Century 21 Paramount Real Estate, Inc. v. Hometown Realty, LLC, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/30/2009 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 Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1070904 C e n t u r y 21 Paramount R e a l Estate, Inc. v. Hometown R e a l t y , LLC, e t a l . A p p e a l f r o m Lee C i r c u i t (CV-06-227) MURDOCK, Justice. Century appeals Court 21 P a r a m o u n t Real Estate, I n c . ("Paramount"), f r o m a j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g i t s c l a i m s a g a i n s t Hometown R e a l t y , L L C ; Wayne G e n t r y B u i l d e r , I n c . ; M i c h a e l A l l e n Homes, 1070904 Inc.; Polo Construction Chris Jordan; Inc. We William reverse and I. In with 2003, Co., A. Allin Cleveland; remand the Facts Paramount Cleveland LLC; and Brothers, and trial into Cleveland court's Procedural entered & Associates, Inc.; Brothers, judgment. History a business a developer i n Lee relationship County, whereby Paramount agreed to a s s i s t i n the m a r k e t i n g of unimproved in a Cleveland in exchange subdivision builders for for owned by Paramount's the Brothers. agreeing construction of who p u r c h a s e d the to the houses for sale Paramount. Cleveland the William Brothers, builders built on portion Cleveland, drafted a contract r e q u i r i n g those b u i l d e r s the of A. the lots for contract sale with on as lots those lots with for signed Paramount. required counsel legal list the The by each houses of they pertinent provides: "The u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p a r t i e s h e r e t o i s t h a t Purchaser [the b u i l d e r ] intends to c o n s t r u c t and s e l l h o u s e s on t h e s u b d i v i s i o n l o t s t o be c o n v e y e d pursuant to t h i s c o n t r a c t . Purchaser [the b u i l d e r ] agrees t h a t a l l of the s u b d i v i s i o n l o t s a c q u i r e d by Purchaser [ t h e b u i l d e r ] pursuant to t h i s contract a n d w h i c h a r e o f f e r e d f o r s a l e be l i s t e d f o r s a l e w i t h Paramount R e a l E s t a t e , Inc." 2 to Brothers w o u l d be t o be to the Cleveland lots built Specifically, market houses, agreed that b u i l d e r s list to lots 1070904 The following builders Brothers: Michael signed Allen Construction, Chris (hereinafter such Homes, sometimes a contract with Cleveland Wayne Builder, and Jordan, Gentry Allin & referred to Polo Associates collectively as "the builders"). In J a n u a r y 2004, S t a c y into a "Broker-Sales Agreement" w i t h Jordan with [Paramount]." Jordan Associate Contract Paramount. and Paramount, [ h e r ] best Williams agreed to s e l l Paramount Independent Contractor t o "work a l lreal contends that attempt estate September employment 22, was employment 2004. with t h e agreement also Cleveland Brothers contacting Cleveland concerning terms, and n o t t o Paramount. Paramount Paramount terminated, relationship with clients. with and listed and c o n t r a c t t o d i v e r t customers from Jordan's its property, between diligently required Jordan to protect p r o p r i e t a r y information Paramount's c l i e n t s , entered Pursuant t o t h e agreement Jordan efforts ("Jordan") was alleges Jordan that, entered Brothers terminated into and t h a t before a on her business she d i v u l g e d t o p r o p r i e t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n about Paramount and According the builders to Paramount, i n an e f f o r t 3 Jordan t o have also them began withdraw 1070904 their listings c o n t r a c t s they from Paramount had signed in with Cleveland also alleges that Cleveland Brothers they that required them Cleveland unenforceable. properties with from According that their 30, 2006, Paramount J o r d a n was owed listed whom J o r d a n sued Jordan Paramount $103,737 on i n real-estate the date had Paramount On which i t t i t l e d that subsequently were their allegedly seeking to commissions. terminated her she had i n i t i a t e d completed, f o r which commissions. On May 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , P a r a m o u n t f i l e d t h e same date, "Counterclaim this l a t t e r document, tort claims Brothers, Paramount agreements with t r a n s a c t i o n s were p e n d i n g Paramount complaint. the agreements with subsequently Realty, Paramount the builders that houses asserted, builders Hometown to Jordan, employment, and advised the relationship. March recover list Brothers The a business On to of Brothers. were n o t r e q u i r e d t o honor t h e terms o f t h e i r because, had contravention against i t filed Hometown R e a l t y , a separate document, and T h i r d P a r t y C o m p l a i n t . " Paramount Jordan, i t s "answer" t o Jordan's alleged various William and each 4 A. contract Cleveland, of the b u i l d e r s In and Cleveland relating 1070904 to t h e a l l e g e d breach o r t e r m i n a t i o n by these p a r t i e s of t h e i r contractual and b u s i n e s s other things, that, prior of Paramount alleged to the termination