D.M.C. Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Lucille Hope

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/13/2012 Notice: This 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 2110452 D.M.C. E n t e r p r i s e s , Inc., e t a l . v. L u c i l l e Hope Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-11-1275) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . On J a n u a r y 3, 2012, L u c i l l e Hope s u e d D.M.C. E n t e r p r i s e s , Inc., doing business a s Dean M c C r a r y Mazda, V i c t o r i a (hereinafter McCrary Enterprises, referred to collectively Imports a n d a s Dean L L C , a n d J a r r e t t Shaw as "D.M.C."), s t a t i n g 2110452 claims of suppression, 2008 fraudulent and d e c e i t Mercedes misrepresentation, arising automobile from Hope's i n order trading 2008 VW a u t o m o b i l e According t o t h e statement complaint, 2011, t o purchase i n her t o purchase V o l k s w a g e n ("VW") a u t o m o b i l e a n d h e r s u b s e q u e n t the fraudulent i n Hope's Hope went t o D.M.C.'s d e a l e r s h i p 2008 trading i n of a 2012 VW of facts a automobile. unverified on November 30, i n r e s p o n s e t o an a d v e r t i s e m e n t o f f e r i n g a f r e e g i f t i n exchange f o r a t e s t d r i v e . Hope a l l e g e d t h a t D.M.C. h a d " t h e n p r e s s u r e d [ h e r ] i n t o p u r c h a s i n g a 2008 V o l k s w a g e n e v e n she was d r i v i n g a 2008 M e r c e d e s . " Hope's c o m p l a i n t though alleged t h a t , on t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , s h e h a d a t t e m p t e d t o r e s c i n d t h e purchase c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 2008 VW a u t o m o b i l e , i n p a r t b e c a u s e she h a d l e a r n e d t h a t t h e 2008 VW a u t o m o b i l e h a d b e e n However, Hope a l l e g e d that h e r 2008 pressured further alleged i n h e r c o m p l a i n t , D.M.C. h a d t o l d h e r Mercedes her into wrecked. had already purchasing been sold and then a 2012 VW a u t o m o b i l e . Hope t h a t D.M.C. h a d m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e 2008 VW a u t o m o b i l e on b o t h o c c a s i o n s . A c c o r d i n g t o Hope's c o m p l a i n t , she d i d n o t t a k e d e l i v e r y o f t h e 2012 VW a u t o m o b i l e 2 2110452 and rescinded December 5, Hope the purchase contract f o r that vehicle 2011. filed a motion she t i t l e d "Instanter Motion f o r Return of V e h i c l e " simultaneously with her complaint. motion court dispose on requested that the t r i a l order Hope's D.M.C. " n o t t o o f [ h e r ] 2008 M e r c e d e s a n d t o f u r t h e r return said v e h i c l e t o [Hope] pending the r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s s u i t . " Hope then s t a t e d that s u c h r e l i e f w o u l d n o t harm D.M.C. " d u e t o " the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s , as s e t out i n h e r m o t i o n : " 1 . [D.M.C. Mercedes. i s ]still i n possession o f t h e 2008 " 2 . [ D . M . C . ' s ] a l l e g e d ' s a l e ' o f s a i d v e h i c l e were [ s i c ] done f r a u d u l e n t l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e c e i v i n g [Hope]. " 3 . [ H o p e ] n o t i f i e d [D.M.C.] on December 5 t h o f t h e r e c i s i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t a n d made a demand f o r t h e r e t u r n o f t h e 2008 M e r c e d e s . "4. As o f December 9 t h [Hope] saw s a i d 2008 M e r c e d e s a d v e r t i s e d i n [D.M.C.'s] s e c t i o n f o r u s e d c a r s a n d s a i d 2008 M e r c e d e s was i n [D.M.C.'s] i n v e n t o r y a s o f December 9, 2011 p e r t h e a t t a c h e d l i s t i n g w h i c h was a v a i l a b l e f r o m [D.M.C.'s] w e b s i t e . " 5 . [Hope] h a s b e e n d e n i e d c r e d i t i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e a l l e g e [ d ] p u r c h a s e o f t h e 2008 V o l k s w a g e n s o s a i d p u r c h a s e c o u l d n o t be a c c o m p l i s h e d . " 6 . [D.M.C. h a s ] n o t p a i d o f f t h e l i e n a g a i n s t t h e 2008 M e r c e d e s t o A z a l e a C i t y F e d e r a l C r e d i t U n i o n and s o [ i t h a s ] n o t s u f f e r e d a n y damages r e f e r e n c e 3 2110452 [sic] t o t h e t r a n s f e r o f s a i d v e h i c l e s i n c e [Hope] was unable t o obtain f i n a n c i n g f o r t h e 2008 V o l k s w a g e n , s h e h a d t h