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

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/04/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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) THOMAS, J u d g e . Steven judgment R. Walker a n d Lawanda of the Jefferson Circuit Walker Court appeal entering a from a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f N o r t h A m e r i c a n S a v i n g s Bank ("the Bank") 2110055 on the Bank's e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n counterclaims. We and disallowing the Walker's 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 loan 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. Walker 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 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 ("MERS"), as nominee On S e p t e m b e r for the Registrations Bank. The note 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 $224,000, and ("the the "Truth statement") rate. In Lending" indicated that disclosure the l o a n had statement a variable TIL interest 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 2 2110055 and 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 and 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e September 13, 2005, c l o s i n g d a t e t h a t t h e y w o u l d be g i v e n t e r m s were n e v e r a lower i n t e r e s t r a t e . The l o a n modified. I n November 2005, t h e W a l k e r s h a d 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 assigned 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 rtheir failure 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 the Walkers v i a a m a i l e d the maturity date r e t a i n e d b y t h e Bank On notified l e t t e r t h a t t h e Bank was a c c e l e r a t i n g of the loan 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 a n d commencing the Walkers f a i l e d foreclosure t o make a 2110055 proceedings, with 30, the 2008. a f o r e c l o s u r e 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 foreclosure Messenger. notice to be published in a copy o f 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 2008, the At the f o r e c l o s u r e Bank, s a l e , purchased the of the highest 20, 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 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 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 owner d e e d and s e e k i n g property. On complaint, denying asserting of the November the 20, the property to eject 2008, d e f e c t i v e s a l e , and w r o n g f u l and stated, pleadings in defenses a in the complaint of "defective and notice, foreclosure." a scheduling pertinent of the Walkers from the 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 virtue the Walkers answered the allegations affirmative by On J u l y 7, 2009, t h e order that s e t the t r i a l part: "Any amendments to date the 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 4 2110055 amendments to pleadings (Capitalization On 2009, In the Bank Walker, the loan the S e p t e m b e r 5, notice-of-foreclosure of that a motion application, mortgage, motion, for the statement of the 2008, n o t i c e - o f - a c c e l e r a t i o n and letter, the the TIL assignment foreclosure deed, October 1, 2008, demand l e t t e r , and the affidavit Kellam, an assistant vice president and manager f o r t h e Bank. Bank's r e c o r d s She K e l l a m s t a t e d t h a t she had authenticated facts set foreclosure On the had 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 deed, demand-for-possession sent to the REO reviewed f o r t h i n her 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 the Taunya t h a t she 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 knowledge of the of the c o l l e c t i o n s and personal a Mrs. Mrs. support filed Bank 2005 mortgage, Court." the August by of 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 , s u b m i t t e d Mr. signed 28, judgment. Walker's leave in original.) October summary require and the letters TIL the statement, notice-of-acceleration that the Bank's and attorney had Walkers. November 19, 2009, the Walkers filed a response 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 5 in that 2110055 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. t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e was The Walkers because further alleged 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 had 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 had f a i l e d t o c o m p l y 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 b e c a u s e t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e i t 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 v a l u e , n o t b a s e d on p e r s o n a l Ala. R. Civ. P., and k n o w l e d g e as and, therefore, required 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 for the foreclosure sale. Mrs. trial Walker's a f f i d a v i t s court had set attached a hearing a summary j u d g m e n t f o r November 20, on court trial to entered judgment regarding Walkers' the motion an o r d e r motion for for a 2009. court's November 20, 2009, o r d e r Walkers u n t i l November 30, 2009, t o on the the 20, trial summary- Additionally, expressly file motion On November summary j u d g m e n t , 14, 6 Bank's 2009, r e s p o n s e i n r e s e t t i n g the h e a r i n g December Mr. to i t . the 2009. 