Jeanette R. (Wicks) Jackson v. Jeffery R. Wicks

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/02/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2111215 Jeanette R. (Wicks) Jackson v. J e f f e r y R. Wicks J e f f e r y R. Wicks v. Jeanette R. (Wicks) Jackson Appeals from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t (CV-07-368) THOMAS, J u d g e . Court 2111215 Jeanette R. (Wicks) Jackson appeals the C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court e n t e r e d of J e f f e r y R. W i c k s appeals from on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r on h i s c o n v e r s i o n a judgment from a judgment o f claim. of the t r i a l Wicks court cross- dismissing h i s s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e c l a i m a g a i n s t J a c k s o n on b e h a l f o f The C a s h S t o r e , I n c . ("The C a s h S t o r e " ) . i n f a v o r o f W i c k s on h i s c o n v e r s i o n We r e v e r s e t h e judgment c l a i m , a n d we r e v e r s e t h e judgment d i s m i s s i n g W i c k s ' s s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e remand t h e cause regarding that with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o conduct On December to defraud, Jackson trial History 26, 2007, W i c k s and F o s t e r a l l e g i n g claims a new claim. Procedural Jackson c l a i m and & Foster, filed C.P.A., of fraud, negligence, a complaint as listing defendants conversion, and conspiracy b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y duty, and t h e t o r t o f outrage. answered allegations. the Foster & Foster, dismiss the complaint. amended complaint asserted i n the o r i g i n a l c l a i m on b e h a l f complaint, On C.P.A., July asserting, filed 24, 2008, i n addition complaint, o f The C a s h S t o r e . 2 generally denying a motion t o Wicks to the filed the an claims a shareholder-derivative The amended c o m p l a i n t was 2111215 not v e r i f i e d . the F o s t e r & F o s t e r , C.P.A., a n d J a c k s o n amended c o m p l a i n t . Subsequently, Wicks answered f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s F o s t e r a n d F o s t e r , C.P.A., f r o m t h e a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h t h e t r i a l March 12, 2009. Thus, the only c o u r t g r a n t e d on remaining defendant was Jackson. On November 7-10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l trial in which the documentary e v i d e n c e . motion to dismiss jury was court conducted a j u r y presented testimony and On November 10, 2 0 1 1 , J a c k s o n f i l e d Wicks's shareholder-derivative a claim p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b a s e d on h i s f a i l u r e to verify mandated motion t h e amended i n Rule complaint 2 3 . 1 , A l a . R. containing the claim C i v . P.; she a l s o f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on W i c k s ' s On November 10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l court heard filed as a claims. arguments of counsel r e g a r d i n g Jackson's motion t o d i s m i s s the s h a r e h o l d e r derivative claim and Jackson's matter of l a w ;the t r i a l the motion f o r a judgment as a court granted her motion t o d i s m i s s shareholder-derivative claim over Wicks's objections. 1 A t r a n s c r i p t of the motion h e a r i n g i s not c o n t a i n e d i n the r e c o r d on a p p e a l . However, W i c k s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P., w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d , a n d , as a r e s u l t , t h e t r i a l 1 3 2111215 Additionally, the record charged the jury regarding the supports indicates record granted only the the the trial that thus, trial the court claim; conversion conclusion court J a c k s o n ' s m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w to a l l c l a i m s except the c o n v e r s i o n t o the that j u r y , and the claim, which i t shareholder-derivative as presented c l a i m , which i t dismissed. On November 10, J a c k s o n on the compensatory 2011, the j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t a g a i n s t conversion damages and claim, a w a r d i n g W i c k s $192,000 i n $20,000 in punitive trial court entered a j u d g m e n t on t h e day. Jackson f i l e d a motion to a l t e r , j u d g m e n t , w h i c h was R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. appeal our to regarding Our denied C i v . P. supreme by amend, o r v a c a t e Jackson f i l e d Wicks of court transferred p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § the the pursuant to a timely notice of timely law cross-appealed the d i s m i s s a l of h i s s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e supreme The j u r y v e r d i c t t h a t same operation court. damages. appeals to this claim. court 12-2-7(6). Factual History c o u r t ' s order d i s m i s s i n g the s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 4 claim i s 2111215 The j u r y heard t h r e e days o f t e s t i m o n y f r o m the parties and o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s . testimony r e v e a l e d the f o l l o w i n g . she had owned The until she Judy B u l l i o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t Cash S t o r e w i t h Jackson f r o m A p r i l s o l d her 500 shares, or 50% S t o r e t o W i c k s f o r $40,000 on J a n u a r y that The Cash business. She Store was o f f i n cash and interest, 20, 2006. check-cashing further testified m a k i n g money w h i l e she was were p a i d a that a shareholder that The the 27, 2005, i n The She Cash testified and Cash The and title-loan Store was t h a t most amount p a i d had loans to e n t e r e d i n t o t h e c o m p u t e r s y s t e m t o be p r o p e r l y a c c o u n t e d in the check-cashing testified t h a t she had title-loan i t was o f f as title-loan business. The customary Cash S t o r e that uncollectible bad and 5%; thus, 