e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e 2008 V o l k s w a g e n ... v o i d e d , a n d [D.M.C. h a s ] n o t s u f f e r e d any damage b e c a u s e [ i t h a s ] n o t made a n y p a y m e n t s f o r t h e p a y o f f o f t h e 2008 M e r c e d e s t o A z a l e a C i t y Federal Credit Union." On J a n u a r y 26, 2012, D.M.C. moved t o s t a y t h e and t o compel arbitration under proceedings t h e two p u r c h a s e contracts e x e c u t e d b y Hope i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h h e r p u r c h a s e o f t h e 2008 and t h e 2012 VW a u t o m o b i l e s . complaint twice Hope subsequently amended h e r t o a d d two a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s : one a l l e g i n g e x p l o i t a t i o n o f a p r o t e c t e d p e r s o n u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 3 8 ¬ 9-1 e t s e q . , t h e A d u l t P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s A c t o f 1976, a n d one s e e k i n g detinue 2008 M e r c e d e s based on t h e a l l e g e d c o n v e r s i o n a u t o m o b i l e b y D.M.C. motions and responses regarding The t r i a l court The p a r t i e s a l s o discovery held a hearing o f the disputes. on J a n u a r y 27, 2012, a t which i t considered o n l y Hope's m o t i o n s e e k i n g the 2008 M e r c e d e s . The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e t r i a l did n o t take oral testimony arguments o f c o u n s e l . granted filed a t that hearing the return o f and heard On F e b r u a r y 2, 2012, t h e t r i a l court only court Hope's m o t i o n i n a o n e - l i n e o r d e r s t a t i n g no g r o u n d s . On F e b r u a r y 7, 2012, Hope responded t o t h e m o t i o n t o compel 4 2110452 a r b i t r a t i o n , a t t a c h i n g t o h e r r e s p o n s e h e r own a f f i d a v i t , i n which she s e t o u t t h e f a c t s F e b r u a r y 9, 2012, 2, 2012, o r d e r transferred 1975, underlying her action. D.M.C. a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l t o t h e Alabama the appeal t o t h i s Supreme On court's February Court, which then c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code § 12-2-7(6). We n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h i s enforcement o f the February 2, court entered a stay o f 2012, o r d e r . We also d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2012, o r d e r does n o t , as u r g e d by D.M.C., e f f e c t i v e l y deny t h e m o t i o n t o c o m p e l The trial c o u r t has informed t h i s to the motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n arbitration. c o u r t t h a t Hope's d e f e n s e s include issues t r i a b l e t o a j u r y ; t h u s , the motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n remains pending b e l o w a w a i t i n g t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f Hope's d e f e n s e s and t h e c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e r u l i n g on t h a t m o t i o n . issue before this 2012, determine relief. we under can c o n s i d e r what rule o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2, s e e k i n g the r e t u r n o f the Mercedes p e n d i n g the r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s Before T h e r e f o r e , the o n l y c o u r t i s the p r o p r i e t y o r d e r on Hope's m o t i o n trial D.M.C.'s or statute 2008 litigation. arguments, we Hope's m o t i o n must sought Hope's m o t i o n does n o t i n d i c a t e e x a c t l y what i t i s ; 5 2110452 the R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e do n o t c o n t a i n r e f e r e n c e t o any "Instanter that M o t i o n " d e s i g n e d t o seek i s the subject of the litigation. return However, of property because the n o m e n c l a t u r e o f a m o t i o n i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g , Sundance M a r i n a , Inc. v. R e a c h , 567 So. 2d 1322, 1325 one p l a c e s on a m o t i o n i s of l i t t l e ( A l a . 1990), " [ t ] h e importance." Rebel O i l Co. v. P i k e , 473 So. 2d 529, 531 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1985) . an the of appellate rather than p a r t y has 590 court i t s style, filed." So. 2d 191, In substance i n d e t e r m i n i n g the k i n d Cannon v. S t a t e Farm Mut. 193 a Thus, motion, of motion Auto. Ins. a Co., ( A l a . 