Snider v. Morgan
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Jeff Snider ("Jeff"), as administrator of the estate of Thelma June Smith Snider, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his complaint against Marquita S. Morgan ("Morgan"), both as executrix of the estate of Troy Ray Snider and on behalf of the estate of Harold Snider and First Bank of Boaz for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The matter stemmed from accusations over the execution of a power of attorney, the "seizure" of the decedents' estates and the repayment of loans from the estates. Upon review of the lower court's record, the Supreme Court affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Jeff's claim against Troy's estate for money had and received (count IV) and the portion of count III representing Jeff's unjust-enrichment claim against Harold's estate. The trial court's judgment of dismissal of the remaining counts, however, were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Download PDF
REL:ll/30/2012 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 , 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1101535 J e f f Snider, as a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the e s t a t e o f Thelma June Smith Snider, deceased v. Marquita S. Morgan, as e x e c u t r i x o f the e s t a t e o f Troy Ray Snider, deceased, e t a l . Appeal from M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t Court (CV-2011-900062) SHAW, J u s t i c e . Jeff Snider ("Jeff"), Thelma June S m i t h S n i d e r below, appeals from as a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e o f ("Thelma"), d e c e a s e d , t h e p l a i n t i f f the t r i a l court's dismissal of his 1101535 complaint against Marquita S. Morgan ("Morgan"), both as e x e c u t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f T r o y Ray S n i d e r ( " T r o y " ) , d e c e a s e d , and on behalf of deceased, and defendants below, the First estate Bank of for failure r e l i e f c o u l d be g r a n t e d . and of 1 Harold Snider Boaz to state ("First a ("Harold"), Bank"), claim upon the which We a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , remand. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y In October 1998, and t h e g r a n d m o t h e r Thelma, t h e m o t h e r o f T r o y and H a r o l d of J e f f and Morgan, e x e c u t e d a " G e n e r a l Power o f A t t o r n e y " naming T r o y and H a r o l d h e r fact. attorneys-in- T h a t document s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e p o w e r s c o u l d be p e r f o r m e d by e i t h e r enumerated T r o y o r H a r o l d and that A l t h o u g h Morgan's m o t i o n s o u g h t d i s m i s s a l " p u r s u a n t t o 1 2 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , " w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g any p a r t i c u l a r s u b s e c t i o n t h e r e o f , g i v e n the nature of the allegations t h e r e i n and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e m o t i o n , we c o n s t r u e i t as h a v i n g b e e n made p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , f o r " f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f can be g r a n t e d . " See 1 M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l R u l e s P a m p h l e t § 1 2 . 4 [ 5 ] [ d ] , p. 186 (2010) ("[T]he p u r p o s e o f a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n i s t o t e s t the l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y of the p l e a d e r ' s claims f o r r e l i e f . . . . " ) ; Campton v. M i l l e r , 19 So. 3d 245, 249 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ("Our c a s e l a w i s c l e a r ... t h a t i t i s t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a motion, not i t s nomenclature, t h a t i s c o n t r o l l i n g ; 'the relief s o u g h t i n a m o t i o n d e t e r m i n e s how to treat the m o t i o n . ' " ( q u o t i n g A l l i e d P r o d s . C o r p . v. Thomas, 954 So. 2d 588, 589 n.3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ) ) . 1 2 1101535 each was not required "to act i n union Thelma d i e d i n t e s t a t e on M a r c h 13, 2006. June 2009. In administration September 2009, Jeff naming h i m a d m i n i s t r a t o r with the other." Troy d i e d t e s t a t e i n obtained letters o f Thelma's of estate. I n A p r i l 2010, Morgan o b t a i n e d l e t t e r s t e s t a m e n t a r y naming h e r e x e c u t r i x of Troy's e s t a t e . see i n f r a n o t e 5, i n J u l y In Troy's February estate; complaint purportedly health "seized own 2011, that, preceded resulting control benefit." by i n her of sued Morgan, estate; before her and incompetency, as First Thelma's declining [Thelma's] The testate, 2010. Jeff Harold's alleged H a r o l d died, presumably executrix Bank. death, of Jeff's which was physical and Troy H a r o l d had and mental a s s e t s and u s e d them t o t h e i r complaint specifically referenced a p u r p o r t e d l o a n o f $46,000 t o T r o y i n J a n u a r y 1988 f r o m Thelma and h e r h u s b a n d , James F. S n i d e r , 2 pursuant to which Thelma and James a l l e g e d l y o b t a i n e d a m o r t g a g e on r e a l p r o p e r t y T r o y I t i s u n c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d w h e t h e r James was d e c e a s e d a t t h e t i m e t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e e d i n g was i n i t i a t e d ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r d i s d e v o i d o f any m e n t i o n o f e i t h e r James o r h i s estate as a party; therefore, i t appears that James p r e d e c e a s e d Thelma. 2 3 1101535 owned. I t f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t , i n May 2002, H a r o l d , a c t i n g 3 as Thelma's a l l e g e d " a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t , " h a d e x e c u t e d a r e l e a s e recorded "full the i n t h e M a r s h a l l County Probate Court acknowledging payment" o f t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g i n d e b t e d n e s s , mortgage, thereon. 