15%-20% of business are She she loans not opined made Bullion in her 10%-15% o f the loans are debt due collected t h a t at the a that, time check-cashing and to a i n c r e a s e d by of t r i a l and about title-loan a r e w r i t t e n o f f as b a d f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had had c o n c e r n s 5 and in and that, d o w n t u r n i n t h e economy, t h e b a d - d e b t number had about for owned s e v e r a l o t h e r c h e c k - c a s h i n g stores besides experience, written and be a b o u t how debt. the 2111215 money was being shareholder Jackson spent but that because, had a lawsuit been The Cash had said, not she against The Store raised was when trying and accountant, t e s t i f i e d t h a t she Cash Store had for corporate p r e p a r e d the 2007, 2008, t a x r e t u r n f o r The p r e p a r e d numerous i n d i v i d u a l t h a t she Store had b e e n an is a Subchapter S corporation, should be document") based upon corporation b e c a u s e , due corporation, corporate individual that any that she corporate 2009, had action works tax and income returns testified their shares to the as 2010. return. tax return for prepare over the she years Cash w h i c h means t h a t each of tax status personal the document ("K-1 Subchapter S of a Subchapter S their portion income Dodd t e s t i f i e d 6 She t h a t The must d e c l a r e their at returns Cash S t o r e but t h a t p r e p a r e d a S c h e d u l e K-1 each shareholder income-tax tax a c c o u n t a n t . She shareholder the avoid e n t i t y u n t i l J a c k s o n r e q u e s t e d t h a t she the f i r s t c o r p o r a t e had to t h a t she that t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had n o t p r e p a r e d a c o r p o r a t e any a to later testified Cash S t o r e was concerns those she settled. M a r t and for The However, she S h e l b y Dodd, an Tax she she possible trouble. filed at that on of their she had 2111215 prepared Jackson The Cash S t o r e ' s t a x r e t u r n s had p r o v i d e d t o h e r and b a s e d on numbers that she h a d n o t s e e n documents to v e r i f y Jackson. prepared instructed The Cash she Store's her t o issue i n d i c a t i n g that Jackson only had been any She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , f o r t h e y e a r s t h a t had t h e numbers that tax one returns, K-1 said, Tax the 2007 "usually d o [ e s ] what Dodd's t e s t i m o n y corporate tax document revealed return f o r The the had Jackson, owned 1 0 0 % o f t h e s h a r e s o f The and t h a t she h a d i s s u e d one K-1 Additionally, to by she Jackson document Store, Mart presented Cash b e c a u s e , she client says." the f o l l o w i n g : that Cash Store listed $89,789 as t h e b u s i n e s s ' s g r o s s r e c e i p t s , o r t o t a l i n c o m e , b u t t h a t a f t e r d e d u c t i o n s t h e o r d i n a r y b u s i n e s s income o r p r o f i t s of The Cash S t o r e was $23, 992; that t h e 2008 c o r p o r a t e t a x r e t u r n l i s t e d $83,277 as t h e g r o s s r e c e i p t s , o r t o t a l but that after deductions the ordinary business income, income or p r o f i t s o f The C a s h S t o r e was $23,673; t h a t t h e 2009 c o r p o r a t e tax return listed $68,444 as the gross receipts, or total i n c o m e , b u t t h a t a f t e r d e d u c t i o n s t h e o r d i n a r y b u s i n e s s income o r p r o f i t s o f The C a s h S t o r e was $226; t h a t t h e 2010 c o r p o r a t e tax return listed $72,500 as the gross 7 receipts, or total 2111215 i n c o m e , b u t t h a t a f t e r d e d u c t i o n s t h e o r d i n a r y b u s i n e s s income or p r o f i t s o f The t h a t W i c k s was t h r o u g h 2010 returns had f o r The been Cash an accountant since and A s s o c i a t e s document f o r t h e y e a r s 2007 the v a l u e of the b u s i n e s s . at a l l the f i n a n c i a l court financial He records t h e b a d d e b t f o r 2006 was 1973 testified above t h e stated overstated existence raised red debts the of profits. that 2 5 % mark t h a t he that tax works testified f o r 2006 t o at that, requested that he estimate that, after looking i n t h e amount o f $66,993. debt of the He were c l a i m e d f i g u r e d w o u l d be amount o f b a d personal he that f r o m 2006, he had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t resulted i n understated bad that He had records t e s t i f i e d t h a t o v e r s t a t i n g the bad Store's and in Sheffield. trial Cash S t o r e ' s Cash testified a c e r t i f i e d p u b l i c accountant, t e s t i f i e d a separate a c t i o n , the had further Store. r e v i e w The He She f o r w h i c h Tax M a r t had p r e p a r e d t h e c o r p o r a t e Leigh, King, in $732. n e v e r i s s u e d a K-1 Tim L e i g h , he C a s h S t o r e was loans debt testified documents. 8 that i n 2006 were correct. claimed, to both Jackson f l a g s i n h i s mind w h i l e corporation reviewing as He well and the The well also as the Wicks, had financial 2111215 Mike Tucker, a certified public accountant, testified t h a t he w o r k s f o r B o r e l a n d and B e n e f i e l d and t h a t he corporate tax returns. He prepares t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had r e v i e w e d Cash S t o r e ' s c o r p o r a t e t a x r e t u r n s f r o m 2006 t h r o u g h its prepared internal financial software review f o r 2006 t h r o u g h of the understated debts documents and 2010. financial i t s profits He i t s expenses. He 2010 and i t s computer o p i n e d t h a t , b a s e d on h i s documents, because by The The i t had Cash Store overstated t e s t i f i e d that gross had i t s bad receipts on a c o r p o r a t e t a x r e t u r n s h o u l d be a l l r e c e i p t s f o r t h e company, without taking any deductions. He the 2009 income as $68,444 b u t c o r p o r a t e t a x r e t u r n showed t o t a l explained that that