1991). some s i t u a t i o n s , d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n i s easy, because or "considers label t h e body o f t h e m o t i o n m i g h t r e f e r t o a r u l e i n c l u d e a phrase that a s s i s t s t h i s court i n d e c i p h e r i n g the motion. At other times, the p a r t i e s determining the substance of the motion. assist this court in In the p r e s e n t case, D.M.C. a r g u e s t h a t Hope's m o t i o n c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d e i t h e r a m o t i o n s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 65, A l a . R. C i v . P., or pursuant a motion to Rule seeking 64, prejudgment A l a . R. Civ. P. seizure We of agree property that the " I n s t a n t e r M o t i o n " m i g h t be c o n s i d e r e d t o have b e e n made u n d e r 6 2110452 e i t h e r o f those Rules o f C i v i l Procedure, further, infra. a s w i l l be e x p l a i n e d 1 D.M.C. a r g u e s first that the t r i a l court was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r an i n j u n c t i o n b e f o r e d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r it was e n t i t l e d Although D.M.C. i s c o r r e c t t h a t t h e f e d e r a l c i r c u i t s a r e s p l i t on t h i s particular issue, Bradley, t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . cf. M e r r i l l Lynch, 756 F . 2 d 1048, P i e r c e , Fenner 1053-54 & Smith, ( 4 t h C i r . 1985) Inc. v. (concluding We r e j e c t Hope's a t t e m p t s t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e g r a n t i n g of h e r motion as e i t h e r a d i s c o v e r y s a n c t i o n f o r f a i l i n g t o a n s w e r a q u e s t i o n p o s e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 7 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., o r as a c o n t e m p t o r d e r i m p o s e d on D.M.C. b e c a u s e o f i t s c o u n s e l ' s b e h a v i o r i n c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-1-8. We do n o t have a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e m o t i o n h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t i t i s i n t e n d e d t o be a d i s c o v e r y s a n c t i o n o r a c o n t e m p t o r d e r . We a l s o q u e s t i o n t h e a b i l i t y o f a t r i a l c o u r t t o s e i z e p r o p e r t y as a c o n t e m p t s a n c t i o n . The p e n a l t y f o r c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t i s s e t o u t i n A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 ( 5 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t may s e n t e n c e a c r i m i n a l c o n t e m n o r t o i m p r i s o n m e n t o f n o t more t h a n f i v e d a y s a n d impose a f i n e o f n o t more t h a n $ 1 0 0 ) , a n d c i v i l c o n t e m p t , b e c a u s e i t i s designed t o be c o e r c i v e as o p p o s e d t o p e n a l , involves commitment p e n d i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a c o u r t o r d e r . Rule 7 0 A ( e ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. N o t a b l y b o t h f o r m s o f c o n t e m p t must p l a c e t h e c o n t e m n o r " i n a p o s i t i o n t o p u r g e h i m s e l f f r o m the contempt," e i t h e r by compliance w i t h a c o u r t ' s order o r by p a y i n g a f i n e o r s e r v i n g the sentence imposed. H i l l v. H i l l , 637 So. 2d 1368, 1370 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . We can p e r c e i v e no r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g Hope's m o t i o n f o r r e t u r n o f t h e 2008 M e r c e d e s a n d t h e p o w e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o impose s a n c t i o n s f o r c o n t e m p t . 1 7 2110452 t h a t a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t may arbitration), e n t e r an i n j u n c t i o n p e n d i n g and M e r r i l l L y n c h , P i e r c e , F e n n e r & S m i t h , I n c . v. Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286, 1292 ( 8 t h C i r . 1984) a federal district not enter arbitration), we c o u r t may need not consider (concluding that an i n j u n c t i o n p e n d i n g the r a t i o n a l e s of numerous f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s a d d r e s s i n g t h i s i s s u e . court has issued which both two opinions indicate that an considering Alabama the trial pending a r b i t r a t i o n . 49 So. 3d 186, 190 12 So. 3d 1173, does have the s t a t u s quo Adkins, ( A l a . 