4 As and a releasing result Troy from the foregoing, of satisfying further obligation and because, a c c o r d i n g t o J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t , " t h e Loan had n o t been r e p a i d " at the time behalf of the aforementioned o f Thelma's estate, release, a $46,000 claim Jeff filed, against on Troy's e s t a t e , s e e k i n g " r e p a y m e n t o f t h e L o a n " p l u s i n t e r e s t as w e l l as t h e repayment o f " o t h e r monies w r o n g f u l l y o b t a i n e d Thelma ... b y T r o y Contending the release repaid " b o t h t h a t Thelma was i n c o m p e t e n t was e x e c u t e d a t the time from and t h a t Troy's of the release, a t the time l o a n had n o t been Jeff's complaint, as A copy o f t h e m o r t g a g e , w h i c h h a d b e e n d u l y r e c o r d e d w i t h t h e M a r s h a l l C o u n t y P r o b a t e C o u r t , was a t t a c h e d t o J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . The m o r t g a g e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e d a " p r o m i s s o r y n o t e b e a r i n g e v e n d a t e w i t h t h i s i n s t r u m e n t ... due a n d p a y a b l e i n (360) c o n s e c u t i v e m o n t h l y i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $345.66 e a c h b e g i n n i n g 3/5/88 " 3 F o l l o w i n g Harold's r e l e a s e of the indebtedness, Troy s u b s e q u e n t l y p l e d g e d t h e same p r o p e r t y p l e d g e d as s e c u r i t y f o r t h e $46,000 l o a n as c o l l a t e r a l f o r a $51,994.53 l o a n he o b t a i n e d f r o m F i r s t Bank. 4 4 1101535 subsequently against asserted Harold's estate breached purported act amended, his contractual p o w e r s as contrary breach-of-contract (count I ) , a l l e g i n g duties t o Thelma [Thelma's] p u r p o r t e d [Thelma's] best that claim had "us[ing] by Harold his attorney-in-fact to and seeking a p p o i n t m e n t o f an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ad l i t e m o f H a r o l d ' s estate; asserted claim a to a breach-of-contract interests" against Troy's 5 estate ( c o u n t I I ) , a l l e g i n g t h a t T r o y b r e a c h e d an e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t t o repay the purported unjust-enrichment Harold's estate claim l o a n o f $46,000; against both Troy's asserted estate compensation limitation," $46,000 received" loan; and ( c o u n t I I I ) b a s e d on T r o y and H a r o l d ' s a l l e g e d k n o w i n g a c c e p t a n c e and e n j o y m e n t o f Thelma's money and without an Troy's to alleged asserted against Thelma, Troy's of a wrongful claim estate alleged "enjoy[ment] repaying same"; and a s s e r t e d "including the failure labeled (count benefit a claim without t o repay "money IV) b a s e d of the assets had on loan for declaratory the and Troy's without relief I n t h e i r b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , Morgan and F i r s t Bank r e p r e s e n t t h a t , a p p a r e n t l y u n b e k n o w n s t t o J e f f , Morgan was a l s o a p p o i n t e d e x e c u t r i x o f H a r o l d ' s e s t a t e , and H a r o l d ' s w i l l has s i n c e been p r o b a t e d . 5 5 1101535 (count V ) , seeking, 6 the release and a e x e c u t e d by declaration outstanding among o t h e r r e l i e f , a d e c l a r a t i o n v o i d i n g loan d e c l a r a t i o n as of Harold, r e s t o r a t i o n of the entitlement balance by to full Troy's repayment estate, as Morgan a r g u e d t h a t t h e b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t (count I I ) , the dismissed under Gen. & Accident ( A l a . 2004) affirmative as the " r u l e of ("The defense, commenced w i t h i n 20 commenced.'"). She Ins. the v. (count I I I ) , ( c o u n t IV) were due repose." Co. claim Troy's See, e.g., Underwood, 886 to ... 'bars actions years from the further c o u n t s I t h r o u g h IV So. 2d 807, and III Harold's have not an been t i m e t h e y c o u l d have b e e n contended, against that be American common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e , w h i c h i s that against a Specifically, claim against unjust-enrichment and t h e m o n e y - h a d - a n d - r e c e i v e d c l a i m 812 well the Bank. Morgan moved t o d i s m i s s J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t . Life of t o t h e p r i o r i t y o f Thelma's m o r t g a g e o v e r subsequent mortgage of F i r s t estate mortgage, among o t h e r Troy's e s t a t e estate were and barred things, counts by I their A c t u a l l y , J e f f ' s amended c o m p l a i n t i n c l u d e d two c o u n t s l a b e l e d "Count F o u r . " Because h i s c l a i m f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f was t h e s e c o n d s u c h c l a i m , and t o a v o i d c o n f u s i o n , we have d e s i g n a t e d t h a t c o u n t as " c o u n t V" f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s opinion. 6 6 1101535 respective statutes of l i m i t a t i o n s . Morgan a t t a c h e d , as an e x h i b i t t o h e r d i s m i s s a l m o t i o n , a copy o f t h e v e r i f i e d J e f f had f i l e d i n Troy's e s t a t e Over J e f f ' s o p p o s i t i o n , for i t s decision, the t r i a l motion, dismissing Harold's estate. trial claim proceedings. and w i t h o u t s t a t i n g t h e r e a s o n s court the claims g r a n t e d Morgan's d i s m i s s a l against Troy's estate and J e f f subsequently f i l e d a motion asking the court to "reconsider" that ruling (hereinafter referred t o as a " m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r " ) , w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t denied, stating: "The factual allegations [Jeff] makes in his complaint, v i e w e d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o [Jeff], [do] n o t a l l e g e the existence o f any promissory note that would have secured the mortgage. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h e ' l o a n ' was t o be r e p a i d o v e r a p e r i o d o f 30 y e a r s a n d [ J e f f ] claims that created a contract that the breach t h e r e o f w o u l d make t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e i n a p p l i c a b l e . A l s o , he c l a i m s t h e a c t s c o m p l a i n e d o f w o u l d a l s o n o t be o u t s i d e t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . "Considering t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o [ J e f f ] , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h e 20 y e a r r u l e o f r e p o s e a p p l i e s t o any m o r t g a g e , e v e n one s e c u r e d b y a n o t e t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r payment o v e r a p e r i o d o f 30 y e a r s b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e r e was a payment made w i t h i n t h e 20 y e a r p e r i o d t h a t w o u l d t o l l t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e (and t h a t a l s o assumes t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a p r o m i s s o r y n o t e , n o t pled, that provides f o r s u c h payment t e r m s ) . The only element t o t h e r u l e of repose i s time." 7 1101535 Thereafter, First Bank sought and obtained i t s own d i s m i s s a l w i t h p r e j u d i c e from t h e case i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the f a c t t h a t i t h a d b e e n named as a p a r t y o n l y as a r e s u l t o f i t s mortgage i n t e r e s t i n Troy's r e a l property. Standard o f Review In t h e i r b r i e f s t o t h i s Court, the applicable standard t h e p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e as t o of review. Morgan and F i r s t a p p e a r t o c o n t e n d t h a t t h e i r m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s were to Bank converted m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e m a t t e r s o u t s i d e t h e pleadings exclude were submitted, those matters. and the t r i a l court failed to See R u l e 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ( " I f , on a m o t i o n a s s e r t i n g t h e d e f e n s e numbered (6) t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e o f t h e p l e a d i n g t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d , not excluded for matters outside the pleading are presented b y t h e c o u r t , t h e m o t i o n s h a l l be t r e a t e d as one summary j u d g m e n t and d i s p o s e d ...."). Morgan's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s copy o f t h e v e r i f i e d against t o and Troy's o f as p r o v i d e d i n c l u d e d as an e x h i b i t a statement of c l a i m that J e f f estate. i n R u l e 56 Similarly, Jeff's had filed response in o p p o s i t i o n t o that motion i n c l u d e d both the statement of c l a i m and t h e power of attorney. Nonetheless, 8 the motions to 1101535 d i s m i s s were n o t c o n v e r t e d because the referenced outside 838 exhibits i n Jeff's 2d "precluding referred set conversion were and, thus, ( A l a . 