George R. McCall by Ethel McCall, agent v. Household Finance Corporation

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:3/1/13 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 2110905 George R. M c C a l l by E t h e l M c C a l l , agent v. Household Finance C o r p o r a t i o n Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t Court (CV-2011-151) DONALDSON, J u d g e . G e o r g e R. M c C a l l the Autauga C i r c u i t Household Finance ("Mr. M c C a l l " ) , a p p e a l s Court f r o m an o r d e r o f d i s m i s s i n g h i s complaint Corporation. We a f f i r m . against 2110905 Facts Mr. McCall's Statement of the Facts does not c i t a t i o n s t o t h e r e c o r d as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 7 ) Ala. of R. a App. P. B e c a u s e t h i s complaint, c o n t a i n e d i n the The however, i s an a p p e a l the pertinent contain and (g), from the d i s m i s s a l facts are those 11, 2011, complaint. original complaint, filed November d e s c r i b e d t h e p l a i n t i f f as " E t h e l M c C a l l , a g e n t f o r George M c C a l l " and t h e d e f e n d a n t as " H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c e A document s i g n e d by Mr. a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t was In t h e c o m p l a i n t , Mr. Corporation." M c C a l l n a m i n g h i s w i f e E t h e l as h i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t as an M c C a l l c l a i m e d he was M c C a l l ' s home. He exhibit. obtained a loan H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n i n J u l y o f 1996 t h a t was by a m o r t g a g e on Mr. R. from secured c l a i m e d t h a t the loan a p p r o v e d f o r $32,000 b u t t h a t he o n l y r e c e i v e d $15,000 o f t h e p r o c e e d s a t t h a t t i m e w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g $17,000 a v a i l a b l e t o him i n t h e f u t u r e . Mr. never t o l d was the l o a n was l i k e a credit card." M c C a l l f u r t h e r c l a i m e d t h a t he a line of c r e d i t " or " t h a t the He a l l e g e d t h a t " [ o ] v e r a t i m e "was loan frame o f 10 y e a r s o f p a y i n g $250-$400 p e r month, [ h e ] r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e b a l a n c e was n o t d e c r e a s i n g . " He 2 further alleged that "had 2110905 [he] b e e n aware t h a t would have complaint used was his the l o a n was bank as a like a credit lender." Attached a document H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c e M c C a l l d a t e d F e b r u a r y 12, card, had [he] to the to Mr. sent 2009, w h i c h d e t a i l e d t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e l o a n i n c l u d i n g numerous a d d i t i o n a l c a s h a d v a n c e s . A n o t h e r l e t t e r from Household Finance, attached to the complaint, d a t e d A u g u s t 4, providing receiving those advances but and 1998. agreed r e c e i v e d a $2,000 c a s h a d v a n c e i n A u g u s t C o u n t one action of the complaint purported f o r breach of c o n t r a c t , although only be responsible a d v a n c e s and ten (10) Finance that years." [he] Mr. for the w o u l d be McCall o f f , the i t was able that McCall he had to a l l e g e a cause of i t i s sprinkled with loan t o pay further claimed McCall claimed plus the any cash loan o f f i n that not r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e l o a n as s e t up w o u l d not breached 3 f o r a d v a n c e s he Household did c o n t r a c t was [him] Mr. of " p r o m i s e d t h a t [he] w o u l d initial " f r a u d u l e n t l y charged r e c e i v e and pay Household Finance also 1997. r e f e r e n c e s t o f r a u d as w e l l . I n t h i s c o u n t , Mr. t h a t i n J u l y 1996, was additional details c a s h a d v a n c e s a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r i n g i n 1997 denied 2011, [sic]." 