Howard Ross v. West Wind Condominium Association, Inc., and Joseph London III

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/12 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, 2012-2013 2101167 Howard Ross v. West Wind Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc., and Joseph London III Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-08-596) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g BRYAN, J u d g e . This the court's opinion o f May 4, 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d following i s substituted therefor. Howard R o s s a p p e a l s f r o m summary judgments i n favor o f 2101167 West Wind Condominium J o s e p h L o n d o n I I I . We On December the o f f i c e 3, Association, I n c . ("West W i n d " ) , and affirm. 2007, West Wind of the Probate recorded instruments i n Judge o f Madison County t h a t gave n o t i c e t h a t i t c l a i m e d l i e n s on f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s owned by Ross (collectively r e f e r r e d t o as "the four condominium u n i t s " ) b a s e d on h i s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p a y West Wind dues he owed on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s . The f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s were U n i t A i n b u i l d i n g 3816 3816 ("Unit A " ) , U n i t ( " U n i t J " ) , U n i t C i n b u i l d i n g 3818 D i n b u i l d i n g 3818 On 2008, January West ("Unit C " ) , and U n i t ( " U n i t D"). 18, J a n u a r y Wind J in building published 25, F e b r u a r y notices 1, and F e b r u a r y i n the Madison 8, County Record, a l o c a l newspaper, s t a t i n g t h a t i t would s e l l t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s a t f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s on F e b r u a r y 15, 2008. On F e b r u a r y 15, 2008, West Wind c o n d u c t e d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s and made t h e h i g h e s t b i d on e a c h o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s . T h a t same day, t h e a u c t i o n e e r who conducted executed the foreclosure foreclosure deeds sales on conveying behalf the of four West Wind condominium u n i t s t o West Wind. On M a r c h 3, 2008, West Wind e x e c u t e d deeds 2 2101167 c o n v e y i n g U n i t A and U n i t C t o Jimmy D. S p r u i l l and C y n t h i a I . Spruill, a deed conveying conveying Unit D to D e l v i n On April 18, 2008, Unit J to London, and a deed Sullivan. Ross sued West Wind, London, the S p r u i l l s , and S u l l i v a n . R o s s a l l e g e d t h a t , i n A p r i l 2005, West Wind h a d a g r e e d t o g i v e h i m a c r e d i t a g a i n s t four t h e dues on t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s i n e x c h a n g e f o r (1) h i s p e r f o r m i n g o r p a y i n g f o r m a i n t e n a n c e and r e p a i r w o r k a t t h e c o n d o m i n i u m and (2) his allowing a m a i n t e n a n c e man e m p l o y e d by West Wind t o l i v e i n one o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s w i t h o u t p a y i n g r e n t . He f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t , i n S e p t e m b e r 2006, West Wind h a d him that told i t d i d n o t n e e d h i m t o p e r f o r m o r p a y f o r any more m a i n t e n a n c e o r r e p a i r work and t h a t he h a d p a i d t h e dues the through four 2007. He returned had condominium also units alleged h i s payments refused foreclosed to from that, i n May for April accept on t h e f o u r those December and May payments; 2006 2007, West those had 2 0 0 7 ; t h a t West Wind that West Wind had t o do s o ; and t h a t he h a d not l e a r n e d o f the f o r e c l o s u r e s u n t i l a f t e r they had on May condominium u n i t s w i t h o u t g i v i n g him any a c t u a l n o t i c e t h a t i t i n t e n d e d Based Wind on factual allegations, 3 Ross occurred. stated two 2101167 claims. The first claim sought f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s on t h e an order c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s and on the dues on the four of the four condominium o r i g i n a l complaint, added the Ross f i l e d addresses of the a l l material respects On December 31, judgment w i t h r e s p e c t had c r e d i t he was units Shortly due pursuant after against to his redemption filing a f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t his that f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s b u t was i d e n t i c a l to h i s o r i g i n a l 2008, L o n d o n moved f o r a p a r t i a l to Ross's c l a i m seeking summary redemption. e n t i t l e d t o redeem U n i t J f r o m L o n d o n p u r s u a n t t o § Code 1 9 7 5 , 1 Section 1 because, London s a i d , 6-5-255 R o s s had not As not 6-5-255, paid provides: "If the p u r c h a s e r or h i s or her vendee or transferee f a i l s or r e f u s e s to reconvey to such p a r t y e n t i t l e d and d e s i r i n g t o redeem s u c h t i t l e as t h e p a r t y a c q u i r e d by t h e s a l e and p u r c h a s e , s u c h p a r t y so p a y i n g o r t e n d e r i n g payment s h a l l t h e r e u p o n have t h e r i g h t t o f i l e i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e o f a complaint to e n f o r c e h i s or 4 in complaint. t h e g r o u n d s o f h i s m o t i o n , L o n d o n a s s e r t e d t h a t R o s s was Ala. to g r o u n d t h a t West Wind second c l a i m sought units. failed the condominium a g r e e m e n t w i t h West Wind. The the t o f o r e c l o s e on f a i l e d t o g i v e Ross the a p p r o p r i a t e the aside g r o u n d t h a t West W i n d had g i v e Ross p r o p e r n o t i c e t h a t i t i n t e n d e d four setting or 2101167 t e n d e r e d payment o f any money t o L o n d o n and t h a t R o s s was e n t i t l e d t o redeem U n i t J f r o m L o n d o n p u r s u a n t t o § Ala. Code 1975, 2 because, London said, Ross had not 6-5-256, neither demanded a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s t o redeem U n i t J n o r p a i d any money i n t o c o u r t . London s u p p o r t e d h i s summaryjudgment motion with his affidavit. In p e r t i n e n t part, stated: " I p u r c h a s e d t h e r e a l e s t a t e w h i c h i s made t h e b a s i s of the p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint at a s a l e f o r u n p a i d c o n d o m i n i u m a s s o c i a t i o n d u e s . ... I n e v e r r e c e i v e d a demand f o r l a w f u l c h a r g e s , n o m i n a t i o n o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f a r e f e r e e , f r o m t h e p l a i n t i f f , Howard Ross and/or h i s a g e n t s p r i o r t o b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e a b o v e - s t y l e d a c t i o n . I have n o t been c o n t a c t e d a t any p o i n t p r i o r t o , o r d u r i n g t h i s litigation, by Howard R o s s and/or his agents c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r d e s i r e t o redeem t h e r e a l e s t a t e w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f Howard R o s s ' s c o m p l a i n t . " her r i g h t s of redemption." 