2002) specifically were n o t m a t t e r s (adopting when the e x h i b i t s are i n , and complaint"). above Donoghue v . A m e r i c a n N a t ' l I n s . Co., 1032, 1035 to out complaint the pleading. So. t o m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , central See a l s o L e w i s v . F i r s t the rule i n question are t o , the plaintiff's T u s k e g e e Bank, 964 So. 2d 36, 39 n. 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ("'[D]ocuments to a motion t o d i s m i s s a r e c o n s i d e r e d a part of the pleadings if those documents plaintiff's brought.'" So. were complaint specifically referred attached to i n the and a r e c e n t r a l t o the c l a i m being ( q u o t i n g B a n k s , F i n l e y , W h i t e & Co. v. W r i g h t , 864 2d 324, 327 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ) ) . Morgan and F i r s t Bank allege that Jeff's motion to r e c o n s i d e r i n c l u d e d e v i d e n c e o u t s i d e t h e p l e a d i n g s , n a m e l y an affidavit executed documentation by Jeff's including an counsel e-mail and supporting communication from Morgan's a n d F i r s t B a n k ' s c o u n s e l d a t e d May 1 1 , 2011 -- a i m e d at establishing that Troy had made several substantial p a y m e n t s t o t h e n u r s i n g home where Thelma r e s i d e d 9 prior to 1101535 her death. submitted is, However, J e f f made no i n support t h a t i t was showing t h a t the o f h i s m o t i o n was newly d i s c o v e r e d , d i s c o v e r e d a f t e r the t r i a l j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l , n o r d i d he o f f e r any for his delay clearly in filing received by the his attorney Morgan's d i s m i s s a l m o t i o n The parties present properly use belatedly submit trial the a supporting and the nothing the materials other explanation to the trial court's d i s m i s s a l . that to hearing Jeff on 7 could reconsider wished to provide to to the c o u r t i n o p p o s i t i o n to the d i s m i s s a l motion; t h e r e f o r e , trial court c o u l d not, and t h e e v i d e n c e when d e t e r m i n i n g apparently 1187, 1189 ( A l a . 1986) d i d not, consider w h e t h e r f a c t s e x i s t e d on J e f f might u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l . 2d court entered i t s prior motion he that d o c u m e n t s , w h i c h were indicating post-dismissal evidence C f . Moore v. G l o v e r , ("[P]laintiff's motion, 501 i t s ... j u d g m e n t i n l i g h t o f t h e new So. with i t s a t t a c h e d e x h i b i t and a f f i d a v i t , s o u g h t t o have t h e t r i a l reconsider which court evidence (as An a f f i d a v i t by J e f f ' s c o u n s e l , w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d J e f f ' s motion to reconsider, d i d represent t h a t "[he] did not r e t r i e v e t h e ... e m a i l f o r s e v e r a l d a y s t h e r e a f t e r " ; h o w e v e r , t h e a f f i d a v i t f a i l e d t o a l l e g e a s p e c i f i c d a t e on w h i c h J e f f ' s c o u n s e l d i d r e t r i e v e t h e e - m a i l and c l e a r l y d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t i t was n o t r e t r i e v e d w i t h i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o have b e e n s u b m i t t e d b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s judgment of dismissal. 7 10 1101535 o p p o s e d t o 'newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e ' ) plaintiff."). Because t h e t r i a l b e l a t e d l y s u b m i t t e d by c o u r t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r , and c o u l d n o t have c o n s i d e r e d , t h e u n t i m e l y m a t e r i a l s a t t a c h e d t o J e f f ' s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r , Morgan's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , w h i c h had a l r e a d y been g r a n t e d , d i d not convert summary j u d g m e n t , a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e that a p p l i c a b l e t o a Rule t o a motion f o r a standard of review i s 12(b) d i s m i s s a l : "'On appeal, a d i s m i s s a l i s not e n t i t l e d to a presumption of correctness. The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r Rule 12(b)(6) i s whether, when the a l l e g a t i o n s of the complaint are viewed most s t r o n g l y i n t h e p l e a d e r ' s f a v o r , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e p l e a d e r c o u l d p r o v e any set of circumstances t h a t would e n t i t l e [him] to relief. In making this d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t does n o t c o n s i d e r whether the p l a i n t i f f will ultimately p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y w h e t h e r [he] may p o s s i b l y prevail. We n o t e t h a t a R u l e 12(b)(6) d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s beyond doubt t h a t the p l a i n t i f f can prove no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m that would entitle the p l a i n t i f f to relief.' "Nance v . M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 1993) (citations omitted)." Lloyd Noland 784, Found., 791 ( A l a . 2007) I n c . v. H e a l t h S o u t h (emphasis added). 11 Corp., 979 So. 2d 1101535 Discussion I. Jeff's R u l e o f Repose primary claim on a p p e a l , i n l i g h t of the trial c o u r t ' s a p p a r e n t d i s m i s s a l o f h i s c l a i m s b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e application allegations of the rule of repose, is of h i s complaint are viewed that, when i n the l i g h t the most f a v o r a b l e t o h i m , he h a s a l l e g e d f a c t s d e m o n s t r a t i n g " t h a t t h e actions or occurred [that] omissions within form ... years twenty complaint." specifically, that which the Jeff loan (Jeff's argues to Troy the basis of the brief, at of this [filing] p. date 14.) not been repaid, of More that h i s complaint alleged had suit solely omitting a l l e g a t i o n s "as t o t h e t e r m s o f r e p a y m e n t , any p a r t i a l payment or a l t e r n a t e payment a r r a n g e m e n t s , the a l l of which would d e f e a t a p p l i c a t i o n of the rule of repose." ( J e f f ' s b r i e f , a t p. 16.) As the t r i a l court noted i n i t s order denying Jeff's motion t o reconsider, i t a p p a r e n t l y construed the complaint's s i l e n c e i n t