t h e i n t e r n a l f i n a n c i a l documents f o r 2009 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t o t a l check-cashing-loan total title-loan i n t e r e s t was $199,952.25 in $199,952.25 figure corporate tax i n t e r e s t was interest return should as $108,576.79 and t h a t t h e $91,375.46, income. have He a testified appeared opposed t o the for on line total f o r deductions such of that the 1 the of $68,444 f i g u r e J a c k s o n had u s e d b e c a u s e , he o p i n e d , t h e l o w e r f i g u r e accounted the that already as w r i t e - o f f s i n t h e amount o f $1,400 and m i s c e l l a n e o u s r e c e i p t s i n t h e amount o f $93,803.86 9 2111215 for the t i t l e - l o a n business and w r i t e - o f f s i n t h e amount o f $55,108 and m i s c e l l a n e o u s r e c e i p t s i n t h e amount o f $18,772.86 for the improper the check-cashing business. t o t a k e any d e d u c t i o n s corporate accounting tax return. He He opined that i t was from the gross-income l i n e f u r t h e r opined on that doing the i n t h e manner t h a t The C a s h S t o r e h a d i n 2009 h a d r e s u l t e d i n u n d e r r e p o r t i n g t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s income and t h a t The C a s h S t o r e h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y u n d e r r e p o r t e d the years 2006 through 2010. He compiled i t s income f o r a document, P l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t 27, w h i c h was e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , that d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n what was r e p o r t e d as g r o s s income on t h e c o r p o r a t e t a x r e t u r n s and what was r e p o r t e d as the interest i n c o m e on t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s i n t e r n a l summary s h e e t s . corporation had Plaintiff's exhibit underreported 27 financial indicated i t s income by that the $12,831.36 i n 2006, b y $150,037.46 i n 2007, b y $154,984.84 i n 2008, and b y $131,508.25 i n 2009. W i c k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d w o r k e d f o r t h e S h e f f i e l d F i r e Department 2005. He f o r 24 y e a r s testified and t h a t he h a d m a r r i e d that the p a r t i e s b e f o r e h i s p u r c h a s e o f 500 s h a r e s , 10 Jackson had s e p a r a t e d or a 50% i n t e r e s t , in i n 2006 i n The 2111215 Cash Store. He testified p u r c h a s e o f a 50% accounting he had believed o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n The good investment at t h a t the that f o r The time, that Foster Cash S t o r e Cash S t o r e & Foster i n 2006, and Cash S t o r e . any had in 500 2006 or He shares. any testified t r i e d t o r e c o n c i l e i n 2006 and the that that Smokey M o u n t a i n s . any money f r o m The trip to expenses. f r o m The He the He testified Cash S t o r e but had Mountains that or Cash not m a k i n g any Store, Jackson, or claim that The that he Cash S t o r e but for any Store should have paid had He was unaware finance marital received loans check i n testified that s a l a r y p a i d by too much a he taken a t r i p other e n d o r s e d one Jackson's Cash he take personal amount o f $5,000 a t J a c k s o n ' s r e q u e s t . was received been used t o d i d not t h a t he had during since he a done t h a t J a c k s o n and testified t h a t he year t h a t t h e y had Cash S t o r e Smokey other was regarding f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n o t distributions p u r c h a s e d the to He the had that, t h a t f i s c a l y e a r , he had r e c e i v e d m o n t h l y s t a t e m e n t s The that in salary rent from the he The to The t h a t he w a n t s o n l y h i s s h a r e o f t h e money t h a t The Cash S t o r e had distributed his 50% o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t . s i n c e J a n u a r y 2006, b a s e d Wicks t e s t i f i e d t h a t Jackson 11 on had 2111215 p u r c h a s e d numerous p r o p e r t i e s was u n s u r e s i n c e J a n u a r y 2006 and t h a t o f how she h a d p a i d f o r t h o s e p r o p e r t i e s . Jackson testified that she p r o p e r t i e s s i n c e J a n u a r y 2006. she c o u l d properties "shifted not r e c a l l because, she had purchased several She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t u s e d income f r o m The C a s h S t o r e but that he t o buy any o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s how said, she h a d p u r c h a s e d a l l t h e she h a d " s h i f t e d money" and property." Specifically, she t e s t i f i e d that f o l l o w i n g p i e c e s of r e a l property. had p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d a t 100 R i v e r v i e w $50,000 in property l o c a t e d a t B l u f f v i e w #10 daughter, that She testified the property the J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t she w i t h h e r m o t h e r and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y cash. she h a d p u r c h a s e d i n J u n e 2006 had been p u r c h a s e d f o r that she had i n December had been p u r c h a s e d purchased 2006 w i t h her f o r $66,000, and t h a t h e r d a u g h t e r h a d p a i d $26,000 i n c a s h and e x e c u t e d a mortgage i n t h e amount of $40,000, S e p t e m b e r 2007, a n i n e - m o n t h p e r i o d . had p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y i n cash. was released She t e s t i f i e d l o c a t e d a t L o t 1 Rivermont 2007 b y h e r s e l f and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y $23,000 which Jackson testified 12 in t h a t she i n January had been p u r c h a s e d f o r that she h a d purchased 2111215 property l o c a t e d a t l o t s 97 t h r o u g h 100 i n W i l d w o o d E s t a t e s i n June 2007 b y h e r s e l f and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y had been p u r c h a s e d for she h a d $37,000 