Paramount, Hometown relationships with "Jordan Realty, misrepresentations o f h e r employment misrepresentations were p a r t i e s would forego as a result, and doing business Hometown the that to these intent make alleged that third w i t h Paramount," and t h a t , breached titled t h e numbered "Intentional Paramount listing others of their with houses alleges "counts" f o r sale with "Paramount relationship with Gentry Construction, Allin & continues Hometown Realty interfered with Paramount a l l e g e d by Paramount Interference that Paramount their agreements Realty. Among began and "with as an a g e n t representatives Paramount," made the builders Paramount with Cleveland concerning Among i n i t sfactual r e c i t a t i o n s conspired William Paramount. by and with had a c o n t r a c t u a l Builder, Associates, alleging Cleveland the contract and that 5 Allen ... i n which business Homes, Chris "Jordan, Brothers or business and t h e [ b ] u i l d e r s . " Contract," i s one Polo Jordan." Cleveland, intentionally r e l a t i o n s h i p between 1070904 In that the a count titled builders, action Paramount alleged C l e v e l a n d B r o t h e r s , Hometown R e a l t y , Cleveland, "Civil each of and Jordan to suppress, Conspiracy," "conspired misrepresent, together defame, in a and concerted intentionally i n t e r f e r e w i t h the c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between and the other On parties," June 18, counterclaim. an answer parties pursuant claims to and also trial A l a . R. 23, against relief Paramount C i v . P., Jordan and f o r S e p a r a t e c o u l d be filed Trial" a Counterclaim and Paramount In i t s "Reply f o r Separate e x p l a i n e d as Trial" by follows: 6 the Paramount granted. "Motion to Sever among other by a j o i n t Counterclaim to Motion filed motions to dismiss she a s s e r t e d t h a t a j u r y w o u l d be " c o n f u s e d Complaint." Jordan, filed i n which, of the i s s u e s r a i s e d by the Complaint, filed The r e m a i n d e r o f on an a l l e g e d f a i l u r e which 2006, by Paramount's Construction Co. cross-claim sued them b a s e d October Third-Party 2007, a had been s t a t e a c l a i m upon things, filed to Paramount. answered Polo 12(b)(6), to Rule Counterclaim Jordan injury and W i l l i a m A . C l e v e l a n d . that against On 2006, causing On J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , Hometown R e a l t y , the thereby Paramount on to January and Sever 11, 1070904 "In this l a w s u i t , Jordan h a s made a c l a i m a g a i n s t Paramount f o r c o m m i s s i o n s she c o n t e n d s were owed t o h e r p u r s u a n t t o a n a g e n c y a g r e e m e n t e x e c u t e d between h e r and Paramount. Paramount i n t e r p o s e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t J o r d a n a s s e r t i n g t h a t she had b r e a c h e d t h e same a g e n c y a g r e e m e n t . . . . Paramount asserted i n the Counterclaim that Jordan, a c t i n g i n concert with William A. Cleveland, Cleveland Brothers, I n c . , a n d Hometown R e a l t y (collectively 'the Clevelands') contacted builders who had p r e v i o u s l y agreed t o l i s t p r o p e r t i e s w i t h Paramount and induced them t o b r e a c h t h e i r a g r e e m e n t s w i t h Paramount and l i s t t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s f o r s a l e w i t h Hometown R e a l t y . These e f f o r t s began w h i l e Jordan was still working as an agent f o r Paramount. Paramount j o i n e d as D e f e n d a n t s W i l l i a m A . C l e v e l a n d , Cleveland Brothers, I n c . , a n d Hometown Realty, [ L L C ] , a l l e g i n g t h a t they had c o n s p i r e d w i t h Jordan and had t o r t i o u s l y interfered with the business r e l a t i o n s h i p between Paramount and t h e b u i l d e r s . Paramount also joined as Defendants to the Counterclaim Michael [ A l l e n ] Homes, I n c . , Wayne Gentry B u i l d e r , I n c . ,Polo C o n s t r u c t i o n [Co.], LLC, and A l l i n & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , 'the [ b ] u i l d e r s ' ) . Those [ b ] u i l d e r s , at the urging of Jordan and t h e C l e v e l a n d s , had r e p u d i a t e d and b r e a c h e d t h e agreements they e n t e r e d w i t h Paramount which required then t o use Paramount to list p r o p e r t i e s they o f f e r e d f o r s a l e . " Paramount then invoked Rules 1 3 ( h ) a n d 2 0 , A l a . R. C i v . P.: "Rule 13(h) o f t h e Alabama s t a t e s as f o l l o w s : Rules of C i v i l Procedure " ' P e r s o n s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e made p a r t i e s t o t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n may b e made p a r t i e s t o a counterclaim or c r o s s - c l a i m i n accordance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e s 19 a n d 2 0 . ' "Rule 20(a) of the Procedure provides that: Alabama 7 Rules of Civil 1070904 " ' [ A ] l l p e r s o n s may b e j o i n e d i n o n e a c t i o n as [d]efendants i f there i s asserted a g a i n s t