2 Section 6-5-256 p r o v i d e s : "Upon t h e f i l i n g o f any c o m p l a i n t as p r o v i d e d i n t h e s e s e c t i o n s and p a y i n g i n t o c o u r t t h e amount o f purchase money and the i n t e r e s t necessary f o r r e d e m p t i o n and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s , i f t h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t t h e r e o f has b e e n f u r n i s h e d o r , i f n o t f u r n i s h e d , o f f e r i n g t o pay such debt or p u r c h a s e p r i c e and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s , t h e c i r c u i t court s h a l l take j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e o f and s e t t l e and a d j u s t a l l t h e r i g h t s and e q u i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s , as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e . " 5 i t 2101167 On F e b r u a r y 28, 2009, R o s s filed a written response t o London's p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . R o s s a s s e r t e d London was n o t e n t i t l e d that t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o R o s s ' s c l a i m s e e k i n g r e d e m p t i o n b e c a u s e , R o s s s a i d , he c o u l d not d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f t h e l a w f u l c h a r g e s t o be t e n d e r e d b e c a u s e West Wind h a d f a i l e d the d e b t i t was c l a i m i n g sought the equitable t o i n f o r m h i m o f t h e amount o f he owed a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , assistance of the t r i a l he h a d court d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f t h e l a w f u l c h a r g e s . R o s s a l s o his affidavit affidavit i n opposition to London's motion. filed Ross's stated: "On o r a b o u t A p r i l 2, 2005, ... I e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t w i t h West Wind C o n d o m i n i u m s , t h r o u g h i t s agent C h a r l e s Ragland, w h e r e i n t h e condominium a s s o c i a t i o n would accept maintenance and r e p a i r s p e r f o r m e d by me on t h e c o n d o m i n i u m ' s p r e m i s e s i n l i e u o f my h a v i n g t o p a y c o n d o m i n i u m d u e s . A r o u n d S e p t e m b e r o f 2006, I s p o k e w i t h West Wind's new p r e s i d e n t , Ray H a n s o n , who t o l d me t h a t further m a i n t e n a n c e by me w o u l d n o t be n e c e s s a r y a n d t h a t I s h o u l d b e g i n m a k i n g my r e g u l a r dues p a y m e n t s . I began m a k i n g t h e s e p a y m e n t s i n December o f 2006 a n d made my r e g u l a r payments f o r December 2006, J a n u a r y 2007, F e b r u a r y 2007, a n d M a r c h 2007. West Wind a c c e p t e d a l l t h e s e p a y m e n t s . When I made my p a y m e n t s f o r A p r i l a n d May o f 2007, West Wind's a t t o r n e y , Mac M a r t i n s o n , r e t u r n e d them t o me w i t h a l e t t e r s a y i n g West W i n d would not accept t h e payments and r e q u e s t i n g documentation that would dispute the c h a r g e s b e i n g c l a i m e d by West Wind. I s u b m i t t e d an i t e m i z e d l i s t o f c h a r g e s f o r my work done t h r o u g h my 6 in 2101167 a t t o r n e y P a t r i c k Jones, but I never r e c e i v e d any further correspondence from West Wind. I s u b s e q u e n t l y t r i e d t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h West W i n d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f dues t h a t I w o u l d owe, t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n my s t a t e m e n t f o r work done. I a l s o t r i e d t o c o n t a c t s e v e r a l o t h e r West W i n d b o a r d members t o f i n d o u t t h e dues t h a t w o u l d be due. I n F e b r u a r y o f 2008, West W i n d f o r e c l o s e d on t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s I owned, p u r c h a s e d t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s i t s e l f , and t h e n s o l d t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s t o t h e o t h e r defendants in the lawsuit. I learned of the f o r e c l o s u r e s o n l y when I r a n i n t o an attorney, Elizabeth Cvetetic." On M a r c h 25, 2009, R o s s f i l e d a s e c o n d amended w h i c h added a c l a i m of b r e a c h of only, a claim of contract intentional interference complaint, against with West W i n d business or c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s " a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s , " and a c l a i m o f "unlawful d e t e n t i o n of p r o p e r t y " a g a i n s t the S p r u i l l s o n l y . M a r c h 30, 2009, London moved t o s t r i k e R o s s ' s s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t on On April t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was 13, 2009, motion to s t r i k e the Ross filed it added c l a i m s after the amended t h a t were b a s e d on filing complaint. prejudiced by the untimely. a response s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t . t h a t t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t was of his He original also to London's Ross asserted t i m e l y b e c a u s e , he s a i d , e v e n t s t h a t had complaint asserted that and London occurred his was s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e , he 7 On first not said, 2101167 the breach-of-contract c l a i m was a s s e r t e d against West Wind only, the claims of i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e with business or contractual were relations asserted and " u n l a w f u l against the S p r u i l l s "none o f t h e n e w l y - a d d e d D e f e n d a n t London summary On motion January judgment and, property" therefore, against " London's complaint. only, of causes of a c t i o n are p l e d On December 30, 2009, granting detention 4, i n favor the t r i a l to court strike the 2010, t h e t r i a l o f London entered as an second court order amended entered t o a l l of a Ross's claims. On J a n u a r y 29, 2010, Ross f i l e d m o t i o n s a s k i n g t h e t r i a l court strike to reconsider i t s r u l i n g s g r a n t i n g London's t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t and e n t e r i n g motion t o a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f London as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s . I n h i s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e r u l i n g 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 London as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s , Ross a s s e r t e d that t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e r r e d by e n t e r i n g t h a t summary j u d g m e n t as to a l l of Ross's claims because London's p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - judgment motion had c h a l l e n g e d Ross's c l a i m s e e k i n g redemption o n l y . The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a r u l i n g b y t h e t r i a l 8 court 2101167 regarding Ross's motions t o r e c o n s i d e r London's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e the r u l i n g s granting a n d 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 London as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s . On June 8, 2009, judgment Ross's the S p r u i l l s motion seeking claim seeking filed a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e d e m p t i o n . The S p r u i l l s same g r o u n d s t h a t L o n d o n h a d a s s e r t e d partial-summary-judgment with their affidavits. summary-judgment identical a partial-summary- motion opposed and to the a f f i d a v i t filed he asserted to the as t h e g r o u n d s o f h i s m o t i o n and s u p p o r t e d Ross respect their the S p r u i l l s ' an affidavit had f i l e d motion partial- that i n opposition was to London's p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . On M a r c h 18, 2011, the trial Spruills On court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n favor of the for a summary as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s . March 28, 2011, West Wind moved j u d g m e n t . As t h e g r o u n d o f i t s m o t i o n , West Wind a s s e r t e d that R o s s owed u n p a i d dues on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s ; t h a t West Wind h a d g i v e n Ross n o t i c e f o u r condominium u n i t s ; would place l i e n s pay the unpaid that he owed u n p a i d dues on t h e t h a t i t had g i v e n him n o t i c e t h a t i t on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s i f he d i d n o t dues; that i t had p l a c e d 9 liens on t h e f o u r 2101167 condominium u n i t s due t o Ross's f a i l u r e t o p a y dues f o u r condominium u n i t s ; t h a t i t had m a i l e d A. Jones, Wind an a t t o r n e y intended representing to foreclose on t h e a letter to Patrick Ross, s t a t i n g t h a t on t h e f o u r West condominium u n i t s i f R o s s d i d n o t p a y t h e u n p a i d dues b y December 22, 2 0 0 7 ; t h a t i t had p u b l i s h e d n o t i c e of the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s i n the Madison C o u n t y R e c o r d once a week f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e had p u r c h a s e d the f o u r weeks; that i t condominium u n i t s a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s ; and t h a t i t h a d s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n v e y e d U n i t s A and C t o the S p r u i l l s , U n i t J t o L o n d o n , and U n i t D t o S u l l i v a n . West W i n d i n i t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d i t s summary-judgment with, among Martinson, May other who things, copies then represented of letters attorney Mac West Wind, h a d s e n t R o s s i n 2007 n o t i f y i n g h i m o f t h e amounts condominium u n i t s ; c o p i e s motion he o f the l i e n s owed on the i t had f i l e d four on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s ; a l e t t e r d a t e d December 11, 2007, f r o m R o b e r t F. V a r g o , an a t t o r n e y to Jones e n c l o s i n g four condominium commence amounts copies units foreclosure who then represented of the l i e n s and stating proceedings 10 i t had f i l e d that i f Ross owed b y December 22, 2 0 0 7 ; c o p i e s West Wind, West on t h e Wind d i d not would pay the o f the p u b l i s h e r ' s 2101167 affidavits that e x e c u t e d by i t had January the published 18, January Madison County Record notices 25, of February the 1, certifying foreclosure and February sales 8, on 2008; c o p i e s o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e deeds c o n v e y i n g t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s t o West Wind; and and Unit copies C to the S p r u i l l s , of the Unit deeds c o n v e y i n g U n i t J t o L o n d o n , and Unit D A to Sullivan. On April Wind's 1, 2011, Ross f i l e d summary-judgment "Narrative of Facts" as motion. well as a w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e t o West His response arguments contained a in opposition to West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , R o s s a number o f u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d by him. facts documents and In pertinent part, his a f f i d a v i t contained Summary contained belief." in Judgment my Plaintiff's and the t h e r e i n , are true Ross also submitted which stated, i n p e r t i n e n t an correct signed s t a t e d : " A l l of Response Narrative and an a f f i d a v i t filed to Statement t o my affidavit Motion of by and Jones, part: " 1 . I have n o t r e p r e s e n t e d n o r a c t e d as a t t o r n e y f o r Howard R o s s i n any m a t t e r s b e t w e e n s a i d Howard R o s s and W e s t w i n d [ s i c ] Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n . " 2 . I have no k n o w l e d g e o f r e c e i p t o f any a l l e g e d n o t i c e s o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s e n t by R o b e r t V a r g o , 11 for Facts knowledge signed the 2101167 attorney Ross's a t l a w , t o Howard response Ross." t o West Wind's summary-judgment motion a s s e r t e d t h a t West Wind was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t because, he s a i d , a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact existed r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r West Wind h a d g i v e n h i m p r o p e r n o t i c e o f t h e foreclosures regarding and a genuine whether he issue owed of m a t e r i a l West Wind any fact existed dues when i t f o r e c l o s e d on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s . On April affidavit 7, 2011, West Wind moved to strike a n d t h e u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d documents he h a d f i l e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . As for Ross's grounds s t r i k i n g R o s s ' s a f f i d a v i t , West Wind a s s e r t e d t h a t affidavit contained inadmissible t e s t i m o n y and t h a t a f f i d a v i t d i d not s a t i s f y the personal-knowledge Ross's Ross's requirement o f R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b e c a u s e , West Wind s a i d , R o s s had qualified his affirmation of the truth of the facts r e c i t e d i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n with the phrase " t o my knowledge and belief" instead of a f f i r m i n g t h a t t h e y were t r u e w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n . R o s s d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o West Wind's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e . Also on April 7, 2 0 1 1 , West 12 Wind filed an affidavit 2101167 signed by Vargo with p e r t i n e n t p a r t , Vargo's a number affidavit of documents attached. In stated: " I r e p r e s e n t e d D e f e n d a n t West Wind Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ( h e r e i n r e f e r r e d t o as 'West Wind') i