Angie E. Stewart v. Richard F. Williams

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/22/2013 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 2110725 Angie E. Stewart v. R i c h a r d F. W i l l i a m s Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-901046) PITTMAN, Judge. A n g i e E. S t e w a r t a p p e a l e d t o t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a from a judgment Richard of title o f t h eBaldwin F. W i l l i a m s t o property $59,500 owned Circuit i n damages that awarded f o r Stewart's slander by Williams. Court The supreme court 2110725 t r a n s f e r r e d the Ala. appeal Code 1975. On We that property he 25, 2008, Stewart had Anders. executed for a written $125,000, the of the balance asserted renovation project and to pay on on and s a l e on on her at had a complaint to rental interfered with he and his and tenant, had pursuant to house t h a t Anders and house from to at the financing Williams help Anders further with the a l l o w i n g Anders to charge m a t e r i a l s Lowe's and Home D e p o t store was Williams $100,000 Williams interest. the Anders 2008, Williams agreed credit for cards Stewart back over t i m e . F i n a l l y , Williams alleged July days alleged 11, 2008 (three had filed County the amount property, 12-2-7(6), title 3, the 2008, 10% c l o s i n g ) , Stewart a March paying J u l y 14, $25,000 Stewart had to purchase the Anders p r o j e c t by the that, with the that agreed to renovate of that and asserted contract from W i l l i a m s closing slandered filed r e l a t i o n s between him Williams w h i c h Anders had leasing Williams owned i n R o b e r t s d a l e c o n t r a c t u a l or business Troy court pursuant to § reverse. September alleging to this lien in thereby preventing, in of the probate $50,000 according 2 before court against the of Baldwin Williams's to W i l l i a m s , the sale 2110725 of the the property funds because the to purchase Stewart of enforce lien the amount by enriched. the to which, Stewart of the but had provided f o r the Anders Stewart's i n an had to renovation that Williams the m a t e r i a l s w i t h her his f o r the answer testimony, accompanied s t o r e s when t h e testified had her $50,000, been u n j u s t l y or the complaint not materials On that otherwise court the only J a n u a r y 5, trial to to she 2009, defend entered i n f a v o r of S t e w a r t i n a the $44,961.78. deposition Williams pay agreed to f i n a n c e project. d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t A n d e r s and In to material filed a third-party t h i r d - p a r t y complaint, amount o f Anders seeking amount s u f f i c i e n t renovation failed the counterclaimed, Williams a l s o to repay her had to loan denying t h a t A n d e r s had property Williams refused said, Williams In addition, Stewart pay after and require against Anders, a l l e g i n g purchase generally complaint, or had house. answered, allegations the the lender t r u c k to haul the had Stewart Anders to stated Lowe's m a t e r i a l s had been p r e s e n t c r e d i t cards materials 3 and to the that and she Home and Depot been p u r c h a s e d . when s h e had that Williams rental house. paid had She for used Stewart 2110725 explained make that the minimum indebtedness balance design that her fee, required on materials her had stopped Anders to credit-card and t o pay h e r t h e p l u s 2 5 % i n t e r e s t as an i n t e r i o r - a t or near the time of the c l o s i n g . credit-card 26, Anders payments f o r the renovation and had f a i l e d When with monthly of the indebtedness, Anders 2008, h e r agreement communicating with Stewart said h e r o n May 24, t o make a n y f u r t h e r m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s o n indebtedness. the case was c a l l e d 2011, the t r i a l court f o r a bench stated that trial on S e p t e m b e r i t was entering a d e f a u l t because n e i t h e r Stewart nor her attorney had appeared and that Williams would present testimony, presumably as t o damages. Soon t h e r e a f t e r , t h e c o u r t noted f o r t h e r e c o r d that Stewart's a t t o r n e y had " j u s t walked i n t o the courtroom," after which the p a r t i e s presented evidence as t o t h e m e r i t s of the case. At trial, informed look had stop Stewart Williams to Williams filed that she had t h a t , i f Anders d i dnot repay her, f o r payment. the l i e n the c l o s i n g acknowledged on against never she would She a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t s h e Williams's the sale property of the property 4 i n order because, to she 2110725 said, she would not purchase had received have information sufficient the house funds indicating at f r o m W i l l i a m s and the that closing to pay Anders both h e r w h a t he to owed her. Williams II, a presented mortgage the c o n s u l t a n t who of documentary Fidelity the evidence Mortgage renovated house he lender to ordered an Company house. that Anders had Bufkin presented at the direction of he had appraised the 7, 2008. had c o n t i n u