Tina M. Stone Ballentine, Bobby Stone, and Peggy Stone v. Alabama Farm Credit, ACA (Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court: CV-11-900339) (Consolidated with 2120268.) Affirmed. Tina M. Stone Ballentine, Bobby Stone, and Peggy Stone v. Alabama Farm Credit, ACA (Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court: CV-11-900339)

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 2120026 and 2120268 T i n a M. Stone B a l l e n t i n e , Bobby Stone, and Peggy Stone v. Alabama Farm C r e d i t , ACA Appeals from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t (CV-11-900339) PER Court CURIAM. Tina M. S t o n e B a l l e n t i n e , Bobby S t o n e , (collectively entered "the Stones") appeal from a n d Peggy a summary Stone judgment i n f a v o r o f A l a b a m a Farm C r e d i t , ACA ("AFC"), on i t s claims against the Stones. AFC s u e d t h e S t o n e s f o r e j e c t m e n t 2120026 a n d 2120268 and rent property i n connection of certain i n those order. denying t h e i r The a s s e r t e d b y t h e S t o n e s were " s t r i c k e n , " a n d t h e requested separate the foreclosure t h e S t o n e s h a d p u r c h a s e d w i t h a l o a n f r o m AFC. counterclaims relief with c l a i m s was e x p l i c i t l y The S t o n e s d i d not appeal denied from ina the order counterclaims. J o n S t o n e , who i s t h e s o n o f Bobby S t o n e a n d Peggy S t o n e , a l s o p u r p o r t e d l y appeals f r o m t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f A F C ; h o w e v e r , he was n o t a p a r t y i n t h e a c t i o n b e l o w . His name does n o t a p p e a r relevant to this defendant. Although case, on t h e l o a n a n d AFC o r mortgage d i d n o t name l a t e i n the proceedings documents him as a t h e S t o n e s began t o i n c l u d e J o n ' s name i n t h e s t y l e o f t h e c a s e , he n e v e r moved to intervene i n or otherwise j o i n t h e a c t i o n , and t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t he was n e v e r a d d e d as a p a r t y t o t h e c a s e . Mars H i l l Hill B a p t i s t Church of Anniston, Missionary B a p t i s t Church, 1 9 9 9 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t Alabama, I n c . v. Mars 761 So. 2d 975, 980 stated: "The l a w i n t h e a r e a o f s t a n d i n g f o r p u r p o s e s o f appeal i s w e l l s e t t l e d . One must have b e e n a p a r t y t o t h e judgment b e l o w i n o r d e r t o have s t a n d i n g t o appeal any i s s u e a r i s i n g o u t o f t h a t judgment. T r i p l e J C a t t l e , I n c . v. Chambers, 621 So. 2d 1221 (Ala. 1993). When a c o u r t d e n i e s a n o n p a r t y ' s m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i n an a c t i o n , t h a t n o n p a r t y 2 In (Ala. 2120026 a n d 2120268 cannot a p p e a l from t h e f i n a l judgment i n t h a t a c t i o n b e c a u s e i t n e v e r became a p a r t y t o t h a t a c t i o n . Duncan v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f J a s p e r , 573 So. 2d 270, 273 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . " B e c a u s e J o n S t o n e was n o t a p a r t y standing a c t i o n , he h a s no t o a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t , a n d he i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n our references The to this record t o t h e Stones i n t h i s indicates the following. known a t t h a t t i m e as F e d e r a l Alabama, FLCA, opinion. 1 made a l o a n I n June 2003, AFC, L a n d Bank A s s o c i a t i o n o f N o r t h o f $283,000 t o t h e S t o n e s . The l o a n was s e c u r e d b y a m o r t g a g e on a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 a c r e s o f certain The real Stones property executed remains t h e holder i n Marshall County t h e mortgage ("the p r o p e r t y " ) . i n favor o f AFC, which i n due c o u r s e o f t h e m o r t g a g e . I n November 2010 a n d May 2011, t h e S t o n e s f a i l e d t o make t h e s e m i a n n u a l payments on t h e l o a n . AFC e x e r c i s e d i t s r i g h t p u r s u a n t t o t h e mortgage t o c a l l f o r payment o f t h e l o a n i n full. pay The proceedings 2011, Stones were instituted a foreclosure Alabama failed sale to AFC, and on t h e p r o p e r t y . was c o n d u c t e d l a w , a n d AFC p u r c h a s e d foreclosure On J u l y 14, i n accordance the property with f o r $112,500. F e d e r a l L a n d Bank A s s o c i a t i o n o f N o r t h A l a b a m a , FLCA, b e g a n u s i n g t h e name A l a b a m a Farm C r e d i t , ACA, on J a n u a r y 1, 2010. F o r e a s e o f r e f e r e n c e , we r e f e r t o t h e e n t i t y as AFC. 1 3 2120026 and That 2120268 amount d i d n o t c o v e r t h e b a l a n c e t h e S t o n e s loan, owed on the t h e p r o p e r t y t o AFC was however. The foreclosure deed c o n v e y i n g r e c o r d e d i n t h e M a r s h a l l P r o b a t e C o u r t on J u l y 14, July 18, 2011, AFC