n the m a t t e r s of attempted c o l l e c t i o n of p a s t due a s s e s s m e n t s f r o m Howard R o s s , who i s t h e P l a i n t i f f i n the above-styled a c t i o n pending before t h i s C o u r t . My c l i e n t a t t h e t i m e , West Wind, p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o me c o n c e r n i n g t h e amounts o f t h e u n p a i d a s s e s s m e n t p a y m e n t s , i n t e r e s t and l a t e c h a r g e s owed t o West Wind by Howard R o s s p e r t a i n i n g t o f i v e condo u n i t s t h a t Howard R o s s owned a t [ t h a t ] t i m e , w h i c h was t h e t i m e p e r i o d o f November and December, 2 0 0 7 . T h e r e a r e f o u r o f t h o s e u n i t s t h a t are the subject of t h i s pending l a w s u i t , those b e i n g : U n i t Number J o f B u i l d i n g 3816 o f t h e West Wind C o n d o m i n i u m s ; U n i t Number A o f B u i l d i n g 3816, U n i t Number C o f B u i l d i n g 3818 and U n i t Number D o f B u i l d i n g 3818. "The P r e s i d e n t o f West Wind a t t h a t t i m e , J o s e p h L o n d o n , I I I , v e r i f i e d t h o s e amounts owed b y Howard R o s s on f i v e documents t h a t I p r e p a r e d w i t h h i s a s s i s t a n c e , o f w h i c h t h e r e a r e f o u r documents w h i c h p e r t a i n to the four u n i t s that are the subject m a t t e r o f t h i s l a w s u i t . I have a t t a c h e d h e r e t o c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f t h e f o u r documents, each t i t l e d ' C l a i m Of L i e n F o r U n p a i d A s s e s s m e n t s , ' w h i c h a r e a t t a c h e d and m a r k e d c o l l e c t i v e l y as D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-6(CC)(since they are c e r t i f i e d copies of t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-6 a l r e a d y f i l e d b y West Wind i n s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t ) . I t o o k t h e s t e p s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e f o u r C l a i m s Of L i e n t o be r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge o f P r o b a t e o f M a d i s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , on December 3, 2 0 0 7 . " H a v i n g r e v i e w e d correspondence between the o f f i c e s o f M r . A . Mac M a r t i n s o n , an a t t o r n e y who h a d p r e v i o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d West Wind i n t h e same m a t t e r 13 2101167 o f c o l l e c t i o n o f a s s e s s m e n t s f r o m Howard R o s s , and M r . P a t r i c k A . J o n e s , I u n d e r s t o o d t h a t Howard R o s s was b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t i m e by M r . P a t r i c k A . J o n e s . P a r t o f t h a t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i s a t t a c h e d as e x h i b i t s t o t h e r e s p o n s e o f Howard R o s s t o the m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t , n a m e l y Plaintiff's E x h i b i t s 6 and 1 7 . I n r e p r e s e n t i n g my c l i e n t , and i n order not to v i o l a t e a t t o r n e y e t h i c s r e g a r d i n g not communicating about the subject matter of the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h a p a r t y under circumstances i m p l y i n g t h a t such p a r t y i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n the m a t t e r by an a t t o r n e y ( i . e . R u l e 4.2, A l a b a m a R u l e s Of P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t ) , I p r e p a r e d my l e t t e r f o r Howard R o s s t o be a d d r e s s e d t o a t t o r n e y P a t r i c k A. J o n e s . I m a i l e d t h e l e t t e r t o Mr. P a t r i c k A. J o n e s v i a United States M a i l , proper postage prepaid, d a t e d December 11, 2007, c o n c e r n i n g Howard R o s s . A t r u e and c o r r e c t copy of t h a t l e t t e r , and i t s e n c l o s u r e s , i s a t t a c h e d as D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-8 t o t h e M o t i o n F o r Summary Judgment f i l e d by West Wind i n t h i s c a u s e . The l e t t e r ' s e n c l o s u r e s a r e t h e f i v e l i e n s - c l a i m s documents t h a t I had c a u s e d t o be r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge of P r o b a t e of Madison County, Alabama, of w h i c h f o u r ( D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-6 and W - 6 ( C C ) ) p e r t a i n t o t h i s m a t t e r , as s t a t e d a b o v e . The l e t t e r c o n t a i n s a s t a t e m e n t t h a t , 'In t h e e v e n t t h e s u b j e c t amounts a r e n o t p a i d i n f u l l by December 22 2007, we w i l l commence f o r e c l o s u r e proceedings.' " I d i d n o t e v e r r e c e i v e any r e s p o n s e f r o m e i t h e r Howard R o s s o r P a t r i c k A. J o n e s t o t h a t l e t t e r d a t e d December 11, 2007, n o r was t h a t l e t t e r r e t u r n e d t o me i n t h e m a i l as u n d e l i v e r e d . On b e h a l f o f West Wind, I p r o c e e d e d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s o f f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e l i e n s t h a t West Wind had on t h e f o u r condo u n i t s t h a t b e l o n g e d t o Howard R o s s . I c a u s e d n o t i c e s o f f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s on e a c h o f t h e f o u r u n i t s t o be run i n a newspaper of l o c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Madison County, Alabama, w h i c h i s the Madison County Record. T r u e and c o r r e c t c o p i e s o f t h o s e v e r i f i e d n o t i c e s o f publication p r e p a r e d by the Publisher of that 14 2101167 n e w s p a p e r a r e a t t a c h e d as c o l l e c t i v e D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-2 t o West Wind's M o t i o n F o r Summary Judgment, and t h e o r i g i n a l documents w e r e a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence at a hearing before t h i s Court. The n o t i c e s o f e a c h o f t h e f o u r f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s were p u b l i s h e d f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e w e e k s , as t h e n o t i c e s state. " I h e l d t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s as a u c t i o n e e r f o r e a c h o f t h e f o u r s u b j e c t condo u n i t s on F e b r u a r y 15, 2008. I d u l y p r e p a r e d , e x e c u t e d , and c a u s e d t o be r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge of P r o b a t e of Madison County, Alabama, a F o r e c l o s u r e Deed f o r e a c h o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s o f e a c h o f t h e f o u r s u b j e c t condo u n i t s . T r u e and correct c o p i e s o f t h o s e f o u r F o r e c l o s u r e Deeds a r e a t t a c h e d as c o l l e c t i v e D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-3 t o West Wind's Motion f o r Summary Judgment, and copies were admitted i n t o evidence at a hearing before this Court." On April 14, striking Ross's documents Ross 2011, the