The Pantry, Inc. v. Mosley
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.
Defendants The Pantry, Inc., and Herndon Oil Corporation appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Kaycee Mosley and Alana Byrd. The appeals primarily concerned whether Kaycee and Alana's mother, Murel Mosley, unreasonably withheld consent to Herndon Oil's assignment of a lease between Murel and Herndon Oil. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, concluding that Murel unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of the lease from Herndon Oil to The Pantry. Thus, Herndon Oil had the right under the lease agreement to assign the lease to The Pantry despite Murel's failure to consent. Furthermore, neither Herndon Oil nor The Pantry could be liable on a conversion claim.
Download PDF
Rel: 5/3/13 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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, 2012-2013 1110759 The Pantry, Inc. v. Kaycee A. Mosley and Alana M. Byrd 1110839 Herndon O i l C o r p o r a t i o n v. Kaycee A. Mosley and Alana M. Byrd Appeals from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-09-901320) Court 1110759, 1110839 BRYAN, Justice. The Pantry, Corporation Inc. ("Herndon ("The Pantry"), Oil"), the and Herndon defendants below, Oil appeal s e p a r a t e l y f r o m a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of K a y c e e A. plaintiffs Kaycee Mosley below. and ("Kaycee") and A l a n a M. These Alana's appeals mother, Byrd primarily Murel ("Alana"), concern Mosley whether ("Murel"), u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h e l d c o n s e n t t o Herndon O i l ' s assignment a lease between Murel j u d g m e n t and remand t h e and 1994, Murel Oil. We reverse the case. F a c t u a l Background In Herndon of and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y executed a l e a s e agreement i n which she l e a s e d t o Herndon O i l a g a s o l i n e s t a t i o n / c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e and the u n d e r l y i n g l o t l o c a t e d i n L o x l e y . the lease was for five years. The The original lease term agreement of gave Herndon O i l the o p t i o n of renewing the l e a s e e v e r y f i v e y e a r s , with a total of f i v e additional a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t M u r e l was in the term, five-year to receive rental amount o f $650 p e r month f o r t h e $800 p e r month f o r the first 2 terms. original renewed The lease payments five-year five-year term, 1110759, 1110839 $1,000 p e r month f o r t h e s e c o n d r e n e w e d f i v e - y e a r t e r m , per month month f o r the t h i r d f o r the f o u r t h month f o r the renewed five-year renewed f i v e - y e a r fifth renewed term, $1,200 per and $1,300 term, five-year $1,100 per term. The lease agreement c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n a d d r e s s i n g Herndon Oil's right to assign the l e a s e : "Herndon [ O i l ] shall be e n t i t l e d t o t r a n s f e r o r a s s i g n t h i s agreement w i t h t h e w r i t t e n consent of [ M u r e l ] , her h e i r s , e x e c u t o r s o r a s s i g n s [ ] (which s h a l l n o t be u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h e l d ) . " On J u n e 4, 2009, Herndon l e t t e r seeking her consent The l e t t e r Oil's attorney sent Murel a t o a s s i g n t h e l e a s e t o The P a n t r y . stated, i n pertinent part: "Herndon [ O i l ] has e n t e r e d i n t o an A s s e t Purchase Agreement t o [ s e l l a s s e t s r e g a r d i n g ] s e v e r a l c e r t a i n of i t s r e t a i l g a s o l i n e / c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e l o c a t i o n s t o The P a n t r y , I n c . ( t h e ' P a n t r y ' ) , a p u b l i c l y traded company that operates more than 1,400 convenience s t o r e s i n the southeastern U n i t e d S t a t e s u n d e r t h e t r a d e name ' K a n g a r o o E x p r e s s . ' One o f t h e Herndon [ O i l ] b u s i n e s s l o c a t i o n s b e i n g [ a s s i g n e d ] t o t h e P a n t r y i s t h e l o c a t i o n i t l e a s e s f r o m you a t US [ H i g h w a y ] 90 and E a s t U n i o n Avenue i n Loxley. Herndon [ O i l ] w i l l a s s i g n i t s i n t e r e s t i n t h e l e a s e to t h e P a n t r y , and t h e P a n t r y w i l l assume t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f Herndon [ O i l ] as o f t h e c l o s i n g d a t e . " I have e n c l o s e d an E s t o p p e l C e r t i f i c a t e and C o n s e n t f o r e x e c u t i o n by you as t h e l e s s o r u n d e r t h e existing lease. 3 1110759, 1110839 " I f you o r y o u r a t t o r n e y s have any comments o r q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e c o n t a c t me as soon as p o s s i b l e . T h i s t r a n s a c t i o n i s s c h e d u l e d t o c l o s e on June 25, 2009, [ a n d ] we w o u l d l i k e t o g e t t h i s certificate e x e c u t e d as s o o n as p o s s i b l e . "Beth P i e r c e , a l o c a l r e a l e s t a t e agent i n the M o b i l e a r e a , has w o r k e d w i t h H e r n d o n [ O i l ] f o r many y e a r s and i s a v a i l a b l e l o c a l l y t o p i c k up the document when i t i s s i g n e d . Ms. P i e r c e may be c o n t a c t e d at [ t h e f o l l o w i n g t e l e p h o n e number] " I t h a n k you i n a d v a n c e f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n prompt a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s m a t t e r . I f you have additional questions, please do n o t h e s i t a t e contact me." B e t h P i e r c e , Herndon O i l ' s r e a l - e s t a t e agent, a t t r i a l t