Steven R. Walker and Lawanda Walker v. North American Savings Bank

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 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, 2012-2013 2110055 Steven R. Walker and Lawanda Walker v. North American Savings Bank Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-3406) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . The opinion of January 4, 2 0 1 3 , i s w i t h d r a w n , following i s substituted therefor. and t h e 2110055 Steven judgment R. Walker of the and Jefferson Lawanda Circuit judgment i n f a v o r of N o r t h American on t h e Bank's e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n counterclaims. We Walker Court appeal entering a from a summary S a v i n g s Bank ("the Bank") and d i s a l l o w i n g the Walkers' affirm. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y I n F e b r u a r y 2005, Mr. W a l k e r Bank and was a p p l i e d f o r a l o a n w i t h the p r e a p p r o v e d f o r a l o a n i n t h e amount o f $175,000 a t a f i x e d i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 7.125%. However, Mr. W a l k e r had n o t l o c a t e d a p r o p e r t y he i n t e n d e d t o p u r c h a s e a t t h e t i m e he was preapproved f o r t h e l o a n i n t h e amount o f $ 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 . In A u g u s t 2005, t h e W a l k e r s l o c a t e d a p r o p e r t y t h a t t h e y i n t e n d e d t o p u r c h a s e ; h o w e v e r , t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f t h e p r o p e r t y was above the $175,000 preapproval amount. Mrs. Walker s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p l i e d f o r and o b t a i n e d a l o a n i n t h e amount o f $224,000 f r o m t h e Bank t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y . 13, 2005, M r s . W a l k e r executed a p r o m i s s o r y note i n f a v o r of t h e Bank and t h e W a l k e r s in favor ("MERS"), s i g n e d a mortgage s e c u r i n g the of Mortgage E l e c t r o n i c as nominee On S e p t e m b e r for the Registrations Bank. The Systems, Inc. promissory note i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l amount o f t h e l o a n was 2 note $224,000, 2110055 and the "Truth statement") rate. and In Lending" indicated that disclosure the loan statement ("the T I L had a v a r i a b l e i n t e r e s t I t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t M r s . W a l k e r s i g n e d b o t h t h e n o t e t h e T I L s t a t e m e n t ; however, the Walkers testified that t h e y h a d b e e n a s s u r e d b y t h e Bank t h a t t h e l o a n t e r m s w o u l d be modified 30 days a f t e r t h e September 13, 2005, c l o s i n g d a t e and t h a t t h e y w o u l d be g i v e n a l o w e r i n t e r e s t r a t e . The l o a n t e r m s were n e v e r m o d i f i e d . I n November 2005, t h e W a l k e r s had t r o u b l e making their r e q u i r e d m o n t h l y payment b e c a u s e , as t h e W a l k e r s t e s t i f i e d v i a affidavit, they had incurred some unexpected expenses f o l l o w i n g t h e d e a t h o f a f a m i l y member a n d h a d h a d a l o s s o f income. The W a l k e r s d e f a u l t e d on t h e l o a n . subsequently a s s i g n e d t o t h e Bank The m o r t g a g e was 1 on J u l y 20, 2008. W a l k e r s t e s t i f i e d v i a a f f i d a v i t t h a t t h e y were n e v e r The notified of t h e assignment. In support o f i t s summary-judgment motion, t h e Bank submitted evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t had n o t i f i e d the Walkers o f i t s i n t e n t t o f o r e c l o s e on t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e i r The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t s i n g l e payment on t h e n o t e . 1 3 the Walkers failed failure t o make a 2110055 t o t i m e l y p a y t h e m o n t h l y i n s t a l l m e n t s due u n d e r t h e n o t e . S e p t e m b e r 5, 2008, an a t t o r n e y r e t a i n e d by t h e Bank t h e W a l k e r s v i a a m a i l e d l e t t e r t h a t t h e Bank was the maturity date proceedings, with 30, the 2008. of the loan a foreclosure and commencing On notified accelerating foreclosure s a l e s c h e d u l e d f o r September The l e t t e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t h a d e n c l o s e d a c o p y o f foreclosure Messenger. notice to be published in the The n o t i c e s o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e were on S e p t e m b e r 6, 30, foreclosure published 2008, S e p t e m b e r 13, 2008, and September 2008, i n t h e A l a b a m a M e s s e n g e r . September Alabama 2008, sale, the Bank, purchased At the f o r e c l o s u r e the sale bidder on at the f o r $205,000. the property O c t o b e r 1, 2008, t h e B a n k ' s a t t o r n e y for possession of the highest 20, On s e n t t h e W a l k e r s a demand property. On O c t o b e r 20, 2008, t h e Bank f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a l l e g i n g that i t was foreclosure the On complaint, denying defective of the d e e d and s e e k i n g property. asserting owner the November the 20, property to eject 2008, s a l e , and w r o n g f u l defenses of a the Walkers from the in the of "defective foreclosure." 4 virtue the Walkers answered the allegations affirmative by complaint and notice, 2110055 The p a r t i e s c o n d u c t e d d i s c o v e r y . t r i a l court entered and stated, pleadings in a scheduling pertinent On J u l y 7, order that s e t the t r i a l part: "Any amendments must be F I L E D no l a t e r t h a n December amendments to pleadings 2009, t h e require leave to date the 1, 2009. O t h e r of Court." (Capitalization i n original.) On October summary 28, judgment. 