2008). that, regardless of whether Hope's a m o t i o n s e e k i n g a R u l e 65, A l a . R. C i v . i n j u n c t i o n o r a m o t i o n s e e k i n g a R u l e 64, A l a . R. C i v . P., prejudgment s e i z u r e , the motion. agree what issue, S p i n k s v. A u t o m a t i o n P e r s . S e r v s . , I n c . , argues motion i s considered P., same ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ; H o l i d a y I s l e , I n c . v. 1177 D.M.C. n e x t Our supreme court j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r an i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e s e r v e the We this court trial court that, for different considers Hope's erred the reasons, depending motion c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g o f t h a t m o t i o n was i n granting to be, improper. the on trial See Norman v. Occupational S a f e t y A s s ' n o f A l a b a m a Workmen's Comp. Fund, 811 So. 499-502 2d 492, ( A l a . 2001) 8 (reviewing a trial court's 2110452 o r d e r e n j o i n i n g d i s b u r s e m e n t o f c e r t a i n p r o c e e d s and ordering t h o s e p r o c e e d s t o be p a i d i n t o t h e c o u r t p e n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f the l i t i g a t i o n as b o t h an o r d e r g r a n t i n g a R u l e 65 i n j u n c t i o n and a R u l e 64 p r e j u d g m e n t s e i z u r e ) . we reverse the trial court's order Thus, as e x p l a i n e d b e l o w , g r a n t i n g Hope's m o t i o n . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e I n s t a n t e r M o t i o n as S e e k i n g I n j u n c t i v e R e l i e f P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 65 We begin properly our granted requiring D.M.C. appropriate discussion Hope's to standard of motion return the of review whether by the granting 2008 trial an injunction Mercedes i n mind. "'"'[T]he grant of, or r e f u s a l to grant, a preliminary injunction rests l a r g e l y i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the trial c o u r t and t h a t c o u r t ' s l a t i t u d e i n t h i s a r e a i s c o n s i d e r a b l e ; i f no abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s shown, i t s a c t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l . ' " A p p a l a c h i a n T r a n s p . G r o u p , I n c . v. P a r k s , 738 So. 2d 878, 882 (Ala. 1999) (quoting Teleprompter of M o b i l e , I n c . v. Bayou C a b l e TV, 428 So. 2d 17, 19 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . T h i s C o u r t has d e f i n e d an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n as d i s c r e t i o n t h a t " ' e x c e e d [ s ] t h e bounds o f r e a s o n , a l l t h e circumstances before the lower c o u r t b e i n g considered.'" Appalachian Transp. Group, 738 So. 2d a t 882. " ' D i s c r e t i o n e x e r c i s e d by the t r i a l court with respect to a preliminary injunction is a legal or j u d i c i a l one w h i c h i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w f o r abuse o r i m p r o p e r e x e r c i s e , as where t h e r e has b e e n a v i o l a t i o n o f some e s t a b l i s h e d 9 court with the 2110452 r u l e of law or p r i n c i p l e of e q u i t y , or a c l e a r misapprehension of c o n t r o l l i n g law,'" and where i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n , the a p p e l l a t e court will reverse the order or the j u d g m e n t . 738 So. 2d a t 882-83 (quoting Teleprompter of Mobile, 428 So. 2d a t 19)(emphasis omitted).'" Spinks, 432, 49 So. 3d a t 188 434 We ( q u o t i n g B u t l e r v. Roome, 907 So. 2d ( A l a . 2005)). are not e n t i r e l y order granting relief. As insufficient Hope's convinced motion D.M.C. p o i n t s that the t r i a l actually grants out, the t r i a l t o q u a l i f y as an o r d e r injunctive court's granting court's order an i n j u n c t i o n . Rule 65(d)(2) s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t "[e]very granting an i n j u n c t i o n s h a l l issuance; shall be reasonable detail, set forth specific i n terms; and n o t by r e f e r e n c e the reasons shall order for i t s describe in to the complaint or o t h e r document, t h e a c t o r a c t s s o u g h t t o be r e s t r a i n e d The t r i a l does court's not contain possible that, intended to grant one-sentence order any on granting of the required that basis alone, Hope's " motion information. the order, Sano R e s e a r c h Corp. Inc., [Ms. 1101484, May v. K r a t o s 25, 2012] 10 It is i f i t was an i n j u n c t i o n , i s