h a t she v i s i t e d M u r e l ' s h o u s e , s e e k i n g her about the answered the assignment. d o o r and b e c a u s e she was was ill told and t h a t Pat Mosley Pat l e f t her contact her power o f attorney. Pierce t h a t , when no l e f t h e r b u s i n e s s c a r d on t h e d o o r . spoke w i t h M u r e l or Pat about the 4 unavailable Murel's son, t e s t i f i e d that asked her f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she h o u s e a s e c o n d t i m e and daughters, At the time, Murel Pierce b u s i n e s s c a r d w i t h K a y c e e and her. ("Pat"), testified t o speak w i t h of Murel's P i e r c e t h a t M u r e l was handling Murel's business a f f a i r s . given she K a y c e e , one and any to one t o have had she Pat went t o M u r e l ' s answered the door, P i e r c e never a c t u a l l y assignment. 1110759, 1110839 On June 25, 2009, H e r n d o n O i l a s s i g n e d t h e l e a s e t o The Pantry, without indicating that Murel's Murel, consent. Pat, or There their i s no evidence representative ever d i s c u s s e d t h e a s s i g n m e n t w i t h Herndon O i l o r The P a n t r y b e f o r e t h e a s s i g n m e n t was made. P i e r c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a s s i g n m e n t was p a r t o f a l a r g e r t r a n s a c t i o n b e t w e e n Herndon O i l and The Pantry in primarily which total O i l transferred f e e - s i m p l e ownership 40 c o n v e n i e n c e the Herndon i n t e r e s t s -- i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y s t o r e s t o The P a n t r y . t r a n s a c t i o n was i t s assets worth Pierce t e s t i f i e d "somewhere [around] that $40 m i l l i o n " b u t t h a t she d i d n o t know t h e s p e c i f i c v a l u e o f t h e assignment of Murel's M u r e l was On lease. At the time of the assignment, 83 y e a r s o l d . July 2, attorney a l e t t e r 2009, Murel's stating, attorney sent Herndon i n pertinent part: "The [ M o s l e y ] f a m i l y w i l l n o t c o n s e n t t o t h e sublease of t h e i r gasoline/convenience store i n L o x l e y , A l a b a m a t o The P a n t r y .... The m o n t h l y l e a s e amount i s n o t commensurate w i t h t h e f a i r m a r k e t value of l i k e p r o p e r t i e s i n the area. I f you w o u l d l i k e t o d i s c u s s a f a i r amount, p l e a s e c o n t a c t me immediately. "Meanwhile, The Pantry ... has, without a u t h o r i z a t i o n , moved i n t o t h e L o x l e y S t o r e and i s conducting business. This i s i n v i o l a t i o n of the Herndon [ O i l ] L e a s e . I f we a r e u n a b l e t o r e s o l v e 5 Oil's 1110759, 1110839 this file i s s u e a m i c a b l y , I w i l l have no c h o i c e b u t s u i t a g a i n s t H e r n d o n O i l and The Pantry to Herndon O i l never o b t a i n e d c o n s e n t t o the a s s i g n m e n t , t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t was Murel sued conversion. Pantry as Herndon Murel O i l , alleging later a d e f e n d a n t and and u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t . and her never r e n e g o t i a t e d . daughters, t o add I n November 2009, breach amended h e r of contract complaint claims to alleging and Alana, were i n October 2011. add and The conspiracy M u r e l d i e d w h i l e t h e c a s e was Kaycee and pending, substituted as plaintiffs. A jury primary trial i s s u e was consent to the trial was held At trial, w h e t h e r M u r e l had u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h e l d assignment of the lease. r e g a r d i n g Murel's concerns w i t h the Alana testified assignment: "Q. [ B y c o u n s e l f o r K a y c e e and A l a n a : ] D i d y o u r m o t h e r have c o n c e r n s a b o u t somebody t a k i n g o v e r f r o m Herndon [ O i l ] ? in up. "A. Y e s , she d i d , b e c a u s e she s a y s t h e y ' r e n o t lease t h e r e w i t h a l e a s e b e c a u s e t h e o t h e r l e a s e was "Q. Now, explain o t h e r l e a s e was up? that. What do you mean the "A. W e l l , the f i v e - y e a r l e a s e from Herndon O i l was up. And when [The] P a n t r y went i n , t h e y s h o u l d have had us t o r e n e g o t i a t e a n o t h e r l e a s e w i t h them b e c a u s e t h e y ' r e i n t h e r e w i t h no s i g n e d l e a s e . 6 the her at 1110759, 1110839 " "Q. D i d you e v e r have c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h y o u r m o t h e r a b o u t why she d i d n ' t o t h e r t h a n The P a n t r y d i d n ' t have a l e a s e , y o u j u s t t o l d us t h a t , a b o u t any other r e a s o n s t h a t she was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t somebody o t h e r t h a n Herndon [ O i l ] g o i n g i n t o t h i s store? "A. W e l l , she she t h o u g h t t h a t [Herndon O i l ] w a s n ' t g i v i n g h e r enough r e n t b e c a u s e some o t h e r p e o p l e had t o l d h e r t h e r e n t s a t t h e o t h e r s t a t i o n s were l o t s , l o t s h i g h e r t h a n h e r s . A n d she j u s t she d i d n ' t f e e l l i k e she was g e t t i n g t h e f a i r share." Pat affairs attorney testified around that 2003 i n 2003 or he b e g a n 2004. Murel's business he o b t a i n e d and t h a t handling Murel's power o f At trial, Pat t e s t i f i e d , pertinent part: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r t h e K a y c e e a n d A l a n a : ] A t some p o i n t , d i d y o u s e e documents t h a t y o u r m o t h e r r e c e i v e d v i a FedEx[, seeking her consent t o the a s s i g n m e n t ] ? ... "A. Y e s , s i r , I saw t h i s . ... "Q. A n d t h e d i d y o u a n d y o u r m o t h e r have an o c c a s i o n t o t a l k about whether o r n o t you w o u l d a g r e e t o have someone e l s e come i n on t h e l e a s e ? "A. Yes, s i r "Q. A n d what was t h e d e c i s i o n o f y o u r m o t h e r i n terms o f having t h e l e a s e assigned? was, "A. W e l l , we w a n t e d t o f i n d o u t who The f i r s t thing. 