2009, motion signed by Mrs. W a l k e r , application, motion, for a Mrs. loan that a s u b m i t t e d Mr. W a l k e r ' s F e b r u a r y 2005 l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n , 2005 of filed Bank August support Bank the Walker's In the the TIL statement the mortgage, the assignment of the m o r t g a g e , t h e S e p t e m b e r 5, 2008, n o t i c e - o f - a c c e l e r a t i o n and notice-of-foreclosure letter, the O c t o b e r 1, 2008, demand l e t t e r , Kellam, Bank's r e c o r d s personal and t h e a f f i d a v i t an a s s i s t a n t v i c e p r e s i d e n t manager f o r t h e Bank. foreclosure deed, the o f Taunya and c o l l e c t i o n s and REO K e l l a m s t a t e d t h a t she h a d r e v i e w e d t h e c o n c e r n i n g t h e W a l k e r s ' l o a n and t h a t she h a d knowledge of t h e f a c t s s e t f o r t h i n h e r She a u t h e n t i c a t e d affidavit. s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t documents, i n c l u d i n g t h e W a l k e r s ' l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n s , the mortgage, the TIL statement, the foreclosure deed, and the 5 notice-of-acceleration and 2110055 demand-for-possession letters that the Bank's attorney had a response in sent to the Walkers. On November 19, 2009, the Walkers filed o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a r g u i n g the it Bank l a c k e d a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y had wrongfully foreclosed. The Walkers that because further alleged t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e was w r o n g f u l b e c a u s e , t h e y s a i d , t h e Bank h a d b r e a c h e d t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e m o r t g a g e , t h e Bank h a d f a i l e d t o comply w i t h l o s s - m i t i g a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , t h e Bank had b r e a c h e d i t s f i d u c i a r y d u t y because p a i d a t f o r e c l o s u r e was a f f i d a v i t was Rule 56(e), f a r below market n o t b a s e d on p e r s o n a l A l a . R. the purchase p r i c e i t Civ. P., value, and k n o w l e d g e as r e q u i r e d and, therefore, the a s s e r t e d , t h e r e were g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t the propriety opposition Walker's The for of the to the motion foreclosure court had sale. The affidavits set a hearing attached on regarding Walkers' Mr. to i t . t h e Bank's a summary j u d g m e n t f o r November 20, 2009. by Walkers f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a l s o h a d and M r s . W a l k e r ' s trial Kellam's motion On November 20, 2009, i n l i g h t o f t h e W a l k e r s ' November 19, 2009, r e s p o n s e i n opposition to the motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , 6 the trial 2110055 c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r r e s e t t i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e summaryjudgment trial motion 14, 2009. Additionally, November 30, 2009, t o f i l e response any s u p p l e m e n t s t o and e x p r e s s l y a l l o w e d t h e Bank u n t i l 11, 2009, t o r e p l y t o t h e W a l k e r s ' r e s p o n s e . 2009, t h e W a l k e r s f i l e d the motion asserted for a an amended r e s p o n s e summary t h e same original judgment. arguments response, but The i t contained December On November 30, i n opposition to amended as t o t h e same e x h i b i t s , i n c l u d i n g supplemental Mrs. the c o u r t ' s November 20, 2009, o r d e r e x p r e s s l y a l l o w e d t h e Walkers u n t i l their f o r December response issues several as t h e additional a f f i d a v i t s o f Mr. W a l k e r a n d Walker. On December 1, 2009, the l a s t day a l l o w e d pleadings without leave of court pursuant scheduling order, the Walkers filed f o r amended t o t h e J u l y 7, 2009, a p l e a d i n g s t y l e d as an "Amended Answer a n d C o u n t e r c l a i m " ("the amended a n s w e r " ) . amended answer defenses and counterclaims asserted also contained included breach of f i d u c i a r y duty, the Truth i n Lending several additional numerous the f o l l o w i n g : affirmative counterclaims. breach The The of contract, wrongful f o r e c l o s u r e , v i o l a t i o n s of A c t , 15 U.S.C. § 1601 e t s e q . ( " T I L A " ) , 7 2110055 violations U.S.C. § of the Real E s t a t e Settlement 2601 et seq. misrepresentation, ("RESPA"), unfair u n c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y , breach and On deceptive and, 12 and intentional trade practices, 2 fair i n addition, a claim seeking relief. December 10, 2009, W a l k e r s ' amended r e s p o n s e judgment. fraud Act, o f c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a i t h and d e a l i n g , unjust enrichment, declaratory Procedures That the Bank filed a reply to the t o t h e B a n k ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary r e p l y again asserted that the trial court s h o u l d e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e Bank b e c a u s e , t h e Bank a s s e r t e d , i t had p r o v e n a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t h a t t h e r e was no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g ejectment action and the Walkers had failed to present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . r e p l y a l s o addressed December portions 10, 2009, of unauthenticated t h e W a l k e r s ' numerous c o u n t e r c l a i m s . the Bank also the Walkers' tax documents filed a motion affidavits regarding the and 8 On strike certain property. The amended answer contained three c o u n t e r c l a i m s a l l e g i n g u n f a i r and d e c e p t i v e t r a d e 2 to The On identical practices. 2110055 December 10, to 2009, t h e Bank a l s o f i l e d a motion to s t r i k e or d i s m i s s the W a l k e r s ' c o u n t e r c l a i m s . On December 11, 2009, e v i d e n t i a r y submission judgment the Wright stated concerning knowledge the of she the facts set REO Wright, additional and the that forth an a s s i s t a n t manager f o r t h e reviewed loan an o f i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary and had Walkers' filed of Stephanie collection that Bank i n support affidavit v i c e p r e s i d e n t and the in Bank's she her had records personal affidavit. a u t h e n t i c a t e d numerous l e t t e r s sent to the Walkers them t h a t t h e y were i n d e f a u l t . Bank. She 3 On February regarding Walkers' the 5, 2010, Bank's the t r i a l motion counterclaims. On to court conducted a hearing strike May notifying 9, or 2011, to dismiss the trial the court e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e Bank on t h e Bank's ejectment action counterclaims. alter, filed and disallowed On June 7, 2011, amend, o r v a c a t e t h e May a l l the Walkers' the Walkers f i l e d a motion to 9, 2011, a response i n o p p o s i t i o n to the judgment. Walkers' The Bank postjudgment One of the notice-of-default letters contained a c e r t i f i e d - m a i l r e c e i p t e v i d e n c i n g Mrs. W a l k e r ' s s i g n a t u r e . See discussion, infra. 