SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Eagerton
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.
Fred and Nancy Eagerton petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to enter a judgment as a matter of law in their favor and against SE Property Holdings, LLC, consistent with the Court's mandate in "Eagerton v. Vision Bank," (99 So. 3d 299 (Ala. 2012)). SE Property Holdings, LLC, is the successor by merger to Vision Bank. The underlying suit arose from a loan that the Eagertons personally guaranteed, secured by a mortgage on property within the Rock Creek Tennis Club in Fairhope. The bank declared the original and second loans in default and accelerated balances due under both. The bank sued the primary obligor, and the Eagertons as person guarantors on one of the original loans. The primary obligor declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The reorganization plan consolidated the two loans. The obligor eventually defaulted on the terms of the reorganization plan. The bankruptcy was dismissed, the property foreclosed, and the money obtained in the foreclosure sale was applied to the consolidated loan. The Eagertons argued that the Chapter 11 reorganization of the debts of primary obligor (the consolidation of the original loan with the second loan), created a new indebtedness not encompassed by their guaranty contracts. The Eagertons therefore argued that the creation of this new indebtedness, without their knowledge or consent, operated to discharge them from any further obligations under their guaranty contracts. The bank, on the other hand, argued, among other things, that the consolidated loan was a replacement note contemplated by the guaranty contracts and that the Eagertons had waived the material-modification defense. The Supreme Court in "Eagerton v. Vision Bank" concluded that the Eagertons' guaranty contracts were unambiguous; that based on the language in the guaranty contracts the Eagertons did not intend to guarantee any indebtedness other than that indebtedness arising out of the original loan and any extensions, renewals, or replacements thereof; and that, once the Eagertons' original loan was modified pursuant to the Chapter 11 reorganization of Dotson 10s, the Eagertons were at that point discharged from any further obligations under their guaranty contracts. Because the circuit court did not follow the mandate in the Court's prior decision in "Vision Bank," the Supreme Court granted the Eagertons' petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
REL:05/17/2013 N o t i c e : This 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 before p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120394 Ex p a r t e Fred G. Eagerton and Nancy Eagerton PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Fred G. Eagerton e t a l . ) (Baldwin C i r c u i t BOLIN, Court, CV-2009-900564) Justice. Fred G. E a g e r t o n a n d Nancy E a g e r t o n p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e B a l d w i n this Court C i r c u i t Court t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n t h e i r f a v o r a n d a g a i n s t 1120394 SE Property mandate in Holdings, Eagerton 2012) ( " E a g e r t o n LLC, v. I"). consistent Vision SE Bank, Property s u c c e s s o r by m e r g e r t o V i s i o n Bank. V i s i o n Bank a n d / o r SE We grant the in 99 So. Holdings, We this 3d 299 LLC, Court's (Ala. is hereinafter refer P r o p e r t y H o l d i n g s , LLC, the to as " t h e b a n k . " petition. I. The with F a c t s and Procedural History u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s of t h i s case are r e c i t e d i n f u l l i n Eagerton I: "Dotson 10s, LLC, i s an Alabama limited liability company o r g a n i z e d t o o p e r a t e t h e R o c k C r e e k T e n n i s C l u b l o c a t e d a t 142 C l u b h o u s e D r i v e i n F a i r h o p e . J o h n W. D o t s o n , J r . , and E l i z a b e t h E. Dotson ( h e r e i n a f t e r sometimes c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as ' t h e D o t s o n s ' ) a r e t h e s o l e members o f D o t s o n 10s. "On December 9, 2007, D o t s o n 10s e x e c u t e d a ' M u l t i p u r p o s e N o t e and S e c u r i t y A g r e e m e n t ' w i t h t h e b a n k i n t h e amount o f $550,677.53 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as ' t h e o r i g i n a l l o a n ' ) ; t h e m a t u r i t y d a t e o f t h e o r i g i n a l l o a n was December 9, 2010. I n conjunction with the original loan, the bank o b t a i n e d u n l i m i t e d p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t i e s from both J o h n W. D o t s o n , J r . , and E l i z a b e t h E. D o t s o n . The bank a l s o o b t a i n e d l i m i t e d p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t i e s from both F r e d G. Eagerton and Nancy E a g e r t o n ; the Eagertons are E l i z a b e t h Dotson's parents. The o r i g i n a l l o a n was s e c u r e d by a m o r t g a g e on t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d a t 142 C l u b h o u s e D r i v e ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as ' t h e f i r s t m o r t g a g e ' ) . 