June Thackston, Derold Thackston, and Charles Jacob "Jake" Thackston v. Angie Pinkard Key

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/23/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110063 June Thackston, D e r o l d Thackston, and C h a r l e s Jacob "Jake" Thackston v. Angie P i n k a r d Key Appeal from Randolph C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-65) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g June Thackston, "Jake" Thackston the Judge. Derold Thackston, (collectively, judgment o f t h e Randolph and Charles Jacob "the defendants") appeal from Circuit Court awarding Angie 2110063 P i n k a r d Key $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 o r an e q u i v a l e n t v a l u e o f c e r t a i n property. F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and remand t h e personal r e v e r s e the trial cause f o r the e n t r y of a new judgment. June T h a c k s t o n the parents "Jake" ("June") and of Derold Thackston Will Thackston ( " D e r o l d " ) and ("Jake") . business, Thackston In incorporated a Company, I n c . 1985, Thackston and ( " T h a c k s t o n and S o n s " ) , ("Will") Charles June Sons are Jacob and Will Construction i n Georgia. At the time t h e y i n c o r p o r a t e d T h a c k s t o n and Sons, June and W i l l e a c h owned one h a l f of the In Will s t o c k i n the J u l y 2009, June filed i n the Randolph C i r c u i t the t r i a l company. an action Court. On court i n that action entered providing, among o t h e r things, that for a divorce from S e p t e m b e r 29, 2009, a pendente l i t e order Will was to have sole c o n t r o l o v e r t h e d a y - t o - d a y o p e r a t i o n o f T h a c k s t o n and I n F e b r u a r y 2010, Will filed for while personal t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n was bankruptcy Bankruptcy Court f o r the Middle in the United D i s t r i c t of Alabama. of h i s bankruptcy proceeding, W i l l p r o v i d e d a l i s t of property to ("the asset list") 2 the bankruptcy Sons. pending, States As part personal trustee that 2110063 i n c l u d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f i t e m s , s u c h as v e h i c l e s tools, The t h a t were p u r c h a s e d asset l i s t Sons. d i d not and include June, although she the hearings in attended t e s t i f i e d at the t r i a l used had by any filed for bankruptcy Sons. and bankruptcy, case. Will i n t h e p r e s e n t a c t i o n t h a t he o p e r a t i n g T h a c k s t o n and Sons i n F e b r u a r y 2010, filed and s t o c k i n Thackston not Will's Thackston and stopped at the time f o r bankruptcy. In July permitting 2010, the the bankruptcy bankruptcy court trustee i n c l u d e d on t h e a s s e t l i s t . The to entered sell the an order property t r u s t e e d i d so, s e l l i n g a l l of W i l l ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e a s s e t s i n c l u d e d on t h e a s s e t l i s t A n g i e P i n k a r d Key on A u g u s t sale indicated that 5, 2010, the sale f o r $29,000. was "made "solely responsible for i n t e r e s t i n each On A u g u s t the defendants. retrieving and to The b i l l o f without r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o r w a r r a n t [ i e s ] o f any k i n d " and t h a t Key verifying any was [Will]'s s a i d i t e m of p e r s o n a l t y . " 26, 2010, Key filed the present a c t i o n a g a i n s t The e s s e n c e o f h e r a c t i o n was s e e k i n g p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e a s s e t s she from he the bankruptcy trustee, which 3 alleged she one i n d e t i n u e , she h a d bought a l l e g e d were i n the 2110063 defendants' possession. a g a i n s t Key i n which they they a l l e g e d was On issued 9, counterclaim that possession. 2010, certificate defendants f i l e d a sought the r e t u r n of p r o p e r t y i n Key's September a The the Georgia indicating Secretary that, as of of State that day, T h a c k s t o n and Sons had b e e n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y d i s s o l v e d o r had i t s c e r t i f i c a t e o f a u t h o r i t y r e v o k e d b e c a u s e i t had to file On action i t s annual December entered r e g i s t r a t i o n w i t h the 21, 2010, final June agreement t h a t a and a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h was provided, of a l l the and, stock provided that continue t o be J u n e , as the own Will had based t h i n g s , t h a t the the a divorce settlement That settlement p a r t i e s acknowledged in The Thackston assets property and of of Sons. Thackston Thackston and and owner agreement Sons would Sons and Sons, w o u l d that effectively company. 