Lynn E. Thomas d/b/a Anchor Comms v. American Express Bank, FSB

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 be 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 2120117 Lynn E. Thomas d/b/a Anchor Comms v. American Express Bank, FSB Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-903556) MOORE, J u d g e . L y n n E. Thomas d/b/a A n c h o r Comms ("Thomas") a p p e a l s a judgment o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t in f a v o r o f A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s Bank, FSB We reverse. ("the t r i a l from court") ("American E x p r e s s " ) . 2120117 Background American Express sued Thomas on October 6, 2011, a s s e r t i n g t h r e e counts o f b r e a c h o f a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t ; each count related to a separate credit w i t h American Express. owed American accounts, attorney Express including fees. a c c o u n t Thomas h a d h e l d American Express c l a i m e d t h a t a total o f $25,778.86 unpaid p r i n c i p a l , Thomas, a c t i n g on Thomas the three accrued i n t e r e s t , p r o se, denied t h a t and he owed A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s any money. On A p r i l 11, 2012, A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s moved f o r a summary judgment as t o a l l t h r e e c o u n t s . represented by l e g a l counsel, conduct d i s c o v e r y ; the t r i a l Thomas, who b y t h a t t i m e was requested additional time t o c o u r t g r a n t e d Thomas's m o t i o n . On A u g u s t 10, 2012, a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s h a d c o m p l e t e d d i s c o v e r y , American Express supplemented judgment m o t i o n . i t s previously filed summary- Thomas o p p o s e d A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s ' s summary- judgment m o t i o n a n d s o u g h t a summary j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o r . On A u g u s t judgment 27, 2012, t h e t r i a l i n favor of American contract c l a i m s ; the t r i a l court Express entered a on summary i t s breach-of- c o u r t awarded American E x p r e s s t h e amount i t h a d r e q u e s t e d i n i t s c o m p l a i n t , i . e . , $25,778.86. 2 2120117 The trial court also judgment m o t i o n . pursuant expressly denied Thomas t i m e l y f i l e d to Rule 59, A l a . R. of summary- a postjudgment C i v . P., d e n i e d on S e p t e m b e r 23, 2012. Thomas's which motion, the t r i a l court Thomas t i m e l y f i l e d h i s n o t i c e appeal. Analysis In support of i t s summary-judgment motion, American E x p r e s s r e l i e d on t h e a f f i d a v i t o f W a l t e r G i b b s , who attested t h a t he was American Express the a s s i s t a n t and that a c c o u n t s by v i r t u e Gibbs attested he c u s t o d i a n of r e c o r d s f o r of Thomas's o f h i s employment w i t h A m e r i c a n Express. that had personal knowledge Thomas's a c c o u n t s were p a s t due i n the p r i n c i p a l amount o f $19,753.76, t h a t i n t e r e s t o f $2,662.65 had a c c r u e d on t h e u n p a i d p r i n c i p a l , and t h a t Thomas owed a t t o r n e y fees in the amount of $3,362.45. American Express also s u b m i t t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f i t s summaryjudgment m o t i o n : a c o p y o f a m o n t h l y June 8, bearing of 2009, for a "Blue Thomas's name and Cash account statement f o r Business reflecting an Credit dated Card" outstanding balance $ 1 , 1 7 4 . 3 4 ; a f o r m copy o f a " B l u e C a s h f o r B u s i n e s s C r e d i t C a r d A g r e e m e n t " ; a copy o f a m o n t h l y 3 account statement dated 2120117 June 1 1 , 2009, f o r a " P l a t i n u m D e l t a S k y M i l e s C a r d " b e a r i n g Thomas's name and reflecting an outstanding balance of $ 3 , 7 4 1 . 1 0 ; a f o r m copy o f an "Agreement B e t w e e n D e l t a S k y M i l e s C r e d i t Cardmember a n d A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s Bank, F S B " ; a c o p y o f a monthly account statement dated June 9, 2009, for a " A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s OPEN L i n e o f C r e d i t " b e a r i n g Thomas's name and reflecting an o u t s t a n d i n g b a l a n c e o f $ 1 4 , 8 3 8 . 3 2 ; a n d a f o r m copy o f a " L i n e o f C r e d i t f o r B u s i n e s s A g r e e m e n t . " refer to the three cardmember contract responded that he by collectively Thomas submitting as " t h e own affidavit o f any executed t o have b r e a c h e d b u t t h a t American had r e q u e s t e d he was a l l e g e d Express had f a i l e d request; agreements agreements.") Thomas attesting form (We t o produce also a his copy a n y t h i n g i n response attested that he h a d n e v e r w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t w i t h American Express. Thomas a l s o to that signed a attested t h a t he h a d l a s t u s e d o r made a payment on t h e B l u e C a s h f o r Business Credit C a r d i n May 2007, that he h a d l a s t used o r made a payment on t h e A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s OPEN L i n e o f C r e d i t i n J u l y 2007, a n d t h a t he h a d l a s t u s e d o r made a payment on t h e Platinum Delta SkyMiles Card 4 in July 2007. Thomas 2120117 characterized h i s accounts w i t h American Express as "open a c c o u n t s " and a s s e r t e d t h a t any a t t e m p t s t o c o l l e c t on those a c c o u n t s were t i m e - b a r r e d , p u r s u a n t t o t h e t h r e e - y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s American f o u n d i n A l a . Code 1975, Express admitted a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a t Thomas may at i s s u e . 