Paul Wooten v. Beverly Morton et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/18/2012 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 2110068 Paul Wooten v. B e v e r l y Morton e t a l . Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t (CV-08-900162) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . Paul daughter executrix Wooten i s married o f J.G. H o r t o n , o f Horton's e f f e c t s ofAlzheimer's t o J o y c e Wooten. who estate disease. died until Joyce i n 1992. i s Joyce the was she began s u f f e r i n g t h e On M a r c h 2, 2004, t h e p r o b a t e 2110068 c o u r t a p p o i n t e d P a u l as s u c c e s s o r e x e c u t o r o f H o r t o n ' s e s t a t e . P a u l , i n h i s c a p a c i t y as e x e c u t o r o f H o r t o n ' s e s t a t e , executed two e x e c u t o r ' s deeds d i s p o s i n g o f p r o p e r t y owned b y t h e e s t a t e ("the H o r t o n e s t a t e p r o p e r t y " ) on M a r c h 2, 2004. deed conveyed t o Joyce i n f e e s i m p l e The first 166.8 a c r e s ( " t h e home p l a c e " ) t h a t h a d b e e n owned b y H o r t o n a n d t h a t h a d p u r p o r t e d l y been bequeathed t o Joyce i n Horton's w i l l . executor's parcel The s e c o n d o f t h e deeds c o n v e y e d t o J o y c e a l i f e e s t a t e i n another o f p r o p e r t y ; t h e r e m a i n d e r was c o n v e y e d t o H o r t o n ' s surviving g r a n d c h i l d r e n , B e v e r l y Morton, Moses, J o h n H o r t o n , June B u t l e r , Peggy and J o y O l i v e r ( r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n " ) . On M a r c h 3, 2004, t h e p r o b a t e d i s c h a r g e d P a u l as e x e c u t o r and approved t h e f i n a l court settlement of Horton's e s t a t e . Meanwhile, Paul, on March 2, 2004, acting under a p u r p o r t e d power o f a t t o r n e y f o r J o y c e , c o n v e y e d t h e home p l a c e to h i s brother Paul later conveyed t h e m i n e r a l t h e Wootens. court and s i s t e r - i n - l a w , rights and L i n d a Wooten. i n t h e home p l a c e t o The g r a n d c h i l d r e n d i d n o t know t h a t t h e p r o b a t e had s e t t l e d executor's McCoy the estate or that Paul had executed the deeds o r t h e deeds t o t h e Wootens u n t i l 2006. 2 Paul 2110068 was made J o y c e ' s probate that court Paul limited Paul " s h a l l otherwise conservator not Paul's convey, encumber any i n January rights as 2008; however, conservator, transfer, mortgage, probate court H o r t o n ' s e s t a t e and t o be r e a p p o i n t e d as e x e c u t o r January In or Although to reopen i n December 2008, t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n s u c c e e d e d i n h a v i n g t h a t o r d e r in stating lease, r e a l e s t a t e owned by J o y c e . " s u c c e s s f u l l y p e t i t i o n e d the the vacated 2009. December 2008, Paul D e K a l b C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the sued trial the grandchildren court"). in the I n the c a p t i o n t h e c o m p l a i n t and i n t h e b o d y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , of Paul described h i m s e l f as s u i n g i n d i v i d u a l l y , as t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f H o r t o n ' s e s t a t e , and as t h e c o n s e r v a t o r o f J o y c e ' s The Wootens were a l s o p l a i n t i f f s i n the suit. estate. P a u l and the Wootens s o u g h t a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h e v a r i o u s parties under Horton's Wootens u n d e r t h e will, the deeds e x e c u t e d rights by P a u l , and the g r a n d c h i l d r e n under the e x e c u t o r ' s the remainder life interest i n the estate. of and the the rights of deed c o n v e y i n g p a r c e l i n which 3 Joyce t o them Joyce h e l d a 2110068 The instead p a r t i e s agreed submitted and p l e a d i n g s . t o waive a trial t h e case t o t h e t r i a l on t h e i s s u e s a n d court on affidavits The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n J u l y 2010, declaring that the executor's d e e d s must be c o r r e c t e d t o a l i g n with the w i l l t o r e d u c e t h e home p l a c e b y 30 (most n o t a b l y , a c r e s ) a n d d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e deeds t o t h e Wootens were and v o i d . The J u l y 2010 o r d e r r e s e r v e d j u r i s d i c t i o n attorney-fee request Unbeknownst 59, Pat Tate, to