2110905 In c o u n t two, Mr. M c C a l l attempted t o s t a t e a cause o f a c t i o n f o r f r a u d by a l l e g i n g t h a t he was 1996 l o a n w o u l d p a y - o f f occurred "promised" t h a t the i n ten years. That promise a l l e g e d l y when t h e l o a n was obtained i n 1996, a l t h o u g h i t is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r i t o c c u r r e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e l o a n documents were e x e c u t e d . Mr. M c C a l l c l a i m e d t h a t H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c e no i n t e n t i o n t o s e t a l o a n up t h a t In count three, Mr. McCall [Mr. M c C a l l ] claimed could repay." Household Finance Corporation i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n f l i c t e d emotional by representing years, that and by c a l l i n g the loan would be "had d i s t r e s s on h i m discharged him a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e times i n ten including Sundays. Household Finance the complaint Corporation on December filed a motion to dismiss 13, 2011. The m o t i o n p o i n t e d out t h a t t h e c o r r e c t name o f t h e i n t e n d e d d e f e n d a n t was " H o u s e h o l d Financial all Corporation of the claims limitations, and, were b a r r e d that i n f l i c t i o n of emotional which r e l i e f o f A l a b a m a . " The m o t i o n a s s e r t e d that by t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f the count alleging intentional d i s t r e s s f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon c o u l d be g r a n t e d under Alabama law. 4 2110905 On January pending, The Mr. M c C a l l motion proposed 12, 2012, w h i l e filed the motion a motion d i d not i n d i c a t e amendment, n o r was to dismiss was t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t . the purpose a proposed or nature amendment of the attached. H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c e f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n on M a r c h 9, 2012. The hearing on t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d t h e m o t i o n t o amend was c o n t i n u e d s e v e r a l t i m e s . On May 1 1 , 2012, Mr. M c C a l l submitted by a r e s p o n s e t o t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e amendment Household complaint. Finance The p r o p o s e d and attached amended a filed proposed complaint amended appears only to change t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o "George R. M c C a l l , by E t h e l M c C a l l u n d e r Power o f A t t o r n e y " a n d t o change t h e name o f t h e d e f e n d a n t t o " H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c i a l C o r p o r a t i o n o f A l a b a m a . " I t a p p e a r s t h a t E t h e l M c C a l l was n o t a p a r t y t o t h e loan only i n a representative c a p a c i t y as G e o r g e ' s a t t o r n e y i n f a c t . On May 14, 2012, t h e trial t r a n s a c t i o n s a n d was named c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion t o d i s m i s s f i l e d by Household Finance without specifying t h e grounds f o r d i s m i s s a l and w i t h o u t r u l i n g on Mr. M c C a l l ' s m o t i o n t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t . The o r d e r s i m p l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was g r a n t e d 5 2110905 and t h e c a s e was " d i s m i s s e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y . " On May 2 1 , 2012, t h e t r i a l 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 Mr. M c C a l l ' s to motion amend, b u t i t r e s c i n d e d t h e o r d e r on May 23, 2012. Mr. McCall f i l e d a t i m e l y appeal on J u n e 14, 2012, f r o m t h e May 14 o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t . Standard The Ala. the Ala. complaint o f Review was d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 12(b) ( 6 ) , R. C i v . P., b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n complaint, which R. C i v . P. included the e x h i b i t s . Therefore, was apply no See R u l e 10(c), presumption c o r r e c t n e s s on a p p e a l : "'In Nance v . M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297 (Ala. 1993),[the supreme c o u r t ] s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a r u l i n g on a "'"On a p p e a l , a d i s m i s s a l i s n o t entitled to a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w under Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] i s w h e t h e r , when t h e allegations of the complaint are v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n t h e p l e a d e r ' s f a v o r , i t appears t h a t the p l e a d e r c o u l d p r o v e any s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t would e n t i t l e [ i t ] t o r e l i e f . In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s Court does not consider whether the p l a i n t i f f w i l l u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l , but only whether [ i t ] may possibly p r e v a i l . We n o t e t h a t