Elliott Builders, Inc., et al. v. Timbercreek Property Owners Association et al. (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: CV-07-900390) (Consolidated with 2110759.) Reversed And Remanded. Elliott Builders, Inc., et al. v. Timbercreek Property Owners Association et al. (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: CV-09-900412)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 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 2110758 E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s , Inc., e t a l . v. Timbercreek Property Owners A s s o c i a t i o n e t a l . Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-900390) 2110759 E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s , Inc., e t a l . v. Timbercreek Property Owners A s s o c i a t i o n e t a l . Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-09-900412) Court 2110758 a n d 2110759 PITTMAN, Judge. These a p p e a l s a r e t a k e n i n c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e s the involving o p e r a t i o n o f t h e T i m b e r c r e e k P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n ("TPOA"), t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f TPOA, a n d t h e T i m b e r c r e e k A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w B o a r d ("TARB"). the (Ala. s u m m a r i z e d much o f p e r t i n e n t p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y i n v o l v i n g these l i t i g a n t s i n an o p i n i o n Inc. We rendered i n a previous appeal, E l l i o t t v. T i m b e r c r e e k P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) , w h i c h was a c t u a l l y previous appeals arising from Builders, 73 So. 3d t h e s e c o n d o f two the underlying trial-court litigation: " I n June 2007, E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s , I n c . , b r o u g h t an a c t i o n a g a i n s t TPOA a n d TARB i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w h i c h was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. CV-07-900390 ( ' t h e 2007 a c t i o n ' ) , s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f a n d damages a r i s i n g out of those defendants' a l l e g e d wrongful conduct w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r f a i l u r e t o approve the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a r e t a i n i n g w a l l on a l o t l o c a t e d i n the [ T i m b e r c r e e k ] s u b d i v i s i o n ; t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d an answer denying liability and asserted a counterclaim seeking declaratory and injunctive r e l i e f a g a i n s t E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s and C h r i s E l l i o t t , an i n d i v i d u a l owner o f a l o t i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n who was named as an a d d i t i o n a l defendant i n the counterclaim. I n J u l y 2008, E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n ; i n S e p t e m b e r 2008, an amended c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d i n which C h r i s E l l i o t t a s s e r t e d claims against the d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n . TPOA a n d TARB f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o a l l c l a i m s i n the 2007 a c t i o n . B o t h o f t h o s e summary-judgment m o t i o n s were d e n i e d i n November 2008. In A p r i l 2009, E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s a n d C h r i s E l l i o t t filed, w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , a s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t 2 1274 2110758 a n d 2110759 i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n a d d i n g new t o r t c l a i m s , a d d i n g a c l a i m under t h e Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , A l a . Code 1975, § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , a n d r e s t a t i n g o t h e r c l a i m s p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d ; TPOA and TARB f i l e d an amended a n s w e r a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m c h a l l e n g i n g the p r o c e d u r a l p r o p r i e t y of the second amended complaint, asserting defenses to the p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s , and r e s t a t i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e plaintiffs. " I n J u l y 2009, TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , a n d TARB f i l e d a ' m o t i o n t o c o n s o l i d a t e ' i n w h i c h t h e y a v e r r e d t h a t , i n A p r i l 2009, f o u r o t h e r plaintiffs ( R o b e r t M. H o o v e r , J o h n C. B r u t k i e w i c z , L u c i l l e M. Dean, a n d P a u l C. D a v i s ) h a d b r o u g h t a s e p a r a t e c i v i l a c t i o n s e e k i n g i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s t them i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , an a c t i o n t h a t h a d b e e n a s s i g n e d c a s e no. CV-09-900412 ( ' t h e 2009 a c t i o n ' ) ; t h e movants r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e 2007 a c t i o n a n d 2009 a c t i o n be c o n s o l i d a t e d b e c a u s e o f t h e p u r p o r t e d e x i s t e n c e o f common l e g a l a n d f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s . The trial court apparently granted the r e l i e f requested because the r e c o r d contains a motion f i l e d by the p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e two a c t i o n s seeking s e p a r a t e t r i a l s i n which the p l a i n t i f f s acknowledge t h a t a c o n s o l i d a t i o n o r d e r had been e n t e r e d i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n . I t a l s o a p p e a r