the t r i a l court, Joyce's successor A l a . R. C i v . order. The t r i a l over the made b y t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n . removed P a u l as J o y c e ' s c o n s e r v a t o r 2010, null i n A p r i l 2010. conservator, P., m o t i o n s e e k i n g court denied the probate t o vacate that motion, c o u r t had I n August filed a Rule t h e J u l y 2010 stating t h a t no m o t i o n t o s u b s t i t u t e T a t e a s a p a r t y h a d b e e n made p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. No a p p e a l was t a k e n b y a n y p a r t y f r o m t h e J u l y 2010 o r d e r . I n O c t o b e r 2010, declaratory executor's Wootens the t r i a l court entered a "supplementary judgment" i n which i t again declared that the deeds must be c o r r e c t e d a n d t h a t t h e deeds t o t h e were null and v o i d . The O c t o b e r 4 2010 o r d e r also 2110068 ordered that Paul attorney fee. On P., No June 20, motion pay $10,000 toward p a r t y appealed 2011, the July o r d e r s ("the declaratory-judgment orders v o i d because conservator and conservator, had judgment a c t i o n . had the because not Furthermore, declaratory-judgment which he and October been removed as as 2010 Joyce's the Joyce's successor P a u l a r g u e d t h a t he had represent Joyce's interests never in the a c t i o n b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - action could property, 2010 Civ. orders"), arguing that had Tate, 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. b e e n made a p a r t y t o t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - a u t h o r i t y to judgment Paul grandchildren's that order. Paul f i l e d a Rule f o r r e l i e f from were the "encumber" had been Joyce's precluded interest from doing in real by the probate c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e g a r d i n g h i s r i g h t s as c o n s e r v a t o r Joyce's estate. not adequately action because Paul a l s o argued t h a t Joyce's protected during the court trial g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r J o y c e , w h i c h , by R u l e rendered 1 7 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. the had i n t e r e s t s were declaratory-judgment failed to 5 appoint P a u l a r g u e d , was These d e f e c t s , he the declaratory-judgment of orders void. a required contended, 2110068 As a result represented, of Joyce's failure to be adequately Paul contended, the declaratory-judgment had " s t r i p p e d " J o y c e o f 30 a c r e s o f p r o p e r t y t o w h i c h she was e n t i t l e d under Horton's w i l l . Because t h e Rule 60(b) m o t i o n had as i t s g o a l s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t and because doing so w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t t h a t was t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t filed orders a n o t i c e o f l i s pendens p u r s u a n t orders the property action, Paul t o A l a . Code 1975, § 35-4-131, naming a l l t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t had been c o n t a i n e d i n Horton's e s t a t e . The g r a n d c h i l d r e n moved t o have t h e n o t i c e o f l i s p e n d e n s v a c a t e d a n d a l s o s o u g h t an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g P a u l to p a y an a t t o r n e y 60(b) motion, without the fee f o r their having t o defend w h i c h t h e y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as h a v i n g b e e n "filed s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n , " as h a v i n g b e e n f i l e d f o r improper purposes of "causing ... v e x a t i o u s u n c e r t a i n t y c o n c e r n i n g t i t l e t o l a n d " and " c a u s i n g unnecessary as b e i n g " g r o u n d l e s s i n l a w and f a c t . " d e l a y , " and The g r a n d c h i l d r e n a l s o moved t o have T a t e j o i n e d as a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y ; T a t e to h i s Rule joinder. consented Tate a l s o sought v a c a t i o n of the n o t i c e o f l i s pendens. I n August 2011, t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n sought a contempt judgment against Paul for failing 6 t o pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e 2110068 a w a r d e d i n t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n ; t h e y l a t e r amended their contempt p e t i t i o n services rendered to seek an a t t o r n