them j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r i n t h e alternative, any right to r e l i e f and respect of or a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same transaction, occurrence, or series of t r a n s a c t i o n s and o c c u r r e n c e s and i f any question of law or fact common t o a l l defendants w i l l a r i s e any a c t i o n . ' " R u l e 20 'was i n t e n d e d t o a b o l i s h t h e t e c h n i c a l objections to j o i n d e r p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t i n g , i n order to p r e v e n t a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f a c t i o n s and a l l o w a l l parties i n t e r e s t e d i n a controversy to proceed i n one a c t i o n . ' G u t h r i e v. B i o - M e d i c a l L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . , 442 S o . 2 d 92 , 96 ( A l a 1 9 8 3 ) . I n Mock v . F i r s t C i t y N a t i o n a l B a n k , 352 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 2 , 1114 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t q u o t e d w i t h approval the f o l l o w i n g passage from i t s prior o p i n i o n i n H o o p e r v . H u e y , 2 9 3 A l a . 6 3 , [ 6 9 , ] 300 So. 2 d 1 0 0 [ , 1 0 5 ] ( 1 9 7 4 ) : " ' R u l e s 19 a n d 2 0 , [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , which d e a l w i t h t h e j o i n d e r and alignment of p a r t i e s [ , ] a r e i n t e n d e d t o promote t r i a l convenience, prevent a multiplicity of s u i t s , and e x p e d i t e t h e f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n b y i n c l u s i o n i n one s u i t a l l parties directly interested in the controversy despite technical objects p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t i n g i n many s i t u a t i o n s . ' "Because t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m against Jordan i s g r o u n d e d i n h e r b r e a c h o f t h e same a g r e e m e n t u p o n which h e r c l a i m a g a i n s t Paramount i s based, those two claims are clearly based upon the same transaction or occurrence, making Paramount's counterclaim compulsory. S e e , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 2 . Because t h e w r o n g f u l a c t o f t h e C l e v e l a n d s and t h e [ b ] u i l d e r s were c o m m i t t e d i n c o n c e r t w i t h Jordan, and i n b r e a c h o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o n t r a c t u a l and common l a w o b l i g a t i o n s t o P a r a m o u n t , t h e p r e d i c a t e 8 1070904 f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g the counterclaim with respect to a l l s u c h d e f e n d a n t s c l e a r l y amount t o a ' s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s or occurrences,' making j o i n d e r o f a l l o f t h o s e p a r t i e s t o t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m p r o p e r . As t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n Ex p a r t e T u r p i n V i s e Ins. A g e n c y , I n c . , 705 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 371 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ' [ t ] h e r e i s no a b s o l u t e r u l e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g what constitutes "a series of transactions or occurrences." G e n e r a l l y , t h a t i s d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s and i s l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f the t r i a l judge.'" Paramount Turpin then Vise engaged i n an i n - d e p t h Insurance Agency, d i s c u s s i o n o f Ex I n c . , 705 So. 2d 368 parte (Ala. 1997). On September hearing on 27, 2007, a l l pending the motions. record on a p p e a l ; however, court This f a v o r e d w i t h a copy of a t r a n s c r i p t the trial Court conducted has of that hearing i t appears that not been as p a r t o f the issue the d i s m i s s a l of Paramount's c l a i m s a g a i n s t p a r t i e s other Jordan was asserted in in raised by Paramount a pleading t i t l e d which those defendants," Paramount Civ. in relation to against not Jordan were based as the those "Counterclaim parties were to fact parties, any contemplated P. 9 the though and T h i r d - P a r t y referred on that a of than claims included Complaint" to as " t h i r d - p a r t y potential liability by 14, R. by Rule Ala. 1070904 A few to Motion again days a f t e r the h e a r i n g , to by Dismiss addressed than Jordan Consistent 2007, the Third-Party issue of the in i t s "Counterclaim with filing, the Paramount f i l e d inclusion and p o s i t i o n i t had Paramount Defendants" of i n which i t parties Third-Party taken a "Response Complaint." i n i t s January contended: " A t t h e S e p t e m b e r 27 h e a r i n g , t h e Clevelands argued that d i s m i s s a l of the third-party claim a g a i n s t t h e m was p r o p e r b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d n o t be adjudged l i a b l e to [Paramount] f o r a l l or p a r t of the claim asserted by Plaintiff Stacy Williams J o r d a n a g a i n s t [ P a r a m o u n t ] as i