property i n cash. testified that purchased l o c a t e d a t 4235 W a t e r l o o R o a d i n May 2008 b y h e r s e l f and t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d at She h a d b e e n p u r c h a s e d f o r $198,000 i n c a s h . t h a t she h a d s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y 4235 W a t e r l o o R o a d i n May 2008 f o r $207,000 and t h a t had p l a c e d t h a t amount o f money i n t o a c e r t i f i c a t e Jackson t e s t i f i e d located she of d e p o s i t . t h a t she h a d p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y located at 2211 Woodward Avenue i n F e b r u a r y 2009 b y h e r s e l f and t h a t t h e property h a d b e e n p u r c h a s e d f o r $123,000, w i t h $81,000 o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e h a v i n g been f i n a n c e d a m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y . Cash S t o r e t h r o u g h a note s e c u r e d by She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d i s currently located at the property that located The at 2211 Woodward Avenue and t h a t The C a s h S t o r e p a y s r e n t t o h e r . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y Stormy i n September Drive property 2009 by Stormy D r i v e the v a l u e and that the h a d b e e n p u r c h a s e d b y t r a d i n g h e r h o u s e on C o l o r a d o Avenue t h a t she h a d p u r c h a s e d b e f o r e the herself l o c a t e d a t 114 property 2006 w i t h t h e s e l l e r of and p a y i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n of the Stormy D r i v e p r o p e r t y 13 and t h e C o l o r a d o Avenue 2111215 property. property that She t e s t i f i e d that and cash t o purchase there was no she h a d " p a i d " t h e Stormy mortgage on that Drive that the property purchased w h i c h was a l l p a i d b y h e r m o t h e r . had p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y Jackson h e r mother and f o r $72,000 i n cash, J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l o c a t e d a t 708 C l a r k Avenue i n A p r i l 2011 w i t h h e r m o t h e r a n d t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y for and l o c a t e d a t 308 U n i o n i n F e b r u a r y 2011 w i t h had been property property. t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y Avenue i n M i s s i s s i p p i $252,000 i n had been p u r c h a s e d $70,000 i n c a s h . When q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t money t o purchase Jackson t e s t i f i e d where Jackson t h e numerous had r e c e i v e d properties listed the above, t h a t h e r mother and daughter had p u r c h a s e d s e v e r a l o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s a l t h o u g h h e r name was on t h e d e e d s . She further inheritance testified that from father her she h a d and received that she $300,000 i n had i n h e r i t a n c e a l o n g w i t h o t h e r money she h a d b e f o r e marriage t o purchase the p r o p e r t i e s . She c o u l d why h e r b a n k s t a t e m e n t s d i d n o t r e f l e c t funds used testified t o purchase that she was 14 her the p a r t i e s ' not e x p l a i n disbursement of the the p r o p e r t i e s . unsure used o f where Jackson further her daughter had 2111215 r e c e i v e d t h e money t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t i e s b u t t h a t she had g i v e n h e r d a u g h t e r money and t h a t h e r d a u g h t e r e a r n e d $100,000 per y e a r as a bookkeeper. Jackson t e s t i f i e d $16,000 and The that documentary indicated consisted the that t h a t her l i v i n g e x p e n s e s i n 2006 were amount had evidence, increased along following: that with since Dodd's Jackson's o f $7,500 i n s a l a r y f r o m The that time. testimony, income Cash Store in and 2007 $7,454 i n i n t e r e s t i n c o m e , t h a t h e r income i n 2008 c o n s i s t e d o f $0 i n s a l a r y f r o m The C a s h S t o r e and $2,368 i n i n t e r e s t i n c o m e , t h a t h e r income i n 2009 c o n s i s t e d o f $7,000 i n s a l a r y f r o m The Store 2010 and $1,219 i n i n t e r e s t consisted of $14,000 i n s a l a r y $1,025 i n i n t e r e s t i n c o m e . had given and her her the living and Foster. t h a t she was t h a t her f r o m The income i n Cash Store Jackson t e s t i f i e d t h a t her funds t o b r i d g e the gap between her and mother income expenses. Jackson t e s t i f i e d Dodd a t Tax i n c o m e , and Cash Mart t h a t She she she had reported previously also t e s t i f i e d a 100% i s s u e W i c k s a K-1 that shareholder document. She 15 t h a t she i n The the same numbers reported had Foster n e v e r t o l d Dodd Cash Store testified to to that and she not had to not 2111215 overstated The Cash earnings. Jackson income f r o m The she had further Cash Store l o a n e d the herself Store's bad testified and that f o r her p e r s o n a l corporation f o r those debts f u n d s and Cash S t o r e ' s 2006, t o J e a n e t t e had Rea w r i t t e n a check i n the i n the had d a t e d F e b r u a r y 17, t h a t she written check had on testified those checks said, she had had repaid went into l o a n e d The amount o f amount o f on $10,000 on $10,000 W i c k s f o r "payment on that her and J e f f W i c k s f o r "payment a l l the personal Cash S t o r e money r e p r e s e n t e d accounts Discussion Jackson's Appeal 16 because, f u n d s t o pay s e t t l e a lawsuit against i t . A. written w r i t t e n c h e c k i n t h e amount o f $5,000 2006, t o J e a n e t t e She that W i c k s f o r "payment 2006, t o J e a n e t t e Rea d a t e d M a r c h 27, loan." expenses but W i c k s f o r "payment loan," l o a n , " and used a c c o u n t i n t h e amount o f $4,000 Rea she not J a c k s o n had d a t e d F e b r u a r y 9, 2006, t o J e a n e t t e that had its loans. d a t e d J a n u a r y 23, l o a n , " t h a t she she t h a t she