affidavit had filed trial and with summary-judgment m o t i o n and court entered a l l his the an o r d e r (1) unauthenticated response to West Wind's ( 2 ) g r a n t i n g West Wind's summary- judgment m o t i o n . On court J u l y 22, to 2011, reconsider Ross f i l e d i t s rulings a motion asking striking the his affidavit trial and g r a n t i n g West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . R o s s a r g u e d t h a t the trial court should a f f i d a v i t b e c a u s e , he "the statements reconsider i t s ruling striking said, i n t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s n a r r a t i v e summary 15 his 2101167 t h a t a r e supported by t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s a f f i d a v i t a r e the knowledge o f t h e P l a i n t i f f , o r a r e statements made b y a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f West Wind, t h e p a r t y opponent i n t h i s m a t t e r , and a r e n o t o f f e r e d t o prove the matter asserted. The offering of s t a t e m e n t s made b y West Wind a g e n t s were o f f e r e d t o show t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s b e l i e f t h a t he was m a k i n g r e p a i r s and p e r f o r m i n g work w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f reimbursement i n t h e form o f c r e d i t toward h i s c o n d o m i n i u m d u e s . The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f P l a i n t i f f ' s s a i d b e l i e f s u p p o r t s h i s c l a i m f o r dues c r e d i t t h a t he h a d p e r s o n a l l y s e n t t o West Wind's c o u n s e l . " Ross argued t h a t the t r i a l court should reconsider i t s r u l i n g g r a n t i n g West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he said, a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t whether West foreclosures regarding Wind had given and a genuine whether he him issue owed West f o r e c l o s e d on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m On July 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l existed proper notice of material Wind regarding any fact dues of the existed when i t units. court entered an order denying Ross's motion a s k i n g the t r i a l court t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g s s t r i k i n g h i s a f f i d a v i t a n d g r a n t i n g West Wind's m o t i o n for a summary j u d g m e n t . Ross's claims against S u l l i v a n were d i s p o s e d o f by t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t judgment i n f a v o r o f Ross. Ross judgments timely appealed i n favor to this court from t h e summary o f West Wind a n d L o n d o n . Due t o l a c k o f 16 2101167 j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h i s c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h e supreme c o u r t . The supreme c o u r t this then t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal back t o c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t R o s s d i d n o t name t h e S p r u i l l s as appellees in i n h i s n o t i c e o f appeal, h i s notice judgment circuit o f appeal i n favor court appeal, he was a p p e a l i n g of the S p r u i l l s , c l e r k t o serve notice o f appeal. this that d i d not otherwise indicate t h e summary and d i d n o t d i r e c t t h e t h e S p r u i l l s w i t h a copy o f h i s Therefore, the S p r u i l l s and t h e i s s u e whether are not p a r t i e s to t h e summary judgment i n t h e i r f a v o r was p r o p e r i s n o t b e f o r e u s . See V e t e t o v. Swanson Servs. C o r p . , 886 So. 2d 756, 763-65 Ross argues t h a t the t r i a l ( A l a . 2003). court erred i n striking his a f f i d a v i t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n because, Facts" he s a y s , the facts i n h i s response to that affirmed i n h i s affidavit either facts statements of which recited i n the "Narrative motion, which he says of he i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h a t m o t i o n , were he had p e r s o n a l made b y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s knowledge o f West Wind o r were that were m e r e l y o f f e r e d t o show R o s s ' s b e l i e f r e g a r d i n g h i s r i g h t t o a c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s dues. 17 2101167 The material affidavit's facts adoption Ross of the sought to "Narrative prove of Facts" r e s p o n s e t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n were on i t s then April Charles 2, 2005, Ragland, maintenance West Wind, agreed to and r e p a i r s through accept Ross's on West Wind's by his in his (1) t h a t , president, performance of premises i n l i e u of R o s s ' s h a v i n g t o p a y c o n d o m i n i u m d u e s ; (2) t h a t i n September 2006 West Wind's West Wind repairs no on then p r e s i d e n t , longer West Ray H a n s o n , needed him t o p e r f o r m Wind's p r e m i s e s and that p a y i n g h i s c o n d o m i n i u m d u e s ; (3) t h a t condominium dues i n December 2006 t o l d Ross that m a i n t e n a n c e and he should begin R o s s began p a y i n g h i s and p a i d h i s condominium dues f o r December 2006, J a n u a r y 2007, F e b r u a r y 2007, and M a r c h 2007; (4) that West condominium dues; Wind accepted a l l those payments of (5) t h a t R o s s p a i d h i s c o n d o m i n i u m dues f o r A p r i l and May o f 2007 b u t West Wind r e t u r n e d t h o s e payments t o him and r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f t h e amounts he was as a credit against h i s condominium dues; (6) p r o v i d e d t h e r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o West Wind; never heard Wind anything foreclosed further on t h e f o u r f r o m West Wind; condominium u n i t s ; 18 claiming that Ross (7) t h a t he (8) t h a t and (9) West that 2101167 Ross d i d not told him l e a r n of that affidavits they Ross had had summary-judgment the foreclosures u n t i l a third already filed motions in occurred. The opposition filed by two party identical the partial- and London to the Spruills a t t e s t e d t o a l l t h o s e m a t e r i a l f a c t s . I n F o u n t a i n v. P h i l l i p s , 404 So. 2d 614, 618 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t stated: " I t i s t h e l a w i n A l a b a m a , as w e l l as i n f e d e r a l c o u r t s , t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t may p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r any m a t e r i a l t h a t w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e a t t r i a l and a l l e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d as w e l l as m a t e r i a l s u b m i t t e d i n support o f o r i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n when r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . M o r r i s v. M o r r i s , 366 So. 2d 676 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . See a l s o , 10 C. W r i g h t & A. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e § 2721 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . We t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e of record, as w e l l as that evidence formally submitted i n support of or i n o p p o s i t i o n to a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d i n r u l i n g on [a] m o t i o n [ f o r a summary j u d g m e n t ] . " ( F i n a l e m p h a s i s added.) Thus, the opposition to London and two the trial court submission, court the v. affidavits Ross had partial-summary-judgment motions Spruills, took w h i c h were i n t h e West Wind's filed in filed by r e c o r d when the summary-judgment m o t i o n under c o n s t i t u t e d e v i d e n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e trial in ruling Fountain identical on West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n , P h i l l i p s , and t o be 19 considered by this court see in 2101167 r e v i e w i n g t h e summary judgment e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , see M a t h i s v. J i m S k i n n e r F o r d , I n c . , 361 1978) So. 2d 113, 116 ( A l a . ("The p r o p r i e t y o f g r a n t i n g m o t i o n s f o r summary judgment must be t e s t e d by r e v i e w i n g what t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d b e f o r e i t when i t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n . " ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , b e c a u s e the two a f f i d a v i t s Ross h a d f i l e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y judgment m o t i o n s f i l e d by London and t h e S p r u i l l s a t t e s t e d t o all t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s Ross in opposition error to the t r i a l West s o u g h t t o p r o v e by h i s a f f i d a v i t Wind's c o u r t may summary-judgment motion, have c o m m i t t e d by s t r i k i n g any Ross's a f f i d a v i t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n was harmless error summary judgment and P. ("No judgment case on the ground a reversal of the may of be ... reversed the ... improper i n any ... civil ... rejection of ... u n l e s s i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e appeal i s taken it not warrant i n f a v o r o f West Wind. See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. evidence does s h o u l d appear a f t e r an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e c a u s e , that the e r r o r c o m p l a i n e d o f has p r o b a b l y i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s . " ) . Ross a l s o argues that the t r i a l court erred i n granting West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he s a y s , § 35-8A- 20 2101167 3 1 6 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e d West Wind t o g i v e him advance foreclosure notice of the of the four actual condominium u n i t s and West Wind f a i l e d t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g it had given him that such n o t i c e . "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once 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 establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial 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 the e x e r c i s e of 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 s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [ ( A l a . 2000)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. First Real Estate Co., 844 2002). Section 35-8A-316(a) provides: 21 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2101167 "(a) The a s s o c i a t i o n h a s a l i e n on a u n i t f o r any a s s e s s m e n t l e v i e d a g a i n s t t h a t u n i t o r f i n e s i m p o s e d a g a i n s t i t s u n i t owner f r o m t h e t i m e t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r f i n e becomes due. The a s s o c i a t i o n ' s l i e n may be f o r e c l o s e d i n l i k e manner as a m o r t g a g e on r e a l estate but the a s s o c i a t i o n shall give r e a s o n a b l e advance n o t i c e o f i t s proposed a c t i o n t o t h e u n i t owner a n d a l l l i e n h o l d e r s o f r e c o r d o f t h e u n i t . Unless the d e c l a r a t i o n otherwise provides, f e e s , charges, l a t e charges, f i n e s , and i n t e r e s t c h a r g e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 3 5 - 8 A - 3 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , (11) and (12) a r e e n f o r c e a b l e as a s s e s s m e n t s u n d e r t h i s section. If an assessment is payable in i n s t a l l m e n t s , t h e f u l l amount o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t i s a l i e n from t h e time t h e f i r s t i n s t a l l m e n t t h e r e o f becomes d u e . " (Emphasis added.) West Wind supported i t s summary-judgment motion with, among o t h e r t h i n g s , V a r g o ' s a f f i d a v i t . I n h i s a f f i d a v i t , V a r g o authenticated a l e t t e r he h a d m a i l e d t o J o n e s on December 11, 2007. T h a t l e t t e r stated: " I r e p r e s e n t West Wind C o n d o m i n i u m A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . i n an e f f o r t t o c o l l e c t p a s t due a s s e s s m e n t s f r o m Howard R o s s . I t i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t y o u r e p r e s e n t Mr. R o s s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s s u b j e c t matter. " E n c l o s e d p l e a s e f i n d the l i e n claims f i l e d by my c l i e n t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f a i l u r e o f y o u r c l i e n t t o pay assessments. In t h e event t h e s u b j e c t amounts a r e n o t p a i d i n f u l l b y December 22, 2007, we w i l l commence f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . " (Emphasis added.) V a r g o ' s a f f i d a v i t a n d h i s December 11, 2007, l e t t e r t o J o n e s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t West Wind h a d 22 2101167 given Ross reasonable advance notice that i t proposed to f o r e c l o s e on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s i f he d i d n o t p a y t h e amounts i t was c l a i m i n g i n i t s l i e n s b y December 22, 2007, and t h u s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t West Wind h a d g i v e n the "reasonable required by showing, § West advance notice 35-8A-316(a). Wind of By i t s proposed making s h i f t e d the burden that action" prima t o Ross Ross facie t o produce s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r West Wind h a d g i v e n R o s s t h e r e a s o n a b l e advance n o t i c e of i t s proposed a c t i o n required by § 35-8A- 3 1 6 ( a ) . See L u c a s v. A l f a Mut. I n s . Co., 622 So. 2d 907, 908¬ 09 ( A l a . 