due t o be r e v e r s e d . Monte is See Def. & Sec. S o l u t i o n s , So. 3d , (Ala. 2110452 2012) ( r e v e r s i n g an o r d e r because the t r i a l 65(d)(2)). granting court's However, order we f i n d court's p o s s i b l e grant an i n j u n c t i o n , i n p a r t , failed further t o comply w i t h fault with Rule the t r i a l o f an i n j u n c t i o n i n f a v o r o f Hope. D.M.C. c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n without by Rule 65(c). r e q u i r i n g Hope t o p o s t a b o n d , a s r e q u i r e d In response, whether t h e t r i a l court erred Hope argues i nfailing that t o s e t a b o n d was w a i v e d b y D.M.C. b e c a u s e i t n e i t h e r r e q u e s t e d c o u r t s e t a bond nor r a i s e d t h e i s s u e b e f o r e However, is that the the t r i a l trial court. o u r supreme c o u r t h a s r e j e c t e d t h e argument t h a t i t i n c u m b e n t on t h e e n j o i n e d c o u r t s e t a bond. i n family-law therefore authority. discretion, a bond; Rule 65(d) with matters. an i n j u n c t i o n i s sorely the t r i a l security Thus, c o u r t can e n t e r an i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t 11 Furthermore, r e q u i r i n g s e c u r i t y and t o enter permits trial r o u t i n e l y grants i n j u n c t i v e her contention t o dispense domestic-relations court power that the 49 So. 3d a t 191. matters without has p l e n a r y requiring party t o request See S p i n k s , Hope a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l relief the issue without lacking i n court, in its f o rinjunctions i n the fact that the t r i a l requiring security i n a 2110452 domestic-relations that the t r i a l matter s e c u r i t y i n any o t h e r Hope a l s o lieu on h e r able court D.M.C.'s d e c i s i o n t o a p p e a l order before the t r i a l 2008 M e r c e d e s s h o u l d on t h e t r i a l a bond under Rule h a s made the requirement of court could i tclear court's 65(c). that r e q u i r e d before the issuance 434 restraining (1975) and ("We order s e c u r i t y by the reasonable mandatory under failure hold i s issued applicant attorneys " ) , we f a i l court 65(c). could B e c a u s e o u r supreme Rule that before under [Rule] f o r the fees 65(c) Finally, a bond i s 285, as p r o v i d e d i n Rule damages 65(c) i s request t o p o s t a bond f o r a d i f f e r e n t on t h e f a i l u r e that 12 or 65, t h e g i v i n g o f payment o f c o s t s , Hope t o p a y t h e b o n d Hope a r g u e s 315 So. 2d an i n j u n c t i o n t o s e e how Hope's l a t e r have a n y b e a r i n g to require to require o f an i n j u n c t i o n , see L i g h t s e y v . have D.M.C., t h e p a r t y e n j o i n e d , purpose hold e s t o p D.M.C. f r o m K e n s i n g t o n M o r t g . & F i n . C o r p . , 294 A l a . 281, 431, from m o t i o n t o r e q u i r e D.M.C. t o p o s t a b o n d i n to rely Hope t o p o s t the proposition case. o f r e t u r n i n g the being with argues t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 2, 2012, a hearing not support may d i s p e n s e court does of the t r i a l required t h e we c o u l d under Rule affirm the 2110452 t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e s p i t e t h e l a c k o f a bond by t r e a t i n g t h e order as one g r a n t i n g a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n . Getz Exterminators (Ala. of Alabama, C i v . App. 1980) requires I n c . , 382 o f ] a bond" p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n ) . Of c o u r s e , which success the on injunction litigation. 1242 requires merits requires a of proof 2d 1135, 1138 by the party securing a as o p p o s e d t o a p r e l i m i n a r y showing the of a likelihood litigation, of success on a of permanent the merits of the TFT, I n c . v. W a r n i n g S y s . , I n c . , 751 So. 2d 1238, ( A l a . 1999), o v e r r u l e d LLC v. A d k i n s , posture So. ( s t a t i n g t h a t "no r u l e , s t a t u t e , o r c a s e [the p o s t i n g injunction, See D o b b i n s v. on o t h e r 12 So. 3d 1173 grounds, Holiday ( A l a . 