7 Pantry in 1110759, 1110839 "Q. Pantry? L e t me ask "A. No, Had you that: Did you know The dealings with The sir. "Q. Pantry? you "A. ever had any No, s i r , o n l y H e r n d o n [Oil]. " "Q. Were you a b l e t o f i n d o u t i f The P a n t r y an A l a b a m a company? "A. No, s i r , I d i d n ' t know who they was were. "Q. D i d you d i d t h a t g i v e you o r y o u r m o t h e r c o n c e r n s a b o u t s i g n i n g a l e a s e w i t h a company t h a t you d i d n o t know? "A. "Q. And t h e p e o p l e t h a t you d i d n o t know? "A. out Yes, sir. Yes, sir. "Q. D i d i t g i v e you c o n c e r n s o f s t a t e company i n v o l v e d ? about having an "A. Out o f s t a t e was n o t t h e p o i n t . We j u s t r e a l l y w a n t e d t o know who t h e y w e r e , you know, coming i n t o t h e p r o p e r t y . "Q. The d i d you a t t e m p t t o c o n t a c t e i t h e r y o u r s e l f or through your attorney? "A. I contacted you and you c o n t a c t e d " 8 them, them. 1110759, 1110839 "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r H e r n d o n O i l : ] W e l l , d i d you c o n t a c t W a l l e y H i n e s l e y , t h e a t t o r n e y who w r o t e t h e l e t t e r , as he r e q u e s t e d you do i f you had any questions? "A. No, s i r , I never contacted him. "Q. You n e v e r c o n t a c t e d him. D i d you make i n q u i r y as t o who t h e a s s i g n e e was. The P a n t r y , Kangaroo back then? "A. Only counsel]. when I contacted Mr. Riley[, any The Pat's " "Q. The P a n t r y i s a p u b l i c l y t r a d e d company. I t ' s on NASDAQ, has more t h a n a t h o u s a n d s t a t i o n s . I t ' s a much b i g g e r o p e r a t i o n t h a n a p r i v a t e l y h e l d o p e r a t i o n by D a v i d H e r n d o n . D i d you make any e f f o r t , e i t h e r by i n q u i r i n g f r o m H e r n d o n [ O i l ] o r The Pantry, or Google, or Yahoo, or your s t o c k b r o k e r , or the W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l , or any o t h e r o u t s i d e a g e n c y t o f i n d o u t who The P a n t r y was? "A. S i r , i t ' s n o t my t o come i n t o our p r o p e r t y . d e a l w i t h us. p l a c e when someone w a n t s I t ' s t h e i r p l a c e t o come " "Q. You h a v e n ' t h e a r d a n y t h i n g a b o u t The P a n t r y t h a t w o u l d make them u n d e s i r a b l e t e n a n t s , have you? "A. No, s i r . B u t I w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e someone c o m i n g t o o u r house and t a l k i n g t o us a b o u t them c o m i n g i n t h e r e so we w o u l d know t h a t we were g o i n g t o have good t e n a n t s . " Pat was also t e s t i f i e d unfair to Murel t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h e and that 9 he considered lease agreement Herndon Oil's 1110759, 1110839 assignment request as an o p p o r t u n i t y agreement. When H e r n d o n assignment, H e r n d o n O i l was rent. at O i l sought Murel's paying her consent that time was month $1,100 p e r the in some o t h e r area were p a y i n g and $4,960 gasoline month. Kaycee and Alana stations/convenience per month. testified larger and that Pierce, some o f different in that possibility in of renegotiate, Herndon and testified renegotiating "A. the as the consent f o r the "Q. t h a t you you, t h e 2004 he than had Oil Herndon those type renegotiating that stores in r e n t a l amounts o f b e t w e e n $2,000 p e r agent, indicated per property o v e r Herndon O i l ' s o b j e c t i o n , e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g that testified $4,000 lease to Pat o p i n e d t h a t the a c t u a l r e n t a l v a l u e of the introduced, Pat to r e n e g o t i a t e the properties Murel's property. approached the would lease lease when Pierce be never the were Pat about agreement. likely regarding agreement month real-estate other l e a s e a g r e e m e n t was follows Oil's unwilling to renegotiated. possibility Herndon Oil of sought [By c o u n s e l f o r H e r n d o n O i l : ] The f a c t i s wanted to n e g o t i a t e the c o n t r a c t , d i d n ' t lease? 10 the Pierce assignment: Yes, s i r . the 1110759, 1110839 "Q. You t e s t i f i e d i n y o u r p r e v i o u s deposition t h a t you h a d c o n t a c t e d t h e Herndon O i l Company more t h a n once t o g e t them t o r e v i s e t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t ; is that correct? "A. Y e s , s i r , t h a t was y e a r s earlier. "Q. Yeah. A n d i t seemed t o you t h a t this a s s i g n m e n t a g r e e m e n t was t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t you had b e e n l o o k i n g f o r t o g e t them t o r e w r i t e t h e l e a s e agreement; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? "A. I t was an o p p o r t u n i t y t o have my m o t h e r have some f a i r n e s s b e c a u s e t h e y t o o k a d v a n t a g e o f h e r e a r l i e r i n h e r l i f e t h a t I d i d n o t know a b o u t . I w o u l d n e v e r have l e t h e r s i g n t h a t l e a s e f o r what she s i g n e d i t f o r . "Q. ... [ T ] h i s w h o l e c a s e , t h e n , i s r e a l l y a b o u t a l e a s e t h a t you d i d n ' t l i k e f r o m t h e v e r y t i m e you saw i t , i s t h a t c o r r e c t , i n 2003? "A. The w h o l e c a s