e d t o remain i n 2010, planned 22 m o n t h s a f t e r t h e to close the sale date" of July 14, indicating (a) that F i d e l i t y t o l o a n funds ever been s c h e d u l e d , or caused a l e n d e r not trial, neither party the to the 2008, he no evidence o r any o t h e r l e n d e r had actually to Anders, (b) presented date of Although Williams r e f e r r e d throughout the t r i a l "closing agreed that on A u g u s t h o u s e a s a t e n a n t u n t i l May with Edward ("Fidelity") f o r $187,000 claimed the p a r t i e s worked house. indicating Williams testified the a renovated had McCorkindale M c C o r k i n d a l e s a i d he h a d secure a loan f o r Anders. appraisal testimony of Robert that a closing date had (c) t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e l i e n had t o make a l o a n t o A n d e r s . had been able 5 to locate At the time Anders and of his 2110725 whereabouts Anders the were had l e f t unknown. the rental improvements appliances, bathtub. he interior Williams Williams house, had made testified Anders to acknowledged that had removed the doors, f l o o r i n g , that, house, light Anders. judgment fixtures, Anders presented totaling n e a r l y $54,000 had been i n the probate court and a he h a d n o t i n v e s t i g a t e d Stewart liens many o f including A n d e r s ' s c r e d i t h i s t o r y b e f o r e he h a d a g r e e d t o s e l l to before evidence t h e house indicating filed of B a l d w i n County that against i n 2004 and trial, the 2005. During following the p a r t i e s ' closing arguments at occurred: "THE COURT: O k a y . A l l r i g h t , M r . S h e p h e r d [ c o u n s e l for W i l l i a m s ] , what e v i d e n c e i s t h e r e t h a t this c l o s i n g would have t a k e n p l a c e b u t f o r t h e l i e n ? "MR. SHEPHERD: Y o u r H o n o r , t h e j u d g m e n t s d o n ' t s t o p don't M r . A n d e r s , i f t h a t i s t h e same M r . A n d e r s . One c a n buy p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e judgment, i t ' s t h e s e l l i n g o f the p r o p e r t y "THE COURT: He c a n b u y i t , b u t y ' a l l h a v e n ' t p r o v e d t h a t he w o u l d h a v e g o t t e n a m o r t g a g e l o a n . "MR. SHEPHERD: J u d g e , w i t h "THE COURT: "MR. what With SHEPHERD: we have Fidelity what? With F i d e l i t y . shown i s that 6 Fidelity Judge, Fidelity sent an 2110725 appraiser property. out there t o g e t an a p p r a i s a l for this "THE COURT: R i g h t . A n d , F i d e l i t y w o u l d h a v e h a d a title check run and they would have seen t h e statement o f l i e n , and I agree, that would stop t h e c l o s i n g . I mean, t h e r e a r e t w o s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n s . One i s , w o u l d [ A n d e r s ] h a v e q u a l i f i e d f o r a m o r t g a g e l o a n . A n d , I mean, t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e was a commitment f r o m a n y m o r t g a g e company o t h e r t h a n t h a t a n a p p r a i s a l c o m p a n y was h i r e d . "MR. SHEPHERD: T h a t ' s c o r r e c t . We h a v e a n a p p r a i s e d value a n d we h a v e a c o n t r a c t s h o w i n g what t h e p u r c h a s e a m o u n t w a s t o b e . We c o u l d n o t l o c a t e s o I c o u l d n ' t produce a c l o s i n g agent. "THE COURT: wasn't one. A l lright. I suspect because "MR. SHEPHERD: W e l l , i t d i d n ' t h a p p e n . there wasn't. That's there true, "THE COURT: I mean, a m o r t g a g e p a c k a g e was n e v e r s e n t t o a n y c l o s i n g a g e n t o r a t l e a s t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t one was. " W e l l , what i s c l e a r from t h e e v i d e n c e i s t h a t [Anders] took advantage o f two p e o p l e to their d e t r i m e n t . And t h e Court w i l l take t h e case under s u b m i s s i o n and e n t e r a judgment as soon as I c a n . " On O c t o b e r the f o l l o w i n g 13, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t rendered and e n t e r e d judgment: "1. The C o u r t finds from t h e evidence that [Stewart] willfully and maliciously filed a s t a t e m e n t o f l i e n on t h e p r o p e r t y o f [ W i l l i a m s ] a t a t i m e w h e n s h e knew t h a t h e h a d e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t t o s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y t o A n d e r s . The C o u r t a l s o f i n d s from t h e evidence t h a t [ S t e w a r t ] knew 7 2110725 t h a t s h e h a d no l e g a l b a s i s f o r f i l i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t o f l i e n . M o r e o v e r , she n e v e r f i l e d s u i t w i t h i n s i x months t o e n f o r c e the l i e n . "2. The Court f i n d s from the evidence that because of the f i l i n g of the statement of l i e n the s a l e of the house d i d not c l o s e . " 3 . An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t y deed from R e g i o n s Bank t o [ W i l l i a m s ] d i s c l o s e s t h a t d e e d t a x was p a i d i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 6 5 . 