3 and A p r i l i n the on reached. owner o f T h a c k s t o n and On F e b r u a r y in been the the a s s e t s of the bench t r i a l judgment court Georgia. s i n c e t h e e a r l y 1990s, had a l l the the trial failed i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the d i v o r c e judgment, among o t h e r t h a t June was the S t a t e of had present 13, 2011, the t r i a l a c t i o n at which 4 court held a i t received ore 2110063 tenus t e s t i m o n y . respective changed. W i l l t e s t i f i e d a t f i r s t t h a t J u n e ' s and h a l f ownerships However, he i n Thackston later testified and that, S o n s had at never some p o i n t , t h e i r o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t s c h a n g e d so t h a t T h a c k s t o n and could q u a l i f y f o r c e r t a i n construction w i t h the 1996 Consistent contracts latter testimony, Georgia. portions of several T h a c k s t o n and S o n s ' t a x r e t u r n s were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o one as e a r l y as stock o f the 1992, owned a l l t h e stock i n T h a c k s t o n and D u r i n g the t r i a l , evidence June t e s t i f i e d as well that Sons s i n c e of evidence, r e f l e c t i n g t h a t June owned 100% company. Sons associated O l y m p i c Summer Games h e l d i n A t l a n t a , w i t h the his of the she had 1992. numerous d o c u m e n t s were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o i n d i c a t i n g that a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f the items i n c l u d e d on t h e a s s e t l i s t were t i t l e d i n T h a c k s t o n and Sons, had b e e n d e p r e c i a t e d by T h a c k s t o n and Sons on i t s t a x r e t u r n s , and had b e e n i n s u r e d by T h a c k s t o n and Sons. O t h e r documents introduced i n t o evidence i n d i c a t e d that t i t l e to other listed Will by defendants on the personally asset or to list other f i l e d f o r bankruptcy. 5 had been conveyed assets to i n d i v i d u a l s before the Will 2110063 During the t r i a l , the vehicles listed the defendants indicated that four of on t h e a s s e t l i s t were t i t l e d i n W i l l ' s name, n o t i n t h e name o f T h a c k s t o n a n d S o n s . s t a t e d that they d i d not claim ownership The defendants o f those vehicles, and t h e y d e l i v e r e d t h e t i t l e s t o t h o s e v e h i c l e s t o K e y i n open court. On June 23, 2011, the trial court judgment, which p r o v i d e d , i n p e r t i n e n t entered a final part: "This matter involves the t r a n s f e r o f assets from W i l l T h a c k s t o n t o [Key] v i a a B a n k r u p t c y T r u s t e e ' s Bill of Sale. The b i l l of sale gives general d e s c r i p t i o n s o f v a r i o u s items o f p r o p e r t y . No s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers a r e p r o v i d e d . The C o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , must d e t e r m i n e what W i l l T h a c k s t o n l e g a l l y owned a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e b i l l o f s a l e was e x e c u t e d . The C o u r t h a s f o u n d t h i s t o be i m p o s s i b l e . Mr. T h a c k s t o n was a j o i n t owner o f T h a c k s t o n & Sons C o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s s t a t u s was never l e g a l l y changed. Many i t e m s were owned b y t h i s Company. "The m a t t e r t h a t i s u n d i s p u t e d i s t h a t [Key] p a i d $29,000 f o r Mr. T h a c k s t o n ' s i n t e r e s t i n i t e m s l i s t e d on t h e b i l l o f s a l e . [June] h a s p o s s e s s i o n o f most o f t h e s e i t e m s . [June] c l a i m s t h a t t h e s e items are hers. The C o u r t must do e q u i t y i n o r d e r to prevent [ K e y ] , as a b o n a f i d e third party p u r c h a s e r f o r v a l u e , f r o m b e i n g d e p r i v e d o f any b e n e f i t from her purchase. " I t i s t h e r e f o r e o r d e r e d , adjudged, and d e c r e e d t h a t j u d g m e n t be e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f [Key] a n d a g a i n s t [June] f o r t h e sum o f t w e n t y - n i n e t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s a n d no/100 ( $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) . T h i s j u d g m e n t may 6 2110063 be s a t i s f i e d by t h e payment o f s a i d sum t r a n s f e r of that value of assets from o r by t h e [June] t o [Key]." The trial court's judgment also denied a l l other requested r e l i e f , t h u s d i s p o s i n g o f K e y ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t D e r o l d and and the defendants' counterclaim postjudgment motion, See R u l e 59.1, The fact A l a . R. C i v . P. denied The Key. by June f i l e d operation defendants of a law. appeal. defendants contend t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of do not Specifically, support i t s judgment list time the trustee precluded i t f r o m a w a r d i n g Key she for paid any interest court's $29,000. that the trial Key finding owned a t they argue t h a t the awarding i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e what p r o p e r t y on t h e a s s e t i t was Will w h i c h was against Jake issued $29,000 on Will might the bill of sale the b a s i s of what in that have had property. "In detinue Alabama, action] elementary possession order 865 that ' [ i ] t i s elementary is the wrongful plaintiff must the detention. have the gist It of is right [a also to o f t h e c h a t t e l a t t h e commencement o f t h e s u i t , to recover.'" So. the that 2d 1167, 1174 B r u n e r v. Geneva C n t y . F o r e s t r y ( A l a . 