e i s . "Q. Yeah. "A. wrong. Taking up f o r my mother, who was done " "A. I w o u l d be happy t o t a l k t o The P a n t r y . I t ' s n o t t h a t I want t o r u n them o u t . I j u s t want t o t a l k t o The P a n t r y i n o r d e r t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h e lease. I w o u l d be happy t o t a l k t o anyone who w o u l d want t o come i n t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h a t l e a s e , s i r . I t i s I mean, t h a t i s n o t a q u e s t i o n o f d o i n g t h a t . I t ' s n o t I t h i n k The P a n t r y are bad people or a n y t h i n g , I j u s t t h i n k my m o t h e r g o t s c r e w e d o v e r . " Pat further t e s t i f i e d : 11 1110759, 1110839 "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r K a y c e e a n d A l a n a : ] I s money the o n l y reason t h a t your mother would n o t consent to t h e assignment? "A. No, s i r . She w a n t e d t o know who The P a n t r y was a l s o . I mean, money was "Q. Is that part of i t ? "A. P a r t o f i t , y e s . B u t she w a n t e d t o know who was g o i n g i n t o h e r p r o p e r t y a l s o . " The trial court entered a judgment as a m a t t e r ("JML") on t h e c o n s p i r a c y c l a i m , b u t t h e t r i a l the c l a i m s o f breach jury. 1 court o f c o n t r a c t and c o n v e r s i o n of law allowed t o go t o t h e The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t a g a i n s t H e r n d o n O i l on t h e breach-of-contract damages, conversion $620,000 and claim, against claim, awarding Herndon awarding $1 $70,280 O i l and The i n compensatory Pantry i n compensatory i n p u n i t i v e damages. The trial on t h e damages a n d court entered a The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a p p e a r t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on the unjust-enrichment c l a i m , and t h e j u r y d i d n o t r e t u r n a v e r d i c t on t h a t c l a i m . We n o t e t h a t , 1 " i f , i n a c a s e o f c l a i m s t o be t r i e d b y a j u r y , ... t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t o f r e c o r d f o r m a l l y r e s e r v e or sever a c l a i m f o r separate d i s p o s i t i o n , the o m i s s i o n o f t h a t c l a i m from t h e judgment a c t u a l l y e n t e r e d w i l l be deemed a j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f that c l a i m adverse t o the claimant." Alfa Life 2005) . I n s . C o r p . v. J a c k s o n , 12 906 So. 2d 143, 153 ( A l a . 1110759, 1110839 judgment on the jury verdict. Herndon filed a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f o r a JML a new trial trial court denied that motion. also filed punitive or to a l t e r , The Pantry or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , f o r amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t ; H e r n d o n O i l and The the Pantry a postjudgment motion seeking a r e m i t t i t u r of the damages and requesting F o l l o w i n g a hearing, the t r i a l remittitur. O i l and a hearing on their motion. court denied the motion f o r a H e r n d o n O i l and The Pantry appealed separately, and we c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e a p p e a l s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f w r i t i n g opinion. Standard of Review "When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d t h e t r i a l c o u r t u s e d i n i t i a l l y i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r deny the m o t i o n f o r a JML. Palm H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v. C r a w f o r d , 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1997) . Regarding q u e s t i o n s of f a c t , the u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s whether the nonmovant has p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h e c a s e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1992) . The nonmovant must have p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n order to w i t h s t a n d a motion f o r a JML. See § 12-21-12, A l a . Code 1975; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989). A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 So. 2d a t 1353. In r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t v i e w s t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and 13 one 1110759, 1110839 e n t e r t a i n s s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have been f r e e t o draw. Id. Regarding a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , h o w e v e r , t h i s C o u r t i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s ruling. R i c w i l , I n c . v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So. 2d 1126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " Waddell & Reed, I n c . v. U n i t e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e So. 2d 1143, 1152 I n s . Co., 8 75 ( A l a . 2003). Analysis On a p p e a l , Herndon O i l a r g u e s JML on t h a t i t was the b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t claim. As e n t i t l e d to a noted, the lease a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n H e r n d o n O i l and M u r e l r e q u i r e d H e r n d o n O i l to obtain Murel's written consent b e f o r e Herndon O i l could assign the lease. Herndon O i l d i d n o t o b t a i n M u r e l ' s to the assignment o f t h e l e a s e t o The P a n t r y . consent However, t h e l e a s e agreement a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t M u r e l ' s c o n s e n t " s h a l l not be u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h e l d . " breach consent the lease agreement t o the assignment unreasonably Herndon O i l argues t h a t i t d i d not by failing because, to obtain Murel's i t says, her consent was withheld. As t h e t e n a n t , H e r n d o n O i l h a d t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t Murel, the l a n d l o r d , acted unreasonably i n w i t h h o l d i n g consent to the assignment. 