s t h a t , i n an amended c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n i n J u l y 2009, Chris Elliott, Elliott Builders, and S t e r l i n g H e r s h i s e r j o i n e d as p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n t h a t amended pleading. I n September 2009, TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , a n d TARB f i l e d an a n s w e r a n d a s s e r t e d c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n s e e k i n g i n j u n c t i v e relief, declaratory relief, a n d damages f o r an alleged breach of c o n t r a c t ; that pleading stated c l a i m s a g a i n s t , among o t h e r p a r t i e s , H o o v e r (who a p p a r e n t l y was d r o p p e d as a p l a i n t i f f i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ) a n d h i s w i f e (who h a d n e v e r b e e n a p l a i n t i f f in either action). " I n J u l y 2009, a new r o u n d o f d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s b e g a n . F i r s t , i n t h a t month, t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n f i l e d a summary-judgment m o t i o n ( w h i c h does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d ) . Elliott 3 2110758 and 2110759 B u i l d e r s and C h r i s E l l i o t t moved i n A u g u s t 2009 f o r t h e e n t r y o f a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e i r f a v o r as t o v a r i o u s c l a i m s and c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n . TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , and TARB f i l e d r e s p o n s e s t o t h o s e m o t i o n s and f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' 'amended c o m p l a i n t ' ( a p p a r e n t l y , t h e amended c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ) ; t h e m o t i o n d i d n o t s e e k a summary j u d g m e n t as t o any counterclaim. The p l a i n t i f f s i n b o t h c a s e s moved t o s t r i k e v a r i o u s e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s t h a t were f i l e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d by TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , and TARB, as w e l l as those defendants' f i l i n g s i n opposition to the A u g u s t 2009 p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by C h r i s E l l i o t t and E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s . Finally, i t a p p e a r s t h a t f o u r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ( H o o v e r , B r u t k i e w i c z , Dean, and D a v i s ) were p e r m i t t e d i n September 2009 t o v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , t h e i r c l a i m s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ; although the order g r a n t i n g those p a r t i e s ' request does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d , a m o t i o n f i l e d by TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , and TARB s o u g h t amendment o f t h a t d i s m i s s a l o r d e r t o d i r e c t t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l be w i t h p r e j u d i c e . 1 "On November 17, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e n d e r e d and e n t e r e d , by transmitting e l e c t r o n i c documents t o the State J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System ( ' S J I S ' ) , f o u r o r d e r s . Two o f t h e o r d e r s d e n i e d m o t i o n s t o s t r i k e t h a t had b e e n f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s ; one o r d e r d e n i e d t h e p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by Elliott B u i l d e r s ( a n d C h r i s E l l i o t t ) ; and a f o u r t h o r d e r g r a n t e d t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d by TPOA, i t s b o a r d , and TARB. Because the orders d i d not a d j u d i c a t e a l l c l a i m s as t o a l l p a r t i e s i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n , t h e o r d e r s were n o t f i n a l and appealable. See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. "On December 18, 2009, C h r i s E l l i o t t and E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r the express d i r e c t i o n o f e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d e n i a l o f t h e i r A u g u s t 2009 p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n . On December 23, 2009, a 4 2110758 and 2110759 notice of a p p e a l was filed on behalf of the ' P l a i n t i f f s , ' i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e s t y l e s o l e l y as ' R o b e r t M. Hoover, et a l . ' from the 'Summary Judgment i n f a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t s ' ( w h i c h , as we have n o t e d , was e n t e r e d i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n d i r e c t e d t o t h e amended c o m p l a i n t i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n , n o t t h e 2007 a c t i o n ) . T h a t a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975, was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t , where i t was a s s i g n e d c a s e no. 2090361. T h i s c o u r t c a l l e d f o r supplemental b r i e f s from the p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g whether a final, appealable j u d g m e n t had been entered. R e p l i e s to t h a t order i n d i c a t e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t , on J a n u a r y 29, 2010, had d i r e c t e d t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n as t o the d e n i a l o f t h e A u g u s t 2009 p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by C h r i s E l l i o t t and E l l i o t t Builders. The ' A p p e l l a n t s / P l a i n t i f f s ' ( l i s t e d as b e i n g B r u