p r o v i d e d the Stones 2011. with written On notice t h a t i t h a d p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y and demanded p o s s e s s i o n o f the p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e p r o p e r t y , and use o r o c c u p a n c y On October t e n days. t h e y d i d n o t pay time The Stones, discovery 11, 2011, AFC refused to vacate rent for their filed I t a l s o sought d u r i n g which appearing t o AFC Stones continued of the p r o p e r t y . a g a i n s t the Stones. the The they an ejectment action r e n t from the Stones f o r refused to vacate in this action i n which they sought, pro the p r o p e r t y . se, propounded among o t h e r things, o r i g i n a l documents r e l a t e d t o t h e l o a n and t h e m o r t g a g e . AFC responded w i t h g e n e r a l o b j e c t i o n s , s t a t i n g , f o r example, t h a t the Stones' requests were i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e l i k e . 27, 2012, AFC also overbroad and sought privileged However, i n a l e t t e r d a t e d p r o v i d e d the 4 Stones w i t h more April than 800 2120026 and pages of 2120268 copies of documents, Stones t o i n s p e c t the o r i g i n a l On May 9, 2012, AFC and i t offered documents. to allow 2 f i l e d a p r o p e r l y supported motion f o r a summary judgment i n t h e e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n . The S t o n e s a any r e s p o n s e ; however, materials with their moved t o d i s m i s s were filed filed they response. own "petition the f a c t s " s u r r o u n d i n g was include May on July for 24, summary i s t h a t AFC filed evidentiary 23, 2012, Other motions from the Stones. unsupported assertions mortgage On AFC's a c t i o n . included affidavits the d i d not i n t h e a c t i o n , and their the the and 2012, Stones responses the Stones judgment," which The g i s t o f t h e S t o n e s ' d i d not d i s c l o s e " a l l of t h e l o a n and t h a t , somehow, t h e l o a n o r fraudulent. None of the assertions or m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d by t h e S t o n e s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r f a i l u r e t o make t h e r e q u i r e d on t h e p r o p e r t y , l o a n p a y m e n t s , AFC's r e s u l t i n g f o r e c l o s u r e o r AFC's e f f o r t s t o e j e c t t h e S t o n e s f r o m t h e property. On J u l y 30, 2012, a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e v a r i o u s the trial court g r a n t e d AFC's m o t i o n f o r a summary A f t e r t h e documents were p r o v i d e d , t i t s o f f i c e r s , and i t s a t t o r n e y s i n f e d e r a l does n o t i n d i c a t e t h e s t a t u s o f t h a t c a s e 2 5 motions, judgment; 2120026 and however, 2120268 the reasonable judgment rental value refused to vacate i t . 2012, d i d not of address the property claim for after the action. motion, Stones By a s e p a r a t e o r d e r e n t e r e d on J u l y denying the The w h i c h was Ballentine order. Stones purported and f i l e d a purported d e n i e d on S e p t e m b e r 5, 2012. a l s o " s t r u c k " the postjudgment Stones' motion, request 30, a determined final was trial court 30, the July c a s e number 2120026. t h i s c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n c a s e court with jurisdiction On November judgment the 30, 2012, awarding reasonable AFC rental the trial $3,000, value of the i t property The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t a l l AFC's c l a i m s had b e e n r u l e d upon a l l the judgment Stones court which d u r i n g the S t o n e s ' "wrongful occupancy" of t h a t p r o p e r t y . trial 2012, j u d g m e n t a d d r e s s i n g " a l l c l a i m s and f o r m s o f requested." entered the order from number 2120026 r e i n v e s t i n g t h e t r i a l relief I n the judgment. This court assigned that appeal enter a f i n a l postjudgment f o r a summary Bobby S t o n e a p p e a l e d On November 16, 2012, and the the t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d the S t o n e s ' motion to d i s m i s s the ejectment to AFC's Stones' c l a i m s had o f November t i m e l y appealed 30, 2012, been d e n i e d ; t h e r e f o r e , the was judgment. a final f r o m t h e November 30, 6 2012, The judgment. 