o s e p l e a d i n g s o r a d d i t i o n a l p l e a d i n g s c o u l d be f i l e d i n 7 2100692 the c i r c u i t c o u r t . V i n y a r d v. R e p u b l i c I r o n & S t e e l Co., 205 A l a . 269, 87 So. 552 ( 1 9 2 1 ) . " Thurman, 454 So. 2d a t 997. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Franklin's a p p e a l t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment rendered the d i s t r i c t judicata purposes circuit court court's judgment and b r o u g h t for a trial ineffectual the e n t i r e de novo. case f o r res before the The j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t have a p r e c l u s i v e e f f e c t u n d e r t h e doctrine of res judicata with regard the circuit file court, a n d Woodmere t o any o f t h e c l a i m s i n itself a notice of appeal t o the c i r c u i t b a s e d on F r a n k l i n ' s a p p e a l , to acquire was n o t r e q u i r e d t o court jurisdiction the c l a i m s a t i s s u e i n the d i s t r i c t - c o u r t 959 case. to the contrary are therefore without F r a n k l i n next contends t h a t the c i r c u i t she See So. 2d a t 139-40; Thurman, 454 So. 2d a t 997. contentions it f o r that denied her motion affidavit Woodmere h a d s u b m i t t e d over a l l Petersen, Franklin's merit. c o u r t e r r e d when f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . a r g u e s t h a t she h a d moved t h e c i r c u i t court, Specifically, court t o s t r i k e the i n o p p o s i t i o n t o h e r summary- judgment m o t i o n and t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o do so. She argues that, because 8 the a f f i d a v i t Woodmere 2100692 submitted was inadmissible, she was entitled to a summary denial of a summary judgment. This court judgment after Beiersdoerfer 1205 does a not trial review on the the merits has been v. H i l b , R o g a l & H a m i l t o n Co., ( A l a . 2006) 953 ("'[W]e do n o t r e v i e w a t r i a l o f a summary-judgment m o t i o n f o l l o w i n g a t r i a l See G r a y s o n v. Hanson, 843 I n c . v. N o l e n , 641 v. Cir. United Parcel 2001).'" So. 2d 1115, on the 2d 231, Serv., 1116 merits 233 Inc., 2d court's denial on t h e merits. ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; see F.3d 1281, also after i f we to state a basis contention affidavit Lind 1283-84 (11th the motion, B e c a u s e t h i s c a s e was circuit the court denial of denied that that 854 tried Franklin's motion is not Id. were to review the denial of Franklin's summary-judgment m o t i o n , we w o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t she has Her 1196, ( A l a . 2002); Superskate, 254 (Ala. 2003))). to review. Even 2d 146 So. See ( q u o t i n g M i t c h e l l v. F o l m a r & A s s o c s . , LLP, summary-judgment subject So. So. held. f o r r e v e r s i n g the t h a t the circuit Woodmere circuit court submitted court's should in failed judgment. have s t r u c k opposition to summary-judgment m o t i o n has m e r i t ; a l t h o u g h t h e a f f i d a v i t 9 the her was 2100692 e x e c u t e d by t h e a f f i a n t , alone, however, is i t was n o t n o t a r i z e d . not sufficient to demonstrate F r a n k l i n ' s m o t i o n was due t o be g r a n t e d . argument t h a t t h e c o n t e n t i o n s she submitted i n support arguing no fact that F r a n k l i n makes no i n h e r motion and t h e e v i d e n c e thereof, c l a i m o r as t o h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m s , entitled This either as t o Woodmere's demonstrated that t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law. she was Indeed, beyond t h a t Woodmere's a f f i d a v i t was i n a d m i s s i b l e , she makes a r g u m e n t t h a t h e r m o t i o n was, i t s e l f , meritorious a n d was s u p p o r t e d b y s u c h e v i d e n c e as t o c a s t o n t o Woodmere t h e b u r d e n of responding w i t h a d m i s s i b l e evidence. does not, on appeal, discuss Simply put, the basis Franklin for her summary-judgment m o t i o n o r d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t i t h a d m e r i t . I t i s n o t t h i s c o u r t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o c r e a t e arguments f o r an a p p e l l a n t . App. 2006) perform