e y fee for legal i n a t t e m p t i n g to enforce the a t t o r n e y - f e e obligation. On S e p t e m b e r 15, 2011, denying Paul's motion orders. In addition, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment to s e t a s i d e the the t r i a l declaratory-judgment c o u r t v a c a t e d the n o t i c e of l i s p e n d e n s and s u b s t i t u t e d T a t e as n e x t f r i e n d o f J o y c e . trial c o u r t t a x e d t h e c o s t s o f t h e a c t i o n t o P a u l and t h a t he pay an a d d i t i o n a l $14,000 t o w a r d a t t o r n e y fee because, i t concluded, The ordered the g r a n d c h i l d r e n ' s Paul's Rule 60(b) motion and t h e l i s p e n d e n s n o t i c e " c o n s t i t u t e a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f [ t h e ] bad f a i t h " t h a t began w i t h " P a u l ' s e x e r c i s e o f bad his e g r e g i o u s and u n a c c e p t a b l e c o n d u c t " b e f o r e and d u r i n g t h e underlying trial declaratory-judgment c o u r t ' s judgment transferred 1975, § the appeal 12-2-7(6). action. Paul faith appealed t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , to t h i s court, pursuant and the which t o A l a . Code 1 Because the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment d i d not address the g r a n d c h i l d r e n ' s c o n t e m p t c l a i m i n s o f a r as i t r e l a t e d t o P a u l ' s f a i l u r e t o pay t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d i m p o s e d i n t h e O c t o b e r 2010 d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t o r d e r , we remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r i t t o r e s o l v e the o u t s t a n d i n g contempt c l a i m 1 7 2110068 The appeal. grandchildren have filed a motion to dismiss this I n t h e i r motion, they argue t h a t P a u l l a c k s s t a n d i n g to appeal t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t P a u l l a c k s s t a n d i n g i n any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y b e c a u s e he i s no l o n g e r conservator, b e c a u s e H o r t o n ' s e s t a t e i s no b e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t removed P a u l as J o y c e ' s longer Joyce's open, next f r i e n d . and The g r a n d c h i l d r e n a l s o c h a l l e n g e P a u l ' s s t a n d i n g t o p r o c e e d i n an individual capacity on the ground judgment o r d e r s d i d not a f f e c t Paul's that individual P a u l opposes the motion t o d i s m i s s . he was the He declaratoryrights. f i r s t argues t h a t a p a r t y t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , s o , he contends, See, e.g., Lunceford i n o r d e r t o r e n d e r the judgment f i n a l . Monumental L i f e I n s . Co., 641 So. 2d 244, 246 ( A l a . 1994) v. ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a f i n a l judgment must a d j u d i c a t e a l l t h e c l a i m s and determine the r i g h t s and liabilities of a l l p a r t i e s ) ; K e l l e y v. U.S.A. O i l C o r p . , 363 So. 2d 758, 759-60 ( A l a . 1978) ("To s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , t h e o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m must be a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " ) ; and F a u l k v. Rhodes, 43 So. 3d 624, 625 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ( " A judgment i s g e n e r a l l y n o t f i n a l u n l e s s a l l c l a i m s , or t h e r i g h t s or l i a b i l i t i e s o f a l l parties, have been d e c i d e d . " ) . The t r i a l c o u r t and the p a r t i e s have n o t i f i e d t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t h e c o n t e m p t c l a i m t o be r e s o l v e d by a s e p a r a t e garnishment p r o c e e d i n g t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d was paid. Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n no l o n g e r s e e k a c o n t e m p t f i n d i n g a g a i n s t P a u l and t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t is final. 