s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 14 of the Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure. However, because the c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the Clevelands b y [ P a r a m o u n t ] u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a r i s e o u t o f ' t h e same transaction, occurrence, or s e r i e s of t r a n s a c t i o n s or occurrences a n d ... [a] q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t common t o [ t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t J o r d a n by P a r a m o u n t and t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by P a r a m o u n t a g a i n s t the C l e v e l a n d s ] w i l l a r i s e i n the a c t i o n , ' [Paramount] c l e a r l y a c t e d i n accordance with the p r o v i s i o n s of R u l e 20(a) of the Alabama Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e b y j o i n i n g t h e C l e v e l a n d s as p a r t i e s to t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a s s e r t e d by [Paramount] a g a i n s t Jordan. That the C l e v e l a n d s might not technically be ' t h i r d - p a r t y D e f e n d a n t s ' as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n R u l e 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e d o e s not matter. As t h e Supreme C o u r t has recognized, what i s c o n t r o l l i n g i s the s u b s t a n c e of a p l e a d i n g , n o t t h e l a b e l a t t a c h e d t o i t by a p a r t y . Ex p a r t e W a r d , [Ms. 1 0 5 1 8 1 8 , J u n e 1, 2 0 0 7 ] So. 3d (Ala. 2007). "While [Paramount] b e l i e v e s s t r o n g l y t h a t t h i s s i n g l e a c t i o n s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s t b o t h J o r d a n and the C l e v e l a n d s and other p a r t i e s 10 other 11, 1070904 joined to the counterclaim asserted against Jordan by [ P a r a m o u n t ] , [Paramount] r e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s C o u r t exercise i t s a u t h o r i t y under Rule 20(b) of the Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure t o order a separate t r i a l o f t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by [Paramount] a g a i n s t the C l e v e l a n d s and t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s j o i n e d t o t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a s s e r t e d by [Paramount] a g a i n s t Jordan. By t a k i n g such a course of a c t i o n rather than d i s m i s s i n g what i s c l e a r l y a proper claim, this Court will avoid penalizing [Paramount] by subjecting i t to a p o s s i b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e which o t h e r w i s e c o u l d n o t have been a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t i t . A t t a c h e d t o t h i s response i s a p r o forma order f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e Court." (Emphasis On added.) October dismissing 15, 2007, Paramount's the t r i a l claims court against entered W i l l i a m A. an order Cleveland, C l e v e l a n d B r o t h e r s , Hometown R e a l t y , a n d e a c h o f t h e b u i l d e r s , a s w e l l a s c e r t a i n p e n d i n g c r o s s - c l a i m s b e t w e e n some o f parties. Paramount amend, or vacate failed to rule subsequently the t r i a l on t h i s filed court's motion. a order; Paramount motion these to alter, the t r i a l court appealed to this Court. II. This Court Analysis has h e l d t h a t i tt r e a t s p l e a d i n g s their substance, Works & Sewer Bd. o f T a l l a d e g a 892 rather S o . 2 d 8 5 9 , 864 than merely label. v. C o n s o l i d a t e d ( A l a . 2004) 11 their ("This according to Court See W a t e r Publ'g, I n c . , has l o n g held 1070904 that i t may substance, 318, consider not t h e i r court filings label."); 322 ( A l a . 2001) substance r a t h e r than according Ex p a r t e M c W i l l a m s , (construing a pleading i t s label). that properly 20(a), A l a . R. counterclaim filed could C i v . P., against be in Jordan, their 812 S o . 2 d according to i t s Here, the substance a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s f i l e d by Paramount q u a l i f i e s claims to filed under conjunction which those Rules with of the c l a i m s as 13(h) and Paramount's i s e x a c t l y how Paramount them. Rule parties 13(h) p r o v i d e s that persons other the o r i g i n a l t o t h e a c t i o n may be j o i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e as additional of a counterclaim. be j o i n e d i n one a c t i o n as d e f e n d a n t s them a r i s e defendants Rule additional transactions and involving additional i n connection 20(a) provides with a party's that a l l persons i f the claims claims occurrences as t h e y parties arise as out with 12 one another Jordan to may against Here, the i t s counterclaim do a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t conspired of 20 filing o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n s o r o c c u r r e n c e s . Paramount's Jordan, than same against and t h e interfere 1070904 with Paramount's relationships. Our purpose supports f o r which i tfiled Rule falls 20 squarely for allowing counterclaim. 