Nathaniel Bradley v. Matthew Bauldree

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/20/2012 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 2110344 N a t h a n i e l Bradley v. Matthew Bauldree Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t (CV-08-155) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . N a t h a n i e l Bradley appeals from a judgment o f t h e Escambia C i r c u i t C o u r t i n f a v o r o f Matthew Facts Bauldree. 2110344 At entered Bauldree ("the some t i m e into an 2005 agreement or e a r l y i n which and h i s w i f e , C h r i s t i e 2006, Bradley Bauldree, tendered the property. executed $3,000 two a c r e s o f t h e $3,000, receipt that parties to sell of land On M a r c h 5, t o B r a d l e y as a down Upon r e c e i p t a handwritten the agreed p r o p e r t y " ) i n Escambia County f o r $15,000. 2006, B a u l d r e e for i n late payment the p a r t i e s read: "3/5/06 Received from Matt Bauldree 3,000. c a s h down payment on 2 a c r e s o f land. Nathaniel Bradley s/ N a t h a n i e l B r a d l e y s/ M a t t h e w Bauldree Matthew Balance The p a r t i e s Bauldree due 12,000." d i d not execute any o t h e r w r i t i n g t h e a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e s a l e and p u r c h a s e memorializing of the property. Testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p a r t i e s o r i g i n a l l y i n t o an o r a l a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e s a l e and p u r c h a s e property. 1 2 1 entered of the 2110344 Although Bauldrees that i t i s n o t c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d e x a c t l y when t h e took they possession began of the p r o p e r t y , clearing the improvements t o the p r o p e r t y . Bauldrees property i t is and undisputed making I n June 2006 and J u l y 2006, t h e p a i d f o r the i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a sewage s y s t e m , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a p e r c o l a t i o n t e s t , i n s t a l l a t i o n of f i e l d obtaining a permit addition, the electricity, property camper, and Bauldree lines, and from the Department of P u b l i c H e a l t h . In Bauldrees repaired taxes. later averred At Bauldrees installed the a in his completed. rendered, utility the and Bauldrees home, complaint onto that he pole for the 2006 paid moved f i r s t the and his family f r o m O c t o b e r 2006 t o June 2007. the remaining $12,000 due P e r bank p o l i c y , the bank r e q u e s t e d On a property. a p p l i e d f o r a l o a n w i t h Bank T r u s t search f o r the p r o p e r t y . search a well, manufactured bank") i n order to procure f o r the p r o p e r t y . water some p o i n t r e s i d e d on t h e p r o p e r t y The other The B a u l d r e e s April 18, 2007, Bradley a title p a i d t o have t h e title a title opinion stating in pertinent part: "3. P a r c e l Two [ t h e p r o p e r t y ] may be s u b j e c t t o j u d g m e n t d a t e d J u l y 3, 1996, i n f a v o r o f P r o g r e s s i v e I n s u r a n c e Company as S u b r o g e e o f and a g a i n s t T h e r e s a M i c h e l l e D a v i s , w h i c h j u d g m e n t was f i l e d f o r r e c o r d 3 ("the was 2110344 A u g u s t 3, 1998, i n OR Book 175 a t p a g e s 301-302 o f the P r o b a t e O f f i c e o f Escambia County, Alabama T h a t T h e r e s a S_. D a v i s h a d an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l A u g u s t 10, 2 0 0 1 . " (Emphasis added.) Because o f t h e p o t e n t i a l encumbrance, t h e bank d i d n o t approve t h e l o a n . At trial, Bradley refused. Bradley, the Bauldrees testified that they had asked t o remove t h e p o t e n t i a l encumbrance b u t t h a t he h a d The B a u l d r e e s v a c a t e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n June 2007. a p p e a r i n g p r o s e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t f e e l 2 that i t was h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o c l e a r t h e p o t e n t i a l encumbrance b e c a u s e , he f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d , encumbrance associated with he knew t h a t t h e r e the property. was n o t an Bradley p r o d u c e d a t t r i a l an a f f i d a v i t b y T e r e s s a Amanda S p e n c e Bradley's Davis, p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t , w h i c h was r e c o r d e d w i t h t h e Escambia County probate o f f i c e , Theresa also Michelle Davis who s t a t i n g t h a t she was n o t t h e was referenced i n the title opinion. Christie Bauldree testified that she s p o k e to a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f r o m P r o g r e s s i v e I n s u r a n c e Company, t h e h o l d e r o f t h e j u d g m e n t . She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n led h e r t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was soon t o be i n f o r e c l o s u r e a n d t h a t t h e y w o u l d l o s e t h e i r m a n u f a c t u r e d home as w e l l as t h e p r o p e r t y . However, t h e p r o p e r t y was n e v e r i n danger o f f o r e c l o s u r e . The B a u l d r e e s have s i n c e p u r c h a s e d another house. 