8 2110068 he c l e a r l y has standing to appeal He further a r g u e s t h a t , i f he l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l t h e t r i a l court's judgment d e n y i n g standing action, as he to h i s Rule institute thus the order, first note that Paul was underlying grandchildren's attorney a r g u m e n t a d v a n c e d by to judgment. standing are to also the September to pay fee. that will not appeal lacked orders void, Rule 60(b) motion. We 2011 $14,000 cannot portion of consider Paul's the award of a t t o r n e y f e e s l a t e r i n t h i s We must have toward conclude the that any the g r a n d c h i l d r e n c o u l d d e p r i v e P a u l appeal T h u s , we in 2 declaratory-judgment 60(b) ordered right m o t i o n , he r e n d e r i n g the declaratory-judgment contended i n h i s Rule We his 60(b) t h a t judgment. convinced his removal that as the trial argument of court's regarding opinion. Paul would Joyce's next not have friend; P a u l does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a r g u e t h a t he has s t a n d i n g by v i r t u e o f h i s s t a t u s as t h e f o r m e r e x e c u t o r o f H o r t o n ' s estate. B e c a u s e P a u l was d i s c h a r g e d as e x e c u t o r by the p r o b a t e c o u r t , he does n o t have t h e a b i l i t y t o a c t on b e h a l f o f H o r t o n ' s e s t a t e . Humphrey v. B o s c h u n g , 47 A l a . App. 310, 315, 253 So. 2d 760, 765 ( C i v . 1970) (stating that "after d i s c h a r g e [ o f an e x e c u t o r ] no f u r t h e r a u t h o r i t y t o a c t on b e h a l f of the e s t a t e e x i s t s " ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l not f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r P a u l has s t a n d i n g as t h e f o r m e r executor of Horton's e s t a t e . 2 9 2110068 h o w e v e r , e v e n i f we assume, w i t h o u t deciding, that Paul has s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l , we w o u l d a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h a t i s s u e . P a u l ' s a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g the c o u r t ' s a l l e g e d e r r o r i n r e m o v i n g h i m as n e x t f r i e n d no citations Rule to any 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. 2d 1222, court w i l l 1224 address contains relevant authority i n contravention App. P. As a d d r e s s P a u l ' s argument on a p p e a l . So. ( A l a . C i v . App. only for which supporting those a result, we See Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 68 6 1996) (stating that "[t]his issues properly presented a u t h o r i t y has conclude been 60(b) cited"). next friend had court's Paul i n s t i t u t e d time he filed a "duly appointed of a P a u l was now- removed h i s Rule 60(b) representative" t h e power t o " [ p ] r o s e c u t e o r d e f e n d a c t i o n s , c l a i m s , or proceedings pursuant f r i e n d of Joyce. because, at the m o t i o n , J o y c e a l r e a d y had who t h i s appeal. m o t i o n i n d i v i d u a l l y , as t h e e x e c u t o r c l o s e d e s t a t e , and as n e x t as and t h a t the g r a n d c h i l d r e n are c o r r e c t t h a t Paul lacks standing to prosecute the Rule of d e c l i n e to However, r e g a r d i n g t h e o t h e r a s p e c t s o f t h e t r i a l j u d g m e n t , we trial to ... Ala. conservator, Tate. f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of e s t a t e a s s e t s Code 1975, § 26-2A-152(c)(25) -- " her As n o t e d a b o v e , i n s o f a r as P a u l m i g h t have 10 2110068 had s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l h i s r e m o v a l as n e x t f r i e n d , t h i s has a f f i r m e d the t r i a l did not p r e s e n t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t l e g a l a u t h o r i t y to support c o u r t e r r e d i n d o i n g so. as a p a r t y t o t h e R u l e f r i e n d of Joyce, appeal the J o y c e once P a u l was in Paul's of t h a t determining were w o u l d be that not the underlying because r e p l a c e d as h e r c o n s e r v a t o r . 60(b) of the motion and, in Tate d i d not fact, actively Tate a l s o d i d not appeal from the d e n i a l the issue same r e s u l t . executor's of the notice Paul's Rule of 60(b) l i s pendens, m o t i o n had deeds and setting aside orders the deeds f i l e d to any lands interested parties placed i n dispute. that t i t l e A l a . Code 1975, of Paul's Rule 60(b) to those § 35-4-131. motion r e s u l t e d 11 we as i t s reforming Wootens; t h u s , t h e n o t i c e o f l i s p e n d e n s was denial to c o u r t t o a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r purpose to set aside the declaratory-judgment the entitled the void next motion. Regarding reach was s u b s t i t u t e d a c t i o n i n p l a c e o f P a u l as orders Rule opposed t h a t motion; Paul h i s argument t h a t T a t e , who o n l y p a r t y who judgment f a i l u r e of the t r i a l join 60(b) i s the declaratory-judgment court was to the notify being Because in a failure the to 2110068 have t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t lis orders s e t a s i d e , the n o t i c e of p e n d e n s w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y e x p i r e upon t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f the time for an appeal from the judgment conclusion Walden Hutchinson, v. (quoting Jesse P. Remedies § 5.18 Evans So. i s terminated See 1109, 1121 ( A l a . 