Instead, Hayes v. H a y e s , 949 So. 2d 150, 154 ( A l a . C i v . ("An research appellate o r t o make the appellant (Ala. See M i d d l e t o n 2003) i s under arguments i s obligated demonstrating that the t r i a l reversal. court court no o b l i g a t i o n t o for appellants."). to provide arguments committed e r r o r r e q u i r i n g v. L i g h t f o o t , 885 So. 2d 111, 113-14 ("'The b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t 10 an e r r o n e o u s 2100692 r u l i n g was p r e j u d i c i a l Mut. i s on t h e a p p e l l a n t . ' Preferred I n s . Co. v. Ryan, 589 So. 2d 165, 167 Franklin, i n this instance, has f a i l e d (Ala. 1991)."). t o do s o ; t h u s , were we t o r e a c h h e r a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e c i r c u i t Risk even court erred i n d e n y i n g h e r summary-judgment m o t i o n , we c o u l d n o t r e v e r s e t h e circuit court's Franklin j u d g m e n t on t h a t next contends that ground. she was p r e j u d i c e d by the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h e t r i a l d a t e f r o m F e b r u a r y 7, 2011, t o February witnesses. 9, 2 0 1 1 , t o accommodate one o f Woodmere's She a r g u e s t h a t h e r "main w i t n e s s " was u n a b l e t o t e s t i f y because t h a t witness c o u l d n o t change h e r s c h e d u l e i n order as r e s c h e d u l e d . to attend the t r i a l Franklin also a r g u e s t h a t she was p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e t w o - d a y c o n t i n u a n c e o f the trial because deposition present the of another fortrial circuit she was forced to take of her witnesses who on F e b r u a r y 9. court abused she a r g u e s , r e l e v a n t t o her case. i t s discretion court those p o r t i o n s Finally, could n o t be in sustaining deposition at t r i a l of the deposition were she a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t r e f u s e d 11 videotaped F r a n k l i n a l s o contends that objections to portions of that videotaped because, a to allow her to 2100692 submit into evidence i n d i v i d u a l s who, at the she s a y s , f o r her had the c i r c u i t An cite appellant legal supreme Progressive stated certain affidavits w o u l d have t e s t i f i e d as court not continued i s required, authority court trial when m a k i n g i n support in I n s u r a n c e Co., the of that University of 904 So. 2d 1242 an witnesses trial. argument, argument. South to As our Alabama v. ( A l a . 2004) : " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s ( o r c r o s s - a p p e l l a n t ' s ) b r i e f contain ' c i t a t i o n s to the cases, statutes, o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on.' The e f f e c t o f a f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 28(a)(10) i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d : " ' I t i s s e t t l e d t h a t a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the requirements of Rule 28(a)([10]) requiring citation of authority for arguments p r o v i d e s t h e C o u r t w i t h a b a s i s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g those arguments: "'"When an a p p e l l a n t fails to cite any authority for an argument on a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e , this Court may affirm the j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t i s s u e , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s Court's duty nor its function to perform an appellant's l e g a l research. Rule 28(a)([10]); Spradlin v. B i r m i n g h a m A i r p o r t A u t h o r i t y , 613 So. 2d 347 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . " " ' C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. B u s i n e s s Realty I n v . Co., 722 So. 2d 747, 752 ( A l a . 1998) . See a l s o McLemore v. F l e m i n g , 604 So. 2d 12 from 2100692 353 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; S t o v e r v. A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u I n s . Co., 467 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 1 9 8 5 ) ; and Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 So. 2d 92 (Ala. 1985).' "Ex p a r t e Showers, 812 So. 2d 277, 281 ( A l a . 