2 4 2110344 Procedural History On trial A u g u s t 25, court 2008, B a u l d r e e alleging misrepresentation damages. breach and Bradley of requesting did not filed a complaint contract and compensatory answer the with the fraudulent and punitive complaint, and c i r c u i t c l e r k e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t a g a i n s t him on A p r i l 28, the 2009. N a t h a n i e l f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t on June 2009, which Bradley the filed allegations an set trial court answer forth on in granted July the on 23, complaint July 2009, and c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r e i t h e r the remaining balance price in the amount of $12, 000 or, 21, 3, 2009. denying 3 the asserting a of the purchase alternatively, to be r e l e a s e d f r o m t h e a g r e e m e n t and t o be a w a r d e d t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s A l t h o u g h the c i r c u i t c l e r k e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t a g a i n s t B r a d l e y on A p r i l 28, 2009, a d e f a u l t judgment was never entered. T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was f r e e t o g r a n t r e l i e f e v e n t h o u g h t h e m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t was made more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f d e f a u l t . See M c C o n i c o v. C o r r e c t i o n a l Med. S e r v s . , I n c . , 41 So. 3d 8, 12 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ("In f a c t , b e c a u s e an e n t r y o f d e f a u l t i s no more t h a n an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r , i t i s n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , and r e l i e f f r o m s u c h an o r d e r i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r R u l e 55(c) r e g a r d l e s s o f when t h e r e q u e s t i s made. Ex p a r t e F a m i l y D o l l a r S t o r e s o f A l a b a m a , 906 So. 2d [892,] 897 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 00 9)])." 3 5 2110344 to t h e p r o p e r t y as r e n t f o r t h e t i m e t h e B a u l d r e e s h a d u s e and occupancy of the p r o p e r t y . , 4 A bench t r i a l trial the court heard trial 5 was h e l d on A p r i l ore tenus court entered breached the c o n t r a c t . evidence. 19, 2010, a t w h i c h t h e On S e p t e m b e r 3, 2010, a judgment f i n d i n g The t r i a l t h a t B r a d l e y had c o u r t awarded B a u l d r e e t h e f o l l o w i n g m o n e t a r y damages: Down Payment S e p t i c System U t i l i t y Pole 2006 T a x e s Engineering T i t l e Search R e p a i r Water W e l l Total The t r i a l $3,000.00 1,749.20 300.00 65.56 290.00 400.00 400.00 $6,204.76 c o u r t a l s o awarded B a u l d r e e f e e s , p l u s c o u r t c o s t s o f $621. awarded B a u l d r e e lien $5,000 i n a t t o r n e y In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l court p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d an e q u i t a b l e i n t h e amount o f $11,825.76 on t h e p r o p e r t y p e n d i n g the B r a d l e y had the a s s i s t a n c e o f l e g a l c o u n s e l f o r the m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e d e f a u l t and f o r t h e answer and counterclaim. His counsel then withdrew. Bradley proceeded p r o se a t t r i a l . 4 B a u l d r e e f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t i n g t h e same c l a i m s a n d r e q u e s t s f o r damages. The new c o m p l a i n t o m i t t e d t h e e r r o n e o u s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was a l l o w e d t o go into foreclosure. 