442 In Guthrie S o . 2 d 9 2 , 96 "was intended previously and Paramount's business the claims position against w i t h i n the p o l i c y such claims to v. B i o m e d i c a l ( A l a . 1983), this Court existing, and a l l o w proceed i n one National Bank, i n order reasons be the laid joined out with a Laboratories, Inc., s t a t e d that Rule 20 to joinder a multiplicity of a l l parties interested i n a controversy to action." to prevent that the a d d i t i o n a l to abolish the t e c h n i c a l objections actions explained rights 1 caselaw defendants by contractual Likewise, 352 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 2 , 1114 i n Mock v. ( A l a . 1977), First City the Court that " ' [ r ] u l e s 19 a n d 2 0 , [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , w h i c h d e a l w i t h t h e j o i n d e r and a l i g n m e n t o f p a r t i e s , a r e intended t o promote t r i a l convenience, prevent a multiplicity of s u i t s , and e x p e d i t e the final d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n b y i n c l u s i o n i n one s u i t a l l p a r t i e s d i r e c t l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the controversy T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t P a r a m o u n t h a s some c l a i m s against J o r d a n t h a t i t does n o t have a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r defendants ( e . g . , b r e a c h o f h e r employment c o n t r a c t ) , R u l e 2 0 ( a ) makes i t c l e a r t h a t p e r s o n s j o i n e d as d e f e n d a n t s i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the f i l i n g of a c o u n t e r c l a i m by t h e defendant t o t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t n e e d n o t a l l "be i n t e r e s t e d i n ... d e f e n d i n g against a l l t h e r e l i e f demanded." 1 13 1070904 despite technical objects many s i t u a t i o n s . ' " 352 So. Ala. 2d 63, grounds, at 69, 1114 previously (quoting with 300 So. 2d v. Jones, Bardin 100, approval 105 Hooper v. (1974), 371 So. existing 2d Huey, overruled 23 in (Ala. on 293 other 1979)). Moreover, " i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c i d i n g whether sever claims, that may the result Considerations possibility regard." The these to of the court should Ex practicality, trial parte 2 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. Turpin court Vise, should according and to claims judicial 705 are the So. case the are allegations, Cleveland Brothers, the severed.[ ] 2 economy, 2d at and the 371. Paramount to under Rules bring 13(h) and i t s h o u l d have t r e a t e d Paramount's their substance rather actions Hometown of Realty, William and the A. than the According n o m e n c l a t u r e o r i g i n a l l y g i v e n them by P a r a m o u n t . the prejudice also relevant in that have p e r m i t t e d parties into C i v . P., consider p a r t i e s i f the of i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s additional pleadings trial to to Cleveland, builders were C e r t a i n l y , t h e r e w o u l d h a v e b e e n no p r e j u d i c e t o the newly named defendants i f the trial court had granted Paramount's request that i t treat Paramount's pleading a c c o r d i n g to i t s substance, r a t h e r than i t s nomenclature. P a r a m o u n t , h o w e v e r , w o u l d be p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e d e n i a l o f t h a t request g i v e n the f a c t t h a t the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s has since run. 2 14 1070904 committed relate i n concert to "the occurrences," the process will The t r i a l -- o v e r Allin placed the substance to apply transactions C i v . P., improperly on of making elevated of the pleading, the p r i n c i p l e as well as or their the form i t s pleading by and i n t h e that this f r o m Ex p a r t e T u r p i n V i s e prejudice, clearly Court overlooked regarding practicality and economy. these dismissing Gentry of and they the substance of a pleading, but also considerations For A l a . R. court the above-quoted p r i n c i p l e judicial actions series initially not only f a i l e d consider ... 20(a), nomenclature Paramount Jordan's same Rule joinder proper. -- with reasons, Paramount's we Cleveland Brothers, proceedings against Allen Homes, Chris and Jordan, we consistent with R E V E R S E D AND the t r i a l claims Builder, Michael & Associates, reverse Hometown R e a l t y , Wayne Polo the Construction A. Cleveland, Co., and action for further and P a r k e r , J J . , concur. opinion. REMANDED. Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , W o o d a l l , Stuart, order William remand this court's Smith, Bolin, a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 15 1070904 BOLIN, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully clear from dissent from the record complaint third-party that filed by t h e main the t r i a l as court Century Estate, Inc. ("Paramount"), stemming from the t h i r d - p a r t y complaint, party Civ. d e f e n d a n t s were i m p r o p e r l y P., a l l o w s a defending into the original the defending original Rule 14(a), 21 as joined. such It i s dismissed Paramount the Real cross-claims because Rule the the 14(a), as P a r a m o u n t thirdAla. f o r a l l or against part the defending A l a . R. C i v . P., of the party. R. to bring a c t i o n a n o n p a r t y who i s o r may b e l i a b l e party claims well party opinion. to plaintiff's Specifically, provides: "At a n y t i m e a f t e r commencement o f t h e a c t i o n a defending p a r t y , as a t h i r d - p a r t y p l a i n t i f f , may c a u s e a summons a n d c o m p l a i n t t o be s e r v e d upon a p e r s o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n who i s o r may b e l i a b l e to the t h i r d - p a r t y p l a i n t i f f f o r a l l or part of the p l a i n t i f f ' s claims against the t h i r d - p a r t y plaintiff." After Stacy real-estate employment counterclaim against Williams commissions agreement against Cleveland Jordan she with Paramount Paramount, and a William 16 to were alleges Jordan Brothers, sued under due Paramount third-party A. Cleveland, recover filed her a complaint Hometown 1070904 Realty, the LLC, and each o f t h e b u i l d e r s . complaint The p e r t i n e n t p a r t o f states: "COUNTERCLAIM a n d T H I R D - P A R T Y COMPLAINT "Comes now t h e C o u n t e r c l a i m P l a i n t i f f a n d T h i r d Party P l a i n t i f f , C e n t u r y 21 P a r a m o u n t R e a l E s t a t e , Inc. (hereinafter 'Paramount') and files this c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t Stacy W i l l i a m s J o r d a n and t h i s t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t Hometown R e a l t y , L L C , Michael A l l e n Homes, I n c . , Wayne G e n t r y B u i l d e r , Inc., Polo Construction Company, LLC, A l l i n & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , C h r i s J o r d a n , W i l l i a m A. C l e v e l a n d and C l e v e l a n d B r o t h e r s , I n c . " (Capitalization It inoriginal.) i s undisputed does not assert might be f o r c e d assert a right Paramount's of indemnity, claims. The Even third-party complaint f o r a n y sums of indemnity t o pay Jordan. a right derivative that Paramount assuming Paramount d i d the t h i r d - p a r t y claims third-party claims asserted against different t h e o r i e s o f law than those a s s e r t e d by J o r d a n i n t h e party action claims defendants Jordan through against asserted are sued the based Paramount, Paramount. by to enforcement Specifically, Paramount upon separate recover of 17 her are based by Paramount original the t h i r d - p a r t y defendants are not against upon the t h i r d - the t h i r d - p a r t y written instruments. real-estate commissions employment agreement. 1070904 P a r a m o u n t , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , s u e d t h e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s , seeking enforcement of the contracts B r o t h e r s and t h e v a r i o u s b u i l d e r s . third-party between There d e f e n d a n t s h e r e c a n be h e l d Cleveland i s s i m p l y no way liable secondarily Paramount i n the event J o r d a n r e c o v e r s r e a l - e s t a t e from Paramount. Because Paramount and Jordan Brothers and the agreements, 14(a), Builder, Inc., [Paramount] claims of and and employment the builders Paramount A l a . R. the are Allstate I n s . Co. F.R.D. 6 7 1 , to action under Rule Following the trial Fed. court's defendants' motion to dismiss, motion to requesting its dismiss f o r the authority under R. separate first Rule liability that 2 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. 18 in the independent on t h e part the present trial third-party a "response to defendants," the Cole P.]."). Paramount f i l e d time Hugh Rule cannot b r i n g [ i t s ] h e a r i n g on third-party v. and defendants] Civ. under A l a . 19 9 9 ) ( " B e c a u s e [Paramount] third-party 14(a)[, (M.D. derivative the T h i r d - P a r t y Defendants, [the 674 assert [does] not a s s e r t against distinct i t s action See between Cleveland and bring attempt[s] claims between separate to commissions agreement cannot C i v . P. 187 contracts the apparently court C i v . P., and exercise order a 1070904 separate t r i a l party of the c l a i m s i t had b r o u g h t defendants. language in defendants merely had counterclaim better i t s initial was defendants Specifically, been pertinent nomenclature Paramount understanding p a r t of Paramount complaint properly had of a g a i n s t the asserted that joining and joined that by asserted against Paramount's third- the third-party the third-party virtue of Jordan. argument, I the For quote i t s motion: " A t t h e S e p t e m b e r 27 h e a r i n g , [ t h e t h i r d - p a r t y defendants] argued that d i s m i s s a l of the t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e m was p r o p e r