h a t r e g a r d as J e f f ' s f a i l u r e t o a l l e g e any payment by T r o y s u b s e q u e n t to the o r i g i n a l t o l l e d the r u l e of repose. l o a n d a t e t h a t w o u l d have The t r i a l c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y f u r t h e r 12 1101535 concluded, n o t e and despite the copy of that terms of J e f f had providing the failed an a l s o d e f e a t e d the clear reference to the corresponding repayment i n c l u d e d on attached mortgage for t o be c o n t r a r y the amended to to p l e a d the extended Jeff's e x i s t e n c e of repayment p e r i o d r u l e of repose. to the a p p l i c a b l e the that face of an complaint, agreement might Those c o n s t r u c t i o n s Lloyd Noland, have appear standard, which requires t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t be c o n s t r u e d i n J e f f ' s See the that favor. supra. With r e g a r d to the e x p l a i n e d i n Underwood, a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e of repose, supra: "The common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e , w h i c h i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , R e c t o r v. B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 So. 2d 75, 78 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , ' b a r s a c t i o n s that h a v e n o t b e e n commenced w i t h i n 20 y e a r s f r o m t h e t i m e t h e y c o u l d have b e e n commenced. ' T i e r c e v. E l l i s , 624 So. 2d 553, 554 ( A l a . 1993) . The r u l e o f r e p o s e ' i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n , by p e r s o n a l d i s a b i l i t i e s , o r by w h e t h e r prejudice has resulted or evidence [has been] o b s c u r e d . ' B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 91 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . 'Lack o f n o t i c e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o a v e r t the a p p l i c a t i o n of the [ r u l e of r e p o s e ] . ' B a l l e n g e r v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 271 A l a . 318, 322, 123 So. 2d 166, 169 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; a c c o r d Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d 758, 764 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) , and Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 858 So. 2d 950, 957-59 ( A l a . 2003) (Johnstone, J . , dissenting). '[T]he o n l y element of the r u l e of r e p o s e i s t i m e . ' B o s h e l l , 418 So. 2d a t 91. 13 we 1101535 "'The only circumstance that w i l l stay the running of the 20-year p e r i o d of repose i s a r e c o g n i t i o n of the existence of the claimant's r i g h t by t h e p a r t y d e f e n d i n g a g a i n s t t h e c l a i m . ' B o s h e l l , 418 So. 2d a t 92. The r e c o g n i t i o n must be d i s t i n c t . B a l l e n g e r , 271 A l a . a t 323, 123 So. 2d a t 169. Such a recognition w i l l restart the running of the 2 0 - y e a r p e r i o d . H e n d l e y v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f H u n t s v i l l e , 234 A l a . 535, 537, 176 So. 348, 350 (1937). F o r e x a m p l e , a p a r t i a l payment on a mortgage debt i s s u f f i c i e n t r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e m o r t g a g o r o f t h e l i e n o f t h e m o r t g a g e t o s t a r t a new 20-year repose p e r i o d running on t h e m o r t g a g e e ' s claims under t h e mortgage. Hendley, supra. L i k e w i s e , a statement i n a deed t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y conveyed by t h e deed i s s u b j e c t t o a mortgage i s a s u f f i c i e n t r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e l i e n o f t h e mortgage t o s t a r t a new 2 0 - y e a r r e p o s e p e r i o d r u n n i n g on t h e mortgagee's r i g h t t o enforce t h e l i e n . B r a u n v. P e t t y j o h n , 176 A l a . 592, 594-95, 58 So. 907, 908 (1912). "The r u l e o f r e p o s e b e g i n s r u n n i n g on a c l a i m as soon as a l l o f t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h a t c l a i m c o e x i s t so t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c o u l d v a l i d l y file suit. S p a i n v . Brown & W i l l i a m s o n T o b a c c o C o r p . , 872 So. 2d 101, 129 (2003) ( J o h n s t o n e , J . , w r i t i n g specially). " ' I n some i n s t a n c e s , [ t h e f i r s t p o i n t i n t i m e when a l l o f t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of a c l a i m f i r s t c o e x i s t so t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c o u l d v a l i d l y sue a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e p o i n t i n t i m e when t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e b e g i n s t o r u n ] may be t h e same as t h e d a t e o f t h e " a c c r u a l " o f a c l a i m . However, ... r e p o s e does n o t d e p e n d on " a c c r u a l " b e c a u s e the concept of accrual sometimes i n c o r p o r a t e s o t h e r f a c t o r s , s u c h as n o t i c e , knowledge, o r d i s c o v e r y . F o r example, see A l a . Code 1975, § 6-2-3 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a f r a u d c l a i m does n o t a c c r u e " u n t i l t h e 14 1101535 d i s c o v e r y by t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y fact c o n s t i t u t i n g the fraud").' of the "Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 764 n.2. A s u i t on a t o r t c l a i m may n o t be commenced until the defendant's t o r t i o u s a c t proximately c a u s e s t h e p l a i n t i f f t o s u f f e r an a c t u a l i n j u r y . S t e p h e n s v. C r e e l , 429 So. 2d 278, 280-83 ( A l a . 1983) . I f a p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t u a l i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g f r o m a t o r t i s t h e payment o f premiums f o r an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y , t h e payment o f t h e f i r s t premium f o r t h e p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e e l e m e n t o f damage e s s e n t i a l to a claim f o r the t o r t . B o s w e l l v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 643 So. 2d 580 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , a n d Donoghue v. A m e r i c a n N a t ' l I n s . Co., 838 So. 2d 1032 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . On c l a i m s [ o f ] u n j u s t enrichment and money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d , a p l a i n t i f f may commence a s u i t as soon as t h e d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e s money a n d t h e circumstances imply the o b l i g a t i o n to restore i t . See M u t u a l B l d g . & Loan A s s ' n v. W a t s o n , 226 A l a . 526, 528, 147 So. 817, 817 (1933) ('An a c t i o n f o r money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d i s one i n a s s u m p s i t b a s e d upon a p r o m i s e t o r e p a y i m p l i e d b y l a w ') 1 " A s u i t on a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m , on t h e other hand, may be commenced as soon as t h e defendant breaches the contract, regardless of w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s s u f f e r e d an a c t u a l i n j u r y . S t e p h e n s v. C r e e l , 429 So. 2d 278 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . ..." 