Henry L. Penick v. Southpace Management, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/08/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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 2111007 Henry L. Penick v. Southpace Management, Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-448) MOORE, J u d g e . H e n r y L. P e n i c k a p p e a l e d t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t f r o m an a d v e r s e j u d g m e n t o f t h e J e f f e r s o n f a v o r o f S o u t h p a c e Management, District Court Court i n I n c . , as a g e n t f o r B o o k e r T. 2111007 Washington Insurance Company. d i s m i s s a l of t h a t appeal. Penick We now appeals from the reverse. Background I t appears undisputed entered into Washington a t h a t , on September 30, 2010, written Insurance concerning premises premises"). Penick lease Company located agreement ("the in a g r e e d t o pay with Booker lease Birmingham Penick T. agreement") ("the leased monthly r e n t i n the amount of $1,700. In November 2011, Southpace, as agent for Booker W a s h i n g t o n I n s u r a n c e Company, f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t unlawful-detainer premises, 2012, unpaid bench action, r e n t s , and trial, possession attorney fees. leased A f t e r a March 16, district court entered a judgment i n f a v o r of Southpace. The district court ordered t h a t S o u t h p a c e be r e s t o r e d t o p o s s e s s i o n just judgment. Penick the the f o u n d no which of an appeared, l e a s e d p r e m i s e s and, at seeking court T. p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. reason to delay finalizing that aspect of the Civ. P., of the 1 The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o f o u n d t h a t r e n t i n t h e amount o f $1,700 p e r month had a c c r u e d s i n c e t h e f i l i n g o f S o u t h p a c e ' s c o m p l a i n t and g r a n t e d l e a v e t o S o u t h p a c e t o p r o v e i t s damages against Penick. 1 2 2111007 On M a r c h 23, 2012, P e n i c k f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c i r c u i t court. Penick o r i g i n a l l y submitted two a t t o r n e y s as s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s . learning that the c i r c u i t - c o u r t the signatures of On M a r c h 30, 2012, a f t e r c l e r k would not accept s i g n a t u r e s as s e c u r i t y , P e n i c k p a i d $100 t o c o v e r The circuit-court Penick's appeal On A p r i l clerk i nthe notified the d i s t r i c t the the costs. court that h a d been f i l e d as o f M a r c h 30, 2012. 4, 2012, S o u t h p a c e moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r on i t s u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r claim. In a d d i t i o n to a s s e r t i n g t h a t P e n i c k had f a i l e d t o abide by t h e terms o f t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t a n d t h a t he h a d f a i l e d rental lacked payments, Southpace a s s e r t e d subject-matter b e c a u s e he h a d f a i l e d bond within the time c o u r t ' s judgment. that jurisdiction to post t o make t h e r e q u i r e d the c i r c u i t over court Penick's appeal an a p p r o p r i a t e allowed f o r appealing Southpace supported and s u f f i c i e n t the district i t s motion with copies of a f f i d a v i t s and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , t h e t e r m i n a t i o n n o t i c e t h a t h a d been p o s t e d at the leased premises, and t h e p l e a d i n g s , orders, and judgment court action. 3 the lease agreement, from the d i s t r i c t - 2111007 The circuit court originally scheduled S o u t h p a c e ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n a hearing f o r May 1, 2012. on On t h a t d a t e , however, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e s c h e d u l e d t h e h e a r i n g f o r May 11, 2012. hearing, On May 10, 2012, t h e day b e f o r e t h e s c h e d u l e d Penick f i l e d h i s o p p o s i t i o n t o Southpace's judgment motion to strike asserting and a s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t . Penick's that opposition Penick had and failed summary- Southpace supporting t o comply with moved affidavit, the time p r o v i s i o n s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d t h a t i t w o u l d be p r e j u d i c e d i f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d those materials. On May 17, 2012, the c i r c u i t g r a n t i n g Southpace's motion the pending concluded that ordered along with to strike summary-judgment m o t i o n . Penick's appeal. but court i t lacked entered an Penick's opposition to The c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o subject-matter jurisdiction The c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d P e n i c k ' s the c i r c u i t - c o u r t t h e money b e i n g clerk held ... order to "transfer appeal the i n t h e amount of case of ... [$5,100] t o the D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h i s matter. The money c l a i m [ a s s e r t e d by S o u t h p a c e ] s h a l l pending before the District Court." 