StoneMor Alabama, LLC and StoneMor Alabama Supply Subsidiary, Inc. v. Michelle Summers

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/16/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080443 StoneMor Alabama, LLC, and StoneMor Alabama S u p p l y Subsidiary, Inc. v. Michelle Summers Appeal from R u s s e l l C i r c u i t (CV-08-90009) Court STUART, J u s t i c e . M i c h e l l e Summers s u e d S t o n e M o r A l a b a m a , L L C , a n d S t o n e M o r Alabama Supply Subsidiary, Inc. (hereinafter referred c o l l e c t i v e l y as " S t o n e M o r " ) , a f f i l i a t e d companies t h a t to jointly 1080443 own a n d o p e r a t e L a k e v i e w Memory G a r d e n s , a c e m e t e r y i n P h e n i x City, alleging after StoneMor removed a stone installed on thereafter her a conversion, negligence, the grave burial trial contract court reverse court that pursuant motion, husband. t o compel into StoneMor Summers t o p u r s u e t o an a r b i t r a t i o n she had e n t e r e d denied outrage m e m o r i a l b e n c h Summers h a d h a d of her deceased moved t h e t r i a l claims i n a r b i t r a t i o n and t h e t o r t o f with clause i n StoneMor. and StoneMor The appeals. We and remand. I. On J u l y an 20, 2007, one d a y a f t e r automobile accident, StoneMor pursuant plots and contract funeral contained Summers e n t e r e d to which L a k e v i e w Memory G a r d e n s , her husband J e r r y d i e d i n she p u r c h a s e d along with services a contract two b u r i a l perpetual f o r Jerry, the following into care plots clause: "Arbitration: If there is any dispute, concerning this agreement o r any o t h e r matters r e l a t i n g t o goods o r s e r v i c e s p u r c h a s e d from s e l l e r , purchaser o r s e l l e r may e l e c t t o h a v e t h e d i s p u t e r e s o l v e d by a r b i t r a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r u l e s o f t h e A m e r i c a n A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ('AAA') t h e n i n effect, unless otherwise r e s t r i c t e d by law. If purchaser wishes t o o b t a i n a copy of these rules, p u r c h a s e r may c o n t a c t t h e AAA a t 1 - 8 0 0 - 7 7 8 - 7 8 7 9 o r www.adr.org. If arbitration i s chosen, neither 2 at f o r those f o r $3,490. arbitration with That 1080443 p u r c h a s e r nor s e l l e r w i l l have the r i g h t to l i t i g a t e the c l a i m ( s ) i n c o u r t or have a t r i a l b e f o r e a judge or j u r y . The a r b i t r a t i o n w i l l be c o n d u c t e d on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , a n d n o t a s p a r t o f a common o r class action. I f the appointed a r b i t r a t o r or panel of arbitrators should award any damages, those d a m a g e s w i l l be l i m i t e d t o a c t u a l a n d d i r e c t d a m a g e s o n l y and w i l l n o t i n c l u d e c o n s e q u e n t i a l , p u n i t i v e , e x e m p l a r y , or t r e b l e damages. " P u r c h a s e r a n d / o r s e l l e r may h i r e l e g a l c o u n s e l , but l e g a l c o u n s e l i s not r e q u i r e d . Purchaser and s e l l e r m u s t e a c h p a y t h e f e e s a n d c o s t s o f t h e i r own c o u n s e l , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e a w a r d e d by a r b i t r a t o r . All expenses of the arbitration, including the arbitrator's fees, will be shared equally by p u r c h a s e r and s e l l e r , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e a w a r d e d by the a r b i t r a t o r . "Any a w a r d o r d e r e d b y t h e a r b i t r a t o r w i l l be f i n a l , b i n d i n g , n o n a p p e a l a b l e a n d j u d g e m e n t may be e n t e r e d on i t i n a n y court having jurisdiction. This agreement is made in connection with a transaction in interstate commerce, and the provisions of this section are made u n d e r the F e d e r a l A r b i t r a t i o n A c t , 9 U.S.C. § § 1-16. The a r b i t r a t o r w i l l h a v e no p o w e r t o v a r y o r m o d i f y a n y p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n agreement." (Emphasis At in the original.) time Summers purchased the Memory G a r d e n s , she d e c l i n e d t o p u r c h a s e marker memorial or instead, stone Summers Summers a l l e g e s appropriate fees bench purchased that and f o r her those that third had those 3 plots from p a r t y then items Lakeview from StoneMor a husband's items at a paid installed grave third stone site; party. StoneMor on the the grave 