1 886 So. 2d a t 812-13. As s e t o u t above, dismissal f o r failure to state a claim p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12(b) (6) i s a p p r o p r i a t e beyond doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f support relief." of the claim that o n l y "when i t a p p e a r s c a n p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n would entitle the p l a i n t i f f to A l t r u s t F i n . S e r v s . , I n c . v. Adams, 76 So. 3d 228, 15 1101535 235 ( A l a . 2011). Thus, i n o r d e r t o s u r v i v e a R u l e 12(b)(6) m o t i o n b a s e d on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e , Jeff's c o m p l a i n t o n l y had t o c o n t a i n f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s s u p p o r t i n g the "presum[ption] within twenty (Jeff's brief, Here, that ... the f i r s t years of missed the date of payment occurred [the] c o m p l a i n t . " a t p. 17.) Jeff's complaint alleges that Troy "fail[ed] to r e p a y , " as p r o m i s e d , a p u r p o r t e d l o a n , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a t t a c h e d m o r t g a g e , was r e f l e c t e d i n a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o m i s s o r y n o t e due and p a y a b l e o v e r a 3 0 - y e a r p e r i o d . contends, h i s complaint merely alleged p r e c u r s o r t o an a c t i o n b e i n g f i l e d As J e f f Troy's correctly default a a g a i n s t T r o y by Thelma a n d James t o r e c o v e r on t h e u n d e r l y i n g d e b t not a s p e c i f i c date on w h i c h t h a t d e f a u l t p u r p o r t e d l y o c c u r r e d . We a g r e e , as J e f f a l s o a r g u e s , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may n o t m e r e l y "presume t h a t the first years m i s s e d payment of Further, the Jeff ... [ d i dnot] occur[] w i t h i n twenty complaint." includes (Jeff's in his brief brief, to this a t p. Court default Underwood, would 886 have So. 2d restarted at 812 16 the ("[A] 17.) authority e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t any payment T r o y made a f t e r an i n i t i a l of ... repose period. partial payment event See on a 1101535 mortgage debt i s s u f f i c i e n t r e c o g n i t i o n by t h e l i e n o f t h e m o r t g a g e t o s t a r t a new running on the mortgagee's c l a i m s Suffice failure trial to i t to allege court's say, a we conclusion to default that no conclude date w i l l D e l c h a m p s , 642 954, 958 not allege the date s u f f e r e d bone d e g e n e r a t i o n i n h e r jaw i s not [the plaintiff] 2d did Jeff's support the and Mobile Infirmary ( A l a . 1994) ("[T]he f a c t when she v. that first a ground f o r d i s m i s s a l u n d e r R u l e 12(b) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P . " ) . as we 8 e v e r made payment was loan balance. that of period mortgage."). a p p l i e d to the o u t s t a n d i n g So. mortgagor 20-year repose under the decline specific the a Construing, must, t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t i n h i s favor, t h e r e a r e f a c t s , n a m e l y T r o y ' s payment h i s t o r y , t h a t , a s s u m i n g J e f f i s a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h them, w o u l d b o t h d e f e a t the r u l e of repose estate, and entitle Jeff, on behalf of Thelma's to relief. In reaching simultaneous that demand, conclusion, via the we proof are of mindful claim of filed Jeff's against To the extent that J e f f argues t h a t the evidence accompanying his post-dismissal motion to reconsider potentially established some t y p e of alternate payment arrangement, which t o l l e d the r u l e - o f - r e p o s e p e r i o d , the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t have p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d t h a t e v i d e n c e . See s u p r a n o t e 7. 8 17 1101535 Troy's estate, reflected "remain[ed] allegation might by due for the support Mortgage," and i n the the repayment trial the which, owing." light of Were we most entire the claim required favorable to court's "indebtedness judgment. applicable standard dictates a d i f f e r e n t asserted, to view the that movants, i t However, the result: "When t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f a c o m p l a i n t i s a t i s s u e , t h i s Court w i l l l i b e r a l l y construe the complaint i n f a v o r of s t a t i n g a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f . ' D i s m i s s a l s u n d e r R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) s h o u l d be g r a n t e d s p a r i n g l y , and s u c h a d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d a d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can p r o v e no s e t of f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m w h i c h w o u l d e n t i t l e h i m o r h e r t o r e l i e f . ' G a r r e t t v. Hadden, 495 So. 2d 616, 617 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . '"'Where a [ R u l e ] 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n has b e e n g r a n t e d and t h i s C o u r t i s c a l l e d upon t o r e v i e w t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , we must e x a m i n e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n and c o n s t r u e them so as t o r e s o l v e a l l d o u b t s c o n c e r n i n g the s u f f i c i e n c y of the complaint i n f a v o r of the p l a i n t i f f . ' " ' B o s w e l l v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 643 So. 2d 580, 581 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g G r a n t v. B u t l e r , 590 So. 2d 254, 255 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n G r e e n e C o u n t y Bd. o f Educ. v. B a i l e y , 586 So. 2d 893, 897-98 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " R a d e n h a u s e n v. Doss, 819 In further c o n s i d e r i n g Rule So. 2d 616, 619-20 12(b)(6) d i s m i s s a l s , ( A l a . 2001) . this Court observed: " I t i s a x i o m a t i c t h a t a 12(b)(6) motion should 'seldom be g r a n t e d and s h o u l d o n l y be g r a n t e d when " i t appears beyond doubt t h a t the p l a i n t i f f can p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c l a i m w h i c h 18 has 1101535 w o u l d e n t i t l e h i m t o r e l i e f , " ' J e a n n i e ' s G r o c e r y v. B a l d w i n C o u n t y E l e c t r i c M e m b e r s h i p C o r p o r a t i o n , 331 So. 2d 665, 667 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the m o t i o n , w h i c h goes o n l y t o t h e f a c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a r e t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and d o u b t s r e s o l v e d i n h i s f a v o r , P r u i t t v. P r u i t t , 343 So. 2d 495 ( A l a . 1977); i f the c o u r t doubts p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y , i t s h o u l d deny t h e m o t i o n , T r a b i t s v. F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f M o b i l e , 295 A l a . 