1 American § that 6-2-37. i t had no have s u b m i t t e d f o r t h e signed accounts E x p r e s s a s s e r t e d , however, t h a t , d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y , Thomas h a d a d m i t t e d r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e a c c o u n t s be o p e n e d and t h a t he had used the accounts. American f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t use o f t h e a c c o u n t s was Express g o v e r n e d by the cardmember a g r e e m e n t s i t h a d s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e terms of which a l l o w American Express t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y fees in the event balances. legal action Thus, American is required collect p r i n c i p a l balances, accrued i n t e r e s t , liable f o r the three a d m i t t e d t h a t Thomas's " i n d e b t e d n e s s individual accounts is not unpaid and a t t o r n e y f e e s . r e s p o n s e s t o Thomas's i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , h o w e v e r , Express unpaid E x p r e s s a s s e r t e d , by v i r t u e of h i s use o f t h e c r e d i t a c c o u n t s , Thomas was its to based on e a c h on an In American of the express A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s a s s e r t e d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o 12 C.F.R. § 202.12, i t was r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n c o p i e s o f c r e d i t - c a r d a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r o n l y 25 months. 1 5 2120117 agreement" contract was and that entered i t did into above e v i d e n c e , t h e t r i a l f a v o r of American "not contend the parties." by that 2 a Based written on the c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n Express. Standard of Review "'"We review the t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t or d e n i a l of a summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n de n o v o . " S m i t h v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 952 So. 2d 342, 346 (Ala. 2006) ( c i t i n g Bockman v. WCH, L.L.C., 943 So. 2d 789 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . A summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r i f 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 and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. If t h e movant meets t h i s i n i t i a l b u r d e n , 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 e s e n t " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 742 So. 2d 182, 184 (Ala. 1999). S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s "evidence of s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y infer the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought to be proved." 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 ) ; see a l s o § 12-21-12(d), A l a . Code 1975. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , t h i s C o u r t v i e w s t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most favorable to the nonmovant and resolves a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s i n f a v o r o f t h e nonmovant. Jones v. BP O i l Co., 632 So. 2d 435, 436 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . ' " A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s does n o t e x p l a i n on what b a s i s i t i s e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g f o r s u c h an a w a r d . Additionally, A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s ' s a d m i s s i o n t h a t no w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t e x i s t s d i r e c t l y contravenes the a l l e g a t i o n s i n i t s complaint. 2 6 2120117 H a r r i s v. H e a l t h (Ala. So. 2008) Care Auth. of H u n t s v i l l e , (quoting 6 So. 3d 468, 472 M c C u t c h e n Co. v. M e d i a Gen., I n c . , 988 2d 998, 1001 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . Analysis On a p p e a l , entering its Thomas a s s e r t s a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r breach-of-contract Express apparently contract or claims. He court erred i n o f A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s on asserts, and American a d m i t s , t h a t Thomas n e v e r s i g n e d a w r i t t e n agreement executed contracts parties. that the t r i a l exist with American Express t o govern the d e a l i n g s and that no between t h e Thomas a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he e v e r s p e c i f i c a l l y a g r e e d t o t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e cardmember a g r e e m e n t s t h a t were p r e s e n t e d t o the trial court. Thomas a s s e r t s t h a t , w i t h o u t e v i d e n c e the p a r t i e s m u t u a l l y agreed t o a l l of the necessary o f a c o n t r a c t , A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s was n o t e n t i t l e d as a matter o f l a w on i t s o n l y theory that elements t o a judgment of recovery, i . e . , breach of contract. American Express a s s e r t s its that summary-judgment m o t i o n . i tsufficiently I t asserts that supported i t s evidence e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t a c r e d i t c a r d was i s s u e d t o Thomas on e a c h o f 7 2120117 the three accounts and t h a t credit accounts. cannot f e i g n ignorance terms binding monthly following billing Thomas admittedly used American Express a l s o a s s e r t s that as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e the p a r t i e s statements language: t o those sent to Thomas of the contract accounts Thomas those because the contained the " C e r t a i n o f t h e p e r i o d i c r a t e s a n d APRs above may be v a r i a b l e . These r a t e s may v a r y b a s e d upon t h e p r i m e r a t e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l , as d e s