2120026 a n d 2120268 T h i s c o u r t a s s i g n e d t h a t a p p e a l c a s e number 2 1 2 0 2 6 8 . The two a p p e a l s were In consolidated. i t s brief jurisdiction on appeal, AFC questioned this over the appeal of the ejectment a c t i o n , numerous a p p e a l s o f e j e c t m e n t a c t i o n s t h a t h a d b e e n filed i n t h e A l a b a m a Supreme this court. court's Court and t h e n citing initially transferred to This court t h e r e f o r e t r a n s f e r r e d the appeals to t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court, which, i n turn, t r a n s f e r r e d the a p p e a l s b a c k t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. It i s q u e s t i o n a b l e whether the S t o n e s ' b r i e f on appeal c o m p l i e s w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 2 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. Their "Statement statements of the I s s u e s " that are a s s e r t i o n s consists of fact of 28 numbered and n o t i s s u e s c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l , as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e t o be 28(a)(6). To t h e e x t e n t t h e S t o n e s ' " S t a t e m e n t o f t h e I s s u e s " c a n be c o n s t r u e d as a statement record, as of required facts, by there Rule a r e no 28(a)(7). references The to the Stones' legal argument a l s o c o n s i s t s o f numbered s t a t e m e n t s , some o f w h i c h contain footnotes to legal propositions. legal propositions relate to 7 the However, how statements those i s unclear. 2120026 and 2120268 N o n e t h e l e s s , we have a t t e m p t e d t o d i s c e r n t h e i s s u e s t h a t t h e Stones are r a i s i n g on a p p e a l . The S t o n e s a p p e a r t o argue t h a t the t r i a l have j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s matter because, not have standing assertion, requests did in the Stones this claim case. In t h e y s a y , AFC support have documents ' [ therefore 'custody, possession i n question, ] standing does subject not S t o n e s c o n t e n d t h a t i f AFC of exist." their stated that [ i t ] or matter did their t h a t when, i n r e s p o n s e t o f o r p r o d u c t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s , "AFC not court d i d not control was of the forfeited and I t appears that the d i d n o t have " c u s t o d y , p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l " o f t h e documents r e q u e s t e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e o r i g i n a l p r o m i s s o r y n o t e f o r t h e l o a n and t h e o r i g i n a l m o r t g a g e , it then d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g t o f o r e c l o s e on t h e p r o p e r t y . The S t o n e s ' a r g u m e n t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . As m e n t i o n e d , AFC o b j e c t e d t o t h e S t o n e s ' r e q u e s t f o r documents " t o t h e e x t e n t " those documents control source." of [AFC] were or "not which in the could be custody, possession or o b t a i n e d from another T h a t o b j e c t i o n i s n o t a s t a t e m e n t t h a t AFC d i d not p o s s e s s t h e documents a t i s s u e , as t h e S t o n e s w o u l d have court believe. Bates-stamped Moreover, AFC p r o v i d e d the Stones with this 804 p a g e s o f documents i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e r e q u e s t s 8 2120026 and for 2120268 production available and a l s o n o t i f i e d t h e S t o n e s t h a t i t w o u l d make documents that were n o t p r i v i l e g e d , i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 34, A l a . R. Civ. P. with for their Although there the court as inspection i s no part any original r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t d i s c o v e r y be of the clerk's record, we filed note that c o p i e s o f t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e and t h e m o r t g a g e r e l a t i n g t o the p r o p e r t y a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l as p a r t o f AFC's e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n i n s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment. I n t h e i r b r i e f to t h i s c o u r t , the Stones c l a i m t h a t r e c e i p t o f t h e B a t e s - s t a m p e d documents a r e b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , AFC and p r o d u c i n g fraud." purported The "not ... consequence the t r u e p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t documents a t a l a t e r p o i n t i n t i m e i s (Emphasis i n t h e o r i g i n a l . ) AFC's p r o d u c i n g requested was o f no their They do n o t e x p l a i n how t h e B a t e s - s t a m p e d c o p i e s o f t h e documents t h e y constitutes fraud. Stones have not cited any authority for the p r o p o s i t i o n that a party loses standing to prosecute a case i f that p a r t y f a i l s to respond adequately to d i s c o v e r y requests. " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] requires t h a t arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s of f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l 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 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 . 9 2120026 a n d 2120268 Ltd. P'ship, 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 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . '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 p a r t y ' s legal research o r t o make and address legal a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d 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 or argument.'"' 