b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d n o t be a d j u d g e d l i a b l e t o [ P a r a m o u n t ] f o r a l l o r p a r t o f t h e c l a i m a s s e r t e d by [ J o r d a n ] a g a i n s t [Paramount] a s i s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f Civil Procedure. However, because the claims asserted against [the third-party defendants] u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a r i s e o u t o f ' t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , occurrence, or s e r i e s of t r a n s a c t i o n s or occurrences a n d ... [a] q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t common t o [ t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t J o r d a n by [Paramount] and t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by [Paramount] a g a i n s t [ t h e t h i r d - p a r t y defendants] w i l l a r i s e i n the a c t i o n , ' [Paramount] c l e a r l y a c t e d i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 20(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure by joining [the third-party d e f e n d a n t s ] as p a r t i e s t o t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m a s s e r t e d by [Paramount] a g a i n s t J o r d a n . That [the t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s ] m i g h t n o t t e c h n i c a l l y be 'thirdp a r t y d e f e n d a n t s ' as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n R u l e 14 ... does not m a t t e r . As t h e Supreme C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d , what i s c o n t r o l l i n g i s the s u b s t a n c e of t h e p l e a d i n g , n o t t h e l a b e l a t t a c h e d t o i t by a party. ... 19 the a the 1070904 "While [Paramount] b e l i e v e s s t r o n g l y t h a t t h i s s i n g l e a c t i o n s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o p r o c e e d against b o t h J o r d a n [ a s w e l l as t h e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s ] and other parties joined to the counterclaim a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t J o r d a n by [ P a r a m o u n t ] , [ P a r a m o u n t ] requests that this court exercise i t s authority u n d e r R u l e 20(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil P r o c e d u r e to order a s e p a r a t e t r i a l of the claims asserted by [Paramount] a g a i n s t [the third-party defendants] j o i n e d to the c o u n t e r c l a i m asserted by [Paramount] a g a i n s t J o r d a n . By t a k i n g s u c h a c o u r s e of a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s i n g what i s c l e a r l y a proper claim, this court will avoid penalizing [Paramount] by s u b j e c t i n g i t t o a p o s s i b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s defense which o t h e r w i s e c o u l d not h a v e b e e n a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t i t . ... " (Emphasis added.) Paramount appeal. asserts As noted this same in i t previously, argument not P a r a m o u n t made t h i s a r g u m e n t d u r i n g to dismiss believes the that against third-party because Jordan the h e a r i n g complaint. i t filed to Rule pursuant does a P. on counterclaim The only appeal So. Vise 2d 368, for the 371 parte Turpin Vise (Ala. 1997). proposition Ala. motions seemingly Civ. P., the A l a . R. to Civ. Paramount i n i t s b r i e f Insurance Agency, i t s claims 20 R. that j o i n e d as p a r t i e s Paramount c i t e s that the on counterclaim Rule 20(a), r e l a t e d a u t h o r i t y c i t e d by i s Ex on compulsory 13(h), i n accordance with appear Paramount t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s were a u t o m a t i c a l l y that i t s brief Ex against Inc., 705 parte Turpin the third- 1070904 party d e f e n d a n t s a r e p r o p e r b e c a u s e t h e y a r i s e o u t o f t h e same series and of transactions that "'there constitutes Rule i s no "a s e r i e s and i s l e f t 2 d a t 371 (Ala. seemingly that Ex p a r t e However, ignores third-party establishing Paramount defense the fact fact when they i n the event w o u l d make the Paramount cites compulsory to were a case by case judge.'" 705 on t h i s i t had a l r e a d y defend complaint i f joined that liable case, served the requiring complaint by liable to secondarily was [under 515 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 706 in relying not Paramount parties a n d moved could on what to Jordan. The i s n o t t h e same d e f e n s e as an a d d i t i o n a l a defendant to C e r t a i n l y Paramount s h o u l d have r e a l i z e d t h i s defenses, court or occurrences" a third-party complaint, defendants that a counterclaim. that action f o r determining Rudolph, Paramount, to a third-party defendant rule i s determined t h i r d - p a r t y defendants with the as t h e o r i g i n a l to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l (quoting 1987)). absolute of transactions 20]. Generally, basis So. or occurrences no filed their to dismiss authority the or that 21 stated the third-party to demonstrate