1993). R o s s does n o t a r g u e i n h i s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f t o t h i s that the t r i a l judgment court erred motion because i n granting Ross met West Wind's h i s burden issue of m a t e r i a l him reasonable fact regarding advance notice summary- of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the existence producing of a genuine w h e t h e r West Wind h a d of i t s proposed that could possibly argument, t h i s court does n o t c o n s i d e r 23 be construed issues as given action r e q u i r e d by § 3 5 - 8 A - 3 1 6 ( a ) . A l t h o u g h h i s r e p l y b r i e f language court as contains making that r a i s e d f o r the 2101167 first 334, time i n a reply brief. 341 ( A l a . 2002) See B y r d v. Lamar, 846 So. 2d ("[An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] does n o t a d d r e s s i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n a r e p l y b r i e f . " ) . Thus, b y failing t o make t h a t argument i n i t s p r i n c i p a l waived the i s s u e whether the t r i a l met h i s burden of producing the existence court brief, Ross e r r e d because Ross s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l w h e t h e r West W i n d h a d g i v e n him reasonable fact regarding advance n o t i c e o f i t s p r o p o s e d a c t i o n as r e q u i r e d b y § 3 5 - 8 A - 3 1 6 ( a ) . See B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d . " ) ; B y r d v. Lamar; a n d M c G l a t h e r y v . A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . , [Ms. 2101017, Aug. 3, 2012] So. 3d App. 2012) do n o t c o n s i d e r ("[A]ppellate raised f o r the f i r s t courts , (Ala. C i v . arguments t i m e on r e h e a r i n g . " ) . Ross a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n Wind f a i l e d t o make a p r i m a f a c i e court erred i n granting because, he s a y s , West s h o w i n g t h a t he owed West Wind a d e b t . However, West Wind s u p p o r t e d i t s summary-judgment motion probate with the l i e n court with claims respect West Wind h a d r e c o r d e d t o each 24 of the four i n the condominium 2101167 units. Each l i e n claim t h a t R o s s owed w i t h the subject of respect the lien v e r i f i e d b y L o n d o n , who "I, s t a t e d t h e amount West Wind claimed t o t h e condominium u n i t t h a t claim, signed and each the f o l l o w i n g Joseph London, I I I , d e c l a r e lien claim was was verification: that: " I am t h e P r e s i d e n t o f West Wind Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , an A l a b a m a c o r p o r a t i o n , named as t h e A s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e f o r e g o i n g c l a i m o f l i e n ; I am authorized t o make this verification f o r the Association. " I have r e a d i t and know i t s c o n t e n t s ; i t i s t r u e t o my own k n o w l e d g e and c o n t a i n s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f my demand a f t e r d e d u c t i n g a l l j u s t c r e d i t s and o f f s e t s . " Ross argues that the l i e n claims were not admissible e v i d e n c e . However, he d i d n o t move t o s t r i k e them. B e c a u s e he did not move to strike the o b j e c t i o n on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g of the Affairs, lien claims. See lien claims, the t r i a l court's parte Secretary Ex 92 So. 3d 771, 777 ( A l a . 2012) t o move t h e t r i a l unsworn, he waived any consideration of Veterans ("Because F r a n k failed c o u r t t o s t r i k e t h e H i a t t a f f i d a v i t and t h e uncertified, and unauthenticated documents that a c c o m p a n i e d t h a t a f f i d a v i t , he w a i v e d any o b j e c t i o n on a p p e a l regarding supporting t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a f f i d a v i t and d o c u m e n t s . " ) . Thus, West Wind made a p r i m a 25 facie 2101167 showing Ross that to Estate owed i t a d e b t and produce existence whether Ross of he a substantial genuine s h i f t e d the burden evidence issue of material owed West Wind a d e b t . See Co., establishing fact Potter v. First Real supra. the t r i a l judgment the regarding Ross does n o t a r g u e i n h i s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f t o t h i s that to court motion erred because i n granting he met his court West Wind's summaryburden of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g the existence producing of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact regarding w h e t h e r he owed West Wind a debt. he that Therefore, has waived issue. See Boshell v. K e i t h ; B y r d v. Lamar; and M c G l a t h e r y v. A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. Univ. Accordingly, we a f f i r m t h e summary judgment i n f a v o r o f West Wind. Ross London's Ross's sales a l s o argues t h a t the t r i a l partial-summary-judgment claim seeking because, he an o r d e r says, motion d i d not challenge London's Ross's seeking erred motion with s e t t i n g aside London's that an o r d e r Ross's motion respect the to foreclosure contention d i d not s e t t i n g aside 26 i n granting partial-summary-judgment claim. partial-summary-judgment claim court the that challenge foreclosure 2101167 sales i s correct. Because motion d i d not challenge London's partial-summary-judgment Ross's c l a i m seeking an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s , i t d i d n o t meet L o n d o n ' s initial b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h respect t o t h a t c l a i m . See Employees o f t h e Montgomery C n t y . S h e r i f f ' s Dep't v. M a r s h a l l , 2d 326, 330 challenge capacity, claims the of the s h e r i f f against motion d i d not showing parte General Motors (quoting t h a t he Corp., foreclosure against 769 B e r n e r v. C a l d w e l l , on his claim meet the in his initial that i s , i . e . , the burden o f making a p r i m a is entitled (Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g prevail the s h e r i f f i n his i n d i v i d u a l capacity, '"the b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n , facie So. ("Since t h e s h e r i f f ' s m o t i o n d i d not the p l a i n t i f f s ' individual burden ( A l a . 2004) 893 t o summary j u d g m e n t . " ' So. 543 2d 903, 909 ( A l a . 1999) So. 2d 686, 691 ( A l a . 