2 1120394 "On December 11, 2008, D o t s o n 10s e x e c u t e d a subsequent 'Multipurpose Note and Security Agreement' with the bank in the amount of $ 2 2 2 , 5 1 3 . 5 6 ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as ' t h e s e c o n d l o a n ' ) ; t h i s l o a n i s i d e n t i f i e d by t h e bank as l o a n number 302669. The s e c o n d l o a n was g u a r a n t e e d s o l e l y by t h e D o t s o n s ; t h e E a g e r t o n s n e i t h e r were p a r t i e s t o the t r a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g the second l o a n , nor did they execute personal guaranties for the r e p a y m e n t o f t h e s e c o n d l o a n . The s e c o n d l o a n was s e c u r e d by what i s t i t l e d a '2nd Real Estate M o r t g a g e ' on t h e same r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d a t 142 Clubhouse Drive ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as 'the second mortgage'). " I n A p r i l 2009, t h e bank d e c l a r e d t h e o r i g i n a l l o a n and t h e s e c o n d l o a n i n d e f a u l t and a c c e l e r a t e d t h e b a l a n c e s due u n d e r b o t h l o a n s ; D o t s o n 10s f a i l e d to pay the balances. The bank filed a breach-of-contract a c t i o n i n the B a l d w i n Circuit C o u r t a g a i n s t D o t s o n 10s, as t h e p r i m a r y o b l i g o r o f t h e o r i g i n a l l o a n and t h e s e c o n d l o a n ; t h e D o t s o n s , as p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t o r s o f t h e o r i g i n a l l o a n and t h e second loan; and the Eagertons, as personal g u a r a n t o r s of the o r i g i n a l l o a n . "On May 28, 2009, D o t s o n 10s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the B a n k r u p t c y Code i n t h e U n i t e d States Bankruptcy C o u r t f o r the S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t of Alabama ('the b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t ' ) . On A u g u s t 25, 2009, D o t s o n 10s f i l e d w i t h the b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t i t s proposed Chapter 11 p l a n o f r e o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h i c h p r o v i d e d , i n p a r t , t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l l o a n and t h e s e c o n d l o a n w o u l d be combined (hereinafter referred to as 'the c o n s o l i d a t e d l o a n ' ) and p a i d i n f u l l . The p r o p o s e d plan states, i n pertinent part: "'This class consists of the Allowed S e c u r e d C l a i m o f V i s i o n Bank, w h i c h c l a i m i s s e c u r e d by 6.5 a c r e p a r c e l where t h e c l u b h o u s e , t e n n i s c o u r t s and swimming p o o l 3 1120394 e x i s t . The two n o t e s c o m p r i s i n g t h i s c l a i m and t o t a l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $823,411 w i l l be c o m b i n e d and p a i d a t 6% i n e q u a l m o n t h l y i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $5,900 b e g i n n i n g 30 d a y s a f t e r c o n f i r m a t i o n . The n o t e s w i l l be p a i d i n f u l l w i t h i n 240 m o n t h s . . . . V i s i o n Bank will retain i t s lien on the subject p r o p e r t y u n t i l the debt i s p a i d i n f u l l . ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) "On December 1, 2009, t h e b a n k r u p t c y court conducted a confirmation hearing regarding the proposed reorganization plan; t h e D o t s o n s and c e r t a i n b a n k r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were p r e s e n t a t t h a t hearing. Before the hearing, the bank representatives negotiated a d d i t i o n a l terms t h a t were f a v o r a b l e t o t h e bank. On December 10, 2009, t h e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r c o n f i r m i n g t h e plan of r e o r g a n i z a t i o n , as amended. The order states, i n pertinent part: "'(2) The s e c u r e d c l a i m o f V i s i o n Bank i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be $795,908.84 as o f December 1, 2 0 0 9 ; (3) [ D o t s o n 1 0 s ] s h a l l p a y t h e secured c l a i m t o V i s i o n Bank i n e q u a l m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s o f $6,172.64 p e r month beginning J a n u a r y 1, 2010. I n t e r e s t i s c a l c u l a t e d a t 7% p e r annum. The d e b t t o V i s i o n Bank s h a l l m a t u r e and become f u l l y due and p a y a b l e on J a n u a r y 1, 2 0 1 2 ; (4) [ D o t s o n 1 0 s ] s h a l l have no g r a c e p e r i o d . I f any payment i s n o t p a i d on o r b e f o r e t h e due date, the automatic stay shall t e r m i n a t e and V i s i o n Bank i s a u t h o r i z e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y f o r e c l o s e i t s mortgage w i t h o u t f u r t h e r order of t h i s Court....' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) The bank t h e r e a f t e r a s s i g n e d new l o a n number t o t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d l o a n . 4 a 1120394 " I n M a r c h 2010, D o t s o n s 10s d e f a u l t e d u n d e r t h e nt b a n k r u p t c y p l a n , and t h e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t ee n teerreed an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e b a n k r u p t c y a c t i o n . On May 12, 2010, t h e bank c o n d u c t e d a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e o f t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y pursuant to the bankruptcy c o u r t ' s o r d e r s e t o u t a b o v e . The bank p u r c h a s e d t h e r e a l property f o r $600,000 and a p p l i e d the proceeds e n t i r e l y to the c o n s o l i d a t e d l o a n . "On J u l y 15, 2010, the Baldwin C i r c u i t Court ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as 'the t r i a l c o u r t ' ) , i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t f i l e d by t h e bank, e n t e r e d a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b a n k a g a i n s t D o t s o n 10s b u t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n as t o t h e E a g e r t o n s . The bank, t h e r e a f t e r , f i l e d a n o t h e r m o t i o n f o r a ' f i n a l p a r t i a l summary judgment' a g a i n s t the E a g e r t o n s , a r g u i n g t h a t the E a g e r t o n s were r e s p o n s i b l e u n d e r t h e i r guaranty contracts f o r the d e f i c i e n c y remaining on the consolidated loan after allocation of the f o r e c l o s u r e proceeds to t h a t l o a n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the bank argued that because the original loan r e p r e s e n t e d 71.07% of the c o n s o l i d a t e d l o a n , the E a g e r t o n s s h o u l d be l i a b l e f o r 7 1 . 0 7 % o f t h e b a l a n c e r e m a i n i n g on t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d l o a n a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d s , as w e l l as 100% o f t h e i n t e r e s t , a t t o r n e y f e e s , e t c . The E a g e r t o n s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as w e l l , a r g u i n g as a d e f e n s e a m a t e r i a l a l t e r a t i o n of t h e i r guaranty c o n t r a c t s . On May 24, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a p p a r e n t l y r e l y i n g on t h e b a n k ' s p r o r a t a t h e o r y , e n t e r e d a p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e bank and a g a i n s t t h e E a g e r t o n s i n t h e amount o f $208,906.40. The t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e d i t s j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t to Rule 54(b), A l a . R. Civ. P., specifically r e s e r v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n to determine at a l a t e r date t h e a p p r o p r i a t e amount o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s owed t o t h e bank, i f any, r e l a t i n g t o i t s c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t s . The E a g e r t o n s a p p e a l . " 99 So. 3d a t 301-03 (footnotes omitted). 5 1120394 On appeal, reorganization the of Eagertons the debts argued of that Dotson the 10s, Chapter LLC, in bankruptcy c o u r t , i . e . , the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the o r i g i n a l with the second encompassed therefore by loan, their created guaranty a new 11 the loan indebtedness contracts. a r g u e d t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h i s new The not Eagertons indebtedness, w i t h o u t t h e i r k n o w l e d g e o r c o n s e n t , o p e r a t e d t o d i s c h a r g e them f r o m any f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e i r guaranty contracts. The bank, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , the c o n s o l i d a t e d l o a n was the guaranty c o n t r a c t s material-modification a replacement that note contemplated and t h a t t h e E a g e r t o n s h a d w a i v e d by the defense. This Court, i n Eagerton I, concluded t h a t the Eagertons' guaranty contracts language in intend to indebtedness extensions, the the were unambiguous; guaranty guarantee arising contracts any out the indebtedness of the that based Eagertons other original on the did not than loan that and any r e n e w a l s , o r r e p l a c e m e n t s t h e r e o f ; and t h a t , once Eagertons' original loan was