4 The circuit remain court 2111007 purported to certify i t s j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. this P e n i c k a p p e a l e d from t h a t judgment t o c o u r t on J u n e 27, 2012. Analysis Because i t i s p o t e n t i a l l y d i s p o s i t i v e first in address Penick's concluding consider that Penick's of the appeal, argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t i t lacked appeal. subject-matter Although court we erred jurisdiction the c i r c u i t court to stated t h a t P e n i c k ' s a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y , t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t Penick f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal from t h e d i s t r i c t court's j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d a l l o w e d b y A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6¬ 350 ("Any p a r t y may a p p e a l or her by a d i s t r i c t from a judgment e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him court to the c i r c u i t c o u r t a t any t i m e w i t h i n seven days a f t e r t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f . " ) . Southpace, however, argued b e f o r e Penick's failed the n o t i c e of appeal to provide circuit-court expired. Ala. the c i r c u i t s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s i n a form a c c e p t a b l e clerk In support party that was n o t t i m e l y f i l e d b e c a u s e he h a d until of that after the time argument, may appeal from 5 a to appeal Southpace Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 2 - 7 0 ( a ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s , p a r t : "Any court final relies to had on i n pertinent judgment of the 2111007 district the court i n a c i v i l d i s t r i c t court ... c a s e by f i l i n g together with security r e q u i r e d by l a w o r r u l e . " failure t o pay within the jurisdictional In 1993), L u c e v. this c o s t s or time for costs P e n i c k , however, a s s e r t s t h a t to give s e c u r i t y allowed defect. n o t i c e of appeal i n We Huddleston, for filing an in lieu appeal of is as the costs not a agree w i t h P e n i c k . 628 So. 2d 819 (Ala. Civ. court stated: " F a i l u r e to timely post s e c u r i t y for costs i s not f a t a l to j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g an a p p e a l from c i r c u i t t o a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s . B r y a n v. Brown, 339 So. 2d 577 ( A l a . 1976). The timely f i l i n g of a n o t i c e of appeal i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . Bryan, supra. See a l s o C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e 7, [ A l a . ] R. App. P. Although the Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure do n o t g o v e r n appeals from d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r p r o b a t e c o u r t , R u l e 1, [ A l a . ] R. App. P., F i n c h v. F i n c h , 468 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , and Hardeman[ v. M a y f i e l d , 429 So. 2d 1097 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ] , t h e p r i n c i p l e s f o u n d i n R u l e 7, [ A l a . ] R. App. P., can be a p p l i e d . See M a l l o r y v. A l a b a m a R e a l E s t a t e C o m m i s s i o n , 369 So. 2d 23 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . "The r u l e t h a t p r o b a t e c o u r t c a s e s r e q u i r e t h a t s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s be p o s t e d w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l , see J o u r n e q u i n v. L a n d , 235 A l a . 29, 177 So. 132 ( 1 9 3 7 ) , and Mays v. K i n g , 28 A l a . 690 ( 1 8 5 6 ) , was a b r o g a t e d by A l a . Code 1975, § 12-22-25, w h i c h s t a t e s i n p a r t t h a t 'the f i l i n g o f security for costs is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.' Our Supreme C o u r t has a n a l o g i z e d probate c o u r t cases i n a n a l y z i n g d i s t r i c t c o u r t cases. See, e.g., F i n c h , s u p r a . As additional 6 App. 2111007 persuasive authority, we note that, in cases involving misdemeanor conviction appeals from d i s t r i c t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 2 - 7 0 ( b ) , t h e f i l i n g o f an a p p e a l b o n d i s n o t a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t . Ex p a r t e B u c k n e r , 435 So. 2d 1197 ( A l a . 1982). N o t h i n g i n the abovecited s t a t u t e s and cases suggests that posting s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s w i t h i n the s t a t u t o r y time l i m i t for appeal i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requirement for p e r f e c t i n g appeal. Timely p o s t i n g of s e c u r i t y i s not r e q u i r e d i n a p p e l l a t e c a s e s , nor i n p r o b a t e t o c i r c u i t c o u r t a p p e a l s , nor i n misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n appeals from d i s t r i c t to c i r c u i t c o u r t . To r e q u i r e contemporaneous p o s t i n g of s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s w i t h t h e a p p e a l f r o m d i s t r i c t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t w o u l d be t o c o n t i n u e a v e s t i g e f r o m an e a r l i e r e r a o f s t r i c t p l e a d i n g and p r a c t i c e . " F u r t h e r , we r e i t e r a t e the l e g a l procedural p h i l o s o p h y s t a t e d i n Hand [v. T h o r n b u r g , 425 So. 2d 467,] 