Documentary e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a c h e c k f r o m The understated Bullion by she to 2111215 In verdict award addressing Jackson's a g a i n s t Jackson of compensatory f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d of appeal, which c h a l l e n g e s the j u r y on W i c k s ' s c o n v e r s i o n and c l a i m and i t s p u n i t i v e damages, we apply the review: "In d i s c u s s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n an a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t where t h e t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : " ' " J u r y v e r d i c t s are presumed c o r r e c t , and t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n i s s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . T h e r e f o r e , a j u d g m e n t b a s e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s i t i s ' p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y ' w r o n g . " ' " T a n k s l e y v. A l a b a m a Gas C o r p . , 568 So. 2d 731, (Ala. 1990) ( q u o t i n g D a v i s v. U l i n , 545 So. 2d 15 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . " P e t t y - F i t z m a u r i c e v. S t e e n , On appeal, Jackson 871 So. contends 2d 771, that the j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t a g a i n s t h e r claim is arguments due to be targeted reversed. toward the j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . She 773 alleged error The ( A l a . 2003). trial on t h e asserts 734 14, court's conversion four separate in entering a r g u m e n t s a r e as a follows: (1) W i c k s c o u l d n o t m a i n t a i n a d i r e c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t Jackson for support a c o n v e r s i o n ; (2) t h e e v i d e n c e conversion claim; (3) the 17 was i n s u f f i c i e n t to jury's damage award was 2111215 s p e c u l a t i v e ; and have b e e n consider maintain pretermit (4) t h e c l a i m was barred r a i s e d i n the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e only her argument regarding because i t should action. Wicks's We will inability a d i r e c t a c t i o n u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , and d i s c u s s i o n of the remaining arguments, r e s o l u t i o n of that issue i s determinative to we because the of the appeal. See F a v o r i t e Mkt. S t o r e v. W a l d r o p , 924 So. 2d 719, 723 (Ala.Civ. App. 2005) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s c o u r t w o u l d p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n of further issues in light of d i s p o s i t i v e nature of another issue). Jackson argues t h a t the t r i a l Wicks's conversion lacked her she standing to maintain that in submitting c l a i m t o t h e j u r y b e c a u s e , she s a y s , alleged conversion contends court erred he a d i r e c t action against o f The could Cash Store's maintain only funds. a Wicks her f o r Instead, shareholder- d e r i v a t i v e a c t i o n on b e h a l f o f The Cash S t o r e f o r s u c h a l l e g e d actions. We agree. " ' I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t when i n d i v i d u a l damages s o u g h t t o be r e c o v e r e d by a p l a i n t i f f a r e i n c i d e n t a l t o h i s or her status as a s t o c k h o l d e r in a c o r p o r a t i o n , t h e c l a i m i s a d e r i v a t i v e one and must be b r o u g h t on b e h a l f o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . ' Pegram v. H e b d i n g , 667 So. 2d 696, 702 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . ' I t i s o n l y when a s t o c k h o l d e r a l l e g e s t h a t c e r t a i n wrongs have b e e n c o m m i t t e d by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n as a d i r e c t 18 2111215 f r a u d upon him, and s u c h wrongs do n o t a f f e c t o t h e r s t o c k h o l d e r s , t h a t one can m a i n t a i n a d i r e c t a c t i o n i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l name.' G r e e n v. B r a d l e y C o n s t r . , Inc., 431 So. 2d 1226, 1229 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . " A l t r u s t F i n . Servs., I n c . v. Adams, 76 So. 3d 228, 241 (Ala. 2011) J a c k s o n c i t e s A l t r u s t , s u p r a , i n s u p p o r t of her argument. In A l t r u s t , o u r supreme c o u r t a n a l y z e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n a direct examining and a c t i o n and a derivative a c t i o n and several the i s s u e of s t a n d i n g r e g a r d i n g c l a i m s , both derivative in nature, against conclude whether the p l a i n t i f f s a g a i n s t the defendants. t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s the defendants corporate cases direct entities to could maintain a direct action I d . a t 238-45. Our supreme c o u r t h e l d c o u l d not m a i n t a i n a d i r e c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t because " t h e a l l e g e d mismanagement and w r o n g d o i n g o f t h e A l t r u s t o f f i c e r s and d i r e c t o r s i s not unique t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s ; r a t h e r , i t i s s u f f e r e d e q u a l l y by all remaining eligible shareholders in Altrust. B e c a u s e t h e harm s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s a l s o a f f e c t s a l l other remaining e l i g i b l e shareholders i n A l t r u s t , t h e p l a i n t i f f s do n o t have s t a n d i n g t o assert a direct action." Altrust, Inc., 431 76 So. So. 3d a t 246 2d 1226 (citing G r e e n v. (Ala. 1983)). 19 Bradley Constr., 2111215 Although the distinguishable The Cash was of from A l t r u s t Store's s u f f e r e d by facts only Jackson's the present i n t h a t Jackson shareholders and, alleged conversion case and are W i c k s were thus, the harm of c o r p o r a t e funds s u f f e r e d o n l y by W i c k s and n o t by o t h e r s h a r e h o l d e r s , alleged harm is of the type that must be asserted s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e a c t i o n as o p p o s e d t o a d i r e c t I n G r e e n v. B r a d l e y C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . , 431 So. the in a action. 