318-19 R o w l e y v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , 676 So. 2d 316, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) ("A 14 t e n a n t has the burden of 1110759, 1110839 proving t h a t the l a n d l o r d acted consent to landlord's judged an standard. assignment."). failure in with 676 So. 2d a t 318 So. 2d 1035, In a r g u i n g The reasonableness a ( c i t i n g Homa-Goff I n t e r i o r s , I n c . 1038 (Ala. 1977)). t h a t Murel unreasonably w i t h h e l d her consent was withheld b e l i e f t h a t t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t was be r e n e g o t i a t e d . who a commercial-reasonableness t o t h e a s s i g n m e n t , Herndon O i l f o c u s e s on e v i d e n c e that Murel's of t o c o n s e n t t o an a s s i g n m e n t o f a l e a s e i s accordance v. Cowden, 350 unreasonably i n withholding consent indicating i n l a r g e p a r t based on a u n f a i r and t h a t i t s h o u l d C e r t a i n l y , the evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t Pat, had M u r e l ' s power o f a t t o r n e y , c o n s i d e r e d the request f o r c o n s e n t t o t h e a s s i g n m e n t as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h e l e a s e agreement. Pat "Q. t h a t you you, t h e "A. testified: [By c o u n s e l f o r H e r n d o n O i l : ] The f a c t i s wanted t o n e g o t i a t e the c o n t r a c t , d i d n ' t lease? Yes, s i r . " "Q. ... [ I ] t seemed t o you t h a t t h i s a s s i g n m e n t a g r e e m e n t was t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t you had b e e n looking f o r t o g e t them t o r e w r i t e t h e lease agreement; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? 15 1110759, 1110839 "A. I t was an o p p o r t u n i t y t o have my m o t h e r have some f a i r n e s s b e c a u s e t h e y t o o k a d v a n t a g e o f h e r e a r l i e r i n h e r l i f e t h a t I d i d n o t know a b o u t . I w o u l d n e v e r have l e t h e r s i g n t h a t l e a s e f o r what she s i g n e d i t f o r . "Q. ... [ T ] h i s w h o l e c a s e , t h e n , i s really a b o u t a l e a s e t h a t you d i d n ' t l i k e f r o m t h e v e r y t i m e you saw i t , i s t h a t c o r r e c t , i n 2003? "A. The w h o l e c a s e i s . " "A. I w o u l d be happy t o t a l k t o The P a n t r y . I t ' s n o t t h a t I want t o r u n them o u t . I j u s t want t o t a l k t o The P a n t r y i n o r d e r t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h e lease. I w o u l d be happy t o t a l k t o anyone who w o u l d want t o come i n t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h a t l e a s e " Similarly, the proposed Alana testified assignment: about M u r e l ' s "[S]he thought that concerns with [Herndon O i l ] w a s n ' t g i v i n g h e r enough r e n t b e c a u s e some o t h e r p e o p l e had told lots, her the rents higher than hers. at the other A n d she j u s t s t a t i o n s were she d i d n ' t feel was g e t t i n g t h e f a i r s h a r e . " That p o s i t i o n i s a l s o in Murel's the July 2, 2009, letter attorney lots l i k e she reflected sent Herndon O i l ' s attorney, s t a t i n g t h a t consent t o the assignment of the lease would renegotiated. n o t be g r a n t e d That letter unless stated, the lease agreement i n pertinent part: m o n t h l y l e a s e amount i s n o t commensurate w i t h t h e f a i r 16 was "The market 1110759, 1110839 value of l i k e discuss properties a fair amount, p l e a s e Alabama a p p e l l a t e the specific issue whether to extract agreement. area. contact courts r e f u s i n g c o n s e n t t o an may i n the I f you me landlord have n o t acts assignment i n order a higher However, rent than several addressed reasonably t h a t the called for other in landlord lease jurisdictions have withhold c o n s e n t t o an a s s i g n m e n t o f a l e a s e o r t o a s u b l e a s e i n the improve l a n d l o r d may the authority w h i c h we has now charge landlord's a higher economic s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d the by the concluded that i t i s unreasonable for a l a n d l o r d to that to immediately." apparently a would l i k e rent or position. r u l e and order otherwise One to leading i t s rationale, adopt: " I t i s ... u n r e a s o n a b l e t o deny c o n s e n t i n o r d e r t h a t t h e l a n d l o r d may charge a higher rent than o r i g i n a l l y c o n t r a c t e d f o r , s i n c e the l e s s o r ' s d e s i r e f o r a b e t t e r b a r g a i n t h a n c o n t r a c t e d f o r has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e p e r m i s s i b l e p u r p o s e s o f t h e r e s t r a i n t on a l i e n a t i o n , t h a t i s , t o p r o t e c t t h e lessor's i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e performance of the l e a s e covenants." 29 R i c h a r d ( 4 t h ed. A. Lord, 2003) . See, W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s e.g., 2 § 74:22 a t N o r v i l l e v. C a r r - G o t t s t e i n 379-80 Foods Some o f t h e c a s e s t h a t f o l l o w c o n c e r n an a s s i g n m e n t , some c o n c e r n a s u b l e a s e . 