469 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982)], that '[m]yriad c h a n g e s have b e e n made i n t h e p a s t d e c a d e i n an attempt to e l i m i n a t e , or s o f t e n the e f f e c t of, u l t r a technical rules of civil trial and appellate p r o c e d u r e s t h e r e b y s t r i v i n g f o r a j u s t , s p e e d y and i n e x p e n s i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f e a c h c i v i l a c t i o n upon its merits.' See R u l e 1 ( c ) , [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P. "Nothing in this opinion eliminates the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A l a . Code 1975, § 12-12-70(a), or R u l e 6 2 ( d c ) ( 5 ) , [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P., t h a t an a p p e l l a n t f r o m d i s t r i c t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t must p o s t s e c u r i t y . R a t h e r , t h i s o p i n i o n s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d as m e a n i n g t h a t i t i s the t i m e l y f i l i n g of the n o t i c e of appeal which i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . " 628 So. 2d a t Based failure to on pay 820. Luce, costs supra, or to we agree give 7 with Penick security in lieu that of his costs 2111007 w i t h i n t h e t i m e frame a l l o w e d jurisdictional dismissing jurisdiction district defect. Penick's for f i l i n g Therefore, appeal an a p p e a l a the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n for lack of subject-matter and p u r p o r t i n g t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n b a c k t o t h e a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t n e i t h e r the t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n jurisdiction to hear t h i s to p r o p e r l y Penick's not court. Penick failed was serve district or a c t i o n b e c a u s e , he him with court nor subject-matter says, i t s complaint. Southpace We reject argument b e c a u s e , b a s e d on t h e r e c o r d , P e n i c k waived any o b j e c t i o n t o i m p r o p e r s e r v i c e and s u b m i t t e d h i m s e l f t o t h e jurisdiction of the d i s t r i c t As 151 recognized So. 2d 210, court. i n P e r s o n s v. 214-15 Summers, 274 A l a . 673, (1963): "[T]he allegation of the bill shows that 'complainants requested a continuance of said h e a r i n g w h i c h was g r a n t e d ' S e r v i c e of process i s n o t e s s e n t i a l i f t h e p a r t y i n t e n d e d t o be s e r v e d a p p e a r s and d e f e n d s and submits himself to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . The p u r p o s e o f p r o c e s s i s t o b r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t o c o u r t and may be by him waived. ... We consider the appearance r e q u e s t i n g a c o n t i n u a n c e t o be a g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e b e c a u s e we have s a i d t h a t i f a d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d s t o r e l y on want o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s p e r s o n , he must a p p e a r , i f a t a l l , f o r t h e s o l e p u r p o s e o f o b j e c t i n g to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . An 8 680, 2111007 appearance considered The for any general." record Southpace's other reveals December 1, that purpose Penick 2011, attempt is usually properly to serve challenged him d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d h i s motion t o quash s e r v i c e . subsequently its reasserting its Penick premises. and that he had t o amend unlawful-detainer S o u t h p a c e a s s e r t e d t h a t , on December 22, 2011, failed to claim; i t had vacate the Southpace moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r p e r m i s s i o n complaint, served and properly the leased The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d S o u t h p a c e ' s m o t i o n , thereafter, Penick r a i s e d no challenge to and, s e r v i c e , whether i m p r o p e r o r w h o l l y l a c k i n g , and he r a i s e d no o b j e c t i o n t o district court's j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r him. In f a c t , the the record i n d i c a t e s t h a t Penick answered Southpace's complaint and the d i s t r i c t c o u r t conducted a t r i a l , appeared at which Penick p r o s e , on t h e m e r i t s o f S o u t h p a c e ' s u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r Thus, P e n i c k i s deemed t o have made a g e n e r a l the to action, service, and to district court. have have waived any submitted P e r s o n s v. defects to Summers, the in i n which i t rescheduled 9 the claim. appearance i n the method jurisdiction of of the supra. P e n i c k n e x t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s May order, that hearing on 1, 2012, Southpace's 2111007 summary-judgment m o t i o n t o May 11, 2012, f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e h i m the 10 d a y s ' n o t i c e Penick his r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a l s o a s s e r t s that the c i r c u i t court erred i n o p p o s i t i o n t o S o u t h p a c e ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n . Penick appeal. (Ala. has r a i s e d t h e s e arguments f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 1992) the f i r s t ("This C o u r t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d f o r t i m e on a p p e a l ; r a t h e r , our review the e v i d e n c e and arguments c o n s i d e r e d and striking Gotlieb v. Collat, 567 So. 2d i s restricted to by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) ; 1302, 1304 ( A l a . 