t k i e w i c z , Dean, D a v i s , C h r i s E l l i o t t , and E l l i o t t Builders) f i l e d a motion to v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l i n c a s e no. 2090361, and this c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h a t m o t i o n on M a r c h 11, 2010. " R u l e 41, A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t , i n t h e absence of an appellate court's order to the contrary, that court's certificate of judgment f i n a l l y t e r m i n a t i n g a p p e l l a t e proceedings i n a case w i l l not i s s u e contemporaneously w i t h the e n t r y of a j u d g m e n t i n t h e c a s e , b u t w i l l be w i t h h e l d f o r e i t h e r 18 d a y s o r u n t i l f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f a r e h e a r i n g a p p l i c a t i o n a n d / o r f i n a l a c t i o n upon a c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n , whichever i s l a t e r . It is well s e t t l e d t h a t a j u d g m e n t o f an i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e ' " i s not f i n a l u n t i l t h a t c o u r t i s s u e s i t s c e r t i f i c a t e of judgment."' Ex parte Tiongson, 765 So. 2d 643 ( A l a . 2000) (quoting J a c k s o n v. S t a t e , 566 So. 2d 758, 759 n.2 (Ala. 1990)). T h i s c o u r t ' s c e r t i f i c a t e of judgment i n c a s e no. 2090361 d i d n o t i s s u e u n t i l M a r c h 29, 2010. However, b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e had c e a s e d , c o u n s e l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n b o t h t h e 2007 a c t i o n and t h e 2009 a c t i o n f i l e d a r e q u e s t f o r an ' e x p e d i t e d ' h e a r i n g t o be h e l d on M a r c h 23, 2010, t o i s s u e f u r t h e r o r d e r s i n t h e two c a s e s . On March 25, 2010, again before this court's 5 2110758 a n d 2110759 c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t i n c a s e no. 2090361 h a d b e e n i s s u e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e n d e r e d an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g (a) t o ' g r a n t [ ] by o r d e r o f 11/16/09' ( s i c ; a c t u a l l y November 17, 2009) t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d by TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , a n d TARB i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ; (b) t o deny t h e S e p t e m b e r 2009 p a r t i a l summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d b y E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s and C h r i s E l l i o t t i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n ; (c) t o deny t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ; (d) t o deny t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n s t o s t r i k e e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s f i l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s ; a n d (e) t o d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o t h e M a r c h 25, 2010, o r d e r . The 2007 action and 2009 action were also ordered d e c o n s o l i d a t e d , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e 2009 a c t i o n w o u l d r e m a i n on t h e t r i a l court's d o c k e t . T h a t o r d e r , i s s u e d on a s e p a r a t e p a p e r , was n o t i m m e d i a t e l y t r a n s m i t t e d t o S J I S , b u t was e n t e r e d f o u r days l a t e r . See R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. "On May 5, 2010, w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d i n R u l e 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P., f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d by 'Plaintiffs,' again identified i n the s t y l e s o l e l y as ' R o b e r t M. H o o v e r , e t a l . , ' as t o t h e 'Summary Judgment i n f a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t s . ' That appeal, following i t s transfer to this court p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , h a s b e e n a s s i g n e d c a s e no. 2090754 by t h i s c o u r t . The s e c o n d n o t i c e of appeal d i f f e r s from the n o t i c e o f appeal f i l e d i n c a s e no. 2 0 9 0 3 6 1 , w h i c h r e f e r s t o t h e c a s e number o f t h e 2007 a c t i o n ( C V - 0 7 - 9 0 0 3 9 0 ) , b e c a u s e the c u r r e n t n o t i c e o f appeal r e f e r s t o the case number i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n ( C V - 0 9 - 9 0 0 4 1 2 ) . However, a motion f i l e d i n t h i s case seeking t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e r e c o r d f r o m c a s e no. 2090361 i n t o t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e ( w h i c h t h i s c o u r t g r a n t e d on May 18, 2010) b e l i e s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h a t facial distinction. That motion i d e n t i f i e s t h e a p p e l l a n t s as B r u t k i e w i c z , Dean, D a v i s , Chris E l l i o t t , and E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s (as w e l l as H e r s h i s e r , who was n o t l i s t e d i n t h e v o l u n t a r y - d i s m i s s a l m o t i o n i n c a s e no. 2090361), and t h e a p p e l l a n t s n o t a b l y admit i n t h a t m o t i o n t h a t t h e y ' p r e v i o u s l y a p p e a l e d [from] t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g [a] summary j u d g m e n t i n 6 2110758 and 2110759 f a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t s ' and no. 2090361. that that appeal " The r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t c o u r t a c t e d on t h a t m o t i o n . " that 1 73 So. 3d second at appeal, judgment [would] "the trial November 17, order "[a]fter was that court not added). "there support 2009, o r d e r this appeal (emphasis reasoning that because ... 