1080443 site on bench her and StoneMor grave behalf. Shortly the marker, and after without a p p a r e n t l y removed the installation giving notice of the t o Summers, the stone memorial bench from the site. On July 29, 2008, Summers sued StoneMor, alleging that StoneMor had c o n v e r t e d the stone memorial bench, t h a t StoneMor was and negligent i n removing the stone memorial bench, StoneMor's conduct i n t h i s her severe moved the emotional trial c a s e was distress. court to On compel o u t r a g e o u s and had c a u s e d August 28, arbitration 2008, in StoneMor the s u b m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t Summers h a d e n t e r e d with StoneMor contained t r a n s a c t i o n between On November motion. 25, StoneMor an arbitration the parties 2008, the then f i l e d affected trial this that clause and interstate court denied case, into that the commerce. StoneMor's appeal. II. Our compel standard arbitration of review i s well of a ruling denying a motion settled: " ' T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de n o v o t h e d e n i a l o f a motion to compel a r b i t r a t i o n . P a r k w a y Dodge, I n c . v . Y a r b r o u g h , 779 S o . 2 d 1205 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A m o t i o n to compel a r b i t r a t i o n i s analogous to a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . T r a n S o u t h F i n . Corp. v. B e l l , 739 So. 2d 1110, 1114 ( A l a . 1 999). The party 4 to 1080443 seeking t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n has the burden of proving the existence of a c o n t r a c t c a l l i n g for a r b i t r a t i o n and p r o v i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t evidences a t r a n s a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g i n t e r s t a t e commerce. Id. " [ A ] f t e r a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n has been made a n d s u p p o r t e d , t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e n o n - m o v a n t to present evidence t h a t the supposed arbitration agreement i s not v a l i d or does not a p p l y to the dispute in question." J i m B u r k e A u t o m o t i v e , I n c . v. B e a v e r s , 674 So. 2d 1260, 1265 n. 1 (Ala. 1995) ( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) . ' " Elizabeth 2003) 277, Homes, L . L . C . (quoting 280 v. Fleetwood (Ala. Gantt, 882 Enters., So. Inc. 2d v. 313, 315 Bruno, 784 (Ala. So. 2d 2000)). III. I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i t s A u g u s t 28, arbitration, the contract clause, interstate portion that was submitted by to Summers as w e l l as the been p l a c e d the o f t h e two in a trust cemetery m a n u f a c t u r e d and trial of the the S t o n e M o r was that the affected w a y s : (1) a designated for p u r c h a s e d and had a company i n T e n n e s s e e , maintained purchased o u t s i d e Alabama. 5 of arbitration contract f o l l o w i n g two f u n d managed by are an compel a copy indicating c e m e t e r y p l o t s she grounds court containing subject commerce i n a t l e a s t care the evidence o f t h e money Summers p a i d perpetual (2) signed quoted supra, transaction and StoneMor 2008, m o t i o n to using This equipment evidence of 1080443 the existence [proof] that interstate to in some not clause; rather, installed or that crux dispute of of that this t o remove on her for arbitration shifted the burden that arbitration to the dispute 882 S o . 2 d a t 3 1 5 . the v a l i d i t y dispute the stone of her dispute clause. deceased t o Summers the i t does n o t a p p l y that 1 and a transaction affecting indicating she argues t h e scope authorized therefore E l i z a b e t h Homes, does The calling evidences evidence i s not v a l i d Summers contract the contract question. outside "a commerce" present clause of We is appeal, the arbitration with StoneMor i s disagree. whether memorial husband's On StoneMor bench grave Summers site. was had Summers S u m m e r s a l s o a r g u e s t h a t we s h o u l d d i s m i s s StoneMor's appeal f o r procedural reasons; f i r s t , b e c a u s e , she says, StoneMor f a i l e d t o s p e c i f i c a l l y r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t t o appeal i n i t s a n s w e r , a n d , s e c o n d , b e c a u s e t h i s a p p e a l i s moot b e c a u s e , s h e c l a i m s , s h e w i l l b e e n t i t l e d t o a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t when t h i s case i s