2009, i n l i g h t o f t h e W a l k e r s ' November 19, opposition The by Walkers 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 l s o had W a l k e r ' s and The of Kellam's any allowed supplements the the to 2110055 their response 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 December 11, 2009, t o r e p l y t o t h e W a l k e r s ' 2009, t h e W a l k e r s f i l e d the motion asserted for a On November 30, an amended r e s p o n s e i n opposition to summary t h e same original response. judgment. arguments response, but amended as t o t h e same i t contained e x h i b i t s , i n c l u d i n g supplemental Mrs. The 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 "Amended A n s w e r a n d C o u n t e r c l a i m " amended answer defenses and asserted also counterclaims included the T r u t h i n Lending violations U.S.C. § a pleading styled additional numerous the f o l l o w i n g : breach of f i d u c i a r y duty, t o t h e J u l y 7, 2009, ("the amended a n s w e r " ) . several contained breach et misrepresentation, as an The affirmative counterclaims. 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 " ) , of the Real Estate Settlement 2601 f o r amended seq. unfair ("RESPA"), and Procedures fraud deceptive and intentional trade practices, 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 7 A c t , 12 2 identical practices. 2110055 u n c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y , breach of covenant o f g o o d f a i t h and fair d e a l i n g , u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t , and, i n a d d i t i o n , a c l a i m s e e k i n g declaratory On relief. December 10, 2009, the Bank filed a reply W a l k e r s ' amended r e s p o n s e t o t h e B a n k ' s m o t i o n judgment. That reply again asserted that to the f o r a summary 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 , the Bank a s s e r t e d , i t h a d 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 a d d r e s s e d t h e W a l k e r s ' numerous c o u n t e r c l a i m s . December 10, portions 2009, of unauthenticated the Bank also the Walkers' tax documents filed a motion affidavits r e g a r d i n g the and to On strike certain property. December 10, 2009, t h e Bank a l s o f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e to The On or d i s m i s s the Walkers' c o u n t e r c l a i m s . On December 11, 2009, the Bank filed an additional e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n i n s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment the a f f i d a v i t v i c e p r e s i d e n t and of Stephanie Wright, collection and REO 8 an assistant manager f o r t h e Bank. 2110055 Wright stated concerning knowledge that the of she had Walkers' the facts reviewed loan set and regarding Walkers' the Bank's On she i n her had records personal affidavit. She notifying 3 the t r i a l motion counterclaims. Bank's sent to the Walkers them t h a t t h e y were i n d e f a u l t . On F e b r u a r y 5, 2010, that forth a u t h e n t i c a t e d numerous l e t t e r s the to court conducted a hearing strike May 9, or to 2011, the dismiss trial the court e n t e r e d a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e Bank on t h e B a n k ' s ejectment disallowed action counterclaims. alter, filed a response i n o p p o s i t i o n denying 4 on July the a l l the Walkers' On June 7, 2011, t h e W a l k e r s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o amend, o r v a c a t e t h e May motion 2011. and 18, 2011. Walkers' The 9, 2011, judgment. to the Walkers' trial postjudgment court motion The Bank postjudgment e n t e r e d an o r d e r on September 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 a t i m e l y 6, notice 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 M r s . W a l k e r ' s s i g n a t u r e . See discussion, infra. 3 ^ 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 W a l k e r s ' p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n w o u l d have b e e n d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on September 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 , September 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 September 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 9 2110055 of appeal. to t h i s The 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 ' c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, Summary-Judgment On a p p e a l , toward the trial review. 12-2-7(6). Discussion 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 p r o p r i e t y of court's § appeal the summary j u d g m e n t . summary j u d g m e n t u n d e r a de novo We review standard a of 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 the 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 t h a t 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 determining w h e t h e r 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 e v i d e n c e 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 , 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 q u a l i t y that f a i r - m i n d e d 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. of F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " 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 ) . 10 2110055 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 , I n c . , 639 So. 2d 1349, 1350 ( A l a . 1994). We will address the Walkers' a r g u m e n t s 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 . 