Patrick Watson, as the administrator of the estate of Ted Watson v. Gina Bowden

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/25/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 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 , 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 . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080697 P a t r i c k Watson, as the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the e s t a t e o f Ted Watson v. Gina Bowden Appeal from C o f f e e C i r c u i t (CV-07-32) MOORE, Court Judge. Patrick Watson, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the estate o f Ted Watson ("the e s t a t e " ) , a p p e a l s f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by the Coffee C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l court") holding that 2080697 Ted Watson ("Watson") a n d G i n a Bowden were common-law We r e v e r s e a n d remand. Facts On February 2, and P r o c e d u r a l History 2007, filed married. Bowden a "petition for p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r o f j o i n t m a r i t a l e s t a t e o f common l a w s p o u s e " in she the t r i a l court. I n that p e t i t i o n , Bowden a s s e r t e d that h a d b e e n t h e common-law s p o u s e o f Watson, who h a d d i e d on J a n u a r y 25, 2007, a n d t h a t she a n d Watson h a d a c q u i r e d marital property during t h e pendency m a r r i a g e , and s h e r e q u e s t e d of t h e i r joint common-law that the court issue a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e a s s e t s o f h e r m a r i t a l u n i o n w i t h Watson. The t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a temporary ex p a r t e order 2007, i n w h i c h i t r e s t r a i n e d a n d e n j o i n e d on M a r c h 5, a l l persons making a c l a i m t o be an h e i r o f t h e e s t a t e f r o m r e m o v i n g o r u s i n g any assets of the estate s e l l i n g any p r o p e r t y the trial and from transferring, concealing, or of the estate pending f u r t h e r orders of court. On May 2, 2007, P a t r i c k Watson, as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the estate (hereinafter administrator") sometimes referred to as "the f i l e d a " m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s / a n s w e r " i n w h i c h he a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was 2 without 2080697 j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t h e p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r r e q u e s t e d b y Bowden because, he s a i d , the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the e s t a t e had n o t been i n i t i a t e d when Bowden's p e t i t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d the temporary the motion ex p a r t e o r d e r had been e n t e r e d . to dismiss was a copy of a o r when Attached to "petition for a d m i n i s t r a t o r a d l i t e m " t h a t h a d been f i l e d b y P a t r i c k Watson in the Coffee unmarried Court, indicating that Watson was a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h ; a c o p y o f an o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e C o f f e e Patrick Probate Watson Probate Court on J a n u a r y 26, 2007, a p p o i n t i n g as a d m i n i s t r a t o r a d l i t e m f o r the e s t a t e ; a copy o f a p e t i t i o n f o r l e t t e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h a t had been filed by February Coffee Patrick Watson i n the Coffee 23, 2 0 0 7 ; a n d a c o p y Probate administration Court on M a r c h Probate o f an o r d e r Court entered by t h e 7, 2007, g r a n t i n g l e t t e r s f o r t h e e s t a t e t o P a t r i c k Watson. on The of trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u l y 1 9 , 2007, f i n d i n g t h a t l e t t e r s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had g r a n t i n g the motion Bowden f i l e d been issued to Patrick Watson and to dismiss. a complaint i n the t r i a l c o u r t on A u g u s t 8, 2007, s e e k i n g a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t she h a d b e e n Watson's common-law w i f e . On M a r c h 5, 2008, Bowden f i l e d 3 a motion t o 2080697 remove the administration Probate Court t o the t r i a l of the estate court. from The t r i a l the Coffee court entered an o r d e r on M a r c h 27, 2008, g r a n t i n g Bowden's m o t i o n a n d r e m o v i n g the administration November 6, of the estate 2008, the Bowden's c o m p l a i n t to the t r i a l administrator f o r a declaratory Bowden h a d been t h e common-law w i f e The trial court entered filed filed a motion other wife, that things, an o r d e r Attached to which Watson's together asserted, common-law as h u s b a n d and w i f e a n d h a d p r e s e n t e d t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e p u b l i c as s u c h , Watson and had s i g n e d had l i s t e d many documents that On M a r c h 11, 2009, judgment. she h a d b e e n she a n d Watson h a d l i v e d to on F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2009, f o r a summary that answer On o f Watson. t h a t m o t i o n , Bowden s u b m i t t e d h e r a f f i d a v i t , among an judgment, d e n y i n g moving t h e case t o t h e c i v i l j u r y docket. Bowden court. relating that t o h i s employment Bowden as h i s s p o u s e on t h o s e d o c u m e n t s , a n d t h a t Bowden h a d h e l d an a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r a n c e listed Watson as h e r s p o u s e . other documents i n support p o l i c y t h a t had Bowden s u b m i t t e d of her motion, a number o f including an " a f f i d a v i t o f common-law m a r r i a g e " s i g n e d b y Bowden a n d Watson on