2003) 7 (quoting Jesse the in Dep't, French Piano 2110063 & Organ Co. (1902)) burden v. Bradley, (emphasis of [in a had possession at the had v. Ala. omitted). proof plaintiff 138 legal Thus, detinue title time of the 380 So. a l s o M u r r a y v. App. 1988) In 915, present case, to determine i t was subject 2d trial evidence t r u s t e e t o Key. on appeal. title to the to defendant Heathcock 1980). See (Ala. Civ. burden of p r o o f ) . found t h a t i t presented what i f a c t u a l l y owned b y W i l l conveyed by the was such bankruptcy No p a r t y has d i r e c t l y c h a l l e n g e d t h a t f i n d i n g I t was the being the right or 1345-46 court 44 that t h a t the 1345, 44, has show property case bears from the to to ( A l a . C i v . App. any p r o p e r t y on t h e a s s e t l i s t was that So. of the p r o p e r t y . " So. the 35 plaintiff a c t i o n and 916 Dempsey, 521 "the the (claimant i n detinue the impossible 2d 180, action] to w r o n g f u l l y taken possession Hadley, 177, K e y ' s b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h a t she property she was claiming i n her had legal action; her f a i l u r e t o do so p r e c l u d e d h e r f r o m r e c o v e r i n g t h a t p r o p e r t y . Of course, the trial court did p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y , as she had s o u g h t . not award Key I n s t e a d , as n o t e d , i t r e q u i r e d June t o pay Key $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 , t h e amount t h a t Key had the bankruptcy trustee. Because 8 the any trial court could paid not 2110063 conclude from the evidence property contained the trial alone that on t h e a s s e t Key h a d l e g a l title to the l i s t , t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r c o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h a t June p a y Key any amount, l e t the f u l l amount o f what Key h a d p a i d to the t r u s t e e . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o d i s c e r n what, i f any, p r o p e r t y there on t h e a s s e t l i s t Key owned means t h a t h a s b e e n no f i n d i n g item of property ownership. that June i s i n p o s s e s s i o n o f any i n w h i c h Key has e s t a b l i s h e d she has I n the absence of such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , legal there i s s i m p l y no b a s i s t o r e q u i r e t h a t June make any payment t o Key. We "bona recognize fide contained third on that the t r i a l party the asset court purchaser list. f o u n d t h a t Key was f o r value" However, we of have the a items failed to u n c o v e r any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y , and Key has n o t c i t e d any i n h e r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Key's o c c u p y i n g such a s t a t u s w o u l d e n t i t l e h e r t o a r e f u n d o f what she p a i d f o r t h o s e i t e m s from someone payment. other than the person t o whom she made that 1 B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Key was a b o n a f i d e p u r c h a s e r f o r v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y l i s t e d on t h e a s s e t l i s t i s u l t i m a t e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o o u r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l , we p r e t e r m i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' contention that the evidence d i d not support that f i n d i n g . 1 9 2110063 We Key are not unsympathetic finds herself. She in certain property has to o n l y t o be e n t i t l e d to the B a s e d on t h e However, t o r e c o v e r her, relief we We remand Pittman, she sought. conclude t h a t the t r i a l court a judgment a g a i n s t June i n t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e the t r i a l court's the judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s REVERSED AND having c o u r t of t h a t i n t e r e s t , t h a t she f o r e g o i n g , we t h e amount o f $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 . and had possession o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t , and, e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l when i t e n t e r e d judgment, which unable to prove that W i l l been u n a b l e t o c o n v i n c e the t r i a l not in she b o r e t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f on t h e i s s u e o f W i l l ' s , and by e x t e n s i o n was circumstances p a i d $29,000 f o r W i l l ' s i n t e r e s t any i n t e r e s t i n t h a t p r o p e r t y . of t h a t p r o p e r t y , the cause for opinion. the entry of a new 2 REMANDED. B r y a n , Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . We n o t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s have n o t r a i s e d an i s s u e i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as t h e j u d g m e n t d e n i e d them any relief p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t Key. 2 10

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.