5 6 2110344 transfer of ownership. B r a d l e y the r i g h t The trial c o u r t d i d , however, g r a n t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y by p a y i n g B a u l d r e e $11,825.76 w i t h i n 42 days o f e n t r y o f t h e judgment. payment, B r a d l e y w o u l d and ownership favor of t h e n have e x c l u s i v e u s e , p o s s e s s i o n , the p r o p e r t y . of Bauldree Upon s u c h f o r the By entering damages he a judgment i n requested, the trial c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y d e n i e d B r a d l e y r e l i e f under h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m . See H o u s i n g A u t h . o f C h i c k a s a w v. CBE, 1221 ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . , 656 So. 2d 1 9 9 5 ) ( c i t i n g H i n g l e v. Gann, 368 1219, So. 2d 22 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ) ( " [ W ] h e r e a j u d g m e n t i s r e n d e r e d f o r one party for t h e t o t a l amount c l a i m e d and t h e j u d g m e n t i s s i l e n t as t o the c o u n t e r c l a i m o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y , t h e n t h e j u d g m e n t w i l l be deemed f i n a l . " ) . Bradley exhibits and filed a motion an a f f i d a v i t for a new on S e p t e m b e r 28, c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on December 28, trial trial as t o t h e amount o f damages. 6 supported 2010. 2010, The trial granting a On O c t o b e r 6, 2011, by new the A t r i a l c o u r t i s r e q u i r e d t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f a p e n d i n g p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w i t h i n 90 d a y s . R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. However, t h e 9 0 t h day i n t h e c a s e f e l l on December 27, 2010, w h i c h was a Sunday. T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e p e r i o d r a n u n t i l t h e n e x t day, December 28, 2010. See W i l l i a m s o n v. F o u r t h Ave. S u p e r m a r k e t , I n c . , 12 So. 3d 1200, 1203-04 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . 6 7 2110344 trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g B a u l d r e e t h e same c a t e g o r i e s o f m o n e t a r y damages t o t a l i n g in $6,204.76, $621 c o u r t c o s t s , a n d a l i e n i n t h e amount o f $6,825.76 a g a i n s t the p r o p e r t y . The amended j u d g m e n t d i d n o t a w a r d attorney fees or possession o f theproperty. Bauldree Bradley appealed t o o u r supreme c o u r t on November 14, 2 0 1 1 . The supreme c o u r t then t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 12-27(6), A l a . Code 1975. Standard o f Review "'"When o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d , a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the evidence. J & M B a i l B o n d i n g Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; G a s t o n v. Ames, 514 So. 2d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . When t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a n o n j u r y case e n t e r s a judgment w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c findings of fact, the appellate c o u r t ' w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l judge made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t the judgment.' T r a n s a m e r i c a Commercial F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, 608 So. 2d 375, 378 (Ala. 1992). Moreover, '[u]nder the ore tenus r u l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and a l l i m p l i c i t findings necessary t o support i t carry a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . ' T r a n s a m e r i c a , 608 So. 2d a t 378. However, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e s t h e law t o [the] f a c t s , no p r e s u m p t i o n o f 8 2110344 c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; M a r v i n ' s , I n c . v. R o b e r t s o n , 608 So. 2d 391 ( A l a . 1992); G a s t o n , 514 So. 2d a t 878; S m i t h v. S t y l e A d v e r t i s i n g , I n c . , 470 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. 1 9 8 5 ) ; L e a g u e v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695 (Ala. 1978).'Questions of law are not subject to the ore tenus standard of review.' Reed v. B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s for A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, 793 n. 2 (Ala. 2000). A t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on l e g a l i s s u e s c a r r y no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e C a s h , 624 So. 2d 576, 577 ( A l a . 1993) . T h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o f a c t s de novo. A l l s t a t e , 675 So. 2d a t 379 ('[W]here the facts before the trial court are e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i s p u t e d and t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s of law f o r the c o u r t t o consider, the [trial] court's judgment c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' ) . " ' " [ F a r m e r s I n s u r a n c e Co. v. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s A s s o c s . , I n c . , ] 873 So. 2d [252,] 254-55 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. P o s t , 831 So. 2d 622, 627-28 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002))." Kellis App. v. Estate of Schnatz, 983 So. 2d 408, 412 (Ala. Civ. 2007). Discussion Bradley presents f o u r i s s u e s on a p p e a l . Two of the issues c o n c e r n w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g e d l i e n a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y was even those could have been considered issues to resolve t h i s valid; appeal. 9 we need Thus, we not will or decide address 2110344 only Bradley's arguments that the parties' agreement denying Bradley We valid first by on and t h a t court the t r i a l court whether Testimony t h e p a r t i e s were in v i o l a t i o n of the Statute of Frauds. s u c h as t h e one h e r e , Statute o f Frauds at by a trial agreement, "Oral promises f o r the s a l e o f 'lands, tenements o r hereditaments, the bound from a l l t h e w i t n e s s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n b e g a n w i t h an o r a l therein,' erred i n r e l i e f under h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m . address contract. erred and a f i n a n c i n g c o n t i n g e n c y imposing a warranty of t i t l e the t r i a l o r o f any i n t e r e s t are i n h e r e n t l y suspect, p r o h i b i t s the enforcement and o f such a p r o m i s e even though b o t h p a r t i e s acknowledge t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e o r a l a g r e e m e n t . " R e n t z v. G r a n t , 2006)(quoting 934 So. 2d 368, 373 ( A l a . D a r b y v. J o h n s o n , 477 So. 2d 322, 326-27 (Ala. 1985)). S e c t i o n 8 - 9 - 2 ( 5 ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , provides, i n pertinent part: " I n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases, e v e r y agreement i s v o i d u n l e s s s u c h a g r e e m e n t o r some n o t e o r memorandum thereof expressing the consideration i s i n w r i t i n g and s u b s c r i b e d b y t h e p a r t y t o be c h a r g e d t h e r e w i t h o r some o t h e r p e r s o n b y h i m t h e r e u n t o lawfully authorized i n writing: 10 2110344 "(5) E v e r y c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e o f l a n d s , tenements o r h e r e d i t a m e n t s , or of any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , e x c e p t l e a s e s f o r a t e r m n o t l o n g e r t h a n one y e a r , u n l e s s t h e p u r c h a s e money, o r a p o r t i o n t h e r e o f i s p a i d and t h e p u r c h a s e r i s p u t i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e l a n d by t h e s e l l e r . " The the o r a l a g r e e m e n t was m e m o r i a l i z e d receipt included receipt contained purchase p r i c e . property as i n the record the signatures Although "two a c r e s , " on M a r c h 5, 2006, b y and quoted of both parties the r e c e i p t merely this lack above. The and t h e described the of s p e c i f i c i t y i s not f a t a l . See N i x v. W i c k , 66 So. 3d 209, 213 ( A l a . 2010) ( q u o t i n g Goodwyn v. Jones, (1971))("'that 288 A l a . 71, 75, 257 a contract So. f o r sale of land, 2d 320, 323 to s a t i s f y the s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s , must d e s c r i b e t h e l a n d w i t h s u c h c e r t a i n t y t h a t i t c a n be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h o u t resort to oral contra (stating Rentz, 934 So. 2d a t 373 performance" exception that payment Because and took performance Bauldree possession exception to tendered o f t h e l a n d by t h e $3,000 of the property, the 11 s a v e an has p a i d a l l o r p a r t o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e and has been p u t i n p o s s e s s i o n seller). the " p a r t i a l t o the S t a t u t e of Frauds w i l l o r a l a g r e e m e n t when t h e p u r c h a s e r the evidence'"), Statute of down the p a r t i a l - Frauds applies. 2110344 Therefore, parties we h o l d t h a t a v a l i d c o n t r a c t e x i s t e d between f o r the s a l e and purchase of the I n h i s amended c o m p l a i n t , had breached the f r o m e n c u m b r a n c e s and, property was free impediments. The the c o n t r a c t . We contract of (i.e., title. indicating failing and clear free the property of a l l encumbrances c o u r t f o u n d t h a t B r a d l e y had disagree. r e c e i p t ) make no the that Bradley would other reference reference contract assist i s devoid Bauldree to a financing the and breached F i r s t , the terms c o n t a i n e d Furthermore, f i n a n c i n g , o r any to Bradley a l s o , by r e p r e s e n t i n g t h a t t i t l e t o trial the property. Bauldree asserted that a g r e e m e n t by the i n the to