2001) . '[W]e cannot c r e a t e l e g a l arguments f o r a p a r t y based on undelineated general propositions u n s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . ' S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 76, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " 904 So. 2d a t 1247-48. F r a n k l i n c i t e s no support of the arguments circuit court's having continued 2011. any Progressive Franklin to she makes the trial relative to to the I n s . Co., judge f a i l e d R u l e 51, A l a . R. See P.; U n i v e r s i t y of South Alabama 904 So. 2d a t incorrect. counterclaims 9, App. contends t h a t the j u r y were numerous circuit A l a . R. the February As a r e s u l t , we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . Rule 28(a)(10), v. of legal authority in circuit She against 1247-48. court's i n s t r u c t i o n s argues Woodmere that she about asserted which the to i n s t r u c t the j u r y . C i v . P., provides, in pertinent part: "No p a r t y may a s s i g n as e r r o r t h e g i v i n g o r f a i l i n g t o g i v e a w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n , o r t h e g i v i n g o f an erroneous, misleading, incomplete, or otherwise improper o r a l charge u n l e s s that party objects t h e r e t o before the j u r y r e t i r e s to consider i t s v e r d i c t , s t a t i n g t h e m a t t e r o b j e c t e d t o and the grounds of the o b j e c t i o n . " 13 2100692 Thus, i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e the circuit court's her arguments f o r a p p e a l r e l a t e d t o j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , F r a n k l i n was t o h a v e : "(1) objected before verdict; s t a t e d the and (3) (2) s u p p l i e d the Timmons, 954 transcript circuit that So. does court's the not the j u r y r e t i r e d to c o n s i d e r i t s matter that grounds f o r 2d 545, [ s ] h e was [her] 558 reflect (Ala. that court additional instructions. contention that the should As circuit a objecting objection." 2006). Franklin j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s o r i n any circuit required v. trial to the manner c o n t e n d e d given result, she erred The objected have court Ware to; different has with waived regard to or her the jury instructions. F i n a l l y , F r a n k l i n contends t h a t the c i r c u i t his d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g to recuse himself. judge abused In support, she a p p e a r s t o r e l y on Canon 3 . C . ( 1 ) ( a ) o f t h e A l a b a m a Canons o f J u d i c i a l E t h i c s , which provides, in pertinent part: "(1) A j u d g e s h o u l d d i s q u a l i f y h i m s e l f i n a proceeding i n which h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d by l a w o r h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y be q u e s t i o n e d , i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d t o i n s t a n c e s where: "(a) prejudice He has a personal concerning a party 14 bias " or 2100692 F r a n k l i n a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e was b i a s e d a g a i n s t h e r and t h a t he h a r b o r e d p e r s o n a l contempt f o r h e r . She a s s e r t s t h a t , a s a r e s u l t o f t h a t b i a s , t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e , among o t h e r things, improperly improperly to overruled her objections at s u s t a i n e d Woodmere's o b j e c t i o n s , p r o v i d e d trial, grounds Woodmere f o r i t s o b j e c t i o n s , made o b j e c t i o n s f o r Woodmere, refused to allow her to present impatient, Our rude, short-tempered, and d i s c o u r t e o u s a n d was toher. supreme c o u r t h a s p r o v i d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d f o r reviewing a t r i a l from a a f f i d a v i t s at t r i a l , judge's r e f u s a l t o recuse h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f trial: "The b u r d e n i s on t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g r e c u s a l t o present evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the existence of bias o r p r e j u d i c e . O t w e l l v . B r y a n t , 497 So. 2d 1 1 1 , 119 (Ala. 1986). P r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f a j u d g e i s n o t p r e s u m e d . Hartman v. B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s , 436 So. 2d 837 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; Duncan v . S h e r r i l l , 341 So. 2d 946 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; Ex p a r t e R i v e s , 511 So. 2d 514, 517 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . '"[T]he law w i l l n o t suppose a p o s s i b i l i t y o f b i a s o r f a v o r i n a j u d g e who i s a l r e a d y sworn t o a d m i n i s t e r i m p a r t i a l j u s t i c e a n d whose authority greatly depends upon that p r e s u m p t i o n and i d e a . " ' Ex p a r t e B a l o g u n , 516 So. 2d 606, 609 ( A l a . 