Phillip Alexander and Patrice Alexander v. Jeremy R. Hawk

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/09/2013 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 2120461 P h i l l i p Alexander and P a t r i c e Alexander v. Jeremy R. Hawk Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-12-966) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . Phillip Alexander and P a t r i c e Alexander appeal from a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t i n f a v o r o f J e r e m y R. Hawk on Hawk's c l a i m s a g a i n s t them f o r e j e c t m e n t a n d b r e a c h o f contract. 2120461 The that c i r c u i t c o u r t t r i e d t h e c a s e on J a n u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 3 . A t trial, entered Hawk t e s t i f i e d that i n 2007 h e , a s t h e s e l l e r , i n t o a b o n d - f o r - t i t l e agreement w i t h t h e A l e x a n d e r s , as t h e p u r c h a s e r s , regarding a residence i n Montgomery. a g r e e d - u p o n p u r c h a s e p r i c e f o r t h e p r o p e r t y was $ 1 3 1 , 0 0 0 . explained that h i s understanding a g r e e m e n t was t h a t , purchase once the the Alexanders p r i c e of the property, w o u l d be p l a c e d of i n the Alexanders' names. He bond-for-title paid the t i t l e The him the f u l l to the property According to the b o n d - f o r - t i t l e a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h was e n t e r e d a s an e x h i b i t , t h e Alexanders paid agreement. provided $17,000 Hawk s t a t e d that t o Hawk that the remainder upon their executing the the b o n d - f o r - t i t l e agreement o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e w o u l d be p a i d i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $917.27, u n t i l t h e e x p i r a t i o n of 5 years, outstanding a t which balance time the Alexanders were t o pay t h e by o b t a i n i n g a mortgage s e c u r e d by the property. The indicates final paragraph of the b o n d - f o r - t i t l e that, i f the Alexanders failed agreement t o pay any o f t h e m o n t h l y i n s t a l l m e n t s , Hawk " s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o a n n u l " t h e a g r e e m e n t and, upon t h e a n n u l m e n t , t h e A l e x a n d e r s 2 w o u l d become 2120461 t e n a n t s , Hawk w o u l d become e n t i t l e d t o i m m e d i a t e p o s s e s s i o n o f the property, therefrom, with the option to eject the Alexanders a n d Hawk w o u l d " r e t a i n a l l m o n i e s p a i d u n d e r t h i s Bond f o r T i t l e by t h e [ A l e x a n d e r s ] s a i d amount b e i n g as r e n t of the premises, hereby agreed and d e c l a r e d by s a i d p a r t i e s t o be t h e r e n t a l v a l u e of the premises." the A l e x a n d e r s had d e f a u l t e d Hawk t e s t i f i e d that on t h e payments many t i m e s a n d t h a t t h e l a s t t i m e he h a d r e c e i v e d a payment f r o m them was i n May 2012. title Hawk t e s t i f i e d a g r e e m e n t , upon tenants and t h a t that, their default, the Alexanders i n c l u d e d u n p a i d r e n t and c o u r t Phillip according Alexander to the bond-for- the Alexanders became owed h i m $8, 660.26, which costs. testified that they had been l a t e on one payment, t h a t t h e y h a d made an a g r e e m e n t w i t h Hawk a n d h a d c a u g h t up on t h e payment, a n d t h a t t h e y h a d p a i d on t i m e u n t i l May, when he was t e m p o r a r i l y partial payment. He partial laid stated payment, b u t h a d t h e n o f f and they h a d made a that Hawk had accepted said that he c o u l d no that longer a c c e p t p a r t i a l payments, and had v o i d e d t h e c o n t r a c t and f i l e d an e v i c t i o n notice. 3 2120461 Hawk filed Montgomery September a complaint District Court against on the Alexanders September 14, 2012, t h e d i s t r i c t court t r a n s f e r r i n g Hawk's a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t states, 12, 2012. entered On 1 an order court; that order i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " T h i s m a t t e r was b e f o r e on an U n l a w f u l D e t a i n e r a c t i o n . i n the the Court However, t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s n o t b a s e d on a l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t a g r e e m e n t . " filed an amended amended breach court complaint complaint, Hawk of contract. entered asserted Following a judgment for possession Alexanders timely f i l e d their claims a bench i n favor Alexanders Although i n the c i r c u i t i n that of ejectment trial, and the c i r c u i t o f Hawk a n d a g a i n s t t h e o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d $8,660.26. n o t i c e of appeal n e i t h e r Hawk n o r t h e A l e x a n d e r s issue of subject-matter court; Hawk to this The court. have r a i s e d t h e jurisdiction, "jurisdictional matters a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t a n y t i m e and 2d do s o e v e n ex mero motu." S l e a s m a n v. S l e a s m a n , 907 So. 1075, 1076 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . I n D a r b y v. S c h l e y , 8 Hawk's o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t , f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . In fact, the d i s t r i c t court's order t r a n s f e r r i n g the a c t i o n t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s case-action-summary sheet a r e t h e o n l y d i s t r i c t - c o u r t documents t h a t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d . 