Larry Eugene Leeth and Edna Lee Washington Leeth v. J & J Properties

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: REL: 11/5/10 3/18/11 (as m o d i f i e d on d e n i a l o f r e h e a r i n g ) 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, 2010-2011 2090758 L a r r y Eugene Leeth and Edna Lee Washington Leeth v. J & J Properties Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (CV-09-368) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . L a r r y Eugene L e e t h f r o m a summary ("J & J " ) . In a n d Edna L e e W a s h i n g t o n L e e t h judgment e n t e r e d appeal i n favor of J & J Properties We a f f i r m . 2005, the Leeths entered into a six-month lease 2090758 agreement w i t h owned by J & J t o r e n t an J & J. Upon t h e apartment ("the e x p i r a t i o n of the apartment") six-month lease p e r i o d , t h e L e e t h s b e g a n r e n t i n g t h e a p a r t m e n t on a m o n t h - t o month b a s i s . On A u g u s t 26, days' written notice month the After tenancy. of the a p a r t m e n t w i t h i n 30 action i n the days, J 2009, J & J gave t h e Leeths termination month-to- Leeths & J of their failed filed an Limestone D i s t r i c t Court. to vacate of J & J on the d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s unlawful-detainer retaliatory-eviction The The Leeths, Circuit Court. c o u n t e r c l a i m ; i n substance, under § on the entered a The circuit court Leeths filed the Leeths' that counterclaim unlawful-detainer on amended that claim claim, in counterclaims 2 severed the the retaliatory-eviction 3 5 - 9 A - 5 0 1 , A l a . Code 1975, judgment on c o u r t ' s judgment t o c e r t a i n r e t a l i a t o r y c o n d u c t by l a n d l o r d s . trial eviction. counterclaim. u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r c l a i m from the L e e t h s ' brought acting a judgment i n f a v o r c l a i m and Leeths appealed the d i s t r i c t Limestone the unlawful-detainer pro se, f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g a r e t a l i a t o r y After a t r i a l , 30 appeared to be which p r o h i b i t s F o l l o w i n g a bench the favor circuit of alleging J & J. court The "retaliatory 2090758 eviction/gross negligence," "retaliation/discrimination," retaliation," "noncompliance "bad f a i t h by [J & J ] , " noncompliance and "defamation o f c h a r a c t e r . " and J & J filed a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d following a hearing. After the denial of t h e i r motion, the Leeths appealed t o t h i s postjudgment court "In reviewing the d i s p o s i t i o n of a motion 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 the 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 . John Deere Co., 531 So. 2d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d w h e t h e r 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 shifts to t h e nonmovant to present 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 . Bass 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 . 1 9 8 9 ) . Evidence i s ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' i f i t i s o f 'such w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r minded p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t 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 ( q u o t i n g 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 . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our review i s f u r t h e r subject t o the caveat that 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. Wilma 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 ) ; B 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 [substituted p . 3] 2090758 So. 2d 412, 413 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . " Hobson v . A m e r i c a n C a s t (Ala. Iron Pipe Co., 690 So. 2d 341, 344 1997). On a p p e a l , erred t h e Leeths f i r s t argue t h a t t h e c i r c u i t i n entering counterclaims a several counterclaims motion. judgment on certain of their because, the Leeths say, J & J f a i l e d t o address those counterclaims stated summary court i n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . The L e e t h s purported counterclaims; some of those were n o t a d d r e s s e d i n J & J ' s summary-judgment However, the Leeths d i d not object in their p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t o t h e e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t as t o the counterclaims In Employees Department plaintiffs his t h a t were n o t a d d r e s s e d b y J & J . v. of Marshall, the Montgomery 893 So. individual court Marshall capacity. With 326 Sheriff's ( A l a . 2004), the s u e d S h e r i f f D.T. M a r s h a l l i n b o t h h i s o f f i c i a l a n d capacities. Sheriff summary j u d g m e n t i n h i s o f f i c i a l trial 2d County entered i n both a summary respect moved for a c a p a c i t y o n l y . However, t h e judgment his official The p l a i n t i f f s Marshall capacity i n favor of Sheriff and h i s i n d i v i d u a l t h e n a p p e a l e d t o t h e supreme c o u r t . t o t h e summary judgment 4 i n favor of Sheriff 2090758 Marshall i n his individual c a p a c i t y , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "Since the s h e r i f f ' s motion d i d not challenge the p l a i n t i f f s ' claims a g a i n s t the s h e r i f f i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , t h e m o t i o n d i d n o t meet t h e i n i t i a l burden of the s h e r i f f i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , t h a t i s , '"the burden o f p r o d u c t i o n , i . e . , t h e b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o summary j u d g m e n t . " ' Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 769 So. 2d 903, 909 ( A l a . 1999) ( q u o t i n g B e r n e r v. C a l d w e l l , 543 So. 2d 686, 691 ( A l a . 