recharacterize counterclaims answers, that third-party the third-party their complaint. the claims trial as defendants 1070904 could Rule be j o i n e d 13(h), separate under A l a . R. Rule C i v . P. 14(a), Joinder A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d under these rules i s q u o t e d , R u l e 1 4 , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides, and unique. As p r e v i o u s l y in both pertinent part: " ( a ) When D e f e n d a n t May B r i n g i n T h i r d Party. At a n y t i m e a f t e r commencement o f t h e a c t i o n a defending party, as a t h i r d - p a r t y p l a i n t i f f , may c a u s e a summons a n d c o m p l a i n t t o b e s e r v e d u p o n a p e r s o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n who i s o r may b e l i a b l e to the t h i r d - p a r t y p l a i n t i f f f o r a l l or part of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s claims against the third-party plaintiff." (Emphasis Rule added.) 13(h), A l a . R. C i v . P., provides: "(h) Joinder of A d d i t i o n a l P a r t i e s . Persons o t h e r t h a n t h o s e made p a r t i e s t o t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n may b e made p a r t i e s t o a c o u n t e r c l a i m or cross-claim in accordance with the provisions o f R u l e 19 a n d 20." Rule 2 0 , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: " ( a ) P e r m i s s i v e J o i n d e r . ... A l l p e r s o n s may b e joined i n one a c t i o n as d e f e n d a n t s i f there i s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , any r i g h t t o r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , o c c u r r e n c e , o r series of transactions o r o c c u r r e n c e s and i f any q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s w i l l a r i s e i n t h e a c t i o n . ... " 22 1070904 In A l l s t a t e the United Insurance States C o . v . Hugh C o l e District Court B u i l d e r , I n c . , supra, f o r the Middle District of Alabama, d i s c u s s i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between j o i n d e r under Rule 14 a n d R u l e 13 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure, wrote: "Addressing Rule 14(a), the F i f t h C i r c u i t held t h a t i m p l e a d e r i s p e r m i t t e d ' o n l y i n c a s e s where t h e T h i r d P a r t y ' s l i a b i l i t y was i n some way d e r i v a t i v e of t h e outcome o f t h e main c l a i m . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. J o e G r a s s o & S o n , I n c . , 380 F. 2 d 7 4 9 , 751 (1967). T h u s , f o r i m p l e a d e r t o be a v a i l a b l e , t h e T h i r d P a r t y must be '"liable secondarily to the original defendant i n the event that the l a t t e r i s held l i a b l e to the p l a i n t i f f . " ' I d . (citation omitted). '[A]n e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e and independent c l a i m cannot be m a i n t a i n e d a g a i n s t a T h i r d P a r t y u n d e r R u l e 14, e v e n t h o u g h i t d o e s a r i s e o u t o f t h e same g e n e r a l s e t o f f a c t s as t h e m a i n c l a i m . ' I d . ... "'[T]he t e s t f o r j o i n d e r of a T h i r d Party under the impleader rule is not transactional. Thus, i t d i f f e r s from t h e standards [under Rule 13(a)] [for] compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m s and c r o s s - c l a i m s , which are appropriate only i f they arise f r o m t h e same " t r a n s a c t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e " as the underlying suit. Impleader, i n contrast, i s narrower. I t must i n v o l v e an a t t e m p t t o p a s s on t o t h e T h i r d P a r t y a l l or p a r t o f t h e l i a b i l i t y a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the defendant. Thus, i t must be an a s s e r t i o n of the t h i r d - p a r t y defendant's derivative liability to the t h i r d - p a r t y plaintiff. An i m p l e a d e r c l a i m c a n n o t be used to assert any and a l l r i g h t s to r e c o v e r y a r i s i n g f r o m t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n or o c c u r r e n c e as t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n . ' " 187 F.R.D. a t 673 (final emphasis 23 added; footnote omitted). 1070904 In this complaint. i.e., the case, Paramount sought r e c o v e r y Paramount apparently after third-party procedural third-party to the attempt as c o m p u l s o r y third-party i n t h e game, however, on t h e m o t i o n to dismiss i t had that join after-the-fact claims late the hearing complaint, vehicle Paramount's recognized in a the used third-party to wrong defendants. recharacterize counterclaims should the n o t be allowed. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , I do n o t b e l i e v e exceeded i t s discretion complaint and a l l c r o s s - c l a i m s stemming complaint. Stuart, Therefore, Smith, I in dismissing from dissent. a n d Shaw, J J . , 24 concur. the t r i a l the the court third-party third-party

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.