Michael Aaron Griffith v. Beverly Ann Ames

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: September 7, 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110115 M i c h a e l Aaron G r i f f i t h v. B e v e r l y Ann Ames Appeal from Elmore C i r c u i t (CV-11-900033) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This appeal a r i s e s from an a c t i o n filed i n t h e Elmore C i r c u i t C o u r t b y B e v e r l y Ann Ames, one o f two owners o f r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n E l m o r e C o u n t y , i n w h i c h Ames a l l e g e d t h a t the property judicial could n o t be e q u i t a b l y sale of theproperty proceeds thereof. The o t h e r divided a n d an e q u a l owner, M i c h a e l and sought division Aaron a of the Griffith, 2110115 who i s Ames's b r o t h e r , the property claimed in could answered t h e c o m p l a i n t and d e n i e d n o t be that the p a r t i e s ' brother the property. who interest i n the property, contention appeared regarding o r e tenus wife, testified, he further h e l d an e q u i t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n the action whereupon thebrother's proceeding, a n d an divided; A g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m was a p p o i n t e d f o r t h e brother, an equitably that attorney the t r i a l court Griffith the parties, a After Griffith's i n real-property entered any withdrew h i s potential interest. a t which versed and d i s c l a i m e d law judgment that, each in p e r t i n e n t p a r t , ( 1 ) d e c l a r e d t h a t a m o b i l e home l o c a t e d on t h e property h a d become a property be Griffith following sold. the denial fixture and ( 2 ) d i r e c t e d appealed from of h i s postjudgment that the that motion judgment to alter, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t ; t h a t a p p e a l was t r a n s f e r r e d t o this court The p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) . first two i s s u e s raised by G r i f f i t h s t a t u s o f t h e m o b i l e home l o c a t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y . to G r i f f i t h , t h e m o b i l e home was i m p r o p e r l y concern the According determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o be a " f i x t u r e " s u c h t h a t i t h a d merged w i t h t h e real property a made t h e b a s i s o f Ames's a c t i o n so a s t o become component p a r t being sold thereof such and t h e proceeds that i t w o u l d be s u b j e c t therefrom 2 divided to between t h e 2110115 parties. At t r i a l , G r i f f i t h documents issued by submitted i n t o evidence t h e Alabama Department of several Revenue i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o b i l e home was a 1992-model H o r t o n h o u s e trailer that h a d been parents and had been titled i n t h e name conveyed of the p a r t i e s ' by t h e p a r t i e s ' mother ( t h e s u r v i v o r o f t h e two p a r e n t s ) t o G r i f f i t h a l o n e v i a t r a n s f e r o f the former t i t l e certificate i n 2007. Although the t r a i l e r was used by t h e p a r t i e s ' p a r e n t s as t h e i r residence during t h e i r l i f e t i m e s a n d a s s e s s e d f o r t a x e s a s s u c h , was c o n n e c t e d to plumbing lines, a n d was t h e s i t e o f a number permanent improvements such as p o r c h e s and a d d i t i o n s , testified t h a t he h a d h a d a new c e r t i f i c a t e of semi¬ Griffith of t i t l e issued i n 2011 i n d i c a t i n g h i s o w n e r s h i p . Notwithstanding render the mobile the actions home of the p a r t i e s ' parents to on t h e p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e a p e r m a n e n t f e a t u r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , we a g r e e w i t h G r i f f i t h the record does not support the t r i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n as a m a t t e r o f law. in Green 2100187, Tree-AL September Resources, So. 3d L.L.C., one m a n u f a c t u r e d i n 1990 o r l a t e r ) , held, [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , t h a t a m a n u f a c t u r e d home s u b j e c t t o A l a b a m a t i t l e (i.e., that fixture This court recently LLC v. D o m i n i o n 9, 2011] court's semi¬ laws s u c h as t h e m o b i l e home p l a c e d on t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y b y t h e p a r t i e s ' p a r e n t s , 3 2110115 "is personal title property i s canceled." consistent unless and u n t i l So. 3d a t ___ . the t r i a l with ___ testimony attorney called a s an e x p e r t position i s also consistent appellate was the c e r t i f i c a t e brief, that with That holding i s the of witness of real-estate i n this case. That Ames's c o n c e s s i o n , she "does n o t d i s p u t e that i n her [Griffith] g i v e n t h e m o b i l e home b y h i s m o t h e r a n d a s s u c h i s f r e e t o remove t h e m o b i l e home a t a n y t i m e he w i s h e s . " As a r e s u l t , 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 d e t e r m i n a t i o n regarding the s t a t u s o f t h e m o b i l e home a s a component o f t h e r e a l at issue was e r r o n e o u s , a n d we r e v e r s e that j u d g m e n t ; on remand, t h e t r i a l court from regarding i t s judgment i t s findings property portion of the i s directed to delete the nature of the m o b i l e home so t h a t G r i f f i t h w i l l be a b l e t o e x e r c i s e h i s s o l e o w n e r s h i p r i g h t s as t o i t . The that remaining issue concerns the t r i a l the property right of a j o i n t sold a t i s s u e be s o l d . fordivision pleading i s statutory and showing 1355-56 direction that Under Alabama l a w , i n nature, the property See, e.g., I r o n s ( A l a . 