5 0 . The C o u r t deems that to represent a purchase price of $65,000.00 f o r t h e p r o p e r t y i n A p r i l o f 2004 w h i l e t h e h o u s e was i n an u n c o m p l e t e d s t a t e . The contract o f s a l e b e t w e e n [ W i l l i a m s ] a n d T r o y A n d e r s was for $125,000.00; t h e r e f o r e , t h e s p e c i a l damages s u f f e r e d by [ W i l l i a m s ] as a p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t o f [Stewart's] w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t i s $ 5 9 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 . The Court enters judgment in favor of [Williams] and against [Stewart] i n t h e sum o f $ 5 9 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 p l u s t h e c o s t o f court. "4. The C o u r t d e n i e s p u n i t i v e damages." On to f i l e appeal, the Stewart l i e n ; that and that Williams was the legal contends her failed cause of [Williams's] filing to prove the request that she had a the lien was not that the loss Williams for lawful filing claimed. right malicious; o f the lien 1 S t e w a r t d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t W i l l i a m s c a n n o t p r e v a i l on his s l a n d e r - o f - t i t l e c l a i m b a s e d on t h e p r i n c i p l e stated in D e n t v . B a l c h , 213 A l a . 3 1 1 , 104 So. 651 (1925): 1 "The law i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i f t h e r e i s i n existence, before the p e r p e t r a t i o n of the alleged s l a n d e r of t i t l e , a v a l i d and e n f o r c e a b l e contract for t h e s a l e o f t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n , no recovery 8 2110725 Our the review of the t r i a l following c o u r t ' s judgment i s governed by principles: "When a j u d g e i n a n o n j u r y c a s e h e a r s oral t e s t i m o n y , a judgment b a s e d on f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t t e s t i m o n y w i l l be p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t a n d w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l e x c e p t f o r a p l a i n and p a l p a b l e e r r o r . G r i g g s v. D r i f t w o o d L a n d i n g , Inc., 620 S o . 2 d 582 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; F i r s t National Bank o f M o b i l e v. Duckworth, 502 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 ( A l a . 1987). However, where t h e f a c t s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l court a r e e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i s p u t e d and t h e c o n t r o v e r s y involves questions of law f o rthe court t o consider, the c o u r t ' s judgment carries no p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s . B e a v e r s v . C o u n t y o f W a l k e r , 645 S o . 2 d 1365 ( A l a . 1994). Because no m a t e r i a l facts are d i s p u t e d a n d t h i s a p p e a l f o c u s e s on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o the f a c t s , no presumption of correct[ness] i s accorded to the t r i a l court's judgment. Therefore, we review de novo the a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o the facts of t h i s case. B e a v e r s , s u p r a ; Lake F o r e s t P r o p e r t y Owners' A s s ' n v. S m i t h , 571 So. 2 d 1047 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . " Allstate I n s . Co. v . S k e l t o n , Section any estate 675 S o . 2 d 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . 6-5-211, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : i n l a n d s may commence an a c t i o n "The o w n e r o f for libelous or s l a n d e r o u s words f a l s e l y and m a l i c i o u s l y impugning h i s t i t l e . " c a n b e h a d a g a i n s t t h e s l a n d e r e r f o r t h e damage r e s u l t i n g from t h e e x e c u t o r y purchaser's breach o f his contract to purchase. "In such a case t h e l a w presumes t h a t t h e vendor can r e c o v e r any r e s u l t i n g l o s s from t h e d e f a u l t i n g p u r c h a s e r , a n d he i s l e f t t o t h a t remedy." 213 A l a . a t 3 1 2 , 104 S o . a t 652 9 (citations omitted). 2110725 "The e l e m e n t s c o n s t i t u t i n g a s l a n d e r o f t i t l e as a b a s i s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f d a m a g e s a r e as f o l l o w s : ( 1 ) Ownership o f the p r o p e r t y by p l a i n t i f f ; (2) falsity of the words published; (3) malice of defendant i n p u b l i s h i n g the f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s ; (4) p u b l i c a t i o n t o some p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e o w n e r ; ( 5 ) the publication must be in disparagement of p l a i n t i f f ' s p r o p e r t y o r t h e t i t l e t h e r e o f ; and (6) t h a t s p e c i a l damages were t h e p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t of s u c h p u b l i c a t i o n ( s e t t i n g them out i n d e t a i l ) . The amount o f l o s s i n e a c h of the p a r t i c u l a r s of s p e c i a l d a m a g e s c l a i m e d n e e d n o t be s t a t e d . " Womack v . M c D o n a l d , 219 (emphasis added; c i t a t i o n s The the trial erroneous. that any As on the or t h a t the a lender legal with the 632 that of the of the issue trade-libel and made a l o a n sale of of the is plainly Williams commitment property of the cases, Stewart's l o s s he had l i e n was 57, 59 (1929) ever and palpably failed been to that caused was and in state, in pertinent slander-of-title part: the c. (Second) o f T o r t s , w h i c h causation a Williams title C o m m e n t s b. show scheduled, Consequently, of of close" is a f a c t o r t h a t had suffered. 