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) (quoting 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 Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1042, (Ala. 2008). To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e S t o n e s a r e a r g u i n g t h a t AFC h a d t o produce motion original for a considered documents summary as e v i d e n c e judgment, t h a t i s s u e and concluded this i n support court otherwise. has C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , t h i s court recently So. 3d wrote: "The D o u g l a s e s have c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y i n w h i c h a n o n j u d i c i a l f o r e c l o s u r e has been h e l d i n v a l i d f o r f a i l u r e t o produce or present o r i g i n a l documentation e v i d e n c i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g debt and s e c u r i t y f o r r e p a y m e n t t h e r e o f . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e bank introduced into evidence at trial various evidentiary exhibits, i n c l u d i n g photocopies of a note and a mortgage instrument bearing the D o u g l a s e s ' s i g n a t u r e s a n d t h e d a t e o f F e b r u a r y 8, 2008. B e c a u s e , i n t h i s c a s e , we must c o n c l u s i v e l y presume, i n t h e absence o f a t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t , t h a t the c o u r t ' s judgment i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e o m i t t e d evidence, s e e S t o n e v. S t o n e , 26 So. 3d 1228, 10 i t s I n D o u g l a s v. T r o y Bank & T r u s t Co., [Ms. 2110053, Aug. 24, 2012] (Ala. of 2120026 and 2120268 1231-32 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , we c o n c l u s i v e l y presume that the trial court deemed those p h o t o c o p i e s s u f f i c i e n t t o prove the bank's r i g h t t o seek ejectment. See Rule 1003, A l a . R. Evid. ( a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f p h o t o c o p i e s ) ; c f . A l a . Code 1975, § 7-3-309(a) (UCC p r o v i s i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o n e g o t i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t s s e t t i n g f o r t h c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which a p e r s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o e n f o r c e s u c h an i n s t r u m e n t d e s p i t e l a c k i n g p o s s e s s i o n of i t ) . " R u l e 1003, admissible genuine to A l a . R. E v i d . , p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] d u p l i c a t e i s the question original or (2) same e x t e n t is raised i n the as as an to original the circumstances unless (1) authenticity i t w o u l d be admit the d u p l i c a t e i n l i e u of the o r i g i n a l . " The of unfair a the to S t o n e s have not a s s e r t e d e i t h e r e x c e p t i o n to the g e n e r a l r u l e s e t f o r t h i n Rule 1003. Stones' their We conclude t h a t t h e r e i s no l e g a l b a s i s f o r the c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t t h e manner i n w h i c h AFC requests for production of documents responded to was somehow improper. The in Stones a l s o contend interest. was was not a proper T h a t argument a p p e a r s t o h i n g e b e l i e f t h a t AFC mortgage. t h a t AFC on c o u l d not produce the promissory Therefore, they s a y , AFC party the Stones' note or the c o u l d not prove t h a t i t e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e l o a n payments and, a p p a r e n t l y , d i d n o t have a r i g h t t o f o r e c l o s e on were n o t made. t h e m o r t g a g e when t h e payments T h e r e f o r e , t h e y s a y , t h e summary j u d g m e n t 11 was 2120026 and 2120268 improper. The r e c o r d s i m p l y does not support the Stones' contention. We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t to the following standard: " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no 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 e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant 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 o f l a w . Rule 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004). I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e 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 nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 (Ala. 1986) . Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12." Dow (Ala. v. Alabama prima plaintiff legal t i t l e facie to 1177 showing provide So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 i n an e j e c t m e n t action requires substantial evidence that t o t h e p r o p e r t y when t h e c o m p l a i n t was a r i g h t t o immediate 1174, P a r t y , 897 2004). "'A the Democratic possession. ( A l a . 