1275-78 our [had] was the We [was] no valid to final 'finalize' [when] j u r i s d i c t i o n in that court"; the jurisdiction" ... then trial dismissed appellate purported case we as its to opined that that, c o u r t ' s c e r t i f i c a t e of judgment i n [the second] [was] issued, the jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 54(b), to determine whether to direct the entry of a trial final court [would] judgment as again to any have order a d j u d i c a t i n g l e s s t h a n a l l c l a i m s as t o a l l p a r t i e s f o r w h i c h there may review." of the be 73 So. second November 29, case, no just for delay 3d a t 1278-79. appeal, 2011, stating reason the trial that the appellate remand f r o m our d i s m i s s a l court entered an order on d e c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h e 2007 c a s e and t h e 2009 that "[t]he Defendants' j u d g m e n t as t o a l l P l a i n t i f f s ' actions On i n seeking i s GRANTED by order plaintiffs' motion c l a i m s i n the o f November motions seeking 7 for summary then-consolidated 17, 2009," summary stating judgments or 2110758 and 2110759 p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t s i n t h e i r f a v o r and t o s t r i k e of the defendants i n the formerly denied "by o r d e r s entry of a f i n a l in favor o f November consolidated 17, 2009," i n t h e two actions were and d i r e c t i n g t h e j u d g m e n t as t o t h e p a r t i a l of the defendants filings summary j u d g m e n t cases. Notices of a p p e a l were f i l e d on December 22, 2011, i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n and i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n by " E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s , I n c . , e t a l . " ; those a p p e a l s were t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , and have been consolidated. In the statement of j u r i s d i c t i o n appearing brief filed i n both appeals, TPOA, (hereinafter referred to c o l l e c t i v e l y contend the appeals that in their i t s board, as a r e an u n t i m e l y appellants i n these actions (i.e., and TARB "the defendants") effort a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e November 17, 2009, o r d e r . the joint to secure However, as the p l a i n t i f f s below) c o r r e c t l y n o t e , t h a t o r d e r d i d n o t a d j u d i c a t e a l l c l a i m s as t o all parties. 29, The f i r s t a t t e m p t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on J a n u a r y 2010, t o d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l basis, such as was parties Builders' entry August i t was, motion of a 2009 final of the i n s t i g a t e d by seeking first appeal Chris Elliott an o r d e r judgment solely purporting as partial-summary-judgment 8 judgment and t h e i n v o l v i n g the and Elliott to d i r e c t the to the d e n i a l motion that of the they had 2110758 and filed in court's 2110759 the 2007 statement action, in a fact i t s January evidenced 29, by 2010, the order trial that the p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n had b e e n d e n i e d and t h a t t h a t o r d e r w o u l d be c e r t i f i e d as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . order denying a summary-judgment nonfinal appealable through r e s o r t to Rule 54(b). v. Bailey, 814 So. Thus, t h e p l a i n t i f f s for a voluntary anticipated involuntary although that cannot motion inherently Co. and 2d 892 dismissal their of appeal plaintiffs again tried judgment appeal, trial first O h i o Cas. the be a f t e r the trial e n t r y of a f i n a l c o u r t has presented reject the with defendants' moving correctly grounds. elicit an order fact that an o r d e r rendered void contention the the and that d i r e c t s defendants jurisdiction, that of I t i s only t h e 2009 a c t i o n , t h a t t h i s c o u r t appellate in stay i t s to issue i t s c e r t i f i c a t e a to Further, c o u r t d i d not entered 9 Ins. susceptible judgment i n f a v o r of the proper and 2001) . by c o u r t ' s order g i v i n g r i s e to the second appeal b o t h t h e 2007 a c t i o n and been App. appeal, n e c e s s i t a t i n g the d i s m i s s a l of the second appeal. now, final appeal, to the t r i a l court the that would h a n d l o n g enough f o r t h i s to first however, made See jurisdictional compliance w i t h Rule 54(b), as be court's is, (Ala. Civ. i n v o l v e d i n the d i s m i s s a l on the properly 889, A trial and appeals in has we are 2110758 and untimely. 2110759 L i k e w i s e , h o w e v e r , we n e c e s s a r i l y c a n n o t a c c e p t p o s i t i o n of the p l a i n t i f f s that the trial court's i n t h e i r b r i e f i n c a s e no. order does n o t the 2110758 a c t u a l l y apply to the 2007 a c t i o n . We the now t u r n to the appeal in the merits 2009 of the action complaint i n the 2009 a c t i o n , as M. C. Hoover, John appeals, (case no. s t a r t i n g with 2110759). l a s t amended, l i s t e d Brutkiewicz, Lucille M. Dean, D a v i s , S t e r l i n g H e r s h i s e r , C h r i s E l l i o t t , and E l l i o t t as named p l a i n t i f f s as defendants; declaration the that Paul a plaintiffs sought, in that particular section of the the ("the substantive C. Builders TARB action, a Timbercreek guidelines") p e r t a i n i n g to thereof (i.e., injunction against t h e f i l i n g o f l i e n s a g a i n s t TPOA members t h a t i n c l u d e d alleged penalty and Section of Robert and TPOA, i t s b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , and R e s i d e n t i a l Design Guidelines