10 filing to Anders, alleged slander Restatement legal So. house d i d not t o make a l o a n t o A n d e r s . prove Section had 121 "because of the s a l e of the evidence existence not cause the that previously discussed, lender closing not by the 76-77, omitted). finding statement of l i e n unsupported did court's A l a . 75, to deals and 2110725 " [ T ] h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f an i n j u r i o u s f a l s e h o o d must not o n l y a f f e c t t h e person o r p r o p e r t y concerning w h i c h i t i s p u b l i s h e d , b u t i t must a l s o be a l e g a l c a u s e o f p e c u n i a r y l o s s . T h i s means t h a t i t must b e a s u b s t a n t i a l factor i n determining the conduct of t h i r d persons which b r i n g s about t h e l o s s . " " I n o r d e r f o r t h e f a l s e s t a t e m e n t t o be a s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f an intending or p o t e n t i a l purchaser or lessee, i t i s not n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e c o n d u c t s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d e x c l u s i v e l y o r even p r e d o m i n a n t l y by t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of the statement. It i s enough that the disparagement i s a factor i n determining his decision, even t h o u g h he i s i n f l u e n c e d b y other f a c t o r s w i t h o u t w h i c h he w o u l d n o t d e c i d e t o a c t as he d o e s . T h u s many c o n s i d e r a t i o n s may c o m b i n e t o make a n i n t e n d i n g purchaser decide t o break a c o n t r a c t o r t o w i t h d r a w o r r e f r a i n from making an offer. I f , however, the publication of the d i s p a r a g i n g m a t t e r i s one o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t has s u b s t a n t i a l weight, the publication of the disparaging matter i s a substantial factor i n p r e v e n t i n g t h e s a l e and thus b r i n g i n g f i n a n c i a l l o s s upon t h e owner o f t h e t h i n g i n q u e s t i o n . " In Farmers' 221 N.W. State 540 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , Bank o f H a r r i s v. H i n t z , the t r i a l defendant's s l a n d e r - o f - t i t l e of Iowa affirmed, concluding c o u r t d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t on t h e counterclaim. that required prospective by the prospective The Supreme C o u r t the evidence e i t h e r t h a t t h e defendant c o u l d have o b t a i n e d loan 206 Iowa 9 1 1 , d i d n o t show a first purchasers or mortgage that the p u r c h a s e r s were ready and a b l e t o buy t h e p r o p e r t y 11 2110725 on 221 the terms proposed. (Tex. C i v . App. favor of 1940), plaintiffs tentative sale In Ross of titles reversed, by holding damages b e c a u s e willing In the t o buy Gardner v. a seller's The Supreme court 136 had not as 392 A.2d a t 386-87 12 one court "McCullough was for i t . " Id. 392 381, A.2d 383 by the unsupported counterclaim affirmed, (emphasis upon established against stating "An e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r s l a n d e r o f t i t l e i s s p e c i a l d a m a g e s . W. P r o s s e r , The Law o f T o r t s § 1 2 8 , a t 920 (4th ed. 1971). These damages must be p r o v e d by t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to recovery. I d . § 128, a t 922. At minimum, t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t any damages r e s u l t f r o m t h e ' s l a n d e r ' and n o t f r o m o t h e r f a c t o r s . S e e I d . § 1 2 8 , a t 9 2 3 - 2 4 . ... No e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o t i e any damages t o t h e a l l e g e d 'slander.'" V t . a t 387, a to following: 136 219, made appellate t o pay Vt. Vermont had properties Texas unable slander-of-title of S.W.2d of the cloud cast The dismissed Court they indicated that Inc., evidence buyer. evidence West-Col, trial the plaintiffs b u t was the on defendants." the lease (1978), "that l o s t because the 146 jury rendered a v e r d i c t i n o i l lease that the Jarrett, alleged M c C u l l o u g h , w h i c h s a l e was their a Texas who an v. added). a the 2110725 Because W i l l i a m s his slander-of-title reversed, favor f a i l e d t o prove the causation element of claim, the t r i a l court's judgment i s and t h e cause i s remanded f o r e n t r y o f a judgment i n of Stewart. R E V E R S E D AND Thompson, REMANDED. P . J . , a n d Thomas, concur. 13 Moore, and Donaldson, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.