2007) Property Rights by and (stating that a notice of l i s f o r the d u r a t i o n of the l i t i g a t i o n judgment appropriate p e r i o d f o r appeal, an a p p e a l 2d the I I I , Alabama (3d e d . 2 0 0 4 ) ) pendens " ' c o n t i n u e s it 987 upon on t h e j u d g m e n t . o f an a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g or and the expiration until of any or appellate determination, i f i s taken'")(emphasis omitted)). We have concluded t h a t Paul l a c k e d standing t o appeal those aspects of the t r i a l court's title judgment t h a t w o u l d a f f e c t to the standing to necessarily improperly We Horton appeal improperly those lacks standing vacated now turn property. aspects Because of the or the he judgment, to complain that the t r i a l lacked Paul court the n o t i c e o f l i s pendens. to Paul's argument that the trial court o r d e r e d h i m t o p a y $14,000 t o w a r d t h e a t t o r n e y f e e of the g r a n d c h i l d r e n . attorney estate Joyce's i n t e r e s t s fees The g r a n d c h i l d r e n f o r defending the Rule 12 s o u g h t an a w a r d o f 60(b) m o t i o n i n t h e i r 2110068 A u g u s t 9, 2011, "Motion f o r Payment o f A t t o r n e y F e e s and for Order V a c a t i n g N o t i c e of L i s Pendens." The g r a n d c h i l d r e n a l s o brought of a motion O c t o b e r 2010 seeking the 2010 to award. the trial of the $10,000 a t t o r n e y court's trial court's In h i s response to those declaratory-judgment the trial court's sought a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y fees f o r enforcement attorney-fee challenged the o r d e r r e g a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s and an amendment t o the motion i n which they seeking enforcement order. ability fee imposed previous motions, i n the Paul October However, P a u l n e v e r o b j e c t e d to award the grandchildren an a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y f e e f o r d e f e n d i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n o r for seeking enforcement of the p r e v i o u s attorney-fee award. A l t h o u g h no p a r t y c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d i n the present Litigation Code 1975, case as one being made p u r s u a n t A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ( " t h e ALAA"), § 12-19-270 et seq., we note to the Alabama codified at A l a . that the s e e k i n g the award of a t t o r n e y f e e s uses s e v e r a l of the set f o r t h i n A l a . Code 1975, "without filed law." substantial " f o r any terms § 12-19-271, t o d e s c r i b e t h e t e r m justification," i m p r o p e r p u r p o s e , " and Thus, b e c a u s e we motion construe 13 an including "groundless "vexatious," i n fact or a l l e g a t i o n b a s e d on i t s 2110068 substance and not i t s form or label, we conclude that the g r a n d c h i l d r e n s o u g h t an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA, and we w i l l r e v i e w t h e a w a r d o f $14,000 i n a t t o r n e y to the See grandchildren as an a w a r d made p u r s u a n t t o t h e E l i z a b e t h Homes, L.L.C. v. 2007) ("The substance of Cato, the 968 So. 2d 1, plaintiff's 184 attorney the [sic] ( A l a . C i v . App. fee as allegation one being that i n good f a i t h 2011) the and (construing a request plaintiff's otherwise 'without t h a t term i s d e f i n e d i n the "'case fails [was] the m o t i o n was record. filed However, argument because of the with the explained requirements an to r i s e not plead to the level we State of plaintiff's] substantial justification,' as ALAA"). Paul argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n R u l e 60(b) for 3d made p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA b e c a u s