a warranty of in language obtaining contingency. " I n a s u i t upon a c o n t r a c t f o r damages f o r i t s b r e a c h , t h e r e can be no r e c o v e r y e x c e p t i n p u r s u a n c e o f i t s t e r m s . Thomas v. Smoot, 2 A l a . App. 407, 56 So. 1 [ ( 1 9 1 1 ) ] . Where none o f t h e t e r m s o f the c o n t r a c t s u e d upon a r e g i v e n , m a n i f e s t l y no r e c o v e r y c o u l d be had." Spann v. Radford, 22 Ala. App. 402, 403, 116 So. 311, 312 that the (1928). We next note t h a t i t i s c l e a r from the j u d g m e n t r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e t i t l e o p i n i o n was the property. Bradley's Due to the similarity p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t and 12 record never attached between the the individual names to of against 2110344 whom t h e j u d g m e n t was r e n d e r e d , the possibility judgment. other was that the t i t l e the property might responsible for a potential never a f f i l i a t e d w i t h the p r o p e r t y . t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l contract. t h a t he was s t i l l part trial Specifically, to a encumbrance that Bradley t o complete the he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d c o n v e y t h e i n r e t u r n f o r t h e a g r e e d upon $12,000 b a l a n c e . of the contract. 7 Therefore, In and a b l e t o p e r f o r m we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t B r a d l e y was i n b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t i s due t o be reversed. B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d the subject Furthermore, willing o t h e r w o r d s , B r a d l e y was r e a d y , w i l l i n g , his be suggested However, i t i s u n r e a s o n a b l e t o h o l d B r a d l e y , o r any grantor, property opinion that Bradley d i d not breach c o n t r a c t , we must now c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l i m p l i c i t denial of Bradley's note that Bradley court's c o u n t e r c l a i m was a l s o e r r o r . requested specific performance We of the We a l s o n o t e t h a t B a u l d r e e h a s y e t t o p a y t h e r e m a i n i n g $12,000. B r a d l e y , on t h e o t h e r hand, p r o c e e d e d t o c o n c e d e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y t o B a u l d r e e , a l l o w i n g Bauldree and h i s f a m i l y t o c l e a r t h e p r o p e r t y , move a m a n u f a c t u r e d home o n t o t h e p r o p e r t y , a n d r e s i d e on t h e p r o p e r t y f o r s e v e r a l months. I t i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e B a u l d r e e s v a c a t e d t h e p r o p e r t y on t h e i r own v o l i t i o n , n o t a t t h e r e q u e s t o f B r a d l e y . 7 13 2110344 contract him or, i n the the improvements t o the p r o p e r t y Bauldrees argues had use generally t h a t i t was the a l t e r n a t i v e , that and that Thus, B r a d l e y his B a u l d r e e t o pay agree breached Because the trial on the the contract reverse denying Bradley award counterclaim under the at to Bradley not under the e r r e d by paying contract. not entering and ordering contract. trial indicates purchase supports court's the demonstrated c o n t r a c t by evidence the t r i a l court property. evidence court evidence undisputed c o n c l u s i o n , we his $12,000 due that Bauldree the breached the favor the of undisputed the trial as r e n t f o r t h e t i m e p u r c h a s e p r i c e due argues, in We the B a u l d r e e who remainder of the judgment occupancy the the r e l i e f on h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m . property. that judgment that legal implicitly However, b e c a u s e " [ t ] h e d e c i s i o n to grant s p e c i f i c performance r e s t s l a r g e l y i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the be granted depends particular Materials, cannot remand, trial upon an circumstances I n c . v. Lee, order the a 438 particular trial court j u d g e " and equitable "whether r e l i e f consideration of each case," So. 2d 1387, 1390 r e s u l t on may 14 remand. consider shall of the Stringfellow ( A l a . 1983), Instead, whether we on specific 2110344 performance i s the appropriate circumstances of this remedy under t h e f a c t s and case. Conclusion We reverse the t r i a l court's Bradley breached the contract. trial court specific to reconsider judgment h o l d i n g We remand t h i s Bradley's that cause f o r t h e counterclaim seeking performance. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH Thompson, INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 15 Bryan, 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.