O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2005, f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e n r o l l i n g Bowden, as 4 2080697 Watson's s p o u s e , Watson's i n a group employer; at insurance plan provided through least two other s i g n e d by Watson on November 15, the first of which l i s t e d i n s u r a n c e documents 2005, and J a n u a r y 4, 2007, Watson as b e i n g m a r r i e d and named Bowden as h i s s p o u s e and as h i s b e n e f i c i a r y f o r l i f e i n s u r a n c e and p e r s o n a l - a c c i d e n t i n s u r a n c e and t h e l a t t e r of which listed Watson's m a r i t a l s t a t u s as "common-law" and i d e n t i f i e d Bowden as his dependent application listing submitted Watson eligibility for as medical-insurance by Bowden Bowden's for spouse; a purposes; automobile statement insurance of current f r o m Watson's i n s u r a n c e company d a t e d J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2007, l i s t i n g Bowden as Watson's s p o u s e ; and a s t a t e m e n t p a t i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r "Southern Sleep C l i n i c s " Bowden on spouse. an June 5, 2006, i n which Bowden s u b m i t t e d h e r she 2004, listed 2005, c o m p l e t e d by Watson and of 2007 as her federal i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n s , w h i c h l i s t e d Bowden as h e a d o f h o u s e h o l d , r a t h e r t h a n m a r r i e d and f i l i n g either jointly or separately. Her 2006 f e d e r a l i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n , however, l i s t e d Bowden as m a r r i e d and f i l i n g The s e p a r a t e l y from her husband, administrator j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A p r i l filed a reply to Watson. Bowden's summary- 2, 2 0 0 9 ; a t t a c h e d t o t h a t r e p l y were 5 2080697 the affidavits administrator. Watson's Watson of Karen Eads, girlfriend, Bowden's Hutchinson, and the E a d s s t a t e d i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t she h a d b e e n next-door neighbor had Kim told her Bowden, may be l i v i n g w i t h h i m f o r a w h i l e ; that rarely husband been in 2004 that his had her his death; that children and f r o m 2003 u n t i l a t Watson's house; that Bowden h a d moved i n and o u t o f Watson's house f o r a few weeks a t a t i m e on m u l t i p l e 2006; t h a t , permanent occasions b e t w e e n 2004 and t h e end o f from Eads's o b s e r v a t i o n , or continuous there relationship had n e v e r been a between Bowden and Watson; t h a t Watson h a d i n f o r m e d Eads t h a t Bowden's " s i t u a t i o n was n o t g o o d and t h a t he was t r y i n g t o h e l p h e r as much as he could"; died; t h a t Bowden h a d moved o u t o f Watson's house b e f o r e that Watson had not stated that he and Bowden he had m a r r i e d o r were m a r r i e d and t h a t Watson h a d n e v e r r e f e r r e d t o Bowden as h i s s p o u s e ; t h a t Watson h a d "made t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t he and [ B o w d e n ] h a d n o t g o t t e n m a r r i e d " ; considered and t h a t Eads h a d n o t Bowden a n d Watson t o be m a r r i e d . Hutchinson stated i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t she was t h e o f f i c e manager f o r Dobbs Eye Clinic, where Watson updated h i s records had been a patient; w i t h Dobbs Eye C l i n i c 6 that Watson on M a r c h 9, had 2006, 2080697 but had n o t l i s t e d clinic's been records indicated update; and the status t h a t Watson's m a r i t a l that had "single." The administrator things, had a spouse i n t h a t that stated in his affidavit, he was W a t s o n ' s nephew; not l i v e d together continuously among other t h a t Bowden and Watson between late 2004 and 2006, a l t h o u g h Bowden h a d s t a y e d a t Watson's h o u s e " o f f an on" during that girlfriend never time; t h a t Watson h a d r e f e r r e d t o Bowden as h i s and h a d s t a t e d get married; administrator that that he knew he and Bowden w o u l d Watson t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d had never told the Bowden t o be h i s w i f e ; that Watson h a d n o t s h a r e d a b a n k a c c o u n t w i t h Bowden; t h a t Watson had paid f o r h i s house, a u t o m o b i l e s , b o a t s , personal living e x p e n s e s , and h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s f r o m h i s s e p a r a t e a c c o u n t and that the a d m i n i s t r a t o r h a d n o t f o u n d any d e p o s i t s a c c o u n t made my Bowden; property jointly 2005 and the a d m i n i s t r a t o r that had f o u n d no owned b y Bowden a n d W a t s o n ; t h a t Watson h a d f i l e d tax returns in that into i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was s i n g l e o r u n m a r r i e d 2006; that Watson had represented to the a d m i n i s t r a t o r and o t h e r f a m i l y members t h a t he was s i n g l e ; and that, between 2004 and 2006, 7 Watson and Bowden had not 2080697 maintained a continuous exclusion of a l l other The from to attached to Watson's federal motion 2004 and 2005, b o t h single of which r a t h e r than m a r r i e d . the reply, dated the that to the 15, was to Bowden's income-tax returns was The a d m i n i s t r a t o r a l s o a t t a c h e d 2005, Watson reply i n d i c a t e d t h a t Watson among o t h e r d o c u m e n t s , September indicated relationship relationships. administrator summary-judgment permanent an insuring single; insurance Watson's an document boat, which automobile-insurance a p p l i c a t i o n d a t e d J u l y 30, 2004, l i s t i n g Watson as s i n g l e ; w a r r a n t y deed d a t e d October 1, 2004, i n d i c a t i n g that a Watson was s i n g l e