a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) 6 of 2110905 dismissal i s proper o n l y when i t appears beyond doubt that the p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n support of the claim that would e n t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f to r e l i e f . " "'622 So. 2d a t 299 ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). "Knox v . W e s t e r n W o r l d I n s . Co., 893 So. 2d 3 2 1 , 322 (Ala. 2004). " Westwind T e c h n o l o g i e s , (Ala. I n c . v. J o n e s , 925 So. 2d 166, 170-171 2005). On appeal, Mr. McCall c o n t r a c t and f r a u d counts contends that the breach of were n o t b a r r e d b y t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s and t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s count s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a t e d a cause o f a c t i o n upon w h i c h r e l i e f c o u l d be g r a n t e d . motion t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t address t h e amended c o m p l a i n t Rule He a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e should have b e e n g r a n t e d . We first. 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t amendments t o a c o m p l a i n t may be made w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t u n l e s s t h e c a s e has been s e t f o r t r i a l : " U n l e s s a c o u r t h a s 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 t o d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own m o t i o n o r 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) d a y s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t s e t t i n g o f t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l , a n d 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 . " 7 2110905 Mr. M c C a l l c o u l d have f i l e d t h e amended c o m p l a i n t r a t h e r than f i l i n g a motion the original P'ship c o m p l a i n t was p e n d i n g . Litig., frequently t o amend e v e n t h o u g h a m o t i o n 854 happens F. Supp. 64, i n the d i s t r i c t amends i t s c o m p l a i n t w h i l e a m o t i o n to dismiss See I n r e C o l o n i a l L t d . 80 (D. Conn. court that a 1994)("It plaintiff to dismiss i s pending."), q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n Ex p a r t e P u c c i o , 923 So. 2d 1069 ( A l a . 2005) (discussing w h i l e a motion the e f f e c t o f an amended c o m p l a i n t t o d i s m i s s t h e o r i g i n a l complaint i s pending.) On a p p e a l , Mr. M c C a l l s t a t e s t h e p r o p o s e d "clean[ed]-up filed technical parts" amendment w o u l d have and would n o t have made a n y s u b s t a n t i v e c h a n g e s t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . " A p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f , p. 20. The o n l y descriptions purpose o f t h e amendment of the p l a i n t i f f was t o change t h e and defendant. Both parties a p p e a r t o a g r e e t h a t Mr. M c C a l l i s t h e i n t e n d e d p l a i n t i f f a n d H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c i a l C o r p o r a t i o n o f A l a b a m a i s t h e c o r r e c t name of the defendant. motion harmless T h e r e f o r e , any e r r o r i n f a i l i n g t o amend b e f o r e ruling on t h e m o t i o n t o grant the to dismiss i s as t h e p r o p e r p a r t i e s were b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. Breach-of-Contract 8 Claim 2110905 I n c o u n t one, action f o r breach complaint are Mr. M c C a l l attempted to state of somewhat c l a i m e d t h e r e "was dismissed based contract. The contradictory allegations in that n o t a m e e t i n g o f t h e m i n d s ." on t h e s t a t u t e a cause of l i m i t a t i o n s of Mr. the McCall The c l a i m was applicable to c o n t r a c t a c t i o n s of s i x y e a r s . § 6 - 2 - 3 4 ( 9 ) , A l a . Code Such a d e f e n s e must be established clearly of 1975. from the face of t h e p l e a d i n g . C r o s s l i n v. H e a l t h C a r e A u t h . o f H u n t s v i l l e , So. 3d 1193 (Ala. 2 0 0 8 ) . T h i s C o u r t has stated: "'The s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s on a c o n t r a c t a c t i o n runs from the time a b r e a c h occurs r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e t i m e a c t u a l damage i s s u s t a i n e d . ' AC, I n c . v. B a k e r , 622 So. 2d 331, 335 ( A l a . 