3 9 2110055 motion on denying 2011. July the 18, 2011. Walkers' The trial postjudgment c o u r t e n t e r e d an motion on On O c t o b e r 13, 2011, t h e W a l k e r s f i l e d 4 of appeal. to this The order September 6, a timely notice supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e W a l k e r s ' appeal c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6). Summary-Judgment D i s c u s s i o n On a p p e a l , t h e W a l k e r s a s s e r t numerous a r g u m e n t s d i r e c t e d toward trial the p r o p r i e t y of the summary j u d g m e n t . c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t u n d e r review. a de We review a novo s t a n d a r d o f Specifically, "[a] summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g that t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e movant has c a r r i e d that burden, the c o u r t i s to view the evidence i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and t o draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f t h a t p a r t y . To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , A l t h o u g h , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e Walkers' postjudgment motion would have been d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on S e p t e m b e r 5, 2011, t h e 9 0 t h day f o l l o w i n g the f i l i n g o f t h e i r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , S e p t e m b e r 5, 2011, was L a b o r Day, and, t h u s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 6, 2011, o r d e r was t i m e l y . See R u l e 6, A l a . R. C i v . P.; see a l s o F i r s t A l a b a m a S t a t e Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , and R i c h b u r g v. C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . 4 10 2110055 the nonmoving party must present 'substantial evidence' c r e a t i n g a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t -'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e fact s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v. T h o r o u g h - C l e a n , 1349, 1350 arguments (Ala. 1994). We will I n c . , 639 So. address the 2d Walkers' d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n t u r n . I. The W a l k e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e Bank d i d n o t have t h e r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e t h e power o f s a l e u n d e r t h e m o r t g a g e b e c a u s e t h e Bank f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e mortgage i n s t r u m e n t . they never r e c e i v e d Specifically, the Walkers contend a notice-of-default letter, a notice-of- acceleration letter, a notice-of-foreclosure-sale letter, a notice-of-assignment l e t t e r . In support of that and i t s summary- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e Bank s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the Bank's file concerning the Walkers' loan contained numerous n o t i c e - o f - d e f a u l t and i n t e n t - t o - a c c e l e r a t e letters, one o f w h i c h was Walker's signature (see a certified note 3, letter supra), e v i d e n c i n g Mrs. as well as a notice-of- acceleration l e t t e r , with a notice-of-foreclosure-sale 11 letter 2110055 enclosed, 2008, by purportedly an attorney sent to r e t a i n e d by address each a l l e g e d n o t i c e First, the Walkers notice-of-assignment affidavits state assignment of the the mortgage Note or Security the on Bank. September However, we they never Specifically, they were mortgage as, never as the was can p r i o r n o t i c e to Borrower." t h a t t h e m o r t g a g e was i n the be sold The Note one states: with more t i m e s evidentiary materials a s s i g n e d t o t h e Bank. the by highlights, (together or of required Bank a Walkers' notified they a s s e r t , However, interest Instrument) will received the of the mortgage i n s t r u m e n t c l e a r l y a partial 5, deficiency i n turn. letter. that Walkers contend that instrument. p a r a g r a p h 20 the "The this without indicate Specifically, a l l t h e n o t i c e - o f - d e f a u l t l e t t e r s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Bank h e l d the m o r t g a g e , and t h e f o r e c l o s u r e - s a l e n o t i c e e x p l i c i t l y n o t e s t h e assignment. Thus, t h e a l l e g e d f a i l u r e o f t h e Bank t o s e n d Walkers a n o t i c e p r i o r t o t h e a s s i g n m e n t i s o f no because was such instrument and notice the not required evidentiary materials W a l k e r s were, i n f a c t , n o t i f i e d of the 12 by the consequence the indicate assignment. mortgage that the 2110055 Next, the Walkers contend notice-of-default letter. nor did opportunity above, the [they] to receive the never that receipt a s t a t e t h a t t h e y "w[ere] never any notice delinquency." evidencing notice was evidence before of default However, Mrs. indeed or as Walker's mailed and an noted with Furthermore, i n regard notice-of-foreclosure-sale a s s e r t t h a t t h e Bank had a signature, that Mrs. Therefore, the the t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t the Walkers a notice-of-default a notice-of-default W a l k e r r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e . See n o t e 3, s u p r a . received received Bank s u b m i t t e d a n o t i c e - o f - d e f a u l t l e t t e r , certified-mail indicating cure they In r e g a r d to the l e t t e r , the Walkers' a f f i d a v i t s sent that had letter. to the n o t i c e - o f - a c c e l e r a t i o n letter, the Walkers failed f a i l e d t o s e n d t h e S e p t e m b e r 5, and to 2008, n o t i c e - o f - a c c e l e r a t i o n and n o t i c e - o f - f o r e c l o s u r e - s a l e l e t t e r ; i n s t e a d , the Walkers merely a s s e r t t h a t they d i d not the letter. Specifically, Mr. Walker's a f f i d a v i t receive states: "The [Bank] w r o n g f u l l y f o r e c l o s e d and a t t e m p t e d t o p u r c h a s e f o r i t s e l f t h e p r o p e r t y on [ s i c ] , w i t h o u t g i v i n g me a proper notice of the default and opportunity to cure that default. Prior to a c c e l e r a t i o n of the debt, I d i d not r e c e i v e the r e q u i r e d n o t i c e o u t l i n e d i n t h e m o r t g a g e document t h a t I was g i v e n on S e p t e m b e r 13, 2005." 