1986). that direction t e n a n t o r a t e n a n t i n common t o h a v e equitably divided. 1352, court's the land In this at 4 conditioned at issue the lands upon c a n n o t be v. Le S u e u r , 487 So. 2d case, t h e t r i a l issue be sold court's implies a 2110115 d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e l a n d c a n n o t be e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d ; s u c h a determination Murphy v. need not, Dees, 293 Further, "[t]he under A l a . 529, ore tenus our 532, rule" law, 307 be So. under express. 2d 1, which 3 See (1975). the trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y to support i t are c l o t h e d i n a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s "applies to a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r l a n d s h o u l d be s o l d f o r d i v i s i o n b e c a u s e i t c a n n o t be e q u i t a b l y p a r t i t i o n e d i n k i n d . " E n g l i s h v. B a r n e s , 387 So. 2d 128, thus c o n s i d e r whether the t r i a l 129 ( A l a . 1980). We c o u r t ' s judgment i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . See 1080, 2009) ( c i t i n g A l a . Code 1975, 1089 ( A l a . C i v . App. must S h e w b a r t v. S h e w b a r t , 64 So. 3d § 12- property at 21-12(a)). In issue this is a case, 2.56-acre shoreline of Tallapoosa River the the property's Lake record reveals l o t l o c a t e d on Martin, a large that the McCain Road near the of the impoundment l o c a t e d i n e a s t - c e n t r a l Alabama. southeastern border, according Although to exhibits mapping the p r o p e r t y b o u n d a r i e s and t h o s e o f a d j a c e n t p a r c e l s , consists f e e t of of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 283 frontage along Road, t h e shape o f t h e l o t , as one moves n o r t h w e s t , it approaches Lake M a r t i n point approximately 600 to a rough t r i a n g l e tapers leading to f e e t away f r o m M c C a i n Road, 5 McCain as a forming 2110115 the shape o f an o b e l i s k . which i s approximately shoreline, The n o r t h w e s t b o r d e r 246 f e e t l o n g , proceeding from a slough of the l o t , i s close to the lake i n t h e south t o a more open e x p a n s e o f w a t e r a s one moves n o r t h . During did her d i r e c t not b e l i e v e divided which, that examination, the land at issue could t h a t she be e q u i t a b l y i n p a r t b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e m o b i l e home, as we have belonging property discussed, to G r i f f i t h ; i s movable presumably, shape o f t h e p r o p e r t y Ames d i d t e s t i f y , a division division select, could, i f the However, Ames a l s o c i t e d t h e as a f a c t o r i n h e r o p i n i o n . during cross-examination, of the land testimony property s o l d , move t h e m o b i l e that "down t h e m i d d l e " i f s h e were o f f e r e d t h e c h o i c e that personal Griffith were p a r t i t i o n e d r a t h e r t h a n home t o h i s a l l o c a t e d p a r c e l . view Ames t e s t i f i e d Although she would as a of which p o r t i o n t o does n o t f o r e c l o s e t h e i s s u e manner t h a t G r i f f i t h h a s s u g g e s t e d . fair Rather, i nthe " [ i ] t was w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e of t h e t r i a l court t o consider t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f the witnesses, testimony trial, and from and t o a s s i g n evidence Miller t o draw as reasonable t h e documentary such weight i t reasonably v. A s s o c i a t e d Gulf may Land 6 inferences evidence to various have Corp., deemed from their introduced aspects at of the appropriate." 941 So. 2d 982, 990 2110115 (Ala. C i v . App. 2005) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . properly have i n f e r r e d , a s Ames The t r i a l c o u r t suggests i n her appellate b r i e f , that the "equal" d i v i s i o n of the property G r i f f i t h i nh i s testimony, of the property's proceeding facing Griffith basis, determined evidence, and n o r t h w e s t boundary f a c i n g Lake M a r t i n and t h e main body o f t h e l a k e division from suggested by s t a r t i n g from a p o i n t i n t h e m i d d l e b a c k t o M c C a i n Road, w o u l d slough. could suggested no and t h e t r i a l the testimony r e s u l t i n one p a r c e l a n d one p a r c e l facing the other equitable- court o f Ames proposed could properly have and t h e documentary a s i t i m p l i c i t l y d i d , t h a t t h e shape o f t h e p r o p e r t y i t s g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n w o u l d n o t a l l o w f o r an e q u i t a b l e p a r t i t i o n on t h e b a s i s p r o p o s e d b y G r i f f i t h . conclude that that portion of the t r i a l Thus, we c a n n o t court's judgment ordering a j u d i c i a l sale of the land a t issue i s not supported by the evidence. Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, r e v e r s e t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment that the mobile fixture; we home remand on t h e p a r t i e s ' t h e cause f o r that real we determining property determination i s a t o be e x c i s e d f r o m t h e r e m a i n d e r o f i t s j u d g m e n t , w h i c h we a f f i r m . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED INSTRUCTIONS. 7 I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH 2110115 Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 8 Thomas, and 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.