2 17 and 1110759, 1110839 Co., for 84 P.3d 996, ( A l a s k a 2004) ("It i s not a l a n d l o r d t o deny c o n s e n t i n o r d e r rent than Westdahl, 1985) he 148 ("A because the Ernest Pestana, reasonable Ariz. 432, contracted 438, 715 refusal to existing lease is (stating the that i t was 294 higher (Ct. an low rent v. App. assignment provided Kendall Cal. Rptr. not a Campbell to unreasonable."); 220 reasonable charge 288, consent I n c . , 40 C a l . 3d 488, (1985) to for."); P.2d l a n d l o r d i s unhappy w i t h the 837 originally landlord's under P.2d 1001 818, v. 709 commercially f o r a l a n d l o r d t o deny c o n s e n t i n o r d e r that the " I n g e n e r a l t e r m s , t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n an a s s i g n m e n t and a s u b l e a s e i s t h a t an a s s i g n m e n t transfers the lessee's entire interest in the property, whereas a s u b l e a s e transfers only a p o r t i o n of t h a t i n t e r e s t , w i t h the o r i g i n a l l e s s e e r e t a i n i n g a r i g h t o f r e e n t r y a t some p o i n t d u r i n g the u n e x p i r e d term of the l e a s e . "...[W]hether the tenant's t r a n s f e r of his l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s t c o n s t i t u t e s an a s s i g n m e n t o r a s u b l e a s e i s n o t l e g a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t as t o w h e t h e r the l a n d l o r d a c t s ' u n r e a s o n a b l y ' i n r e f u s i n g t o consent " 69 Am. J u r . P r o o f o f F a c t s 3d 191, C i r c u m s t a n c e s E s t a b l i s h i n g Landlord's Unreasonable W i t h h o l d i n g of Consent t o Assignment o r S u b l e a s e § 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . See, e.g., K e n d a l l v. E r n e s t P e s t a n a , I n c . , 40 C a l . 3d 488, 493 n.2, 220 C a l . R p t r . 818, 820 n.2, 709 P.2d 837, 839 n.2 (1985) ( " S i n c e t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i n v o l v e s an a s s i g n m e n t r a t h e r t h a n a s u b l e a s e , we w i l l speak p r i m a r i l y i n terms of a s s i g n m e n t s . However, our holding applies equally to subleases."). 18 1110759, 1110839 l a n d l o r d may for); 485 1010 A.2d charge a h i g h e r r e n t than o r i g i n a l l y c o n t r a c t e d Potomac A s s o c s . v. G r o c e r y M f r s . o f A m e r i c a , I n c . , 199, 210 (D.C. 1984) ("[I]t i s unreasonable for a l a n d l o r d to w i t h h o l d consent to a sublease s o l e l y to e x t r a c t an e c o n o m i c Fernandez App. c o n c e s s i o n or t o improve i t s economic v. V a z q u e z , 1981) taste, 397 So. 2d 1171, 1174 position."); (Fla. Dist. Ct. ("Denying c o n s e n t s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s o f p e r s o n a l convenience l a n d l o r d may or sensibility or in order that the charge a h i g h e r r e n t than o r i g i n a l l y c o n t r a c t e d f o r have b e e n h e l d a r b i t r a r y r e a s o n s f a i l i n g t h e t e s t s o f good f a i t h and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s u n d e r Funk, 102 Idaho 521, 524, desirable public policy commercial 633 P.2d 586, leases."); 589 (1981) i s s e r v e d by u p h o l d i n g a Funk v. ("[N]o landlord's a r b i t r a r y r e f u s a l o f c o n s e n t ... where ... i t i s a p p a r e n t the refusal to consent was withheld for purely that financial r e a s o n s and t h a t t h e l a n d l o r d w a n t e d t h e l e s s e e s t o e n t e r i n t o an entirely financial Nance, 894 new lease benefits agreement w i t h substantial to the landlord."); D.L. S.W.2d 258, 260 (Mo. 1995) C t . App. Dev., increased Inc. (stating v. that a l a n d l o r d ' s c o n d i t i o n i n g c o n s e n t t o a p r o p o s e d s u b l e a s e on a renegotiation of the lease was 19 unreasonable because i t 1110759, 1110839 e s s e n t i a l l y amounted t o " h o l d i n g t h e consent t o the sublease h o s t a g e f o r t h e ransom o f r e n e g o t i a t i n g t h e l e a s e " ) ; Economy Rentals, Inc. v. G a r c i a , 112 N.M. 748, 819 P.2d 1306 (1991) (stating that a landlord's was r e f u s i n g t o consent t o a sublease u n r e a s o n a b l e where t h e l a n d l o r d ' s increase First the landlord's economic real motivation benefit from was t o the lease); A m e r i c a n Bank o f N a s h v i l l e , N.A. v . Woods, 781 S.W.2d 588, 590 (Tenn. C t . App. 1989) ( s t a t i n g d e s i r e t o e x t r a c t an e c o n o m i c c o n c e s s i o n considered consent); by a l a n d l o r d i n determining a n d Morgan P r o d s . , L t d . that a landlord's may n o t be r e a s o n a b l y whether t o w i t h h o l d v. Park P l a z a o f Oshkosh, Inc., 229 W i s . 2 d 2 3 1 , 239, 598 N.W.2d 626, 630 ( C t . App. 1999) ("[I]t i s not commercially reasonable i f the sole for basis a c o n s e n t d e n i a l i s so t h a t a l a n d l o r d can charge a h i g h e r rent than t h e c o n t r a c t rent."). 3 A l t h o u g h Alabama has n o t d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d the p r e s e n t e d here, t h i s Court has s t a t e d : 3 question " ' " ' " T h e r e i s an i m p l i e d c o v e n a n t t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y s h a l l do a n y t h i n g w h i c h w i l l have t h e e f f e c t of d e s t r o y i n g o r i n j u r i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h e other p a r t y t o r e c e i v e t h e f r u i t s o f t h e c o n t r a c t ; ... i n e v e r y c o n t r a c t t h e r e e x i s t s an i m p l i e d c o v e n a n t o f good f a i t h a n d f a i r d e a l i n g . " ' " ( q u o t i n g S e l l e r s v . Head, 261 A l a . 