13 2110055 M o r e o v e r , t h e W a l k e r s c o n t e n d t h a t , e v e n had t h e y r e c e i v e d the n o t i c e l e t t e r s , t h e n o t i c e l e t t e r s were i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e , t h e y say, the letters did not comply with p a r a g r a p h 22 o f t h e m o r t g a g e i n s t r u m e n t . mortgage i n s t r u m e n t p r o v i d e s , the provisions in P a r a g r a p h 22 o f the in pertinent part: "The n o t i c e s h a l l s p e c i f y : (a) t h e d e f a u l t ; (b) t h e a c t i o n r e q u i r e d t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t ; (c) a d a t e , n o t l e s s t h a n 30 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e t h e n o t i c e i s g i v e n t o B o r r o w e r , by w h i c h t h e d e f a u l t must be c u r e d ; and (d) t h a t f a i l u r e t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t on o r b e f o r e t h e d a t e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e may result in a c c e l e r a t i o n o f t h e sums s e c u r e d by t h i s S e c u r i t y I n s t r u m e n t and t h e s a l e o f t h e P r o p e r t y . The n o t i c e shall further inform Borrower of the right to r e i n s t a t e a f t e r a c c e l e r a t i o n and t h e r i g h t t o b r i n g a c o u r t a c t i o n to a s s e r t the n o n - e x i s t e n c e of a default or any other defense of Borrower to a c c e l e r a t i o n and s a l e . " However, default the record letters indicates that the that Bank the attached numerous in notice-of- support of its summary-judgment m o t i o n c l e a r l y s t a t e t h a t t h e W a l k e r s were i n d e f a u l t , t h e amount due had 30 days from the to cure the d e f a u l t , t h a t the date of the letter to cure the Walkers default, t h a t t h e Bank i n t e n d e d t o a c c e l e r a t e t h e d e b t owed s h o u l d the Walkers the that the action to assert the fail W a l k e r s had to "the non-existence of remit necessary payments, r i g h t to bring a court this default." 14 The and Walkers, therefore, 2110055 f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e was fact the regarding mortgage provide whether the instrument the notices or information See 195, App. (Ala. Civ. Coleman was not acceleration submitted contained as required had by 2012) by mortgage file an to or f a i l e d t o send the of the So. 3d that notice of document when BAC notice that 22 argument default that and failed S e r v i c i n g , 104 of indicating by paragraph (rejecting the required notices notice i n Coleman's a l l e g e t h a t BAC the Coleman v. BAC given evidence were s e n t as whether required mortgage i n s t r u m e n t . 205 a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l letters Coleman had were failed to letters). II. The W a l k e r s n e x t a r g u e t h a t t h e B a n k ' s e v i d e n c e the Civ. various P. failed Specifically, c o u l d not with notices Rule Wright's be to they affidavit k n o w l e d g e and Additionally, was Rule 56, contend that Kellam's b a s e d on p e r s o n a l 56(e). comply w i t h untimely the fails Walkers because, they regarding Ala. R. affidavit to comply argue say, that i t was f i l e d a f t e r t h e Bank had s u b m i t t e d i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n and, thus, court. We was filed disagree too late t o be with both considered contentions. 15 by the trial 2110055 R u l e 56(e) states: "(e) Form o f A f f i d a v i t s ; Further Testimony; Defense Required. S u p p o r t i n g and opposing a f f i d a v i t s s h a l l be made on p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e , s h a l l s e t f o r t h s u c h f a c t s as w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , a n d shall show affirmatively that the a f f i a n t i s competent t o t e s t i f y t o t h e m a t t e r s s t a t e d t h e r e i n . Sworn o r c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f a l l p a p e r s o r p a r t s thereof r e f e r r e d t o i n an a f f i d a v i t shall be a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o o r s e r v e d t h e r e w i t h . The c o u r t may p e r m i t a f f i d a v i t s t o be s u p p l e m e n t e d o r o p p o s e d by d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , o r f u r t h e r a f f i d a v i t s . When a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s made a n d s u p p o r t e d as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s r u l e , an a d v e r s e p a r t y may n o t r e s t upon t h e mere a l l e g a t i o n s or d e n i a l s o f t h e adverse p a r t y ' s p l e a d i n g , b u t t h e adverse party's response, by a f f i d a v i t s o r as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n t h i s r u l e , must s e t f o r t h s p e c i f i c f a c t s showing t h a t t h e r e i s a genuine i s s u e f o r t r i a l . I f t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y does n o t so r e s p o n d , summary j u d g m e n t , i f a p p r o p r i a t e , s h a l l be e n t e r e d against him." The Walkers argue t h a t Kellam's a f f i d a v i t f a i l e d t o show t h a t i t was b a s e d on p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , s h e c o u l d n o t have known w h e t h e r t h e n o t i c e l e t t e r s were a c t u a l l y s e n t by t h e Bank's r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l . Kellam s t a t e d t h a t she had p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e r e g a r d i n g t h e n o t i c e s , a n d s h e f u r t h e r testified review that i n her o f f i c i a l the notice l e t t e r s . contained the following c a p a c i t y she had o c c a s i o n t o Specifically, Kellam's affidavit statements: "My name i s Taunya K e l l a m . I am e m p l o y e d b y [ t h e Bank] as A s s i s t a n t V i c e P r e s i d e n t a n d C o l l e c t i o n s 16 2110055 and REO Manager and i n such capacity am an authorized agent o f [the Bank], a n d have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o make t h i s A f f i d a v i t on i t s b e h a l f . I have p e r s o n a l knowledge o f t h e f a c t s s e t f o r t h herein, and i f c a l l e d as a witness, could competently t e s t i f y thereto. " "2. I n my c a p a c i t y as A s s i s t a n t V i c e P r e s i d e n t and C o l l e c t i o n s a n d REO Manager f o r [ t h e B a n k ] , I have h a d o c c a s i o n t o p e r s o n a l l y r e v i e w t h e b o o k s , l e d g e r s and papers o f t h e mortgage l o a n r e l a t i n g t o [the W a l k e r s ] h e r e i n . From my k n o w l e d g e as A s s i s t a n t V i c e P r e s i d e n t a n d C o l l e c t i o n s a n d REO Manager f o r [the B a n k ] , I c a n c o m p e t e n t l y t e s t i f y t h a t t h e books[,] ledgers a n d p a p e r s o f [ t h e Bank] a r e r e g u l a r l y m a i n t a i n e d as a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d o f [ t h e B a n k ] , a n d as s u c h , a r e u t i l i z e d a n d r e l i e d upon herein." Thus, t h e a f f i d a v i t meets t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e M o r e o v e r , i n Ex p a r t e So. Secretary of Veterans A f f a i r s , 3d 771, 777 ( A l a . 