2008). Isle, In l i g h t of the o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , w h i c h has n o t r e a c h e d a c o n c l u s i o n s u c h t h a t Hope c o u l d have d e m o n s t r a t e d s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , we decline February 2, Hope's 2012, invitation order as to treat one the granting trial a court's permanent injunction. R u l e 6 5 ( c ) r e q u i r e s t h a t a b o n d be p o s t e d ; i t states: "No r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r or p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h a l l i s s u e e x c e p t upon t h e g i v i n g o f s e c u r i t y b y t h e a p p l i c a n t , i n s u c h sum as t h e c o u r t deems p r o p e r , f o r t h e payment o f s u c h c o s t s , damages, and reasonable attorney f e e s as may be i n c u r r e d o r s u f f e r e d by any p a r t y who i s f o u n d t o have been 13 2110452 wrongfully enjoined or restrained; provided, h o w e v e r , no s u c h s e c u r i t y s h a l l be r e q u i r e d o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a o r o f an o f f i c e r o r a g e n c y t h e r e o f , and p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the c o u r t , no s u c h s e c u r i t y may be r e q u i r e d i n d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s cases." Although there are exceptions "'"such as r e q u i r i n g o n l y litigant i s impecunious p u b l i c concern,"'" Fowler, 423 Lightsey, So. 838, i s one o f o v e r r i d i n g 49 So. 3d a t 190 ( q u o t i n g A n d e r s v. 840 ( A l a . 1982) ( q u o t i n g mandatory u n l e s s i n turn o u r supreme t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e p o s t i n g o f a bond the t r i a l applicable exception 3d s e c u r i t y , o r where t h e 294 A l a . a t 285, 315 So. 2d a t 4 3 4 ) ) , c o u r t has l o n g taken is a nominal or the issue Spinks, 2d t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f a bond, court specifically t o t h e need f o r a bond. a t 190; L i g h t s e y , 294 A l a . a t 285, 315 a p p l i e s an Spinks, 49 So. So. 2d a t 434 ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e bond r e q u i r e d by R u l e 65(c) " i s mandatory, unless the t r i a l court makes a s p e c i f i c finding based c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t one o r more o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s , them, do e x i s t " ) . Although Hope a r g u e s t h a t t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r whether e x i g e n t circumstances exist under Anders, which does n o t e mandatory bond r e q u i r e m e n t e x i s t , stating should t o d i s p e n s e w i t h a bond that exceptions she c l e a r l y to the misunderstands Anders, f o r the Anders c o u r t , l i k e the L i g h t s e y c o u r t , 14 upon refused 2110452 to consider because on a p p e a l the t r i a l exceptions whether court existed. any such h a d n o t made Anders, exceptions a existed finding that any 423 So. 2d a t 840 ( s t a t i n g , i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e argument b y t h e a p p e l l e e s t h a t " t h i s i s n o t an appropriate injunction, case i n which to require f o r an on t h a t q u e s t i o n " "we e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n security" because t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d n o t made a f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g a n y e x c e p t i o n to the requirement of s e c u r i t y ) . Thus, we conclude, as e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g Hope's motion through a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule 65 w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g the p o s t i n g o f a bond. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e I n s t a n t e r M o t i o n as S e e k i n g P r e j u d g m e n t S e i z u r e o f P r o p e r t y P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 64 As n o t e d a b o v e , D.M.C. h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l court's o r d e r g r a n t i n g Hope's m o t i o n c o u l d a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d t o be an order Mercedes granting prejudgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 64. seizure Notably, m o t i o n , Hope amended h e r c o m p l a i n t which According she sought the t h e 2008 w e l l a f t e r Hope s o u g h t o f t h e 2008 M e r c e d e s b u t b e f o r e in of the t r i a l granted her t o add a c l a i m f o r d e t i n u e , return t o o u r supreme c o u r t , court return of "Rule the 2008 Mercedes. 