enforcement The Seven) s h o u l d claims and injunction to meeting elect to require be guidelines Hoover's and deemed v o i d , the board directors the sought property. an attorney-fee-award defendants' counterclaim b o a r d o f TPOA had provisions of rather requests, TPOA t o than hold appoint a an special them. The sought a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t the a u t h o r i t y t o a p p r o v e amendments t o the enforcement As we have 10 of the noted, guidelines the as to defendants 2110758 and successfully 2110759 moved f o r a asserted i n the has certified been summary j u d g m e n t as amended c o m p l a i n t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g standard as a final of to the claims 2009 a c t i o n , judgment. We thus which apply the review: "A m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t t e s t s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e . Such a m o t i o n i s t o be g r a n t e d when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t 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 of law. The moving p a r t y bears the burden of negating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. F u r t h e r m o r e , when a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s made and s u p p o r t e d as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 56, [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] t h e nonmovant may not rest upon mere a l l e g a t i o n s o r denials of his p l e a d i n g s , b u t must s e t f o r t h s p e c i f i c f a c t s s h o w i n g that there i s a genuine i s s u e f o r t r i a l . P r o o f by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s required." S i z e m o r e v. 674, 675 The among Owner-Operator Indep. D r i v e r s ( A l a . C i v . App. evidentiary other things, 1995) (citations submissions placed by before the the Ass'n, those declaration obligations, the documents of and Timbercreek Baldwin rights, Probate were covenants, conditions subdivision developer; by an respective trial that had Timbercreek amended to certain o f TPOA and the been and Land TARB. restated affirmative properties recorded Co., (b) r e s t a t e d a r t i c l e s o f 11 2d parties, court restrictions, applicable subdivision Court (a) So. omitted). p e r t i n e n t documents g o v e r n i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n Among 671 in Inc., in the the incorporation 2110758 a n d 2110759 o f TPOA, w h i c h i s a n o n p r o f i t corporation; TPOA; a n d (d) t h e g u i d e l i n e s . 2110759, t h e a p p e a l a r i s i n g S e c t i o n Seven was validly The c o r e (c) t h e b y l a w s o f issue f r o m t h e 2009 a c t i o n , i s w h e t h e r the enforcement s e c t i o n adopted by i n c a s e no. a properly of the guidelines constituted board of d i r e c t o r s o f TPOA. The plaintiffs vehemently and t h e defendants disagree concerning the general b o a r d o f TPOA t o a c t on b e h a l f of the guidelines enforce the i n t h e 2009 authority of the o f TPOA t o a d o p t S e c t i o n and t h e board's specific action authority provisions of Section Seven t o adopt and Seven. In r e s o l v i n g t h e d i s p u t e , we a r e g u i d e d b y o u r d e c i s i o n i n M i l l e r v. M i l l e r ' s 2009), L a n d i n g , L.L.C., i n which we reasoned 29 So. 3d 228 that governed by TPOA App. amendments t o r e s t r i c t i v e covenants adopted by a common-interest subdivision (Ala. C i v . must be community s u c h as t h e "reasonable," which n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e amendment i n question was adopted " i n compliance with the procedural r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e g o v e r n i n g documents o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . " 29 So. 3d a t 236. The p l a i n t i f f s court overlooked documents t e n d i n g i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n c o n t e n d t h a t t h e t r i a l provisions in the pertinent governing t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e b o a r d o f TPOA was n o t 12 2110758 a n d 2110759 lawfully behalf constituted s o as t o have t h e a u t h o r i t y o f TPOA i n a n y r e g a r d , enforcement contention section i n this much l e s s t o promulgate the of the guidelines. regard t o a c t on They upon t h e a b s e n c e , base their i n years after 2005, o f a quorum o f members o f TPOA a t t h e a n n u a l meeting o f TPOA a t which directors February are scheduled t o be elected. In A r t i c l e IX o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n d e c l a r a t i o n s , s u b j e c t t o which a l l property is declared that a l l property states "any that TPOA c o n s i s t s TPOA may, t h r o u g h to enforce restrictions "exercise this Article XII further i t s board necessary and a l l o t h e r a f f e c t i n g the properties reserved and t r a n s f e r r e d of d i r e c t o r s , i n the d i s c r e t i o n Declaration ... a n y r i g h t s subdivision] o f a membership i n c l u s i v e o f owners i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . and a l l a c t i o n s [b]oard and i n the Timbercreek s u b d i v i s i o n i s held, i t take of the covenants o f " TPOA a n d c a n by t h e Developer by t h e Developer to [of the [TPOA]." 1 Among t h e r i g h t s g r a n t e d t o t h e d e v e l o p e r i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , and which necessarily passed t o TPOA, " p u b l i s h TimberCreek Design G u i d e l i n e s , was t h e power to as amended, f r o m t i m e D e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y g i v e n b y a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f TPOA t h a t was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s u p p o r t o f a summaryj u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e d e v e l o p e r r e l i n q u i s h e d i t s c o n t r o l o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n t o TPOA i n l a t e 2005. 