2012) ( f o o t n o t e court clarified that "a p a r t y 56(e). omitted), 92 o u r supreme must move t h e t r i a l court t o s t r i k e any e v i d e n c e t h a t v i o l a t e s R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. An objection sufficient." Kellam's to In t h i s affidavit summary-judgment strike for the inadmissible appellate case, although i n their motion, the a f f i d a v i t . review evidence failed i n opposition to file Thus, t h e W a l k e r s the alleged 17 i s not the Walkers objected t o response they alone failed to the a motion to to preserve d e f i c i e n c i e s i n Kellam's 2110055 a f f i d a v i t . See P e r r y v. F e d e r a l N a t ' l M o r t g . A s s ' n , 100 So. 1090, 1096 ( A l a . C i v . App. Finally, the Walkers 3d 2012). argue that Wright's a f f i d a v i t was a l s o due t o be s t r i c k e n b e c a u s e , t h e y c o n t e n d , i t was u n t i m e l y filed. file Initially, a motion court's we a g a i n note t h a t to s t r i k e November 20, the Walkers the a f f i d a v i t . Moreover, 2009, o r d e r e x p r e s s l y failed the to trial a l l o w e d t h e Bank u n t i l December 11, 2009, t o r e p l y t o t h e W a l k e r s ' r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n . was filed under on December 11, 2009, and, the t r i a l court's Wright's a f f i d a v i t t h u s , was timely filed order. III. In their appellate brief, the Walkers argue that the f o r e c l o s u r e was w r o n g f u l b e c a u s e , t h e y c o n t e n d , a f o r e c l o s i n g entity i s required foreclosure initiating for to o f f e r l o s s - m i t i g a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s to mortgagors who are in foreclosure proceedings pursuant default to the before National H o u s i n g A c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y 12 U.S.C. § 1 7 0 1 - x ( c ) ( 5 ) ( e f f e c t i v e J u l y 30, 2 0 0 8 ) , and p u r s u a n t t o r e g u l a t i o n s p r o m u l g a t e d by t h e Department of contend that Housing and Urban t h e y were n e v e r Development. offered 18 counseling The Walkers services or 2110055 any other sale. loss-mitigation Although the services record before does not i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e W a l k e r s were p r o v i d e d loss-mitigation determined services that any before alleged foreclosure contain evidence counseling foreclosure, failure m i t i g a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s does n o t the to this comply or other court with loss- c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d defense an e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g a n o n j u d i c i a l f o r e c l o s u r e . Coleman, 104 So. 3d a t 206 contrary, entity to we conclude that comply Development] with or ejectment Thus, the following failure p r o c e d u r e s b e f o r e the failure [Department [Department action alleged from our the of of l o s s - m i t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s may an to See ( h o l d i n g t h a t , " [ i ] n the absence of a s t a t u t e or c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y the has supreme c o u r t of a to foreclosing Housing and Veterans Urban Affairs] n o t be r a i s e d as a d e f e n s e t o a to nonjudicial exhaust foreclosure foreclosure"). a l l loss-mitigation s a l e i s not r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l i n the p r e s e n t ejectment a valid defense action. IV. Next, the defective d u t y by Walkers contend that because, t h e y say, the the sale was Bank b r e a c h e d i t s f i d u c i a r y i n t e n t i o n a l l y u n d e r b i d d i n g the 19 foreclosure v a l u e of the property 2110055 and creating a deficiency in price. Walker p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l The only evidence c o u r t r e g a r d i n g the f a i r market v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y was h i s a f f i d a v i t t e s t i m o n y b a s e d on tax and assessor's records records. Specifically, that property the was copies of the tax at $224, 000 and the assessor's the tax a s s e s s o r ' s records valued Mr. indicated Mr. Walker's affidavit stated: "The [Bank] b o u g h t t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m i t s e l f a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e f o r $205,000.00 w h i c h was well b e l o w t h e m a r k e t v a l u e . The most r e c e n t r e a l e s t a t e e v a l u a t i o n f r o m t h e Tax C o l l e c t o r l i s t e d market value The f o r the p r o p e r t y at Bank filed a motion $224,000.00." to strike W a l k e r s ' a f f i d a v i t s and t h e t a x r e c o r d s . portions the trial court did n o t e x p r e s s l y r u l e on t h e B a n k ' s m o t i o n t o s t r i k e . However, this The of c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t "'"[g]enerally the tax assessing authority's e v a l u a t i o n i s n o t r e l e v a n t when o f f e r e d t o p r o v e m a r k e t v a l u e . The r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g t h i s g e n e r a l exclusionary rule i s that ' i t i s notorious that p r o p e r t i e s are not assessed at a n y t h i n g l i k e t r u e v a l u e o r m a r k e t v a l u e . ' " ' P r e s l e y v. B . I . C . C o n s t r . , Inc., [64] So. 3d [610, 621] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g 2 C h a r l e s W. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 267.04 ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . " Berry v. D e u t s c h e Bank N a t ' l T r u s t (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). Thus, 20 the Co., trial 57 So. court 3d 142, could 148 have 2110055 reasonably concluded that the $224,000 price was not r e l i a b l e v a l u e by w h i c h t o p r o v e t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e a of the property. Moreover, indeed even assuming t h a t the f a i r market value $224,000, t h e b i d p r i c e o f $205,000 amounted t o j u s t o v e r 91.5% o f t h e a l l e g e d f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e . rule i s that, sale was i s so "'"The general 'where t h e p r i c e r e a l i z e d a t t h e [ f o r e c l o s u r e ] inadequate as t o shock the conscience, i t may i t s e l f r a i s e a presumption of fraud, t r i c k e r y , u n f a i r n e s s , or c u l p a b l e mismanagement, and t h e r e f o r e be s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d f o r setting the sale aside.'"'" Mt. R e g i o n s Bank, 853 So. 2d 160, 168 Carmel Estates, ( A l a . 2002) I n c . v. (quoting Breen v. B a l d w i n C n t y . F e d . Sav. Bank, 567 So. 2d 1329, 1333 ( A l a . 1990), q u o t i n g i n t u r n Hayden v. S m i t h , 216 A l a . 428, 430-31, 113 So. 293, 295 bid (1927)). In Perry, this court held that a p r i c e o f 84% o f t h e a l l e g e d f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e low as t o s h o c k t h e c o n s c i e n c e . 100 So. 3d a t 1102. was n o t so Moreover, i n Mt. C a r m e l E s t a t e s , o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t a b i d p r i c e of 81% o f t h e f a i r market v a l u e 853 So. 2d a t 168. Therefore, 21 d i d not shock the we conclude that conscience. the p r i c e 2110055 realized the at the foreclosure c o n s c i e n c e under the Thus, we affirm s a l e was f a c t s of t h i s the summary not so low as to shock case. judgment in favor of the Bank. Counterclaims On erred appeal, in the Walkers disallowing previously, the Discussion also their argue t h a t 13 the counterclaims. counterclaims included of c o n t r a c t , breach of f i d u c i a r y duty, the trial court As noted following: breach wrongful foreclosure, v i o l a t i o n s o f T I L A , v i o l a t i o n s o f RESPA, f r a u d and i n t e n t i o n a l misrepresentation, unconscionability, dealing, unjust unfair and deceptive practices, b r e a c h o f c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a i t h and e n r i c h m e n t , and, fair in addition, a claim seeking In the Bank's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e or declaratory relief. the c o u n t e r c l a i m s , trade dismiss i t a r g u e d , among numerous o t h e r arguments, t h a t t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s were u n t i m e l y f i l e d u n d e r R u l e 13, Ala. R. Rule C i v . P. B e c a u s e we f i n d t h e B a n k ' s argument r e g a r d i n g 13 t o be d i s p o s i t i v e , we pretermit o t h e r arguments r e g a r d i n g Store v. Waldrop, 924 So. d i s c u s s i o n of the p a r t i e s ' the c o u n t e r c l a i m s . 2d 719, 723 See F a v o r i t e ( A l a . C i v . App. ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t would p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of 22 Mkt. 2005) further 2110055 issues in Therefore, in light of on a p p e a l , we d i s a l l o w i n g the present dispositive case. nature of another review whether the t r i a l counterclaims under the issue). court erred facts of the 5 " A l l o w i n g or not allowing a counterclaim rests w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and i t s d e c i s i o n on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d absent a showing t h a t i t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . B r a d ' s I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v. C o a s t Bank, 468 So. 2d 129, 130 ( A l a . 1985) Wells v. Civ. App. Geneva C n t y . Bd. of Educ., 646 So. 2d 98, 99 (Ala. 1994). We n o t e t h a t , i n i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s a l l o w e d the b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t , b r e a c h - o f - f i d u c i a r y - d u t y , wrongfulf o r e c l o s u r e , and d e c l a r a t o r y - r e l i e f c l a i m s on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y were u n t i m e l y u n d e r R u l e 13, w h i l e i t d i s a l l o w e d t h e violations-of-TILA, violations-of-RESPA, fraud and intentional-misrepresentation, unfair-and-deceptive-tradepractices, unconscionability, breach-of-covenant-of-goodf a i t h - a n d - f a i r - d e a l i n g , and u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h o s e c o u n t e r c l a i m s were b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t "may a f f i r m a t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment on 'any v a l i d l e g a l ground'" supported by t h e r e c o r d on appeal. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . v. S t o k e s C h e v r o l e t , I n c . , 885 So. 2d 119, 124 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 (Ala. 2003)). F u r t h e r m o r e , " ' [ a ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ... may c o n s i d e r any o t h e r l e g a l g r o u n d o r v a l i d r e a s o n f o r t h e judgment and a f f i r m t h e judgment where i t i s c o r r e c t on any l e g a l g r o u n d , e v e n t h o u g h t h e g r o u n d o r r e a s o n s t a t e d by t h e l o w e r c o u r t i s e r r o n e o u s . ' " S p e n c e r v. M a l o n e F r e i g h t L i n e s , Inc., 292 A l a . 582, 589, 298 So. 2d 20, 25 (1974) ( q u o t i n g 5 C.J.S. A p p e a l and E r r o r § 1 4 6 4 ( 4 ) ) . 