212, 73 So. 2d 747, 751 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ) [ ] . See a l s o R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f C o n t r a c t s § 205 (1981) ("Every c o n t r a c t i m p o s e s upon e a c h p a r t y a 20 1110759, 1110839 Accordingly, we conclude landlord to withhold order that the contracted for c o n s e n t t o an landlord in the the covenants, not position. Pat's with supra. Alana withheld, Rowley, had the renegotiate and proprietor, she the i n the supra. the purpose of interest performance of the general agreement consent to the that Murel's that this the l a n d l o r d , the City in a in lease economic was and not a assignment. consent case tenant, a than landlord's lease Rowley, f o u n d someone w i l l i n g The rent Thus, i n t h i s c a s e , M u r e l ' s contending i n f o r m e d the higher landlord's argue In for assignment of a l e a s e agreement. ground f o r w i t h h o l d i n g Kaycee reasonably to and i t i s unreasonable extract protect protect Williston, desire reasonable property to may lease consent p r o v i s i o n i s to preserving that i s on a was point restaurant of M o b i l e , that t o a c c e p t an a s s i g n m e n t o f her duty of good faith and fair dealing in i t s p e r f o r m a n c e and i t s enforcement.").' H u n t e r v. W i l s h i r e C r e d i t C o r p . , 927 So. 2d 810, 813 n.5 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g L l o y d N o l a n d Found., I n c . v. C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d Healthcare A u t h . , 837 So. 2d 253, 267 (Ala. 2002))." Shoney's LLC 2009) . v. MAC East, LLC, 27 So. 21 3d 1216, 1220 n.5 (Ala. 1110759, 1110839 lease. 676 identified So. the 2d at potential 318. However, assignee and the never l a n d l o r d w i t h a p r o p o s a l f o r the assignment. the tenant never presented The t e n a n t s u e d l a n d l o r d , a l l e g i n g t h a t i t had b r e a c h e d the l e a s e c o n t r a c t by u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h o l d i n g i t s c o n s e n t t o t h e a s s i g n m e n t the lease. The Court of C i v i l Appeals l a n d l o r d ' s w i t h h o l d i n g o f i t s c o n s e n t was t h a t the tenant " d i d not p r o v i d e the of, the concluded [ l a n d l o r d ] w i t h t h e name 676 320. The Court of C i v i l Appeals i n Rowley e x p l a i n e d : " [ B ] e c a u s e we b e l i e v e a l a n d l o r d c a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o c o n s e n t t o an a s s i g n m e n t o f a l e a s e without knowing the identity of, and having p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t , a p r o p o s e d a s s i g n e e , we think the b e t t e r reasoned decisions are those holding that a landlord does n o t unreasonably withhold consent to an assignment unless the landlord i s presented with and r e j e c t s a p r o s p e c t i v e a s s i g n e e who i s r e a d y t o assume t h e lease and who meets commercially reasonable standards. "'[A] c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o t h e l e s s o r ' s duty to accept a sublessee i s the tender to h i m o f a s u i t a b l e t e n a n t as a s u b l e s s e e . Thus, b e f o r e t h e [ l e s s o r s ] c o u l d p o s s i b l y be h e l d l i a b l e f o r f a i l u r e t o c o n s e n t t o a t r a n s f e r of the l e a s e , the [ l e s s e e ] had the b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t i t had t e n d e r e d a p e r s o n who was " r e a d y , w i l l i n g and a b l e " t o 22 the reasonable, s t a t i n g o r any i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t , a p r o p o s e d a s s i g n e e . " 2d a t that of So. 1110759, 1110839 t a k e o v e r t h e l e a s e and who, least, met reasonable standards.' at the very commercial " J a c k F r o s t S a l e s , I n c . v. H a r r i s T r u s t & Sav. Bank, 104 I l l . App. 3d [933] a t 944, 60 I l l . Dec. [703] a t 711, 433 N.E.2d [941] a t 949 [ ( 1 9 8 2 ) ] (citations omitted)." 676 So. 2d a t 319-20. This Rowley. case, however, In Rowley, i s factually the tenant d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from never p r o v i d e d the l a n d l o r d w i t h t h e i d e n t i t y o f , o r any i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t , t h e p r o p o s e d assignee. reasonable Thus, t h e l a n d l o r d ' s w i t h h o l d i n g o f i t s c o n s e n t was i n t h a t case. Conversely, O i l sent a l e t t e r t o Murel i n d i c a t i n g the lease to publicly-traded The Pantry, company in this i n the operates convenience stores i n the southeastern t r a d e name 'Kangaroo E x p r e s s . ' " Herndon i t s intention to assign described that case, letter more as than "a 1,400 U n i t e d S t a t e s under the Thus, t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e l a n d l o r d ' s w i t h h o l d i n g i t s consent i n Rowley i s not p r e s e n t i n this case. We r e c o g n i z e t h a t P a t t e s t i f i e d t h a t c o n s e n t was withheld n o t o n l y b e c a u s e he w a n t e d t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t , but a l s o b e c a u s e he Pantry was." and M u r e l "wanted Pat t e s t i f i e d t h a t 23 he to find "didn't o u t who know who The [The 1110759, 1110839 Pantry was]," t h a t "we r e a l l y w a n t e d t o know who t h e y were," and t h a t he " w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e someone c o m i n g t o o u r h o u s e and t a l k i n g t o us a b o u t them c o m i n g i n t h e r e so we w o u l d know t h a t we were g o i n g t o have good t e n a n t s . " t e n a n t has the the burden landlord person lease who of p r o v i d i n g s u f f i c i e n t indicating that "ready, willing was and who, standards.'" the tenant and at the very l e a s t , 676 So. 2d a t 320 I n c . v. H a r r i s T r u s t & Sav. met a information to "'had to tendered take reasonable (quoting Jack over Ill. App. 433 N.E.2d 941, 949 (1982)). the commercial Frost Bank, 104 a Sales, 3d 933, 944, Dec. in this c a s e , H e r n d o n O i l more t h a n once a t t e m p t e d t o engage and Pat avail. 