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 t h e 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 mortgage i n s t r u m e n t . they never r e c e i v e d Specifically, i n the the Walkers contend a notice-of-default letter, that a notice-of- a c c e l e r a t i o n l e t t e r , a 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 , and a notice-of-assignment letter. In support o f 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 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 a n d i n t e n t - t o - a c c e l e r a t e one o f w h i c h was a c e r t i f i e d signature (see n o t e 3, letter supra) , evidencing as well as letters, Mrs. Walker's a notice-of- acceleration l e t t e r , with a notice-of-foreclosure-sale enclosed, purportedly 2008, b y an a t t o r n e y sent t o the Walkers r e t a i n e d b y t h e Bank. address each a l l e g e d n o t i c e on 11 letter September However, we deficiency i n turn. that 5, will 2110055 First, the Walkers notice-of-assignment affidavits state assignment the contend that letter. that they never Specifically, they were never instrument. However, as the was p a r a g r a p h 20 o f t h e m o r t g a g e i n s t r u m e n t c l e a r l y Note or a p a r t i a l Security interest Instrument) i n the Note can be p r i o r n o t i c e to Borrower." sold one of the required t h e Bank a Walkers' notified of the mortgage as, t h e y a s s e r t , mortgage received by highlights, states: (together "The with this o r more t i m e s w i t h o u t The e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s t h a t t h e m o r t g a g e was a s s i g n e d t o t h e Bank. 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 t h e 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 t h e 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 not required the e v i d e n t i a r y materials Walkers were, i n f a c t , Next, the Walkers n o t i f i e d of the contend notice-of-default letter. that by consequence the indicate mortgage that assignment. they never received nor did [they] a In r e g a r d to the n o t i c e - o f - d e f a u l t l e t t e r , the W a l k e r s ' a f f i d a v i t s s t a t e t h a t t h e y "w[ere] sent the receive any 12 notice of default never or an 2110055 opportunity to cure the delinquency." However, as a b o v e , t h e 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 receipt that a evidencing notice was Mrs. Walker's indeed mailed 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 . evidence before received and noted with 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 had a notice-of-default Furthermore, i n regard notice-of-foreclosure-sale letter. t o t h e n o t i c e - o f - a c c e l e r a t i o n and letter, the Walkers failed to a s s e r t t h a t t h e Bank h a d 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, 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 that they d i d not r e c e i v e the letter. Specifically, Mr. W a l k e r ' s a f f i d a v i t states: "The [Bank] w r o n g f u l l y f o r e c l o s e d a n d 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 o f t h e d e f a u l t 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 receive 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." M o r e o v e r , t h e numerous n o t i c e - o f - d e f a u l t l e t t e r s t h a t t h e Bank attached i n support o f i t s summary-judgment motion clearly 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 t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t , and t h a t t h e Bank h a d i n t e n d e d 13 to accelerate the 2110055 debt owed should payments. there was The the Walkers Walkers, fail therefore, to remit failed a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l the necessary to e s t a b l i s h fact regarding t h e n o t i c e s were s e n t as r e q u i r e d by t h e m o r t g a g e See Coleman v. So. 3d that BAC , acceleration contained [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. Coleman was submitted Servicing, as not given required evidence the indicating i n Coleman's a l l e g e t h a t BAC notice by had file instrument. 2012] ( r e j e c t i n g an of default mortgage that and whether 2100453, June 22, 2012) or notice f a i l e d t o send the of BAC letters Coleman had _ argument document when notice that that were failed to letters). II. The the Civ. W a l k e r s n e x t argue t h a t the Bank's e v i d e n c e various P. notices Specifically, c o u l d n o t be with failed Rule Wright's to they contend that b a s e d on p e r s o n a l 56(e). affidavit comply w i t h untimely the 56, Kellam's k n o w l e d g e and Additionally, was Rule 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. 14 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 ; F u r t h e r 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 b y 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 s o 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 W a l k e r s a r g u e t h a t K e l l a m ' 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 t e s t i f i e d that i n her o f f i c i a l to review affidavit Bank] the notice contained c a p a c i t y she had t h e o c c a s i o n letters. the following Specifically, Kellam's 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 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 15 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 [ t h e 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 Bank], I can 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 f i l e Thus, t h e W a l k e r s the alleged 16 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 affidavit. See P e r r y v. 2100235, June 29, Federal Nat'l 2012] So. 3d Mortg. , Ass'n, [Ms. (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). Finally, the Walkers 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 we again note t h a t the Walkers to s t r i k e c o u r t ' s November 20, 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 Wright's a f f i d a v i t t h u s , was timely filed court's order. III. In their appellate brief, 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 , entity i s required foreclosure initiating for to o f f e r Walkers who that the they contend, a f o r e