1987), quoting Fulton v. L o n g s h o r e , 156 A l a . 611, 46 So. 989 (1908) . Any d i s q u a l i f y i n g p r e j u d i c e o r b i a s a s t o a p a r t y must be o f a p e r s o n a l n a t u r e a n d must stem f r o m an e x t r a j u d i c i a l source. Hartman v . B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a , 436 So. 2d 837 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; R e a c h v. R e a c h , 378 So. 2d 1115 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . Thus, 15 2100692 "'"[T]he d i s q u a l i f y i n g p r e j u d i c e of a j u d g e does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y comprehend e v e r y b i a s , p a r t i a l i t y , o r p r e j u d i c e w h i c h he may e n t e r t a i n w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the case, but must be o f a c h a r a c t e r , c a l c u l a t e d t o i m p a i r s e r i o u s l y h i s i m p a r t i a l i t y and sway h i s j u d g m e n t , and must be s t r o n g enough t o overthrow the presumption of his integrity."' "Ross v. L u t o n , 456 So. 2d [249,] 254 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] , q u o t i n g Duncan v. S h e r r i l l , 341 So. 2d 946, 947 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , q u o t i n g 48 C.J.S. J u d g e s § 8 2 ( b ) . " Ex p a r t e M e l o f , 553 other grounds, So. 2d 554, 557 Ex p a r t e C r a w f o r d , ( A l a . 1989), a b r o g a t e d 686 So. 2d 196, the record 198 on (Ala. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed p a r t i c u l a r , the t r a n s c r i p t of the t r i a l . and, Although the in circuit j u d g e a p p e a r s , a t t i m e s , t o have b e e n somewhat e x a s p e r a t e d by F r a n k l i n as a p r o se l i t i g a n t , we c a n p e r c e i v e no b i a s on t h e p a r t of the c i r c u i t judge t h a t would r e q u i r e h i s r e c u s a l under t h e Canons o f J u d i c i a l Ethics. F r a n k l i n alludes to a c i v i l United States District Alabama a g a i n s t , did not file that Court action for the she has Middle among o t h e r s , t h e c i r c u i t action month a f t e r t h e c i r c u i t until April 18, filed District judge. 2011, of Franklin more t h a n judge d e n i e d F r a n k l i n ' s motion 16 i n the a for a 2100692 new trial. MEF, June 22, 2d). of See F r a n k l i n v. A r b o r S t a t i o n , 2011) (M.D. A l a . 2011) circuit unrelated himself case to judge]'s brought avoid the involvement by b r i e f that, as a [ F r a n k l i n ] , he appearance 2:11-cv-294- (not r e p o r t e d i n F. A l t h o u g h F r a n k l i n argues i n her [the (No. of Supp. "[b]ecause defendant i s due being in to an recuse impartial," the t i m i n g of the f i l i n g of the f e d e r a l - c o u r t a c t i o n demonstrates t h a t t h a t a c t i o n d i d not in this case. Based circuit be, and circuit judge's recusal 3 on the f a i l e d to provide the r e q u i r e the foregoing, we conclude that Franklin t h i s c o u r t w i t h a b a s i s on w h i c h t o court's i s hereby, judgment. Thus, t h e has reverse j u d g m e n t i s due to affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, JJ., concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e result, without w r i t i n g . We n o t e t h a t t h e most r e c e n t o r d e r i n t h e f e d e r a l - c o u r t a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t the c i r c u i t judge's involvement i n t h a t a c t i o n was s h o r t - l i v e d and t h a t he i s no l o n g e r i n v o l v e d i n that action. See i d . 3 17

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.