remanded t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Summers c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h e s e a r g u m e n t s , however, and what a u t h o r i t y e x i s t s a p p e a r s t o r e f u t e them. R u l e 4 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P., e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e s t h a t " [ a ] n o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r denying a motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n i s appealable as a m a t t e r o f r i g h t , " a n d , s h o u l d S t o n e M o r ' s a p p e a l be s u c c e s s f u l , on r e m a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y w i l l b e l i m i t e d t o c o m p e l l i n g a r b i t r a t i o n , not c o n s i d e r i n g a motion f o r a d e f a u l t judgment. See E x p a r t e Q u e e n , 959 S o . 2 d 6 2 0 , 621 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t , a f t e r a c a s e i s r e m a n d e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may e n t e r no judgment other than t h e judgment d i r e c t e d by t h e r e v i e w i n g court). 1 6 1080443 maintains that compliance the with accordingly, stone memorial StoneMor's rules Summers breached memorial bench and regulations incorporated The and that or this I n c . v. Hock, noted that "[t]his words 'relating 2d 1013 2001) violated StoneMor the from stone the rules says, "any has that, were reference. to matters repeatedly t o ' i n the arbitration Summers dispute[] relating seller In 891 S o . 2 d 8 4 4 , 847 to Serra (Ala. 2004), stated context '"that we the are given a ( Q u o t i n g A m S o u t h B a n k v . D e e s , 847 S o . I n c . v. I n t e g r a t e d (Ala. by having i t applies 9 2 3 , 932 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , q u o t i n g America, which, o r any o t h e r Court broad construction."'" by between purchased in i t , while i n the contract that agreement and t o remove i n a manner t h a t clause states services Chevrolet, contract contract installed removed t h e bench because, i t of the cemetery, arbitration concerning goods installed into StoneMor their was and r e g u l a t i o n s S t o n e M o r was n o t a u t h o r i z e d StoneMor argues t h a t i t p r o p e r l y says, bench (emphasis i n turn Karl Storz Endoscopy- Med. S y s . , I n c . , 808 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 , omitted).) Among t h e goods s e r v i c e s p u r c h a s e d b y Summers f r o m S t o n e M o r was p e r p e t u a l 7 and care 1080443 of t h e two b u r i a l that the stone improperly, the was regarding of bench others; care permission accordingly, pursuant and to maintenance therefore, that the dispute the memorial were t h e s u b j e c t and that scope that bench relates of the contract dispute clause regarding argued installed a n d on argues, and the t o goods the regulations cemetery. We the removal of and s e r v i c e s that b e t w e e n Summers a n d S t o n e M o r accordingly of the a r b i t r a t i o n was StoneMor of has and f e e s , i t s rules conclude, stone StoneMor i n question the required removed the she p u r c h a s e d . memorial without property bench plots falls squarely contained within the i n that contract. IV. StoneMor submitted t h a t Summers h a d s i g n e d that any " [ i ] fthere other seller, evidence court showing a c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g language s t a t i n g i s any d i s p u t e , concerning this agreement o r m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o goods o r s e r v i c e s p u r c h a s e d purchaser or s e l l e r r e s o l v e d by a r b i t r a t i o n , " the to the t r i a l transaction between may elect t o have as w e l l as e v i d e n c e them affected the from dispute i n d i c a t i n g that interstate commerce. Summers f a i l e d t o r e f u t e t h a t s h o w i n g w i t h e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that the a r b i t r a t i o n clause i n the contract 8 was invalid or 1080443 that i t did subsequently denying November not apply arise. StoneMor's 25, 2008, to the Accordingly, motion order to is Cobb, C.J., the compel hereby remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s R E V E R S E D AND dispute that trial did in court erred arbitration, reversed and fact and the consistent with this by its cause opinion. REMANDED. and Lyons, Bolin, 9 and Murdock, J J . , concur.

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.