1993) . "'"Breach" consists of the failure without legal excuse to p e r f o r m any p r o m i s e f o r m i n g t h e w h o l e o r p a r t o f t h e c o n t r a c t . 17 Am. J u r . 2d C o n t r a c t s § 441 a t 897. Where t h e defendant has agreed under the c o n t r a c t t o do a p a r t i c u l a r thing, t h e r e i s a b r e a c h and t h e r i g h t o f a c t i o n i s c o m p l e t e upon h i s f a i l u r e t o do t h e p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g he a g r e e d t o do. 17 Am. J u r . 2d, s u p r a . ' " S e y b o l d v. M a g n o l i a L a n d Co., (Ala. 1979). " 9 376 So. 2d 1083, 1085 5 2110905 M a r t i n v. Hodges C h a p e l , App. LLC, 89 So. 756, 767 (Ala. Civ. 2011). Mr. McCall's complaint repeatedly r e p a y m e n t p l a n f o r t h e l o a n was at 3d asserts n o t s e t up as he that the anticipated the i n c e p t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p , i . e . , i n 1996. He f u r t h e r c l a i m s t h a t he made r e g u l a r p a y m e n t s as r e q u i r e d by the loan decrease breach, agreement, as he but expected. i f any, the balance Based o c c u r r e d i n 1996 on of the did not allegations, these loan the and t h e s i x - y e a r s t a t u t e l i m i t a t i o n s h a d e x p i r e d by t h e t i m e t h e c o m p l a i n t was 2011. Mr. breached aware of McCall states from the at filed in t h a t " t h e c o n t r a c t m i g h t have b e e n i t s i n c e p t i o n ; however, the breach the inception Plaintiff of the was from argument on a p p e a l , i t a p p e a r s Mr. M c C a l l c l a i m s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s would not b e g i n t o run u n t i l did not contract." A l t h o u g h i t i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r from the c o m p l a i n t or his of n o t p a y - o f f i n 2006. T h i s w o u l d be an e l e m e n t o f damage, h o w e v e r , and does n o t e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g a for (Ala. a precedent breach. the l o a n Stephens v. Creel, 429 complaint So. 2d 278 1983)(the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r breach of c o n t r a c t 10 2110905 b e g i n s t o r u n when t h e b r e a c h o c c u r s actual even i f i t p r e c e d e s damage). With r e s p e c t to the c l a i m of b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t the allegedly-unauthorized 1998, Mr. McCall asserts a d v a n c e s on that "[t]he the loan contract regarding i n 1997 was and breached each time the Defendant a l l e g e d t h a t the Defendant r e c e i v e d advance." Since 1998, claim i s l i k e w i s e time-barred this the Alternatively, contract count "successive" applied in Mr. was McCall timely each manner he 2006 e x p e c t e d . See, AC, but contract" that because time the his loan I n c . V. not loan does complaint t h a t t h e l o a n was comport a n t i c i p a t e d , and was with therefore, 11 So. Mr. of committed was final as 2d 331 allegations he (Ala. concept McCall's not breach paid-off the not i n i t i a l l y Fraud the not the and breach payment B a k e r , 622 But, the Household accepting, theory). argument McCall not argues i n 1997 an u n d e r §6-234(9). anticipated, with when e.g., 1993)(discussing, "continuing advances a l l e g e d l y o c c u r r e d breaches i n the occurring Mr. any of a passing of the s e t up i n t h e manner fails. 2110905 V i e w i n g the t o Mr. McCall a l l e g a t i o n s of the required, as c o m p l a i n t most a l l e g e s t h a t he was something about the of the this a f t e r the fraud l o a n t h a t was d o c u m e n t s he whether alleged executed. is barred by as the misrepresentation, Code 1975. inquiring about the McCall loan § asserts and for on 343, by 346 the t h a t he the the balance Mr. Code 1975, to See S m i t h v. National ( A l a . 2003) ("When ... statute o r she of limitations, f a l l s w i t h i n the Sec. of the § 6-2-38(l), was owed merely he believe he d i d not allege any application the time raise that Ins. Co., the of period argument 860 So. the p l a i n t i f f ' s case i s c o m p l a i n t must a l s o s a v i n g s c l a u s e . " ) . Nor f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t s u p p o r t s u c h an 12 of when toll he does n o t claim d i d not McCall suspend or or shows a p p e a l he i n 2009, and f i l i n g a f r a u d c l a i m , and appeal. on specify statute affirmatively See terms before any two-year c o m p l a i n t t h a t would support the 6-2-3, A l a . to occurred o c c u r r e d i n 1996. b e e n d e f r a u d e