2d 1226 (Ala. 1 9 8 3 ) , w h i c h A l t r u s t r e l i e d upon, o u r supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t the alleged fraudulent conversion shareholder-derivative action proven, the would require of corporate because alleged assets is a the allegations, converted funds to i f be r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and t h a t t y p e o f harm i m p a c t s a l l s h a r e h o l d e r s of the c o r p o r a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n Green, our supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "Green's c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s f r a u d u l e n t c o n v e r s i o n s of corporate a s s e t s , which, i f the a l l e g a t i o n s are t r u e , w o u l d by l a w have t o be r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , as t h e a s s e t s a r e n o t s o l e l y G r e e n ' s b u t b e l o n g t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . As n o t e d i n 19 Am. J u r . 2d, C o r p o r a t i o n s § 534 (1979): "'An a c t i o n b r o u g h t by a s t o c k h o l d e r t o r e c o v e r a s s e t s f o r the c o r p o r a t i o n or t o p r e v e n t a d i s s i p a t i o n of c o r p o r a t e a s s e t s i s d e r i v a t i v e i n n a t u r e . S t o c k h o l d e r s as s u c h may n o t m a i n t a i n a c t i o n s t o r e c o v e r 20 2111215 p o s s e s s i o n o f c o r p o r a t e p r o p e r t y . Thus, a s t o c k h o l d e r may n o t b r i n g an a c t i o n i n h i s own name f o r an a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t t r a n s f e r of corporate property to another s t o c k h o l d e r ; s u c h a s u i t must be by o r i n b e h a l f o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . ' (Emphasis added [in Green].)" Id. at 1229. Like Wicks's conversion converted supreme lacked for an her court as standing fraudulent-transfer claim assets. discussed alleged conversion above, we a direct be brought as Therefore, we reverse the conclude a assets of that action against of c o r p o r a t e must to vacate that Green, Thus, u n d e r t h e h o l d i n g s to i n i t i a t e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t and in c l a i m a l l e g e d t h a t J a c k s o n had f r a u d u l e n t l y corporate allegation action. the and our Wicks Jackson that such shareholder-derivative judgment e n t e r e d remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l on the court for i t judgment. B. Wicks's In h i s c r o s s - a p p e a l , Cross-Appeal Wicks contends t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d by d i s m i s s i n g h i s s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 41 (b) trial, Wicks's and "after after failure f o u r years of l i t i g a t i o n , resting to v e r i f y [the the defense's] case," amended c o m p l a i n t c l a i m as r e q u i r e d by R u l e 23.1. 21 We agree. three days based adding of on that 2111215 Wicks f i r s t argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d t o r e v e r s a l in dismissing h i s shareholder-derivative claim pursuant t o R u l e 4 1 ( b ) b e c a u s e , he a s s e r t s , R u l e 4 1 ( b ) i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o dismiss a claim i n a jury case. Specifically, he contends t h a t t h e C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e 41 u n e q u i v o c a l l y indicate t h a t R u l e 41(b) governs t h e i n v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l o f a c t i o n s in only nonjury cases. "For failure That r u l e p r o v i d e s , of the p l a i n t i f f t h e s e r u l e s o r any o r d e r i npertinent part: t o p r o s e c u t e o r t o comply of court, with a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n o r o f any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . " The C o m m i t t e e Comments on t h e 1973 A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 41 s t a t e , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The r u l e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same as t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f e d e r a l r u l e " and " R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , [Fed.] R. [ C i v . ] P., as o r i g i n a l l y p r o m u l g a t e d , a p p l i e d t o b o t h j u r y and n o n - j u r y c a s e s . By amendment, i t s f u n c t i o n i s c l e a r l y l i m i t e d t o n o n - j u r y c a s e s . I n a j u r y c a s e , R u l e 50 a p p l i e s and the court i s l i m i t e d t o a question of law ( t h e r e b y p r e s e r v i n g j u r y t r i a l r i g h t ) as t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of p l a i n t i f f ' s prima f a c i e case." Although we find no A l a b a m a C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e presented dismiss here a party's whether authority 41 c o n c e r n i n g a trial court other than the the precise issue can i n v o l u n t a r i l y claim f o r f a i l u r e t o follow a rule of c i v i l 22 2111215 procedure in a jury case -- we have found several federal a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t R u l e 50, A l a . R. Civ. P., well s e t t l e d t h a t f e d e r a l cases c o n s t r u i n g the F e d e r a l Rules of Civil as o p p o s e d t o R u l e 41 a p p l i e s i n a j u r y c a s e . It is Procedure are p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y i n c o n s t r u i n g the Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , w h i c h were p a t t e r n e d a f t e r the Civil Federal Rules Huntsville, 875 So. of 2d 1168, Procedure. 1176 n.2 Borders v. City Thus, ( A l a . 2003). of we t u r n to the f e d e r a l cases f o r guidance. In (3d O'Brien C i r . 