1989) s p e c i a l l y ) ) . " ) . However, i n o r d e r seeking an order setting aside s a l e s , R o s s w o u l d have t o p r e v a i l on t h a t West Wind, t h e p a r t y who Ex actually foreclosed to the claim on c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s , and R o s s has f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a r g u m e n t s the on a p p e a l j u s t i f y i n g a r e v e r s a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r of West Wind w i t h respect to 27 that claim. Consequently, we 2101167 conclude that the t r i a l court's partial-summary-judgment seeking an o r d e r error i n granting motion w i t h respect s e t t i n g aside i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t Ross's London's t o Ross's claim the foreclosure sales d i dnot s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s and, t h e r e f o r e , c o n s t i t u t e d h a r m l e s s e r r o r t h a t does n o t w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f L o n d o n . See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. T h e r e f o r e , we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f London. Finally, complaint. argues that the London's granting Ross motion to strike However, R o s s r e p r e s e n t e d he h a d a s s e r t e d two o f t h e t h r e e trial the court second to the t r i a l claims erred in amended court that added by t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t , i . e . , the claim of i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e with contractual business unlawful or detention of property, noted above, favor of the S p r u i l l s . favor of the S p r u i l l s the claim Standard, Therefore, t h e summary h a s become a f i n a l against amended complaint. I n c . , 762 28 of a g a i n s t t h e S p r u i l l s o n l y . As the claims add i n t h e s e c o n d Precision and R o s s h a s n o t a p p e a l e d t h e summary Ross from p r o s e c u t i n g to relations judgment i n judgment i n judgment t h a t them t h a t he See So. 2d 820, 827 bars sought Stevenson v. ( A l a . 1999) 2101167 ("[B]ecause Stevenson[, the judgment i n favor the of plaintiff,] Windsor[, d i d not of one appeal defendants], the from t h a t j u d g m e n t has become f i n a l ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f judicata bars liability."). court in a new trial on C o n s e q u e n t l y , any granting the the issue of Windsor's e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by motion to strike res those the trial two claims a g a i n s t the S p r u i l l s d i d not a f f e c t Ross's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , c o n s t i t u t e s h a r m l e s s e r r o r . See The remaining claim amended c o m p l a i n t was Wind. T h a t c l a i m was Ross sought to add a breach-of-contract in Rule the 45. second c l a i m a g a i n s t West b a s e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t West Wind's agreement t o g i v e Ross a c r e d i t a g a i n s t the dues on the four condominium u n i t s f o r p e r f o r m i n g or p a y i n g f o r maintenance and r e p a i r work a t t h e c o n d o m i n i u m and f o r a l l o w i n g a maintenance man temporarily e m p l o y e d by four West Wind t o l i v e condominium contract and units that without West Wind had paying rent breached i n one alleged original facts that complaint. were known t o Indeed, Ross's that contract R o s s when he claim seeking s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s , w h i c h he 29 the constituted f a i l i n g t o g i v e R o s s s u c h a c r e d i t . Thus, t h a t c l a i m was on of by based filed an a his order included in his 2101167 original complaint part, those on filed on April same a l l e g e d f a c t s . his s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t his o r i g i n a l complaint. complaint l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e (Ala. Yet, was based, Ross d e l a y e d Ross f i l e d B e t t e r Houses, filed 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t 820 trial So. 2d setting. 75, 77-78 stated: " R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n s amendments t o pleadings. I t provides, i n pertinent part: " ' U n l e s s a c o u r t has o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t t o d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own m o t i o n o r a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t any t i m e more t h a n forty-two (42) days before the first s e t t i n g o f t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l , and s u c h amendment s h a l l be f r e e l y a l l o w e d when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . T h e r e a f t e r , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e of c o u r t , and l e a v e s h a l l be g i v e n o n l y upon a showing of good cause.' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) I n B o r o s v. 240 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , we e x p l a i n e d : Baxley, 621 So. " ' A l t h o u g h R u l e 15(a) i t s e l f c a l l s f o r l i b e r a l amendment, t h i s C o u r t has held c o n s i s t e n t l y t h a t "the grant or d e n i a l of l e a v e t o amend i s a m a t t e r t h a t i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i s s u b j e c t t o r e v e r s a l on a p p e a l o n l y f o r an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " ' 30 was h i s s e c o n d amended that f i r s t Inc., in filing Moreover, the f i r s t t r i a l s e t t i n g f o r M a r c h 2009, and v. 2008, f o r a l m o s t a y e a r a f t e r he scheduled In R e c t o r 18, 2d 2101167 "621 So. 2d a t 245 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . Thus, 'Rule 15, [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , i s n o t c a r t e blanche authority t o amend a c o m p l a i n t a t any t i m e . ' S t a l l i n g s v. A n g e l i c a U n i f o r m Co., 388 So. 2d 942, 947 ( A l a . 1980) ( q u o t i n g S t e a d v. B l u e C r o s s - B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 294 A l a . 3, 6, 310 So. 2d 469, 471 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . '[U]ndue d e l a y i n f i l i n g an amendment, when i t c o u l d have b e e n f i l e d e a r l i e r b a s e d on t h e information a v a i l a b l e or d i s c o v e r a b l e , i s i n i t s e l f g r o u n d f o r d e n y i n g an amendment.' P u c k e t t , T a u l & Underwood, I n c . v. S c h r e i b e r C o r p . , 551 So. 2d 979, 984 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' [ I ] f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s ... t h a t a p a r t y has had s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t a t e a c l a i m ... b u t h a s f a i l e d t o do s o , l e a v e t o amend may p r o p e r l y be d e n i e d . ' W a l k e r v . T r a u g h b e r , 351 So. 2d 917, 922 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . " In the present case, because Ross had knowledge o f a l l t h e a l l e g e d f a c t s upon w h i c h he b a s e d h i s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m when he f i l e d h i s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t y e t d e l a y e d his second his o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t a n d b e c a u s e he f i l e d h i s s e c o n d filing amended c o m p l a i n t f o r a l m o s t a y e a r a f t e r he filed amended c o m p l a i n t l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t t r i a l s e t t i n g , we conclude t h a t the t r i a l court d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s t r i k i n g the second amended c o m p l a i n t as t o R o s s ' s breach-of- c o n t r a c t c l a i m . See R e c t o r v . B e t t e r H o u s e s . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . APPLICATION 2012, FOR REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION OF MAY 4, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , 31 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.