64(b) s e t s forth the p r o c e d u r e f o r p r e - j u d g m e n t s e i z u r e when t h e a c t i o n i s f o r t h e 15 2110452 r e c o v e r y o r p o s s e s s i o n o f s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , as when the a c t i o n i s f o r d e t i n u e . " 466 So. 2d 932, 933 As (Ala. 1985). 2 D.M.C. c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t , Hope's m o t i o n f a i l e d t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s out J o n e s v. C e n t r a l Bank o f t h e S., the procedure s e t out i n Rule a party seeking 64(b). prejudgment The R u l e sets s e i z u r e must follow: "(b) P r o c e d u r e f o r S e i z u r e o f P r o p e r t y . Whenever any p r o v i s i o n o f l a w i s i n v o k e d t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e r e i s an a t t e m p t t o s e i z e p r o p e r t y t h r o u g h judicial process prior to the entry o f judgment, t h e p r o c e d u r e on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s u c h a p r e - j u d g m e n t a s e i z u r e s h a l l be as f o l l o w s : "(1) A f f i d a v i t . The p l a i n t i f f shall file with the court an a f f i d a v i t on personal knowledge, except where s p e c i f i c a l l y provided otherwise, containing the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : "(A) Description of Property. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the claimed property that is sufficient to identify the p r o p e r t y and i t s l o c a t i o n . I n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , Hope s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l i e s on A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-42, a p a r t o f A l a b a m a ' s a t t a c h m e n t s t a t u t e s , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-40 e t s e q . , and n o t t h e s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g d e t i n u e a c t i o n s . However, t h i s c o u r t h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t R u l e 64 i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a t t a c h m e n t s u n d e r t h a t s t a t u t e as w e l l . Ex p a r t e B o y k i n , 568 So. 2d 1243, 1244 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . 2 16 2110452 "(B) S t a t e m e n t o f T i t l e o r Right. A statement that the p l a i n t i f f i s t h e owner o f t h e claimed property or i s e n t i t l e d to p o s s e s s i o n o f i t , d e s c r i b i n g the source of such t i t l e o r r i g h t and, i f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e r e s t i n s u c h p r o p e r t y i s b a s e d on a written instrument, a copy o f s a i d i n s t r u m e n t must be a t t a c h e d to t h e a f f i d a v i t . "(C) Statement of Wrongful Detention. A statement of s p e c i f i c f a c t s w h i c h show t h a t the property is wrongfully d e t a i n e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t and a statement of t h e cause of such detention according to the best k n o w l e d g e , i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f of t h e p l a i n t i f f . "(D) Statement of R i s k of I n j u r y . A statement of s p e c i f i c facts in support of the c o n t e n t i o n , i f any, t h a t t h e r e i s r i s k of concealment, t r a n s f e r or o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n o f o r damage t o the p r o p e r t y t o the i n j u r y of the plaintiff." Rule 64(b). As noted above, a t the time Hope's m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y the t r i a l complaint. to the t r i a l court granted 2, 2012, t h e o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e c o u r t r e l a t i n g t o Hope's c l a i m s was h e r u n v e r i f i e d Hope's a f f i d a v i t d e t a i l i n g t h e e v e n t s her claims was not before the t r i a l 17 court giving until rise i t was 2110452 s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t of h e r o p p o s i t i o n t o the m o t i o n t o compel arbitration on F e b r u a r y 7, 2012. have r e l i e d upon i t ; n e i t h e r The trial we. Cf. will A i k e n , I n c . v. Spann, H a l l , R i t c h i e , (Ala. 1987) (Ala. 1985) 692 of ( q u o t i n g Osborn Johns, 468 So. recognized that '"[t]he that material i t at before that 2d 101 103, 108 378 So. 2d 691, a summary-judgment m o t i o n , well and I n c . , 512 So. 2d 99, & ( s t a t i n g , i n the c o n t e x t of a p p e l l a t e review o r d e r e n t e r e d on motion" not Sheetz, Aiken ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n Guess v. S n y d e r , ( A l a . 