1 13 2110758 a n d 2110759 t o t i m e w h i c h w i l l s e t f o r t h minimum c r i t e r i a and c o n t r o l s f o r construction added). of improvements However, the on the declarations Property" do not (emphasis address the c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e b o a r d o f TPOA. Article V I I o f TPOA's articles of incorporation states t h a t t h e b o a r d o f TPOA s h a l l " c o n s i s t [ ] o f n o t l e s s t h a n t h r e e (3) n o r more t h a n s e v e n (7) p e r s o n s . " is f o r i n the bylaws more f u l l y provided The b o a r d ' s m e m b e r s h i p o f TPOA. Article V.G.2. o f t h e b y l a w s , w h i c h p e r t a i n s t o v o t i n g p r o c e d u r e s a t m e e t i n g s o f t h e m e m b e r s h i p o f TPOA, p r o v i d e s f o r t h e e l e c t i o n of d i r e c t o r s e v e r y F e b r u a r y b y t h e members o f TPOA a t t h e a n n u a l members' m e e t i n g ; u n d e r t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h e b y l a w s , a candidate receiving a majority of votes e n t i t l e d by members However, i s deemed Article "elected V.F. of t o be c a s t t o [a] d i r e c t o r ' s p o s i t i o n . " the bylaws provides a quorum r e q u i r e m e n t o f " f i f t y - o n e p e r c e n t (51%) o f t h e t o t a l number o f v o t e s t h a t may be c a s t as t o "any a c t i o n w h i c h i s s u b j e c t t o a v o t e o f t h e [m]embers o f ... TPOA" a n d s t a t e s t h a t , i f s u c h a quorum i s n o t o b t a i n e d a t a s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g , "one (1) o r more s u b s e q u e n t m e e t i n g s may be c a l l e d f o r t h e same p u r p o s e , subject to subsequent (emphasis ten meeting added). (10) days written being provided The import 14 notice of each t o a l l " members such o f TPOA o f t h e quorum p r o v i s i o n i s 2110758 a n d 2110759 m a g n i f i e d i n t h i s case because i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h TPOA has h e l d purpose of i t s annual meeting every February f o r the o f , among o t h e r t h i n g s , e l e c t i n g d i r e c t o r s , a quorum members h a s n o t y e t b e e n o b t a i n e d a t a TPOA a n n u a l m e e t i n g . A s s u m i n g , w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , t h a t t h e a b s e n c e o f a quorum at the annual meeting any legal efficacy, deprives the e l e c t i o n of d i r e c t o r s of the bylaws provide a l t e r n a t e method f o r f i l l i n g likewise f o r an v a c a n c i e s on TPOA's b o a r d . In A r t i c l e V I . G . , t h e b y l a w s s t a t e t h a t , w i t h two e x c e p t i o n s n o t here pertinent (dealing with the i n i t i a l classes of TPOA d i r e c t o r s i n 1994 a n d TPOA d i r e c t o r s f o r m e r l y a p p o i n t e d b y t h e s u b d i v i s i o n d e v e l o p e r ) , " [ b ] o a r d [m]embers may be f i l l e d f o r the u n e x p i r e d t e r m , a n d u n t i l t h e [m]embers s h a l l have e l e c t e d a s u c c e s s o r , by t h e [c]hairman, s u b j e c t t o a p p r o v a l o f t h e [b]oard." The c l e a r intent of the bylaws i s to place the c h o i c e o f new d i r e c t o r s w i t h i n t h e a p p r o v a l power o f t h e b o a r d of TPOA i n i n s t a n c e s where v a c a n c i e s o c c u r i n t h o s e offices, s u c h as when t h e a b s e n c e o f a quorum o f q u a l i f i e d members a t an annual majority meeting prevents of the votes from " e l e c t e d " u n d e r A r t i c l e V. 2 t h e c a n d i d a t e who the b a l l o t i n g receives the f r o m b e i n g deemed I n so c o n c l u d i n g , we n e c e s s a r i l y Although the defendants contend i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f t h a t t h e c h a i r m a n o f TPOA's b o a r d h a s c u s t o m a r i l y a p p o i n t e d , and t h e b o a r d h a s a p p r o v e d , t h e w i n n e r s o f t h e b a l l o t i n g a t 2 15 2110758 a n d 2110759 reject the p l a i n t i f f s ' triggered only contention that Article i n cases r e f e r r e d t o i n A r t i c l e VI.G. i s VI.C., which s t a t e s t h a t d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be c h o s e n b y e l e c t i o n " e x c e p t i n case o f death, r e s i g n a t i o n , r e t i r e m e n t , d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , or removal"; the d r a f t e r s there i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t b y l a w s o f TPOA i n t e n d e d to exhaustively of the d e l i m i t a l l t h e ways t h a t a d i r e c t o r ' s s e a t m i g h t become v a c a n t . Thus, the plaintiffs' Section illicitly argument Seven subdivision fundamental of against the that premise constituted underlies the v a l i d i t y guidelines the that board fails and account subdivision whether restrictions the Timbercreek was necessarily as a m a t t e r has a c t e d of law. o f a body the t r i a l through court's i t s board apparent administering i n compliance conclusion of d i r e c t o r s , had that Stated courts t o take g o v e r n i n g documents o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n , we p e r c e i v e in of TPOA of the conduct effect for a n o t h e r way, a l t h o u g h M i l l e r i n v i t e s r e v i e w i n g into the with no e r r o r TPOA, n o t been the acting unlawfully t h e F e b r u a r y a n n u a l m e e t i n g as d i r e c t o r s , t h e p l a i n t i f f s c o r r e c t l y n o t e i n t h e i r r e p l y b r i e f i n c a s e no. 2110759 t h a t TPOA's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e who t e s t i f i e d b y d e p o s i t i o n a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e w i n n e r s o f t h e b a l l o t i n g o f t h e members a t t h e a n n u a l m e e t i n g had n o t c u s t o m a r i l y been a p p o i n t e d t o t h e b o a r d , a l t h o u g h he t e s t i f i e d t o one i n s t a n c e when t h e t o p two c a n d i d a t e s i n t h e v o t i n g had, i n f a c t , t h e r e a f t e r been a p p o i n t e d t o a n d h a d b e e n c o n f i r m e d t o s e r v e on t h e b o a r d . 