1961), v. W e s t i n g h o u s e Electric Corp., 293 the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court of Appeals T h i r d C i r c u i t a n a l y z e d the p r e c i s e i s s u e whether dismiss a count under R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , Fed. R. granted i n a j u r y case. to Rule 41(b) F.2d was the f o r the a motion C i v . P., could I n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t R u l e 50 as appropriate rule under to be opposed which " d i s m i s s " a count i n a j u r y case, the c o u r t s t a t e d : " I t i s c l e a r a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 41(b) f o r d i s m i s s a l a t t h e end o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e , t h a t upon the f a c t s and t h e l a w t h e p l a i n t i f f has shown no r i g h t t o r e l i e f , i s proper i n a case w i t h o u t a j u r y . Upon g r a n t i n g s u c h a m o t i o n t h e c o u r t s h o u l d make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 2 ( a ) . Upon r e v i e w t h e findings must be accepted unless c l e a r l y erroneous. I t i s equally c l e a r t h a t i n a j u r y c a s e t h e q u e s t i o n o n l y can be one o f l a w . T h e r e f o r e t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d be f o r a 23 1 to 2111215 d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t as m e n t i o n e d i n R u l e 50. Sano v. Pennsylvania R a i l r o a d Company, 3 C i r . , 1960, 282 F.2d 936; K i n g s t o n v. M c G r a t h , 9 C i r . , 1956, 232 F.2d 495, 54 A.L.R. 2d 267. I f t h e c o u r t g r a n t s i t no f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e n e c e s s a r y a n d upon r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e must be v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e m o t i o n i s made. Hence i n t h i s c a s e i t i s h e l d t h a t no f i n d i n g s o f f a c t were n e c e s s a r y , any i n d i c a t i o n i n Makowsky v. P o v l i c k , [262 F.2d 13 (3d C i r . 1 9 5 9 ) ] , t o t h e contrary notwithstanding. "We w i l l t h e r e f o r e t r e a t t h e m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 41(b) i n t h i s c a s e as one f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , and w i l l d i s r e g a r d t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o f t h e t r i a l court, reviewing the e n t i r e evidence i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and g i v i n g h i m t h e b e n e f i t of a l l reasonable i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h may be d e d u c e d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e i n h i s f a v o r , W a r l i c h v. M i l l e r , 3 C i r . , 1944, 141 F.2d 168, a r u l e a p p l y i n g as w e l l i n p a t e n t c a s e s . To a d o p t any o t h e r v i e w i n a j u r y case i s t o r i s k the d e p r i v a t i o n of a p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y u n d e r t h e S e v e n t h Amendment. G a l l o w a y v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 319 U.S. 372, 63 S . C t . 1077, 87 L.Ed. 1458 [ ( 1 9 4 3 ) ] . " 293 F.2d a t 9-10 (footnotes Accordingly, granting we Jackson's will order granting consider motion shareholder-derivative a motion omitted). the t r i a l for involuntary claim pursuant court's dismissal t o Rule of the 41(b) as f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r u n d e r R u l e 50, A l a . R. C i v . P. order of law R u l e 50(a) s t a t e s : "(1) I f d u r i n g a t r i a l by j u r y a p a r t y h a s b e e n f u l l y h e a r d on an i s s u e a n d t h e r e i s no l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n t i a r y basis f o r a reasonable jury t o f i n d f o r t h a t p a r t y on t h a t i s s u e , t h e c o u r t may 24 an 2111215 d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e a g a i n s t t h a t p a r t y a n d may g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w a g a i n s t that p a r t y with respect t o a c l a i m or defense that c a n n o t u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l l i n g l a w be m a i n t a i n e d o r d e f e a t e d w i t h o u t a f a v o r a b l e f i n d i n g on t h a t i s s u e . "(2) M o t i o n s f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w may be made a t any t i m e b e f o r e s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e c a s e t o the j u r y . Such a m o t i o n s h a l l s p e c i f y t h e j u d g m e n t s o u g h t a n d t h e l a w a n d t h e f a c t s on w h i c h 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 t h e judgment." We under review the t r i a l c o u r t ' s grant of a Rule 50 motion the f o l l o w i n g standard of review: " I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t a m o t i o n f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s a p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e b y w h i c h one p a r t y tests the s u f f i c i e n c y of the other party's evidence. See, R u l e 5 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; A l a b a m a Power Co. v. W i l l i a m s , 570 So. 2d 589 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; John R. C o w l e y & B r o s . , I n c . v. Brown, 569 So. 2d 375, 376 (Ala. 1 9 9 0 ) ; J . H o f f m a n & S. G u i n , A l a b a m a C i v i l P r o c e d u r e § 8.37 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . S i m i l a r l y , a m o t i o n f o r JNOV s i m p l y ' p e r m i t s t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e v i s i t i t s earlier r u l i n g denying the motion for directed v e r d i c t . ' A l a b a m a Power Co. v. W i l l i a m s , 570 So. 2d 589, 591 ( A l a . 