1 4 2120461 So. 3d 1011, 1012 a c t i o n t h a t was ( A l a . C i v . App. based on 2 0 0 8 ) , an unlawful-detainer a l e a s e - p u r c h a s e agreement between t h e p a r t i e s was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e S h e l b y C i r c u i t C o u r t by t h e S h e l b y D i s t r i c t C o u r t , and, u l t i m a t e l y , a summary j u d g m e n t entered by t h e S h e l b y C i r c u i t C o u r t on t h e claim. 8 So. This 3d a t 1012-13. was unlawful-detainer c o u r t v a c a t e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t and d i s m i s s e d the appeal f o r l a c k of jurisdiction, i n pertinent part: stating, subject-matter "By statute, original jurisdiction over unlawful-detainer actions lies i n the district c o u r t s . § 6-6-330, A l a . Code 1975 ('The forcible e n t r y upon and d e t a i n e r , o r t h e u n l a w f u l d e t a i n e r , o f l a n d s , t e n e m e n t s and h e r e d i t a m e n t s i s c o g n i z a b l e before the d i s t r i c t c o u r t of the county i n which the o f f e n s e i s c o m m i t t e d . ' ) . A c i r c u i t c o u r t may not exercise jurisdiction over an unlawful-detainer a c t i o n u n t i l t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t has a d j u d i c a t e d t h e u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a c t i o n and one o f t h e p a r t i e s has a p p e a l e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . See § 6-6-350, A l a . Code 1975 ('Any p a r t y may a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t h i m o r h e r [ 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 ] by a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o t h e 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 s e v e n d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f , and [ t h e ] a p p e a l and t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e o n s h a l l i n a l l r e s p e c t s , e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e , be g o v e r n e d by t h i s code r e l a t i n g t o a p p e a l f r o m district courts.'). Accordingly, Darby's u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a c t i o n was n o t an a c t i o n ' w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t , ' § 12-11-9, [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , [ ] and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e 2 2 court S e c t i o n 12-11-9 r e q u i r e s t h a t a c a s e f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t or the d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t i s w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e 5 2120461 S h e l b y D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o t r a n s f e r that a c t i o n t o the Shelby C i r c u i t Court p u r s u a n t t o § 12-11-9. M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e t h e S h e l b y District Court had not adjudicated Darby's u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a c t i o n a n d no a p p e a l f r o m s u c h an adjudication had been taken, the unauthorized t r a n s f e r o f Darby's u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r a c t i o n c o u l d not t r a n s f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t a c t i o n t o t h e Shelby C i r c u i t Court." 8 So. 3d a t 1013-14 (footnote omitted). In t h e p r e s e n t did case, like i n Darby, t h e d i s t r i c t not adjudicate the unlawful-detainer Hawk; i n s t e a d , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t the court a c t i o n brought by transferred the action to c i r c u i t c o u r t b e c a u s e , i t d e t e r m i n e d , t h e a c t i o n was n o t based on a l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t however, agreement. court, d i d n o t have o r i g i n a l , e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e unlawful-detainer a c t i o n ; rather, original t h a t a c t i o n was i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . 6-6-330. The c i r c u i t Although Hawk filed jurisdiction over See A l a . Code 1975, § an amended complaint i n the c i r c u i t court, asserting claims that f a l l w i t h i n the o r i g i n a l jurisdiction Hawk of the c i r c u i t d i d not pay a complaint; thus, that court, the record with reveals that that filing fee along amended filing d i d n o t i n i t i a t e a new a c t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e o t h e r c o u r t be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e d o c k e t of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t . 6 2120461 i n v o k i n g the 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 of the c i r c u i t c o u r t . See So. Kaufman v. Kaufman, 934 2005) ("The payment of a 2d 1073, filing 1082 fee is (Ala. Civ. a App. jurisdictional act."). B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we the d i s t r i c t court circuit court, improperly and, thus, c o n c l u d e t h a t , l i k e i n Darby, t r a n s f e r r e d the the circuit court action to lacked matter j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Hawk's u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r So. Because 3d at j u d g m e n t was not support 1014. circuit entered without j u r i s d i c t i o n , an a p p e a l . See Dep't o f Revenue v. A r n o l d , We the therefore vacate 909 So. subject- action. i t i s v o i d and 3d a t 1014; 2d 192, 193 appeal 8 purported and will State ( A l a . 2005). t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e c i r c u i t and d i s m i s s t h e A l e x a n d e r s ' of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r D a r b y , 8 So. court's the court from t h a t judgment f o r l a c k jurisdiction. JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas, Moore, and concur. 7 Donaldson, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.