85, 323 So. 2d 353 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . " Sims v. L e w i s , 374 Here, So. 2d 298, cognizable claim ( A l a . 1979). and Thelma 303 did not James against Troy until m o r t g a g e d e b t , i f i n d e e d he d i d . seeks the full foreclosing Troy may of the the p o s s i b i l i t y , have made p a y m e n t s a c t u a l l y due. is amount Because have Troy a viable defaulted and on the Although the proof of c l a i m loan, as J e f f and we do not argues that a see that as on a p p e a l , t h a t lesser amount was t h e 2 0 - y e a r common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e p r e m i s e d upon a p r e e x i s t i n g right to assert a claim and b e c a u s e J e f f may p o s s i b l y d e m o n s t r a t e a f a c t u a l s c e n a r i o where default and years of the court erred the resulting filing in e n t i r e t y based date right to sue occurred within of the u n d e r l y i n g simply dismissing Jeff's the complaint trial in i t s on t h e d a t e o f t h e o r i g i n a l m o r t g a g e and presumed a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e of r e p o s e . neither suit, Morgan's Rule 12(b)(6) 19 motion Further, nor First 20 the because Bank's 1101535 subsequent motion independent against with for ground dismissal justifying F i r s t Bank, and a purported dismissal J e f f ' s claims II. To been the extent premised, t h a t the of the on are any claims intertwined Bank. court erred in Limitations trial part, assert Jeff's trial First against Statutes in of because those claims J e f f ' s mortgage-based c l a i m s , dismissing to court's the d i s m i s s a l may alternative have statute-of- l i m i t a t i o n s g r o u n d i n c l u d e d i n Morgan's d i s m i s s a l m o t i o n , J e f f disputes t h a t the claims. As dismissal a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n s bar motion appear to dismissing indicated to have by i t s order reconsider, considered Jeff's the this complaint. denying trial court alternative However, j u d g m e n t on record, regardless even i f i t was Hooper, 984 So. M o t o r s C o r p . v. (Ala. "any r e j e c t e d , by 1118, the 1121 trial not in the well affirm a trial i n turn Inc., considered, court,"'" ( A l a . 2007) Stokes Chevrolet, 2003), quoting does v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d by o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was 2d post- argument given e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t " ' [ t ] h i s C o u r t may court's Jeff's his 885 (quoting So. Liberty Nat'l Life 20 Warren 2d the or v. General 119, Ins. Co. 124 v. 1101535 U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 1013, 1020 claim in ground. So. light of the must e x a m i n e t h e m e r i t s o f 2d 9 A. ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) , we 881 alternative each statute-of-limitations Breach-of-Contract Claim Against Harold's Estate (Count I) Count I of J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t claim against Harold's e s t a t e based on Harold's purported m i s u s e o f t h e p o w e r s g r a n t e d h i m u n d e r t h e power o f a t t o r n e y executed by Thelma. More specifically, Jeff generally c o n t e n d e d t h a t , i n a c t i n g c o n t r a r y t o Thelma's b e s t i n t e r e s t s , Harold breached the language specifically that power-of-attorney agreement. Notably, i n c l u d e d i n c o u n t I o f J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t does n o t refer to the circumstances surrounding the r e l e a s e o f t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s and s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e m o r t g a g e , n o r does i t a p p e a r t o l i m i t H a r o l d ' s c o m p l a i n e d - o f any one conduct to s p e c i f i c e v e n t o r p e r i o d o f t i m e w h i l e he was s e r v i n g as Thelma's a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t . F u r t h e r , count I specifically Because the a c t s or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to counts I t h r o u g h IV o f J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t s e r v e as t h e b a s i s f o r J e f f ' s r e q u e s t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i n c o u n t V, we do n o t i n t e r p r e t c o u n t V as a s s e r t i n g an i n d e p e n d e n t c a u s e o f a c t i o n t o w h i c h a s e p a r a t e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s w o u l d a p p l y . We n o t e t h a t Morgan t o o k a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n i n h e r d i s m i s s a l m o t i o n . 9 21 1101535 incorporated ... out in Jeff's i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t " T r o y ... complaint, earlier factual a l l e g a t i o n s set and Harold s e i z e d c o n t r o l of Thelma['s] t h e i r own i.e., ... a s s e t s and b e n e f i t " d u r i n g t h e l a s t 10 y e a r s from a p p r o x i m a t e l y Assuming, as we M a r c h 1996 u s e d them t o o f Thelma's u n t i l M a r c h 2006. must u n d e r t h e applicable standard o u t a b o v e , t h a t J e f f can p r o v e t h e a l l e g a t i o n i n h i s that Harold may be c r e a t e d b e t w e e n Thelma and H a r o l d . 3d 1191, 1200 performance undertaking legally its to was force "a durable and e x e c u t e d by otherwise, effect under the contract power o f until Thelma. we may no e x t e n d e d t o t h e w i f e by t h e h u s b a n d power of and right"). attorney," d i d not Further, attorney'" terminated by Because n o t h i n g and a to "the create any pursuant to t e r m s , t h e power o f a t t o r n e y Thelma e x e c u t e d was be in fact, (holding t h a t "[b]ecause g r a t u i t o u s i n nature enforceable under Compare S m i t h v. W a c h o v i a , ( A l a . 2009) p r o m i s e o r p e r f o r m a n c e was her complaint circumstances w h i c h J e f f can d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a v a l i d c o n t r a c t was, for set r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n e x c h a n g e f o r a c t i n g as Thelma's a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t , t h e r e 33 So. life, intended remain i n full subsequent w r i t i n g record suggests presume t h a t t h e power o f a t t o r n e y remained 22 i n the 1101535 in effect and that Harold attorney-in-fact until The parties contract that to the an action six-year f o u n d i n § 6-2-34, A l a . Code 1975. t h e power o f a t t o r n e y was subject not i n F e b r u a r y 2011, of a t t o r n e y t e r m i n a t e d J e f f ' s complaint able Thelma's of set limitations that a c o n t r a c t u n d e r s e a l and thus 10 limitations Jeff clearly f i l e d his l e s s t h a n 5 y e a r s a f t e r t h e power i n 2006. C o n s t r u i n g a of Thus, e v e n a s s u m i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s of i n h i s f a v o r , as we must, we to prove as a l l e g i n g breach statute i n § 6-2-33, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , complaint be serve t o t h e more f o r g i v i n g 1 0 - y e a r s t a