1990) . The u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n , o f course, as t o e i t h e r motion, i s whether the nonmovant h a s p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e case or i s s u e t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . Hoffman & G u i n , s u p r a , a t § 8.37. F o r a c t i o n s f i l e d a f t e r June 11, 1987, t h e standard of review a p p l i c a b l e t o both motions i s the ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r u l e . ' See, § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975; K o c h v. S t a t e Farm F i r e & C a s . Co., 565 So. 2d 226, 228 ( A l a . 1990) . Thus a nonmovant must p r e s e n t ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' s u p p o r t i n g e a c h element of h i s cause of action or defense t o w i t h s t a n d a m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o r JNOV. T h i s c a l l s f o r 'a p u r e l y o b j e c t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f whether t h e p a r t y h a v i n g t h e burden o f p r o o f has 2 3 4 25 2111215 produced [sufficient] evidence [of a factual d i s p u t e ] r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n b y t h e j u r y . ' Ex p a r t e O l i v e r , 532 So. 2d 627, 628 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; a n d s e e , John R. C o w l e y & B r o s . , I n c . , s u p r a . "Additionally, i n reviewing a motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o r JNOV, t h i s C o u r t must v i e w a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant a n d must entertain such reasonable e v i d e n t i a r y i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw. W i l l i a m s v . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co., 591 So. 2d 38 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " We m o t i o n as l a w . ' See Amendment 2 n o t e t h a t R u l e 5 0 ( a ) h a s renamed t h i s a ' m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f C o m m i t t e e Comments t o O c t o b e r 1, 1995, t o R u l e 50. " T h e 1995 amendment t o R u l e 50, A l a . R. C i v . P., renames t h e JNOV m o t i o n as a ' r e n e w a l o f t h e m o t i o n f o r a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' See n o t e 2. 3 " ' S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' h a s b e e n d e f i n e d as 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment c a n r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12." 4 Cherokee (Ala. Elec. Coop. v. C o c h r a n , determine whether 706 So. 2d 1188, 1191-92 1997). We must Wicks presented substantial e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e c l a i m on b e h a l f of The Cash Store against Jackson 26 f o r mismanagement of 2111215 corporate funds. documentary As noted evidence above, indicated the that testimony along with Jackson wrote checks t o t a l i n g $29,000 f r o m The C a s h S t o r e t o h e r s e l f o r t o h e r s e l f and W i c k s and that she had d e p o s i t of those checks the cash r e c e i v e d from f o r her p e r s o n a l use. t h e e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y and t h a t The used Cash S t o r e had Additionally, documentary evidence o v e r s t a t e d i t s bad had u n d e r s t a t e d i t s p r o f i t s . the also revealed debts and, thus, J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had u s e d The C a s h S t o r e ' s f u n d s f o r p e r s o n a l use f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' t r i p t o t h e Smokey M o u n t a i n s parties' and t o c o v e r e x p e n s e s m a r r i a g e ; W i c k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had d u r i n g the b e e n unaware t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d u s e d f u n d s f r o m The C a s h S t o r e t o pay f o r the p a r t i e s ' v a c a t i o n . in a light presented Accordingly, most f a v o r a b l e t o W i c k s , substantial evidence mismanaged t h e c o r p o r a t e f u n d s . r e v i e w i n g the we conclude indicating that evidence that Wicks Jackson Therefore, the t r i a l had court i m p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d J a c k s o n ' s m o t i o n f o r a judgment as a m a t t e r of l a w on t h e s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e claim. 2 We r e v e r s e the We a l s o n o t e t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e c a s e h a d b e e n t r i e d i n i t s entirety without objection regarding the shareholderd e r i v a t i v e c l a i m , and b e c a u s e we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d d i d n o t s u p p o r t a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n f a v o r o f J a c k s o n on t h e s h a r e h o l d e r - d e r i v a t i v e c l a i m , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t have d i s m i s s e d t h e c l a i m m e r e l y b e c a u s e 2 27 2111215 trial court's judgment shareholder-derivative instructions to as claim, conduct shareholder-derivative a a matter of l a w on Wicks's a n d we remand t h e c a u s e new trial regarding with Wicks's claim. APPEAL -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. CROSS-APPEAL -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d D o n a l d s o n , Moore, J . , c o n c u r s J J . , concur. i n the result, without w r i t i n g . t h e c o m p l a i n t was n o t v e r i f i e d . See M c D u f f i e v. H o o p e r , 294 Ala. 293, 296, 315 So. 2d 573, 576 (1975) ( f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i s s u e whether t h e p a r t i e s had been engaged i n a j o i n t v e n t u r e was t r i e d b y t h e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s b e c a u s e M c D u f f i e "made no o b j e c t i o n a t a n y t i m e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f the t r i a l " ) ; s e e a l s o R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("When i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e t r i e d by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y h a d been r a i s e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . " ) . 28

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.