16 2110758 and 2110759 c o n s t i t u t e d a t t h e t i m e t h a t i t a d o p t e d S e c t i o n Seven i n e a r l y 2007. We did l i k e w i s e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f TPOA not act Seven. As we developer, i t s authority to the declarations controls Timbercreek i n promulgating have n o t e d , t h e b o a r d , as acceded subdivision forth outside for developer's the successor subdivision. of the set to improvements in the Article Further, declarations expressly provides the as so of under authority to p u b l i s h g u i d e l i n e s construction Section of the XII t h a t t h e b o a r d o f TPOA " s h a l l have t h e power, upon v i o l a t i o n o f t h e D e c l a r a t i o n , By-Laws, o r any r u l e s and fines" that regulations, "constitute [o]wner g u i l t y lien lien body's construction to the of of p r o v i s i o n s of the and property the of to enforce such board of to We TPOA f a l l control the Timbercreek for violations of outside process of subdivision substantive a d d i t i o n a l argument t h a t a c t i o n s somehow amount t o an amendment o f S e c t i o n 11.01 17 a cannot g o v e r n i n g s u b d i v i s i o n documents, nor i n the p l a i n t i f f s ' the f o r common-area a s s e s s m e n t s improvements i n the fines the of the d e c l a r a t i o n s . authority impose m o n e t a r y f i n d merit 11.01 actions express upon such v i o l a t i o n " for i n Section conclude that and ... a t o impose r e a s o n a b l e m o n e t a r y " i n a l i k e manner t o " l i e n s provided that of ... do we those of the 2110758 and 2110759 subdivision-declarations actions against document pertaining to owners i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n who collection have f a i l e d p a y " o r d i n a r y " a n n u a l and s p e c i a l a s s e s s m e n t s when due because the p e r t i n e n t a r t i c l e Finally, plaintiffs Seven in their assert of the that Guidelines continuing violations guidelines after and of in case penalties (i.e., the a no. set 2110759, forth in $20-per-day substantive the Section fine provisions for of r e c e i p t of a second w r i t t e n n o t i c e the thereof a $10,000 l i q u i d a t e d - d a m a g e s p r o v i s i o n t r i g g e r e d upon a j u d i c i a l determination the simply i s c i t e d i n the d e c l a r a t i o n s . brief the to guidelines) are Assuming, without severable from plaintiffs' t h a t a c o n d i t i o n f a i l s t o conform void as deciding, the that remainder admission violative those brief public policy. provisions of Section in their of Seven, that we that with are not note the issue was r a i s e d i n a m o t i o n f o r a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t f i l e d i n t h e 2007 c a s e . Because was on placed we notice cannot determine t h a t the t r i a l that a ruling i n favor of court TPOA, i t s b o a r d , and TARB i n t h e 2009 c a s e w o u l d have b e e n e r r o n e o u s the grounds asserted 2007 c a s e , we by E l l i o t t Builders i n the c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i s s u e has n o t b e e n p r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i n c a s e no. 2110759. 278 A l a . 313, and E l l i o t t on 315, 178 So. 2d 91, 93 18 (1965) See C a s h v. Usrey, (appellate review 2110758 will and 2110759 n o t e x t e n d t o i s s u e s as t o w h i c h " t h e j u d g e h a d made no r u l i n g a d v e r s e t o a p p e l l a n t on t h e s p e c i f i c m a t t e r c o m p l a i n e d of"); c f . Ex p a r t e (1930) one G r e e n , 221 A l a . 415, 418, 129 So. 69, 71 ( c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f c a s e s does n o t make t h e p a r t i e s i n suit p a r t i e s to the other o r change the issues i n the r e s p e c t i v e cases; r i g h t s o f p a r t i e s "'must s t i l l t u r n upon t h e pleadings, and p r o c e e d i n g s (quoting proof 1 Corpus J u r i s , i n the r e s p e c t i v e 1137) ) . A l t h o u g h we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' partial state summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a valid conclusion Elliott as basis i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n court's appeal from the i n t h e 2009 for reversal, to the appeal that the t r i a l cases.'" taken we by reach Elliott (case no. 2 1 1 0 7 5 8 ) . order case does n o t a different Builders and To t h e e x t e n t o f November 29, 2011, purported t o r u l e t h a t t h a t c o u r t ' s November 17, 2009, o r d e r applied to "all cases," Plaintiffs' claims agree w i t h E l l i o t t i n the then-consolidated B u i l d e r s and E l l i o t t that the t r i a l we court a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n p u r p o r t i n g t o e n t e r a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f TPOA and TARB i n t h e 2007 action. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s and E l l i o t t , on S e p t e m b e r 11, 2009, moved f o r t h e e n t r y o f a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t on various claims they had a s s e r t e d , w h i c h t h e y h a d been d e f e n d i n g , and on c o u n t e r c l a i m s as t o i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n ; t h a t m o t i o n 19 2110758 and 2110759 was s e t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g on T u e s d a y , 22, 2009. On Friday, S e p t e m b e r 18, September 2009, two b u s i n e s s days b e f o r e t h a t s c h e d u l e d h e a r i n g , TPOA, i t s b o a r d , and TARB f i l e d a response judgment. i n which they themselves moved for a summary A l t h o u g h the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not schedule a h e a r i n g t o a d d r e s s t h e m o t i o n f i l e d by TPOA, i t s b o a r d , and TARB, t h e trial c o u r t h e a r d arguments on t h a t m o t i o n on September 22, 2009, a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a t h a d b e e n s c h e d u l e d f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of the partial-summary-judgment B u i l d e r s and motion filed by Elliott Elliott. E l l i o t t B u i l d e r s and E l l i o t t , i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f i n c a s e no. 2110758, c o r r e c t l y 5 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. could properly C i v . P., have note t h a t , under R u l e s 6(a) the e a r l i e s t t h a t the t r i a l scheduled a hearing on the court summary- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009, w o u l d have b e e n O c t o b e r 5, 2009. the Elliott could o p p o s i t i o n , because in Because foreclosed have h a d any chance to properly Elliott Builders present evidence i n Rule 56(c)(2) also r e q u i r e s that matters o p p o s i t i o n t o a summary-judgment m o t i o n must be f i l e d s e r v e d two d a y s R. on t r i a l c o u r t p r o c e e d e d t o h e a r t h a t m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009, i t e f f e c t i v e l y and and C i v . P.) and ( i . e . two b u s i n e s s d a y s , see R u l e 6 ( a ) , A l a . b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n . 20 In proceeding 2110758 and to hear the 2110759 the defendants' motion, defendants' Builders and favor Elliott on in and in ultimately a l l claims the 2007 ruling in a s s e r t e d by action, the Elliott trial court 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 embodied i n Rule 56(c)(2). In 882 Moore v. GAB ( A l a . 2002), a Robins North America, I n c . , 840 trial court four granted So. 2d defendants' summary-judgment m o t i o n s d e s p i t e h a v i n g , i n e f f e c t , v a c a t e d an order setting the p l a i n t i f f a h e a r i n g date as t o t h o s e m o t i o n s , to appeal to contend, and prompting a p p a r e n t l y f o r the f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e trial c o u r t ' s a c t i o n s h a d p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m p r e s e n t i n g an e f f e c t i v e opposition 883. Our resulting to the summary-judgment m o t i o n s . 840 So. supreme c o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e m a n i f e s t from the t r i a l court's rulings i n that 2d injustice case: "In t h i s case, [the p l a i n t i f f ] a l l e g e s t h a t the d e n i a l o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o oppose t h e m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t p r e j u d i c e d him, and we n e e d n o t address the m e r i t s of [his] u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m s to r e c o g n i z e t h a t , w h i l e he may n o t u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l , [he] d e s e r v e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e a g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t through h i s o p p o s i t i o n t o the m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . ... While the parties may differ over the meaning of the provisions of the policy, to cut off [the plaintiff's] o p p o r t u n i t y t o make a s h o w i n g of d i s p u t e d f a c t s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s t o p r e v e n t him f r o m h a v i n g h i s day i n c o u r t . " 840 So. 2d a t 884. 21 at 2110758 a n d 2110759 The a p p e a l taken 2007 c a s e p r e s e n t s permitted by E l l i o t t a similar profile: the opportunity adduce m a t e r i a l s afforded to the p l a i n t i f f B u i l d e r s and E l l i o t t showing of i n the p l a i n t i f f s who were n o t under Rule 56(c)(2) i n o p p o s i t i o n t o a summary-judgment f i l e d by m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s . respect B u i l d e r s and E l l i o t t to motion L i k e o u r supreme c o u r t d i d w i t h i n Moore, we conclude that Elliott a r e e n t i t l e d t o an o p p o r t u n i t y t o make a disputed facts as to the i n v o l v e s a number o f i s s u e s n o t p r e s e n t e d 2007 action, which i n t h e 2009 a c t i o n . B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t as t o t h e 2009 action i s affirmed. c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o t h e 2007 a c t i o n i s r e v e r s e d , cause i s remanded B u i l d e r s and E l l i o t t f o r the trial an o p p o r t u n i t y court to to present afford That and t h a t Elliott m a t e r i a l s and a r g u m e n t s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009, summary- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e 2007 a c t i o n . 2110758 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2110759 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 22 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.