c r i b e d i n y o u r Cardmember A g r e e m e n t as c u r r e n t l y i n e f f e c t . " 3 Based on t h a t l a n g u a g e , A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s a s s e r t s i n i t s a p p e l l e e ' s brief f i l e d with t h i s court that " [ i ] g n o r a n c e o f t h e t e r m s o f t h i s a g r e e m e n t on t h e p a r t o f Thomas i s e i t h e r w i l l f u l o r a r e s u l t o f inattentiveness. " F u r t h e r , t h e Cardmember A g r e e m e n t s e a c h c o n t a i n language showing the form o f acceptance o f t h e agreements. The f i r s t p a r a g r a p h o f e a c h o f t h e t h r e e Cardmember A g r e e m e n t s c o n t a i n s a p r o v i s i o n t h a t use o f t h e c a r d i s s u e d by American E x p r e s s c o n s t i t u t e s an a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e t e r m s o f t h e agreement. Thomas does n o t d i s p u t e r e c e i v i n g t h e cards i n question. Thomas a l s o does n o t d i s p u t e using the cards. A c c o r d i n g l y , Thomas does n o t d i s p u t e a c c e p t i n g t h e Agreement i n r e g a r d s t o t h e c r e d i t cards i n question." Thomas a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d r e c e i v e d some o f t h e m o n t h l y s t a t e m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e a c c o u n t s b u t he d e n i e s r e c e i v i n g a l l o f them. 3 8 2120117 Despite Thomas's a d m i t t e d use of the three accounts i s s u e , we c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s t h a t t h e found in the June 2009 statements sufficient t o s e r v e as n o t i c e cardmember agreements Undoubtedly, the recipient those of to quoted language above t o Thomas o f t h e t e r m s which language and he was statements was was of the p u r p o r t e d l y bound. sufficient that at a to notify cardmember any agreement e x i s t e d , b u t , by t h e t i m e t h o s e t h r e e s t a t e m e n t were p r e p a r e d , i.e., June 2009, Thomas h a d a l r e a d y been i n default t h r e e a c c o u n t s a t i s s u e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y two y e a r s . Express submitted nothing to the trial court to on the American establish t h a t , a t any p o i n t b e f o r e June 2009, Thomas h a d r e c e i v e d the cardmember a g r e e m e n t s o r t h a t he h a d a g r e e d t o be bound by t h e t e r m s o f t h e cardmember Additionally, relies on using language agreements. circular found in logic, the American cardmember Express agreements t h e m s e l v e s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Thomas h a d a g r e e d t o be b o u n d t o the terms of those agreements. Thomas, h o w e v e r , d e n i e s e v e r r e c e i v i n g t h e cardmember a g r e e m e n t s ; in those cardmember a g r e e m e n t s cannot Thomas's a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e i r t e r m s . 9 t h e r e f o r e , language be used to found establish A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s has not 2120117 otherwise established terms of those To parties; bound its breach-of-contract claims, (2) i t s p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t ; Co. v. H i l l , the and elements of 825 acceptance, 2d (4) resulting 2d 100, So. a valid 105 contract consideration, e s s e n t i a l to the So. be to the American r e q u i r e d t o show (1) a v a l i d c o n t r a c t b i n d i n g nonperformance; 711 to agreements.. establish E x p r e s s was Thomas's a s s e n t 464, formation 465 damages. include: and ( A l a . 1997) (quoting Dep't o f F i n . , D i v . o f R i s k Mgmt., 622 So. offer assent of a c o n t r a c t . ' " Metals Additionally, "'an mutual (3) Thomas's Reynolds (Ala. 2002). the and an to terms Ex p a r t e Grant, Strength v. Alabama 2d 1283, 1289 (Ala. 1993)). B e c a u s e i t has not established p a r t i e s agreed regarding has not matter established of law on American Express, terms to which both the three accounts, American Express that the the i t is entitled only theory i . e . , three of to a j u d g m e n t as recovery asserted counts of b r e a c h of a 10 a by written 2120117 contract. c o u r t and 4 We, t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e the judgment of the remand f o r f u r t h e r REVERSED AND trial proceedings. REMANDED. P i t t m a n and D o n a l d s o n , Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without writing. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t o n l y , w i t h w r i t i n g . We r e c o g n i z e t h a t a s i g n a t u r e i s n o t a l w a y s r e q u i r e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e a s s e n t t o a c o n t r a c t ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e must be some s o r t of showing of mutual a s s e n t t o the terms g o v e r n i n g the p a r t i e s ' agreement. A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s has n o t y e t met t h a t burden i n t h i s case. 4 11 2120117 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g After reviewing the record i n the r e s u l t i n this case, only. i n c l u d i n g the a f f i d a v i t of Walter G i b b s and t h e documents accompanying t h a t affidavit, that, I agree American Express evidence t o demonstrate judgment. be Bank, at this FSB, that has stage i n the proceedings, not presented i t i s entitled I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s sufficient to a court's holding summary should r e a d as p r e v e n t i n g A m e r i c a n E x p r e s s f r o m m a k i n g a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e f o r t h e trial court to consider regarding parties. 12 any a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e

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.