a t t h a t t i m e ; a d e p o s i t - a c c o u n t a g r e e m e n t s i g n e d by Watson on November 6, 2006, o p e n i n g a s i n g l e - p a r t y a c c o u n t a t Community account until Bank; and a t Community checks Bank, written dating S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006, l i s t i n g by from Watson on September another 5, 2005, o n l y Watson as t h e a c c o u n t holder. The granting pertinent trial court entered Bowden's a judgment summary-judgment on A p r i l motion and 7, 2009, stating, part: " [ T ] h e C o u r t h a v i n g r e v i e w e d and c o n s i d e r e d s a i d summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e [ a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s ] r e p l y 8 in 2080697 in opposition, and t h e r e s p e c t i v e evidentiary submissions i n support thereof, finds that there i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e , as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and [Bowden] i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the Court finds that [Bowden's] a f f i d a v i t , considered along with the ' A f f i d a v i t o f Common Law M a r r i a g e ' e x e c u t e d b y [Watson] a n d . . . Bowden on O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2005, a n d o t h e r competent p r o o f , i s f u l l y and c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s i t i v e of the issue before the Court." The a d m i n i s t r a t o r f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on April 23, 2 0 0 9 . Standard o f Review "We r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t de novo, a n d o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s w e l l settled. "'In reviewing the d i s p o s i t i o n of a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t , "we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d as t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e evidence b e f o r e [ i t ] made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , " B u s s e y v . J o h n Deere Co., 531 So. 2 d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , and whether t h e movant was " e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e burden s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r e s e n t 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 s u c h an i s s u e . B a s s v . S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1989). Evidence is " s u b s t a n t i a l " i f i t i s o f "such weight and q u a l i t y that f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably i n f e r the existence of the fact 9 2080697 s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d a t 543 (quoting West v. Founders Life 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 . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant a n d must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. W i l m a C o r p . v. F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 613 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412, 413 (Ala. 1990).'" Hollingsworth (Ala. 2001) v. C i t y o f R a i n b o w C i t y , (quoting 690 So. 2d 341, 344 826 So. 2d 787, Hobson v. A m e r i c a n C a s t I r o n Pipe 789 Co., ( A l a . 1997)). Discussion On a p p e a l , the a d m i n i s t r a t o r argues t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g Bowden's summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he argues, the t r i a l presented both by b o t h p a r t i e s , w h i c h , Bowden single. court ignored the c o n f l i c t s i n the evidence indicated that, at a n d Watson h a d r e p r e s e n t e d themselves being The a d m i n i s t r a t o r a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e was i n c o n f l i c t , a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d as t o w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s were common-law m a r r i e d , a question was as times, f o r the j u r y to decide, inappropriate. 10 that that i s a n d , t h u s , summary j u d g m e n t 2080697 "In Alabama, recognition of a common-law requires proof of the f o l l o w i n g elements: present, mutual agreement t o p e r m a n e n t l y e n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the exclusion of a l l other marriage (1) c a p a c i t y ; (2) the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and (3) p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e a n d p u b l i c assumption o f m a r i t a l d u t i e s and c o h a b i t a t i o n . " v. B u s h , 835 So. 2d 192, 194 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . Gray "Courts o f t h i s s t a t e c l o s e l y s c r u t i n i z e c l a i m s o f common-law m a r r i a g e and require Townsend, c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g 484 So. 2d 1097, proof 1098 thereof." B a k e r v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986). "Whether t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f a common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t is a question o f f a c t . " G r a y , 835 So. 2d a t 194. I n Coleman v. A u b e r t , 531 So. 2d 881 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , by the administrator, trial court's Stinson's question been t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r estate cited because, t h e supreme of the executrix of court determined, a o f f a c t e x i s t e d as t o w h e t h e r S t i n s o n a n d Coleman h a d common-law married. In doing s o , t h e supreme stated: "The l e g a l c a p a c i t y o f [ S t i n s o n ] a n d Coleman t o marry i s not i n q u e s t i o n . A l t h o u g h some o f t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t s and d e p o s i t i o n testimony ... i s o f q u e s t i o n a b l e admissibility, 11 