d u n t i l 2010. f a c t s i n the failed Nevertheless, complaint i f any, Mr. McCall applicable contacted Household Finance had Mr. misrepresentation the told i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the documents were s i g n e d . limitations Ala. c o u n t two favorably 2d barred show would allegation 2110905 e v e n i f i t had b e e n a s s e r t e d , b e c a u s e t h e F e b r u a r y 2009 l e t t e r provided a l l d e t a i l s of the l o a n t h a t formed the b a s i s of h i s complaint. was not after Because the filed the until alleged complaint November c o n t a i n i n g the 2011, misrepresentation approximately and a f t e r H o u s e h o l d F i n a n c e had p r o v i d e d Mr. containing the details properly dismissed of the that cited no that the trial court's authority intentional infliction erroneous. The failure of c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the years 2 years than McCall with a letter trial court in support dismissal emotional of the of the count distress t o p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t t h i s argument appeal leaves t h i s court with nothing our 15 of E m o t i o n a l D i s t r e s s has alleging count count. McCall assertion more loan h i s t o r y , the Intentional Infliction Mr. fraud to review and on precludes argument. "Rule 28(a)(10)[, Ala. R. App. P.,] requires that arguments in briefs contain discussions of facts and relevant legal a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t support the p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s . L t d . P ' s h i p , 849 So. 2d 914, 923 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; A r r i n g t o n v. M a t h i s , 929 So. 2d 468, 470 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2002). 'This i s so, because " ' i t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a 13 was 2110905 p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make and a d d r e s s legal arguments for a party based on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . ' Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " White 1058 Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS I I , LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, ( A l a . 2008). Nevertheless, we note that the allegations of complaint are i n s u f f i c i e n t to s t a t e a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f this theory of l i a b i l i t y , which o u t r a g e . Ex p a r t e B o l e , 103 A l a West-AL, LLC, count three, Mr. 22 So. McCall under i s a l s o known as t h e t o r t So. 3d the 3d 40 488 ( A l a . 2012); ( A l a . C i v . App. claims that of Chaney v. 2008). Household In Finance " h a r a s s e d " h i m by t e l e p h o n i n g h i m a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e s and on when the failed to any of the the type of f o r outrage or Sundays. allegedly specify The complaint failed harassing telephone the allegedly calls harassing content calls. The egregious conduct t h a t would support Bole, supra, infliction of d i d not emotional specify occurred telephone intentional complaint to of allege a claim distress. ( d i s c u s s i n g the extremely l i m i t e d 14 and See Ex parte circumstances 2110905 i n w h i c h t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n w o u l d be we note t h a t Mr. McCall does not sustainable). Further, a s s e r t on appeal that s h o u l d have b e e n p e r m i t t e d t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t f u r t h e r , he nor d i d he p r o v i d e any a d d i t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s c o u n t i n h i s p r o p o s e d amendment t o t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Conclusion Although Ala. R. breach Civ. of statute P., a r g u m e n t by of As to a p p r o p r i a t e , the from to emotional failing the the of law. face claim distress, of Therefore, we complaint McCall 28 the and intentional waived (a)(10) this Ala. i n s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded affirm of the a p p l i c a b l e alleging Mr. 12(b)(6), allegations the comply w i t h Rule P. M o r e o v e r , t h a t c l a i m was matter under Rule f r a u d were b a r r e d by limitations exhibits. infliction a complaint i s rarely c o n t r a c t and of attached App. d i s m i s s a l of d i s m i s s a l of R. as a the complaint. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 15 Thomas, and Moore, 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.