1990) ("This C o u r t c a n n o t p u t a t r i a l c o u r t i n e r r o r f o r f a i l i n g t o consider e v i d e n c e or a c c e p t arguments t h a t , a c c o r d i n g record, were not presented arguments c h a l l e n g i n g summary-judgment strike to it."). the c i r c u i t hearing and were n o t p r e s e n t e d Because court's Penick's scheduling i t s ruling to the c i r c u i t to the on of the the motion c o u r t , we w i l l to not a d d r e s s them. As h i s f i n a l court improperly pursuant to Rule argument, P e n i c k certified 54(b), i t s May A l a . R. asserts that the 17, 2012, o r d e r C i v . P. He circuit as final asserts that S o u t h p a c e ' s c l a i m f o r u n p a i d r e n t s and o t h e r damages h a v e n o t 10 2111007 been resolved and d i s m i s s e d as b e i n g to the circuit possession of that, to vacate leased c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s R u l e 54(b) S o u t h p a c e ' s money c l a i m was claim a the his appeal should be order awarding Southpace We conclude that premises. certification was the a n u l l i t y because not b e f o r e the c i r c u i t c o u r t ; t h a t remained pending i n the entered result, from a n o n f i n a l judgment w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s court the as district a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t c o u r t , w h i c h had claim. not 2 We n o t e t h a t , i n u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a c t i o n s , c e r t i f i c a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 54(b) o f an o r d e r i n w h i c h a t r i a l c o u r t has granted a landlord possession of p r o p e r t y but reserved j u d g m e n t as t o t h e amount o f u n p a i d r e n t o r damages i s n o t an uncommon p r a c t i c e . See, e.g., Subway R e a l E s t a t e C o r p . v. C e n t u r y P l a z a Co., 624 So. 2d 1052, 1054 ( A l a . 1993) (circuit c o u r t d i r e c t e d e n t r y of a f i n a l judgment, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , on i t s o r d e r f i n d i n g t h a t t e n a n t s h o u l d be r e s t o r e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l e a s e d p r e m i s e s on u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r c l a i m e v e n t h o u g h 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 s e x i s t e d as t o t h e remaining c l a i m s , which i n c l u d e d the l a n d l o r d ' s c l a i m s f o r unpaid r e n t s , breach of c o n t r a c t , breach of a promissory note, and b r e a c h o f g u a r a n t y a g r e e m e n t , as w e l l as t h e t e n a n t s ' counterclaims of f r a u d , wrongful t e r m i n a t i o n of a l e a s e , breach of c o n t r a c t , t o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h business r e l a t i o n s , and b r e a c h o f d u t y t o m i t i g a t e damages); L o v e j o y v. I n t e r v e s t C o r p . , 794 So. 2d 1205, 1206 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) ( r e v i e w i n g j u d g m e n t i n an u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a c t i o n t h a t had been a p p e a l e d t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t , i n w h i c h the d i s t r i c t c o u r t had f o u n d i n f a v o r o f t h e l a n d l o r d on t h e p o s s e s s i o n c l a i m and had c e r t i f i e d t h a t o r d e r as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 54(b) " ' w i t h l e a v e t o p r o v e damages a g a i n s t [ t h e t e n a n t ] on t h e money c l a i m ' " ) ; and Whitman v. Hughes, 581 So. 2d 1112, 1113 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) ( r e v i e w i n g appeal from c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , w h i c h had b e e n c e r t i f i e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , on t h e l a n d l o r d ' s c l a i m s a l l e g i n g u n l a w f u l d e t a i n e r and 2 11 2111007 We r e v e r s e the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment t o the e x t e n t i t dismissed Penick's jurisdiction. 3 The further proceedings REVERSED AND appeal for lack of subject-matter c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r consistent with this opinion. REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Thomas, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. s e e k i n g e v i c t i o n w h i l e " [ a ] l l i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g damages t o t h e l e s s e e f o r t h e v a l u e o f h i s i m p r o v e m e n t s were r e s e r v e d f o r a jury t r i a l " ) . Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o d i s m i s s the cause f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t d i d not address the m e r i t s of the a l t e r n a t i v e argument a s s e r t e d i n Southpace's summary-judgment m o t i o n . Therefore, the motion remains pending b e f o r e the c i r c u i t c o u r t . 3 12

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.