court 2080697 there i s admissible evidence that [Stinson] and Coleman agreed to enter into a marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p . There i s a l s o a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f p u b l i c recognition of the existence of the marriage, as w e l l as a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f c o h a b i t a t i o n and a mutual assumption o p e n l y o f t h e m a r i t a l d u t i e s and obligations. I t i s t r u e , as t h e e x e c u t r i x [ o f Stinson's estate] contends, that many of the c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a common-law m a r r i a g e a r e n o t e v i d e n c e d i n t h i s c a s e ; however, t h e r e i s enough e v i d e n c e t o c r e a t e a f a c t q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r Coleman was t h e common-law h u s b a n d o f [Stinson]." I d . a t 885. As i n C o l e m a n , t h e c a p a c i t y o f e i t h e r Bowden o r Watson t o marry i s not i n q u e s t i o n criteria i n the present case. f o r a common-law m a r r i a g e , The r e m a i n i n g h o w e v e r , must s t i l l be met. B o t h Watson a n d Bowden s i g n e d that they were common-law an a f f i d a v i t married on representing October 21, 2005; a l t h o u g h t h a t document w o u l d s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t Watson and Bowden were i n m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t a t t h a t t i m e t o enter the conclusive. (Ala. marriage relationship, that See S t r i n g e r v . S t r i n g e r , C i v . App. 1997) (although both parties t h a t t h e y were common-law m a r r i e d , other "husband" and " w i f e , " 12 document i s not 689 So. 2d 194, 197 pleadings as permanently asserted in r e f e r r e d t o each had c h i l d r e n together, and 2080697 cohabited, trial court was n o t r e q u i r e d common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t e d ) . t o conclude a I n o r d e r f o r t h e r e t o have b e e n a common-law m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n Bowden a n d Watson, also that there must have b e e n p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a marriage and public assumption of marital duties and cohabitation. "'The m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p may be shown i n any way t h a t c a n be known b y o t h e r s , s u c h as l i v i n g t o g e t h e r as man a n d w i f e , r e f e r r i n g t o e a c h o t h e r i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r s as b e i n g i n t h a t r e l a t i o n , d e c l a r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n i n v a r i o u s t y p e s o f documents and transactions, sharing h o u s e h o l d d u t i e s and expenses, and g e n e r a l l y engaging i n " a l l o f t h e numerous a s p e c t s o f d a y - t o - d a y m u t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f married persons."'" Hall v. D u s t e r , 727 So. 2d 834, 837 ( q u o t i n g B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 443, 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. In Cluxton App. 1983), 57 A l a . App. 619, 621, 330 So. 2d 1976)). v. C l u x t o n , this court ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) 431 So. 2d 1296, 1298 ( A l a . C i v . affirmed the t r i a l court's judgment h o l d i n g t h a t M r s . C l u x t o n h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a common-law m a r r i a g e w i t h h e r former husband. This court stated, among other t h i n g s , t h a t "during t h e i r p e r i o d of c o h a b i t a t i o n Mrs. C l u x t o n and t h e former husband n e v e r h a n d l e d t h e i r f i n a n c e s i n s u c h a manner as t o e v i d e n c e t h e p r e s e n t 13 i n t e n t i o n t o engage 2080697 in a marital relationship," separate accounts, t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had and t h a t t h e former husband " d i d l i t t l e t o help w i t h household expenses." in the present maintained case, 431 So. 2d a t 1298. e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d Likewise, indicating that Bowden a n d Watson c o h a b i t e d o n l y " o f f a n d o n , " t h a t Bowden a n d Watson d i d n o t s h a r e a bank a c c o u n t o r h a n d l e t h e i r finances i n s u c h a manner as t o e v i d e n c e t h e i r i n t e n t i o n t o engage i n a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d t h a t Bowden d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o Watson's Watson household only intermittently administrator's submitted times, but by affidavits present and parties Bowden supported also by indicating times, listed her address. various that also another Eads's indicate that themselves t o others cohabited by Eads's Watson's a d d r e s s i n C h a n c e l l o r had, a t o t h e r as That was affidavits both listed Springs expenses. with and t h e documents Bowden had, a t as h e r a d d r e s s address i n Coffee and the administrator's Bowman and Watson d i d not as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e . As was t h e c a s e i n Coleman, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e contained fact i n the record creates regarding married whether Watson and t h a t t h e t r i a l a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l a n d Bowden court's 14 were common-law summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r 2080697 of Bowden reverse on t h a t that issue judgment, was inappropriate. a n d we We, remand t h e c a u s e proceedings consistent with t h i s therefore, for further opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 15 Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . ,

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.