1979))) an v. court could any trial the material c o u r t can time filed of "[i]t is consider only submission thereafter of the "comes too late"'"). Hope a r g u e s t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t r e q u i r e m e n t i n R u l e r e l a t e s o n l y t o s i t u a t i o n s when t h e t r i a l a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n not read affidavit Rule 64 to a h e a r i n g ; i n f a c t , R u l e 64(b) follows." with i n c a s e s where t h e t r i a l application for such (Emphasis a c o u r t does n o t s e t s e e k i n g prejudgment dispense seizure. We do requirement of an c o u r t sets the motion f o r s t a t e s t h a t "the procedure pre-judgment added.) the 64(b) seizure shall be on as The use o f t h e t e r m " s h a l l " i n a r u l e mandates c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t o u t i n t h a t 18 2110452 rule. F i e l d s v. C i t y o f A l e x a n d e r C i t y , (Ala. C r i m . App. "shall" 1992) (concluding mandated a p r o c e d u r e P r o c e d u r e be f o l l o w e d ) . supreme trial court court have seize comply w i t h So. an Rule Boykin, 568 held When a t r i a l court t h a t t h e use of the 244 term I n a d d i t i o n , b o t h t h i s c o u r t and that " p a r t i e s seeking party's Norman, 811 2d 1243, So. 2d 242, o u t l i n e d i n a Rule of C r i m i n a l opposing 64." 597 1245 So. requires i t to, "without delay, a Rule have must 2d a t 502; ( A l a . C i v . App. receives a p p l i c a t i o n and s u p p o r t i n g assets to 64 our the strictly Ex parte 1990). motion, Rule 64 ... e x a m i n e t h e c o m p l a i n t , the a f f i d a v i t and i t s a t t a c h m e n t s and any f u r t h e r s h o w i n g o f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f i n s u p p o r t o f t h e plaintiff's property." option of hearing, required, hearing. right Rule to immediate 64(b)(2)(A). ordering a a f t e r which see R u l e See the Rule possession The seizure trial court of the property of the t h e n has the without c e r t a i n a c t i o n s not p e r t i n e n t here 64(b) ( 2 ) ( B ) , o r s e t t i n g 64(b)(2)(C). The trial p r e s e n t case s e t the m a t t e r f o r a h e a r i n g . c o u r t proceeded under Rule 64(b)(2)(C). 19 the matter court Thus, t h e a are for a in the trial 2110452 Under R u l e 6 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , shall have the burden " [ a ] t such h e a r i n g of showing pre-judgment s e i z u r e or attachment." hold an evidentiary hearing; o n l y arguments of c o u n s e l , Fin., Inc. v. Hines, (declining to supporting a therefore, that entered motion the i t s order instead, So. 2d statements to compel record, granting The the a the court evidence. 159 motion time Hope's m o t i o n , the not heard Fountain (Ala. arbitration). at for court d i d trial 155, in plaintiff cause trial which are not 788 consider good the as 2000) evidence We conclude, the trial failed to court contain any e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g good c a u s e f o r t h e p r e j u d g m e n t s e i z u r e o f the 2008 M e r c e d e s . Conclusion Having both order an considered order the granting granting a the is trial under Rule under 65 Rule as and an 64, we 2008 M e r c e d e s . Insofar as as g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n , t h e f a u l t y because i t f a i l s because the seizure Hope's m o t i o n c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g Hope's m o t i o n r e t u r n of the o r d e r c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d granting injunction prejudgment conclude t h a t the t r i a l requesting an order t o comply w i t h Rule c o u r t d i d not 20 65(d)(2) the order and r e q u i r e Hope t o p o s t a bond. 2110452 I n s o f a r as t h e o r d e r c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as g r a n t i n g a R u l e 64 prejudgment seizure, the t r i a l court information to grant Hope t h e r e l i e f lacked the she r e q u e s t e d Hope f a i l e d t o f i l e t h e n e c e s s a r y a f f i d a v i t . reverse the t r i a l court's February Hope's " I n s t a n t e r M o t i o n requisite because A c c o r d i n g l y , we 2, 2012, o r d e r g r a n t i n g f o r Return of V e h i c l e . " REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, without P . J . , and Bryan, writings. 21 J . , concur i n the result,

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.