c l o s i n g loss-mitigation mortgagors argue are in foreclosure proceedings pursuant alternatives default to the 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 ) to before National (effective 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 Housing and Urban 17 Development. The Walkers 2110055 contend that any other sale. t h e y were n e v e r loss-mitigation Although the offered services record counseling determined services that any the not contain evidence counseling or other does before foreclosure, alleged failure to foreclosure this comply court with 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 . So. 3d a t ( h o l d i n g t h a t , " [ i ] n the absence 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 contrary, entity to we conclude that comply Development] with or f r o m o u r supreme c o u r t the f a i l u r e [Department [Department of of of a Housing has loss- m i t i g a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d d e f e n s e Coleman, or before 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 services to See of to foreclosing and Veteran Urban Affairs] 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 n o t be r a i s e d as a d e f e n s e t o an ejectment Thus, the action alleged following failure to a nonjudicial exhaust procedures b e f o r e the f o r e c l o s u r e foreclosure"). a l l loss-mitigation s a l e i s not a v a l i d r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l i n the present ejectment defense action. IV. Next, the Walkers d e f e c t i v e because, contend that the f o r e c l o s u r e sale was t h e y s a y , t h e Bank b r e a c h e d i t s f i d u c i a r y 18 2110055 d u t y by and i n t e n t i o n a l l y underbidding the v a l u e of the creating a deficiency in price. Walker p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l The property 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 the tax a s s e s s o r ' s records valued at $224, 000 and Mr. the assessor's 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 v a l u e f o r t h e p r o p e r t y a t $224,000.00." The Walkers' Bank filed a motion to strike the 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, c o u r t has The of trial this 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 stated that "'"[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 Alabama E v i d e n c e § 267.04 ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . " 19 2110055 Berry v. D e u t s c h e (Ala. C i v . App. reasonably reliable Bank N a t ' l T r u s t 2010). concluded number to Thus, Co., So. 3d 142, trial the court could price was that the $224,000 prove the fair 57 market value 148 have not a of the value was property. Moreover, indeed even $224,000, assuming that the f a i r market 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 i s so "'"The 'where t h e p r i c e r e a l i z e d a t t h e i n a d e q u a t e as to shock the general [foreclosure] 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) (quoting v. B a l d w i n C n t y . F e d . Sav. Bank, 567 So. 2d 1329, 1990), q u o t i n g 293, Inc. So. 295 (1927)). In Perry, bid 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 l o w as t o s h o c k t h e c o n s c i e n c e . this court So. 3d a t Breen 1333 ( A l a . i n t u r n Hayden v. S m i t h , 216 A l a . 428, 113 v. 430-31, held that . was a 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 d i d n o t shock t h e 20 conscience. 2110055 853 So. 2d realized at 168. at the the conscience Thus, we Therefore, we conclude f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was under the affirm f a c t s of t h i s the summary not that price as t o so low the shock case. judgment in favor of the Bank. Counterclaims On erred appeal, in previously, the Walkers a l s o argue t h a t the disallowing their 13 counterclaims. noted breach of f i d u c i a r y duty, unfair u n c o n s c i o n a b i l i t y , breach d e a l i n g , unjust enrichment, declaratory relief. court As 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 misrepresentation, trial i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g : the c o u n t e r c l a i m s of c o n t r a c t , breach Discussion and deceptive trade intentional practices, o f c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a i t h and and, fair i n addition, a claim seeking In the Bank's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e or d i s m i s s t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s , 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, A l a . R. 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 R u l e 13 t o be d i s p o s i t i v e , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e parties' o t h e r a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s . See F a v o r i t e Mkt. S t o r e v. W a l d r o p , 924 So. 2d 719, 21 723 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) 2110055 ( 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 f u r t h e r issues in Therefore, in light on a p p e a l , disallowing present of case. the d i s p o s i t i v e nature we of another review whether the t r i a l counterclaims under the issue). court facts of erred 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 reversed 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) 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 well established that 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 g r o u n d ' " s u p p o r t e d 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)). Furthermore, "'[a]n a p p e l l a t e court ... 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 , I n c . , 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 22 2110055 Wells Civ. v. Geneva C n t y . Bd. App. of Educ., 646 So. 2d 98, 99 (Ala. 1994). 