5 23 2110055 On a p p e a l , t h e W a l k e r s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s a l l o w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s b e c a u s e , t h e y a r g u e , t h e Bank f a i l e d to present any evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t w o u l d have been p r e j u d i c e d by a l l o w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s and b e c a u s e t h e s c h e d u l i n g order a l l o w e d the Walkers u n t i l the date they filed the We cannot agree have been pleadings. that i t would counterclaims or t h a t the December 1, counterclaims, t h a t the to fact that amend Bank f a i l e d prejudiced by 2009, their to a l l e g e the counterclaims the allowing were f i l e d w i t h i n t h e t i m e a l l o w e d i n t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r mandates a c o n c l u s i o n by t h i s c o u r t t h a t the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s a l l o w i n g the c o u n t e r c l a i m s under the f a c t s of this case. Pursuant "may enter a t o R u l e 1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., scheduling amend t h e p l e a d i n g s . " a scheduling order p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Any order that limits In t h i s case, the t r i a l that set the trial date a trial the time court and court ... to entered stated, i n amendments t o t h e p l e a d i n g s must be F I L E D no l a t e r t h a n December 1, 2009. O t h e r amendments t o p l e a d i n g s require leave of Court." Walkers f i l e d their (Capitalization in original.) The c o u n t e r c l a i m s on December 1, 2009; thus, 24 2110055 t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s were t i m e l y u n d e r t h e s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r . The W a l k e r s a r g u e t h a t " i t i s c l e a r l y an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n [ f ] o r the [trial] the t r i a l c o u r t t o d i s a l l o w an c o u r t has amended c o u n t e r c l a i m s p e c i f i c a l l y p l a c e d a time amendments i n i t s s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r . " In (Ala. B l a c k m o n v. 2006), disallowance our Nexity Financial supreme court the under Ala. 15, time Corp., affirmed provided R. Civ. P. by for f i l i n g the disagree. 953 a o f B l a c k m o n ' s amended c o m p l a i n t , amended w i t h i n Rule We where the So. 2d trial court's w h i c h had scheduling Specifically, 1180 our been order, supreme c o u r t s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : "We d e c l i n e t o h o l d , as B l a c k m o n u r g e s , t h a t a s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r e s t a b l i s h e s t h e d a t e up u n t i l w h i c h a party may automatically amend a pleading, r e g a r d l e s s o f p r e j u d i c e t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y o r undue d e l a y . We h o l d i n s t e a d t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e trial c o u r t s h o u l d f r e e l y a l l o w t h e amendment o f p l e a d i n g s w i t h i n the time s e t i n the s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r , the t r i a l c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n , i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f justice, t o deny an amendment f o r r e a s o n s of p r e j u d i c e o r undue d e l a y . " Id. that the at 1190. the Thus, we trial However, we the Walkers' court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n counterclaims counterclaims cannot accept solely by t h e d a t e must because contained further consider 25 argument in disallowing they filed i n the s c h e d u l i n g whether the trial their order. court 2110055 could have prejudiced reasonably by allowing counterclaims In its the under the motion counterclaims, because, concluded the i t said, Walkers dismiss Bank a r g u e d the to f a c t s of t h i s to the that Bank proceed would on be their case. or strike that the i t w o u l d be W a l k e r s were aware o f the Walkers' prejudiced breach-of- contract, breach-of-fiduciary-duty, wrongful-foreclosure, declaratory-relief sale on September claims 30, f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g the s i n c e the 2008, and remaining c l o s i n g t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t had Thus, i t a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e counterclaims the time of that occurred the counterclaims request a known o f S e p t e m b e r 13, on 2005. have a s s e r t e d p r e j u d i c e d by only to possession" continuance to defending 2010, serve to because the Moreover, allowing and the that allowing further delay [the Bank w o u l d have perform "the extensive against the ... to discovery necessary for Therefore, i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e W a l k e r s ' argument on 26 the i n December 2009 when t h e f o r F e b r u a r y 16, "would the loan- i n t h e i r answer p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 13. scheduled Bank]'s r i g h t foreclosure s i n c e the Walkers should Walkers to a s s e r t the c o u n t e r c l a i m s was had counterclaims Bank s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be trial they the and counterclaims." appeal 2110055 that the Bank failed to a l l e g e or demonstrate w o u l d have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d by a l l o w i n g the the Bank a s s e r t e d record i n d i c a t e s t h a t the e x p l a i n i n g how i n the R. Civ. P., p r o c e e d on t h e i r litigation In Blackmon, our Ala. counterclaims several reasons i t w o u l d have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d by a l l o w i n g W a l k e r s t o a s s e r t and a l a t e stage that i t a counterclaims at the such process. supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t u n d e r R u l e "trial court can refuse to allow amendment i f a l l o w i n g i t w o u l d r e s u l t i n a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e the opposing p a r t y or f o r reasons of 2d at 1189. meaning of the Furthermore, our 'undue d e l a y . ' " supreme t e r m "undue d e l a y . " court an to 953 So. explained the Specifically, i t stated: "Undue d e l a y can have two d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s i n a c a s e . F i r s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has discretion deny an amendment t o a p l e a d i n g i f a l l o w i n g t h e amendment w o u l d u n d u l y d e l a y t h e t r i a l . H o r t o n v. S h e l b y Med. C t r . , 562 So. 2d 127, 130 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . S e c o n d , an u n e x p l a i n e d undue d e l a y i n f i l i n g an amendment when the party has had sufficient o p p o r t u n i t y to d i s c o v e r the f a c t s necessary to f i l e t h e amendment e a r l i e r i s a l s o s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d s upon w h i c h t o deny t h e amendment. S t a l l i n g s [v. A n g e l i c a U n i f o r m C o . ] , 388 So. 2d [942,] 947 [(Ala. 1 9 8 0 ) ] ; see a l s o R e c t o r v. B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 So. 2d 75, 78 ( A l a . 