e A l a b a m a ' i s t a n t a m o u n t t o an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t [ t h e initiated (Ala. 68 So. of i n i t i a t i n g l e g a l and/or e q u i t a b l e a c t i o n s i n the a c t i o n was ALAA. allegations c o n t r o l . " ) ; see a l s o S c h w e i g e r v. Town o f H u r t s b o r o , 181, 8 fees i n bad are unable failure imposed i s not to upon i t by a trial supported consider of the t r i a l r e c e n t l y i n Schweiger, 14 faith t h a t the court to the ALAA. by Paul's comply As c o u r t must s e t we out 2110068 the legal factual claim, action, or or justification." support defense for i t s determination was S c h w e i g e r , 68 filed So. "without 3d a t that an substantial 184. " A l a . Code 1975, § 12-19-273, r e q u i r e s a t r i a l c o u r t assessing attorney fees under the ALAA to ' s p e c i f i c a l l y set f o r t h the reasons' u n d e r l y i n g i t s d e c i s i o n t o a s s e s s a t t o r n e y f e e s . See a l s o P a c i f i c E n t e r s . O i l Co. (USA) v. H o w e l l P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , 614 So. 2d 409, 418 ( A l a . 1993) ( ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , we w i l l require a trial court making the "without s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n " d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o make i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e g r o u n d o r g r o u n d s upon w h i c h i t r e l i e s , and t h e l e g a l o r e v i d e n t i a r y s u p p o r t f o r i t s determination, a p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d , e i t h e r by d r a f t i n g a s e p a r a t e w r i t t e n o r d e r o r by h a v i n g t h e s e f i n d i n g s t r a n s c r i b e d f o r the o f f i c i a l r e c o r d . ' ) . " Id. The states ... trial only bad c o u r t ' s a t t o r n e y - f e e award i n the p r e s e n t t h a t the faith" a w a r d i s b a s e d on exhibited declaratory-judgment by action. the Paul case "continuation in the Contrary to of underlying the express d i r e c t i o n o f o u r supreme c o u r t i n P a c i f i c E n t e r p r i s e s O i l Co. (USA) v. Howell 1 9 9 3 ) , and Petroleum Corp., Morrow v. G i b s o n , 827 614 So. So. 2d 2d 756, 409, 761 418 (Ala. ( A l a . 2002) ( " P a c i f i c E n t e r p r i s e s does s t a n d f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t trial court court in must g i v e the present a basis case for i t s ruling."), does 15 not recite "the the the trial legal or 2110068 e v i d e n t i a r y support m o t i o n was P a u l was Thus, f i l e d "without a c t i n g i n "bad the without f o r i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n " t h a t t h e R u l e 60 (b) trial the substantial justification" faith." court's necessary S c h w e i g e r , 68 So. 3 award of attorney f i n d i n g s under the because 3d a t 184. was made fees ALAA, and we must r e v e r s e t h a t a w a r d and remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r i t t o s e t out s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l or l e g a l support in compliance directive The is with the ALAA and with our f o r the supreme award court's in Pacific Enterprises. grandchildren's request f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on appeal denied. APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART REVERSED IN PART; AND Pittman, CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. B r y a n , and Thompson, P . J . , AND Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . concurs i n the result, without writing. Because the t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t had concluded t h a t P a u l ' s b a d f a i t h i n f i l i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n was a c o n t i n u a t i o n of the bad faith he h a d exhibited in the underlying declaratory-judgment a c t i o n , we a l s o r e v i e w e d t h e judgment a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s i n the u n d e r l y i n g d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t a c t i o n . T h a t a w a r d a l s o y i e l d s no s p e c i f i c l e g a l o r f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r 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 Paul's declaratory-judgment a c t i o n had b e e n f i l e d i n b a d f a i t h . 3 16

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.