t u t e o f provided may to Thelma's d e a t h i n M a r c h 2006. agree i s subject continued of conclude that f a c t s under which h i s he claim a g a i n s t H a r o l d ' s e s t a t e b a s e d upon H a r o l d ' s p u r p o r t e d breach o f t h e power o f a t t o r n e y p r o v i d i n g c o n t r o l o f Thelma's assets To the e x t e n t t h a t J e f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e power o f a t t o r n e y was a c o n t r a c t u n d e r s e a l and t h u s g o v e r n e d by a 10y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s and t h a t he, t h u s , had 10 y e a r s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e r e l e a s e o f t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s i n 2002 -¬ the s o l e breach event p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b e d i n h i s complaint -- t o s u e , we n o t e , as do t h e p a r t i e s , " t h a t t h e g u i d i n g d o c t r i n e i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a c o n t r a c t i s s e a l e d i s the i n t e n t of the c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t i e s . " K & C Dev. C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 597 So. 2d 671, 674 ( A l a . 1992) . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e seem t o be f a c t s a l l e g e d t h a t , a s s u m i n g J e f f can p r o v e them, w o u l d s u p p o r t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a 1 0 - y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . 10 23 1101535 is not barred by the running of the limitations period. T h e r e f o r e , the s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s ground would not d i s m i s s a l of count I under Rule B. Breach-of-Contract support 12(b)(6). C l a i m A g a i n s t Troy's Estate (Count I I ) Count I I of J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m a g a i n s t Troy's to repay the e s t a t e b a s e d on T r o y ' s p u r p o r t e d $46,000 l o a n f r o m Thelma and James. J e f f f a i l e d t o p l e a d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n o t e and failure Although specifically acknowledges, i n keeping w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , t h a t he has not l o c a t e d the in the r e s u l t i n g m o r t g a g e , t h a t a c k n o w l e d g m e n t does n o t p r e c l u d e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t one demonstrate referenced does e x i s t o r t h a t J e f f a s e t of c l a i m as w e l l . i n s t a l l m e n t note facts In f a c t , entitling although him to could otherwise relief on this J e f f does n o t s t a t e i n h i s c o m p l a i n t t h a t a " n o t e " e x i s t s , he does p l e a d a c o n t r a c t , t h e terms of which are supported incorporated into his Further, Alabama, against unpaid." "the the Jeff by t h e m o r t g a g e a t t a c h e d t o complaint. cites authority s t a t u t e of limitations payee Williams until v. and the last Williams, 24 497 establishing does n o t that, begin installment i s So. 2d 481, to due 483 in run and (Ala. 1101535 1986). Thus, release assuming and demonstrate complaint was filed to this issue, Jeff a 30-year before f a l l e n due i n 2018. as that can i n v a l i d a t e Harold's i n s t a l l m e n t debt, the l a s t Jeff's i n s t a l l m e n t would have A l t h o u g h J e f f may n o t u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l at present our s o l e concern i s whether, u n d e r t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d , he m i g h t u l t i m a t e l y be a b l e t o do s o . Therefore, on the t r i a l court erred to the extent the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s that i t r e l i e d i n dismissing this claim. C. Unjust-Enrichment/Restitution Claims Against E s t a t e a n d T r o y ' s E s t a t e (Count I I I ) Initially, we note that count Harold's I I I of J e f f ' s complaint asserted unjust-enrichment claims against both Harold's estate and T r o y ' s e s t a t e b a s e d on t h e g e n e r a l and Troy "knowingly accepted allegation that t h e enjoyment and b e n e f i t T h e l m a [ ' s ] ... money a n d a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g w i t h o u t the Loan, appeal, without compensating however, J e f f [Thelma] appears t o l i m i t 27.) i n any limitation way." On (Jeff's brief, at J e f f makes no argument t h a t h i s c l a i m s e e k s damages against Harold's estate f o r unjust enrichment; therefore, has of h i s claim of a l l e g e d unjust enrichment s o l e l y t o Troy's e s t a t e . p. Harold waived any argument concerning 25 the alleged Jeff unjust 1101535 e n r i c h m e n t o f H a r o l d ' s e s t a t e , and we a f f i r m the t r i a l dismissal that insofar as Cullman-Jefferson (Ala. 2003) b r i e f are i t relates Counties (stating that Gas issues not 864 So. Tucker more g e n e r a l her life, raised t h e l o a n and alleged i.e., incapacity and until her death in last 2006. 10 In ending in our analysis Harold years his of brief, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s complaint l i m i t s h i s 2018." (30) years, (Jeff's brief, " i n monthly beginning i n at p. p e r f o r m i n g o u r s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s a n a l y s i s , we, The in suggests a broader, spanning the i n s t a l l m e n t s over a p e r i o d of t h i r t y Jeff's 319 argued and c l a i m to Troy's a l l e g e d f a i l u r e to repay the l o a n limit 317, 2d m i s u s e o f Thelma's a s s e t s by b o t h T r o y and h o w e v e r , J e f f ' s own 1988 v. the above-quoted language from J e f f ' s c o m p l a i n t both s p e c i f i c a l l y references her Dist., claim. waived). Further, during to court's s o l e l y to the loan-based 27.) In therefore, assertions in complaint. parties limitations. supporting disagree Specifically, as to the without applicable statute of including a citation to a u t h o r i t y , J e f f m a i n t a i n s t h a t the s i x - y e a r o f l i m i t a t i o n s s e t o u t i n § 6 - 2 - 3 4 ( 9 ) , A l a . Code 1975, 26 statute applies 1101535 to implied claim. contracts and thus governs h i s unjust-enrichment C o n t r a r y t o t h a t p o s i t i o n , Morgan and nonbinding authority depending on the in support source of the of the alleged F i r s t Bank c i t e proposition unjust that, enrichment, e i t h e r the two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o based actions applicable Univ. v. 1114, to 1118 such as (M.D. A l a . 2010) such rendering claims may claims of flowing court apply. 