2005).'" M u l l e r v. S e e d s , B e r r y v. D e u t s c h e 12 i t has filed 919 So. and 2d Bank N a t ' l T r u s t 2120026 a n d 2120268 Co., 57 So. 3d 142, 145 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( q u o t i n g court's judgment). In support j u d g m e n t , AFC i n c l u d e d the make evidence m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y ; the required payments on that purchased i t at a foreclosure AFC recorded h a d made property. that AFC h a d f o r e c l o s e d a AFC s u b m i t t e d i t was ejectment entitled sale that i t had h e l d secured had been by t h e and had properly executed foreclosure that Probate t h e Stones substantial to a that on t h e p r o p e r t y i n the Marshall demand f o r a summary the Stones had f a i l e d t o the loan t h a t AFC h a d a p r o p e r l y w h i c h had been that indicating that mortgage; noticed; of i t s motion trial evidence judgment deed, C o u r t ; and vacate the demonstrating i n i t s favor i n the action. Therefore, substantial the burden s h i f t e d evidence demonstrating t o the Stones t o produce that there had been a w r o n g f u l f o r e c l o s u r e a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h a t AFC d i d n o t have good t i t l e to the property. See B e r r y , 57 So. 3d a t 145. I n o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e S t o n e s presented no e v i d e n c e tending to create a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t , a n d t h e y d i d n o t p r e s e n t a v a l i d argument t h a t AFC was Instead, not e n t i t l e d to a judgment they submitted a r t i c l e s 13 as a matter and c h a p t e r s of law. f r o m b o o k s on 2120026 a n d 2120268 banking a n d money. from a b o o k l e t Public F o r example, that o r i g i n a l l y Information Chicago Center b u t was no l o n g e r stated, "Photo copies monques@myhome.net." The they submitted an excerpt had been d i s t r i b u t e d by t h e of the Federal i n print. can Reserve Instead, be made available is titled booklet as t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n s t a t e s , process Modern system." There are also economics textbooks terms. i t describes o f money c r e a t i o n i n a ' f r a c t i o n a l The S t o n e s ' excerpts from and a d i c t i o n a r y "evidence" title fails that the t r i a l to the property. Money "the b a s i c banking appear t o be o f economic o r banking to indicate f o r e c l o s u r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y was i m p r o p e r have v a l i d by Expansion, reserve' what of t h e document M e c h a n i c s , A Workbook on Bank R e s e r v e s a n d D e p o s i t and, Bank that the o r t h a t AFC d i d n o t A c c o r d i n g l y , we conclude c o u r t p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f AFC on i t s e j e c t m e n t claim. We n o t e t h a t , on a p p e a l , t h e S t o n e s do n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e a w a r d o f r e n t a l payments t o AFC. that issue. T h e r e f o r e , t h e y have w a i v e d See B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t fails brief, that issue i s waived."). 14 418 So. 2d 89, 92 t o argue an i s s u e (Ala. in i t s 2120026 and 2120268 AFC f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s Jon Stone from t h i s a p p e a l . In return, Jon Stone f i l e d to dismiss him earlier a " m o t i o n t o s t r i k e " AFC's m o t i o n from the a p p e a l . AFC has a l s o f i l e d i s denied. a m o t i o n f o r damages, a s s e r t i n g S t o n e s have b r o u g h t a f r i v o l o u s jurisdiction whether an under Rule appeal is 38, A l a . R. frivolous. appeal. App. This P., "This rule the a p p e l l a t e court." 646 So. 2d 592, 594 In is an by has determine vests the discretion G i l b e r t v. C o n g r e s s L i f e I n s . Co., ( A l a . 1994). s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n , AFC attempt that court to i m p o s i t i o n o f s a n c t i o n s w i t h i n the sound j u d i c i a l of forth i n t h i s o p i n i o n , AFC's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s g r a n t e d ; Jon Stone's "motion t o s t r i k e " the For the reasons s e t the Stones to contends t h a t t h i s delay AFC from appeal obtaining p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e S t o n e s have u s e d t h e c o u r t s y s t e m as "a t o o l f o r h a r a s s m e n t . " have a right to appeal from the However, t h e S t o n e s judgment against them. T h e r e f o r e , AFC's r e q u e s t f o r s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S t o n e s i s denied. The Stones have c o u r t e r r e d or abused failed to demonstrate i t s discretion in this that case. r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h above, the judgment i s a f f i r m e d . 15 the trial For the 2120026 a n d 2120268 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, M o o r e , a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Pittman, J . , recuses himself. 16

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.