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 e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 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 t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s scheduling order allowed the they filed the We cannot agree have been date pleadings. that i t would counterclaims or that the Walkers u n t i l the December 1, counterclaims, that the to that by the the 2009, amend Bank f a i l e d prejudiced fact and b e c a u s e their to allege allowing the counterclaims 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 this 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. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., "may enter a 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, in 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 23 pleadings 2110055 require leave of Court." Walkers f i l e d t h e i r (Capitalization counterclaims in original.) The on December 1, 2009; thus, 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 supreme court the under Ala. 15, time R. provided Corp., affirmed 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 Financial We where the So. 2d trial court's w h i c h had scheduling Specifically, our 1180 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 trial Thus, we cannot accept the Walkers' court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n counterclaims solely because 24 they argument in disallowing filed their 2110055 counterclaims However, could by t h e d a t e c o n t a i n e d we must have prejudiced reasonably by counterclaims In its counterclaims, because, further the under the the i t said, consider that Walkers f a c t s of t h i s to dismiss the the to trial Bank proceed order. court would on be their case. or Bank a r g u e d t h a t the scheduling whether concluded allowing motion i n the strike 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 claims S e p t e m b e r 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 they the scheduled counterclaims Bank]'s r i g h t 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 serve 2010, to because the perform 25 the Moreover, allowing 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 a n s w e r p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 13. Walkers t o a s s e r t the c o u n t e r c l a i m s was foreclosure s i n c e the Walkers should Bank s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be trial had counterclaims occurred the and "the and that allowing further delay [the Bank w o u l d have extensive to discovery 2110055 necessary f o r defending 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 a p p e a l that t h e Bank failed against the ... counterclaims." t o a l l e g e or demonstrate that i t w o u l d have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b y a l l o w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Bank a s s e r t e d s e v e r a l r e a s o n s i t w o u l d have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b y a l l o w i n g t h e W a l k e r s t o a s s e r t and p r o c e e d on t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m s litigation a t such a l a t e stage i n t h e process. I n B l a c k m o n , o u r supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t u n d e r R u l e 15, Ala. R. C i v . P., a "trial court can r e f u s e to allow an 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 t o t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y o r f o r r e a s o n s o f 'undue d e l a y . ' " 2d a t 1189. Furthermore, o u r supreme m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m "undue d e l a y . " court 953 So. d e t a i l e d the Specifically, i t stated: "Undue d e l a y c a n have two d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s i n a case. F i r s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has d i s c r e t i o n 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 opportunity to discover the facts necessary t o 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 [ ( A l a . 1980) ] ; s e e 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 t r i a l 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 t 26 o 2110055 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 ) ; 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 case a t hand under R u l e 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 13 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." 27 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 6 to 2110055 opposing party, 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 that i s the subject matter of the o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s c l a i m a n d does n o t r e q u i r e f o r i t s 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 party not a r i s i n g out of the t r a n s a c t i o n or occurrence that i s the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. " . . . " ( 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 counterclaims n o t have 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 a l l t h e a t t h e t i m e i t answered t h e Bank's 28 complaint. 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 denied at the 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 t h a t the i n d i s a l l o w i n g the 29 to Rule court's discretion 81,193 Bags o f F l o u r , 629 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 the 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 . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Moore, J . , c o n c u r . Pittman and B r y a n , J J . , concur writings. 30 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.