modified pursuant to the C h a p t e r 11 r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f D o t s o n 10s, t h e E a g e r t o n s were a t 6 1120394 t h a t p o i n t d i s c h a r g e d f r o m any f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e i r guaranty c o n t r a c t s : " I n sum, D o t s o n 10s and t h e bank n e g o t i a t e d a new l o a n t h a t n o t o n l y c h a n g e d t h e l e g a l i d e n t i t y o f the o r i g i n a l l o a n , but a l s o a l t e r e d the Eagertons' o r i g i n a l o b l i g a t i o n under t h e i r g u a r a n t y c o n t r a c t s . The Eagertons d i d not consent to guarantee the s e c o n d l o a n , w h i c h was c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l loan to create the consolidated loan--a new indebtedness. These above-stated alterations occurred without the Eagertons' knowledge and c o n s e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e E a g e r t o n s c a n n o t be h e l d p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r a l o a n t h a t no l o n g e r e x i s t s , i.e., the o r i g i n a l l o a n , nor can t h e y be held personally liable for a loan that i s not an e x t e n s i o n , renewal, or replacement of the o r i g i n a l l o a n , as d e f i n e d by t h e i r g u a r a n t y c o n t r a c t s . "'Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e t r i a l court's summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e E a g e r t o n s i n f a v o r o f t h e bank i s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s remanded t o the t r i a l c o u r t f o r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s 99 So. 3d a t 310 (emphasis added). A f t e r t h i s C o u r t remanded t h e cause to the trial court, t h e E a g e r t o n s f i l e d a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . The bank responded in opposition and moved for additional d i s c o v e r y t o r e s o l v e an a l l e g e d f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g Eagertons' plan. The k n o w l e d g e o f and c o n s e n t t o D o t s o n 10s's trial court allowed additional t h e r e a f t e r c o n d u c t e d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . 7 bankruptcy discovery On the December and 5, 1120394 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d on o r d e r d e n y i n g the Eagertons' m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . The E a g e r t o n s t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d this petition for f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. The d i s p o s i t i v e issue o u r r e v i e w i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e mandate of t h i s Court II. i n Eagerton Standard I. o f R e v i e w a n d A p p l i c a b l e Law "'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Ex p a r t e P e r f e c t i o n S i d i n g , I n c . , 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 ( A l a . 2003). "The q u e s t i o n correctly decision o f whether a t r i a l interpreted and applied i s properly reviewable court after an remand h a s appellate by a p e t i t i o n court's f o r a w r i t of mandamus." Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d . & G u a r . Co., 585 So. 2d 922, 924 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . In Ex p a r t e Alabama 1983), t h i s Court Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . stated: " ' I t i s the duty of the t r i a l court, on remand, t o c o m p l y s t r i c t l y w i t h t h e mandate o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c c o r d i n g t o 8 1120394 i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t . No j u d g m e n t o t h e r t h a n t h a t d i r e c t e d o r p e r m i t t e d by t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may be entered The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n is f i n a l as t o a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e i t , becomes t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , and must be e x e c u t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e mandate, w i t h o u t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l o r t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l evidence '" 431 So. 2d a t 155 ( q u o t i n g 5 Am. J u r . 