716 while for due other F. Auburn Supp. enrichment University care, 2d claims, of the clearly unjust-enrichment flowing from the a merely t e c h n i c a l l y c l e a r l y a r i s e from c o n t r a c t i n Auburn See from a b r e a c h l o y a l t y and o f s u b s t a n t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e on i n v a l i d contract, limitations ("[S]ome u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t injuries, as of Corp., f o r enrichment tort statute Machs. Bus. fiduciary duties from The six-year contract-based claims claims, the International corporate arise or tort- injuries."). observed that "Alabama s t a t e c o u r t s have n o t d e c i d e d w h e t h e r u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t claims are which tort claims or implied-contract claims, much l e s s s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i e s to such c l a i m s . " 2d a t 1117. Our research 716 F. s i m i l a r l y confirms that there d i s t i n c t absence of a u t h o r i t y d e f i n i t i v e l y s t a t i n g the 27 Supp. is a statute 1101535 of l i m i t a t i o n s need not, a p p l i c a b l e t o an u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m . however, d e c i d e that issue here. J e f f a r g u e s t h a t T r o y ' s e s t a t e was u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d time a payment on t h e m o r t g a g e came due a n d T r o y make t h a t payment. circumstances We a g r e e . alleged by 30-year p e r i o d 1 1 and t h a t each failed to As s e t o u t a b o v e , t h e r e a r e Jeff payments on t h e n o t e s e c u r e d We that could establish that b y t h e m o r t g a g e were due o v e r a the indebtedness and/or p r e m a t u r e l y r e l e a s e d . was f r a u d u l e n t l y Assuming t h a t J e f f s u c c e s s f u l l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h o s e f a c t s , payments on t h e n o t e r e m a i n due a t present and T r o y ' s e s t a t e c o n t i n u e s its alleged failure in favor of demonstrate Jeff, t o pay. we continuing which prevents t o be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d b y Therefore, conclude unjust that construing he enrichment h i s c l a i m from b e i n g barred may the facts be by Troy's able to estate, by a p p l i c a t i o n o f e v e n t h e t w o - y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s u r g e d b y Morgan a n d No p a r t y a r g u e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an a c c e l e r a t i o n c l a u s e o r t h e p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t o f s u c h a c l a u s e on T r o y ' s o b l i g a t i o n under t h e note. Regardless, h o w e v e r , "Alabama c a s e s have h i s t o r i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e o p t i o n a l a c c e l e r a t i o n c l a u s e t o be f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c r e d i t o r , a n d have h e l d t h a t t h e d e b t does n o t m a t u r e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s u n t i l t h e l a s t i n s t a l l m e n t i s due a n d u n p a i d . " W i l l i a m s , 497 So. 2d a t 482. 11 28 1101535 F i r s t Bank. Thus, t h e a l t e r n a t i v e g r o u n d i n c l u d e d i n Morgan's motion s i m i l a r l y dismissal w o u l d n o t have s u p p o r t e d t h e t r i a l of J e f f ' s unjust-enrichment claim court's against Troy's estate. D. "Money Had a n d R e c e i v e d " C l a i m s A g a i n s t J e f f ' s complaint asserted, a claim "enjoy[ment] repaying t h e same." "claims f o r ... commence a s u i t the Underwood, of the b e n e f i t of based a the 886 So. 2d a t 813. obligation Troy's without regard to plaintiff as soon as t h e d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e s imply on the loan had and r e c e i v e d , Estate Troy's e s t a t e , As m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , w i t h money circumstances County, s o l e l y against a l l e g i n g "money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d " alleged Troy's may money a n d to restore i t . " See a l s o R i c e v. T u s c a l o o s a 242 A l a . 62, 67, 4 So. 2d 497, 500 (1941) (holding t h a t , as t o a c l a i m o f money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d , "[the] r i g h t of a c t i o n accrues, immediately upon s i m i l a r holdings the date and t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s b e g i n s t o r u n , t h e payment" supporting citing t h e "many t h e v i e w t h a t t h e c l a i m a c c r u e d on t h e money was p a i d " B o n d i n g Co. o f B a l t i m o r e and f u r t h e r (emphasis v. F o u r t h American N a t ' l Bank o f Montgomery, 205 A l a . 652, 656, 88 So. 838, 842 (1921) 29 omitted)); ("Upon t h e r e c e i p t 1101535 of this money b y t h e bank an a c t i o n E s t e l l e Manegold barred f o r money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d , p a r t i e s c o r r e c t l y agree t h a t c l e a r l y seeks of said which a c t i o n i s i n s i x y e a r s from t h e date o f t h e a c c r u a l The which arose i n favor thereof."). this p a r t i c u l a r claim, " t h e r e c o v e r y o f money upon a l o a n , " i s a f f o r d e d a s i x - y e a r l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d under § 6-2-34(5), A l a . Code 1975. See a l s o J o h n s o n v. L i f e I n s . Co. o f A l a b a m a , 581 So. 2d 438, 443 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . Morgan a n d F i r s t Bank a r g u e , as to the money-had-and-received claim, both that "[t]here could be no c l e a r e r s t a r t i n g d a t e f o r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s ... than t h e d a t e o f t h e m o r t g a g e i n J a n u a r y o f 1988" a n d t h a t "the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s h o u l d have b e g i n [ s i c ] r u n n i n g on t h e f i r s t m i s s e d m o r t g a g e payment." 32, 33.) Under either theory, ( A p p e l l e e s ' b r i e f , a t pp. the applicable statute of l i m i t a t i o n s appears t o b a r J e f f ' s p r o s e c u t i o n of the claim f o r money i t s dismissal. had and Specifically, received assuming and justifies t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s began to r u n a t t h e date o f t h e mortgage, -- s i x years after Troy initially Thelma a n d James i n J a n u a r y 1988. the alleged facts w i l l i t e x p i r e d i n J a n u a r y 1994 received t h e money from A l t e r n a t i v e l y , given that not l o g i c a l l y 30 support the assumption 1101535 t h a t Troy continued of m a k i n g m o r t g a g e payments a f t e r t h e r e l e a s e the indebtedness contract-reliant, 2008 i n 2002, and because this claim i s not then the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s e x p i r e d i n -- s i x y e a r s a f t e r the release. w h i c h o f t h e two a l t e r n a t e t h e o r i e s w o u l d have r u n as t o t h i s Thus, i s applied, p a r t i c u l a r claim f i l i n g date of the u n d e r l y i n g regardless of the statute w e l l before the complaint. Conclusion In consideration of the foregoing, we 12(b)(6) d i s m i s s a l of J e f f ' s c l a i m against money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d representing a f f i r m the Rule Troy's e s t a t e f o r ( c o u n t IV) a n d t h e p o r t i o n o f c o u n t I I I J e f f ' s unjust-enrichment claim against estate. The trial remaining counts, court's however, judgment must be of dismissal reversed Harold's of the and t h e cause remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Malone, C . J . , and S t u a r t , P a r k e r , 31 and Wise, 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.