2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e trial c o u r t p r o p e r l y s t r u c k t h e amended c o m p l a i n t when t h e p l a i n t i f f o f f e r e d no r e a s o n t o r e f u t e t h e trial c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e new a l l e g a t i o n s i n the amended c o m p l a i n t were b a s e d on f a c t s t h e p l a i n t i f f had known s i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g of the a c t i o n ) ; t o 27 15, 2110055 B u r k e t t [v. A m e r i c a n Gen. F i n . , I n c . ] , 607 So. 2d [138,] 141 [ ( A l a . 1992)] ( h o l d i n g t h a t the trial c o u r t d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s t r i k i n g the amended c o m p l a i n t where t h e p l a i n t i f f s had l e a r n e d o f t h e f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e new allegations six months b e f o r e t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o amend)." Id. Although 15, the the 6 B l a c k m o n i n v o l v e d an amended p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e analysis i s instructive counterclaims i n the to the c a s e a t h a n d u n d e r R u l e 13 b o t h R u l e 13 and R u l e 15 p e r m i t the t r i a l allow allow a counterclaim respectively. or analysis applied to because court d i s c r e t i o n an amended R u l e 15(a) R u l e 13 s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : states, in pertinent part: " U n l e s s a c o u r t has o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t to d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own motion or a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t any t i m e more t h a n f o r t y - t w o (42) days b e f o r e the first s e t t i n g o f t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l , and s u c h amendment s h a l l be f r e e l y a l l o w e d when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . T h e r e a f t e r , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e o f c o u r t , and l e a v e s h a l l be g i v e n o n l y upon a showing of good cause." 28 to pleading, "(a) C o m p u l s o r y C o u n t e r c l a i m s . A p l e a d i n g s h a l l s t a t e as a c o u n t e r c l a i m any c l a i m w h i c h a t t h e t i m e o f s e r v i n g t h e p l e a d i n g t h e p l e a d e r has a g a i n s t any opposing p a r t y , i f i t a r i s e s out of the t r a n s a c t i o n or occurrence t h a t i s the s u b j e c t matter of the o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s c l a i m and does n o t r e q u i r e f o r i t s 6 to 2110055 a d j u d i c a t i o n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h i r d p a r t i e s o f whom t h e c o u r t c a n n o t a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n . ... "(b) P e r m i s s i v e C o u n t e r c l a i m s . A p l e a d i n g may state as a c o u n t e r c l a i m a n y c l a i m a g a i n s t an opposing p a r t y not a r i s i n g out o f the t r a n s a c t i o n or occurrence that i s the subject matter of the opposing p a r t y ' s c l a i m . " ( f ) O m i t t e d C o u n t e r c l a i m . When a p l e a d e r f a i l s to s e t up a counterclaim through oversight, i n a d v e r t e n c e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t , o r when j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s , t h e p l e a d e r may b y l e a v e o f c o u r t s e t up t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m b y amendment." The trial court could have reasonably concluded that a l l o w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s w o u l d c a u s e undue d e l a y b e c a u s e , a s the Bank a s s e r t e d , additional allowing the counterclaims discovery and would delay would the t r i a l require setting. Moreover, t h e W a l k e r s d i d n o t f i l e any o b j e c t i o n t o t h e Bank's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n any e v i d e n c e indicating required that additional t o defend discovery the counterclaims would or that c o u n t e r c l a i m s w o u l d n o t have d e l a y e d t h e t r i a l . i t was u n d i s p u t e d been allowing the Additionally, t h a t t h e W a l k e r s h a d b e e n aware o f t h e f a c t s supporting a l l the counterclaims Bank's n o t have complaint. 29 a t t h e time i t answered t h e 2110055 Furthermore, the Walkers contend that a l l c o u n t e r c l a i m s are compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m s pursuant v. Wells F a r g o Bank, N.A., Assuming without c o m p u l s o r y , we assert the deciding conclude mandatory state, etc.'"). had through 424, the 428 ( A l a . 2009) . counterclaims their Adoption and the answer. See ("Rule 13(a) requires their permissive ejectment a c t i o n as are language '(a) because the opposed t o court could s t i l l the Rule 13, deals with pleading underlying to assertion Moreover, even i f the s p e c i f i c been trial 3d that in 1973 counterclaims terms So. to Clark t h a t the Walkers e r r e d i n f a i l i n g counterclaims C o m m i t t e e Comments on compulsory 24 the in shall counterclaims a c t i o n was an foreclosure action, the exercise i t s discretion to allow or d i s a l l o w t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n t h e p r e s e n t a c t i o n . See W e i n b e r g v. Weinberg, 460 So. 2d 1350, 1351 (Ala. Civ. 1984)(noting that a permissive counterclaim, pursuant 1 3 ( b ) , may be d e n i e d a t t h e t r i a l T.J. Stevenson & Co. (5th C i r . 1980))). v. We exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n cannot conclude F l o u r , 629 t h a t the i n d i s a l l o w i n g the 30 to Rule court's discretion 81,193 Bags o f App. (citing F.2d trial 338 court counterclaims in 2110055 t h i s c a s e ; t h u s , we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l as i t d i s a l l o w e d t h e W a l k e r s ' c o u r t ' s judgment i n s o f a r counterclaims. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e Bank e s t a b l i s h e d i t s r i g h t t o eject the Walkers properly the t r i a l from the property, d i s a l l o w e d the Walkers' and t h e t r i a l counterclaims. court Therefore, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF JANUARY 4, 2013, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Moore a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 31 writing.

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.