2d A p p e a l & Error § 991 for a writ of (1962)). III. The Eagertons Discussion emphasize i n t h e i r petition mandamus t h a t t h e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on in Eagerton I were largely undisputed and that appeal they were c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon t h i s C o u r t ' s mandate i n E a g e r t o n I . the trial c o u r t on We agree. T h i s c a s e was cross-motions submitted to f o r summary j u d g m e n t . Our r e v e r s a l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e bank i n Eagerton material fact, consented I was not based a disputed issue of i . e . , whether the E a g e r t o n s had n o t i c e o f , or t o , the m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r See R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. material-modification defense their original answer upon to the as 9 guaranty contracts. The E a g e r t o n s p l e a d e d t h e an affirmative complaint; they defense raised in the 1120394 material-modification defense in their motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t ; and t h e y r a i s e d t h e m a t e r i a l - m o d i f i c a t i o n d e f e n s e on appeal. dispute I n none o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w d i d t h e bank e v e r that Dotson 10s's guaranty the Eagertons d i d not bankruptcy plan, contracts. know of or consent which m o d i f i e d the Clearly, the Eagertons to Eagertons' could not have c o n s e n t e d t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i r g u a r a n t y c o n t r a c t s when t h e y were n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e c o n f i r m a t i o n h e a r i n g d u r i n g w h i c h time John and Elizabeth Dotson and bank representatives n e g o t i a t e d a d d i t i o n a l t e r m s t h a t were f a v o r a b l e t o t h e bank. Our r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s c a s e i n E a g e r t o n I was b a s e d upon t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Eagertons' guaranty c o n t r a c t s , which, held, as a matter Guaranty without § 97, his or o f l a w , were u n a m b i g u o u s . a t 704 her 38A C.J.S. (2008)("A g u a r a n t o r i s d i s c h a r g e d i f , consent, materially altered."). See we the contract of guaranty is In Eagerton I, t h i s Court s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t " a l t h o u g h t h e E a g e r t o n s may have w a i v e d any d e f e n s e s they may Eagertons have h a d did consolidated r e g a r d i n g the not loan, waive which any was original defenses c r e a t e d by Dotsons w i t h o u t the Eagertons' consent." 10 indebtedness, the regarding bank and 99 So. 3d a t the the the 310. 1120394 IV. Although direct the this entry Eagertons, we Conclusion Court, of a i n Eagerton summary nonetheless judgment reversed f a v o r o f t h e bank a f t e r c o n c l u d i n g discharged from contracts. any further I, the did not in expressly favor of the summary j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e E a g e r t o n s had liability under their in been guaranty I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e E a g e r t o n s were e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t . This Court's opinion a d j u d i c a t i o n on t h e m e r i t s , and Accordingly, the jurisdiction to additional trial evidence on i t became t h e l a w o f t h e court, conduct an an p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., i n E a g e r t o n I was on remand, evidentiary undisputed was hearing material case. without to fact. s u p r a ( h o l d i n g t h a t when an an allow See Ex appellate c o u r t ' s mandate does n o t i n c l u d e l a n g u a g e e x p r e s s l y m a n d a t i n g a new trial or, in this case, an evidentiary hearing, the t r i a l c o u r t must e n t e r a j u d g m e n t as d i r e c t e d by t h e m a n d a t e ) . See also Ex 2006)("[A]fter '"'[n]o Queen, 959 So. a c a s e i s remanded, t h e 2d 620, trial 621 (Ala. c o u r t may enter j u d g m e n t o t h e r t h a n t h a t d i r e c t e d o r p e r m i t t e d by reviewing court to parte The a l l matters before appellate court's decision i s f i n a l i t , becomes t h e 11 law of the case, the as and 1120394 must be e x e c u t e d new trial or a c c o r d i n g t o t h e mandate, w i t h o u t g r a n t i n g a taking additional evidence.'"' E d w a r d s , 727 So. 2d 792,] 794 [ ( A l a . [(Ex parte 1 9 9 8 ) ] ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n 5 Am. J u r . 2d A p p e a l Eagertons & E r r o r § 991 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ) . " a r e e n t i t l e d t o mandamus For t h e f o r e g o i n g reasons, writ o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t December 5, 2012, o r d e r summary judgment Eagertons Eagerton consistent we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n denying with relief. the t r i a l and t o e n t e r Accordingly, the court t o vacate i t s the Eagertons' a judgment this Court's f o r the motion f o r a i n favor mandate of the in both I and t h i s o p i n i o n . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT Moore, ISSUED. C . J . , and S t u a r t , Wise, and Bryan, J J . , concur. 12 Parker, Murdock, Shaw, M a i n ,
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.