711, able" that 60 I l l . Murel 703, Rowley s t a t e s r e g a r d i n g the proposed Furthermore, successful, in this even i f assignment, those attempts P a n t r y was There he had undesirable not to had no been heard tenant, that would have i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t unable to accept the assignment meet r e a s o n a b l e c o m m e r c i a l that but c a s e any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o M u r e l and P a t r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p o s e d a s s i g n m e n t made no d i f f e r e n c e . However, standards. anything he about "would 24 be or t h a t i t d i d not In f a c t , Pat The The Pantry testified being happy t o t a l k to an The 1110759, 1110839 Pantry to renegotiate [ t h a t he] t h i n k s The the Pantry l e a s e , " and are bad that people." Had "[i]t's Herndon O i l p r o v i d e d M u r e l and P a t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t The before the have a l l e v i a t e d M u r e l ' s and P a t ' s o v e r r i d i n g c o n c e r n t h a t t h e lease was unfair conceded at t r i a l , about. that and information should be as we have which to w i t h h o l d consent to the Thus, H e r n d o n O i l had assign the the consent. lease lease the to The Therefore, lease. consent f r o m Herndon O i l t o The Pantry Herndon despite Oil did to g r o u n d on assignment of the r i g h t under the Pat desire not a reasonable conclude that Murel unreasonably withheld assignment of the As "whole c a s e " i s concluded, r e n e g o t i a t e t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t was the renegotiated. t h a t c o n c e r n i s what t h i s However, We would Pantry not agreement assignment, not to Pantry. l e a s e agreement t o Murel's not breach failure the to lease a g r e e m e n t , and we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t H e r n d o n O i l on t h e b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t Herndon O i l and entitled to them. agree. We conversion a as JML The on We the the claim. Pantry also conversion argue they were brought against n o t e i n i t i a l l y t h a t "Alabama l a w defines exercise of 25 claim that dominion of another over 1110759, 1110839 personal property to the owner's r i g h t . " So. 2d 1103, Davis 1107 e x c l u s i o n of or i n d e f i a n c e v. H u n t s v i l l e P r o d . ( A l a . 1985) M i c h a e l L. R o b e r t s and of the C r e d i t Ass'n, 481 (emphasis added). G r e g o r y S. See Cusimano, Alabama T o r t § 29.01 ( 5 t h ed. 2010) (stating that conversion " i s a taking or detention wrongful or for the taking of p e r s o n a l 805 illegal another's action for conversion w i l l t a k i n g of r e a l p r o p e r t y real property." 2d 801, "An property ... nor w i l l t h a t has ( A l a . 1991). The not l i e i t l i e for been i n c o r p o r a t e d B a x t e r v. S o u t h T r u s t alleged the leased conversion wrongful premises assignment P a n t r y ; t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e unincorporated into the of the into Bank o f D o t h a n , 584 in this Herndon So. c l a i m appears to b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t H e r n d o n O i l and The "converted" Law wrongful interference, a s s u m p t i o n o f o w n e r s h i p o r i l l e g a l use o r m i s u s e o f personal property"). also 1 case Oil's be Pantry through lease to the The indicating that personal property real property was converted. 4 Even a s s u m i n g , w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , t h a t an a s s i g n m e n t c o u l d g i v e r i s e to a "conversion" in this way, the conversion claim fails; T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t " i f you f i n d t h a t t h e r e was no b r e a c h o f t h e c o n t r a c t by H e r n d o n O i l ... , t h e n t h e P l a i n t i f f [ s ] h a [ v e ] no r i g h t to r e c o v e r under the c l a i m of c o n v e r s i o n . " 4 26 1110759, 1110839 b e c a u s e Herndon O i l h a d t h e r i g h t u n d e r t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t t o assign t h e l e a s e t o The P a n t r y a n d The P a n t r y r i g h t t o occupy and use t h e p r e m i s e s , The P a n t r y c o u l d be l i a b l e thus had t h e n e i t h e r Herndon O i l n o r f o r conversion. A c c o r d i n g l y , we a l s o r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t H e r n d o n O i l a n d The P a n t r y on t h e c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t entered a g a i n s t Herndon O i l a n d The P a n t r y , a n d we remand t h e c a s e f o r proceedings reversing consistent with the trial this court's opinion. judgment, B e c a u s e we a r e we pretermit c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e o t h e r a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d b y Herndon O i l a n d The Pantry. 1110759 Moore, REVERSED AND REMANDED. C . J . , and S t u a r t , B o l i n , Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Wise, J J . , concur. 1110839 REVERSED AND REMANDED. S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Murdock, Shaw, M a i n , a n d W i s e , J J . , concur. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 27
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.