1989) ( H o u s t o n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ) . However, t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us does n o t r e v e a l whether the p l a i n t i f f s o b j e c t e d t o the t r i a l court i n a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o l i m i t t h e summary j u d g m e n t t o t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e sheriff i n his official c a p a c i t y , see Hatch v. H e a l t h - M o r , I n c . , 686 So. 2d 1132, 1132 ( A l a . 1996) ( ' [ I ] t was e r r o r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o a l l o f [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c l a i m s , b e c a u s e one c l a i m ... was n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n ' ) , a n d B e n s o n v. M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y A s s ' n , 646 So. 2d 559, 562 ( A l a . 1994) ('[W]e o b s e r v e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y e n t e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t as t o a l l o f [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c l a i m s . C o u n t s one a n d two ... were n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e [ d e f e n d a n t ' s ] m o t i o n ' ) . Such a R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n w o u l d have b e e n n e c e s s a r y t o p r e s e r v e s u c h an o b j e c t i o n f o r an a p p e a l 'because t h i s i s s u e [did] n o t i n v o l v e a q u e s t i o n o f law t h a t ha[d] been the s u b j e c t o f a p r e v i o u s o b j e c t i o n and r u l i n g . ' M c K e n z i e v. K i l l i a n , 887 So. 2d 861, 865 ( A l a . 200 4)." 893 this the So. 2d a t 330-31 case, ( f i n a l emphasis added). A c c o r d i n g l y , i n because the Leeths d i d not o b j e c t t o the e n t r y of summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s 5 unaddressed by J & 2090758 J i n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n , they d i d not preserve the issue of the p r o p r i e t y of that r u l i n g In J & J d i d thoroughly address the Leeths' r e t a l i a t o r y - e v i c t i o n counterclaim brought under i t s summary-judgment f o r our review. § 35-9A-501(a)(1), provides, i n pertinent motion, A l a . Code 1975. That section part: "(a) E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , a l a n d l o r d may n o t r e t a l i a t e ... by b r i n g i n g o r threatening to bring an a c t i o n f o r possession because: "(1) t h e t e n a n t h a s c o m p l a i n e d t o a governmental agency charged with responsibility f o r enforcement of a b u i l d i n g o r h o u s i n g code o f a v i o l a t i o n applicable t o the premises materially a f f e c t i n g h e a l t h and s a f e t y . " In t h e i r r e t a l i a t o r y - e v i c t i o n c o u n t e r c l a i m , t h e L e e t h s a l l e g e d that the apartment had "toxic mold" and that v e n t i l a t i o n system had a l l o w e d " c i g a r e t t e and o t h e r smoke" from allegations other appear 35-9A-501(a). apartments into the a faulty secondhand apartment; t o be t h e p u r p o r t e d " v i o l a t i o n s " these under § I n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n , J & J 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 L e e t h s c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h e y h a d c o m p l a i n e d o f any v i o l a t i o n u n d e r § t o "a g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c y that 35-9A-501(a)(1) charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r 6 2090758 enforcement of a building a s s e r t e d t h a t the Leeths or housing code." c o u l d not e s t a b l i s h J & J also that J & J had any k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a l l e g e d c o m p l a i n t s made by t h e L e e t h s the a p p r o p r i a t e governmental The Leeths argue to agencies. that the record on appeal contains s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e y had c o m p l a i n e d o f t h e a l l e g e d m o l d and t h e a l l e g e d l y to the a p p r o p r i a t e governmental 501(a)(1). evidence In support of faulty ventilation system a g e n c i e s , p u r s u a n t t o § 35-9A- their argument, the Leeths i n the r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they complained the c o n d i t i o n of the apartment to the B e t t e r Business cite about Bureau, t h e O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , t h e mayor's o f f i c e o f t h e C i t y of Athens, The agency Better charged and t h e " f i r e Business with department." Bureau is responsibility not for 1 a "a governmental enforcement b u i l d i n g or h o u s i n g code"; t h e r e f o r e , the L e e t h s ' to the Better Business Bureau are irrelevant of a complaints in this case. I n t h e i r b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , the Leeths a l s o contend that they complained to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, "the Bureau of Environmental S e r v i c e s , " and " t h e A i r Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l U n i t f o r t h e S t a t e and C i t y of Athens." However, t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e o f those a l l e g e d complaints. 1 7 2090758 The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s some d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the Leeths complained about apartment the to the O f f i c e after the of the A t t o r n e y eviction General proceedings began. O b v i o u s l y , those complaints f i l e d a f t e r the e v i c t i o n c o u l d not s e r v e as t h e b a s i s o f a r e t a l i a t o r y e v i c t i o n . However, Mrs. L e e t h t e s t i f i e d by d e p o s i t i o n t h a t she had a l s o c o m p l a i n e d the Office of the Attorney p r o c e e d i n g s began. General before the However, t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e to eviction indicating t h a t J & J h a d any k n o w l e d g e o f t h o s e a l l e g e d c o m p l a i n t s made to not the O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y General. retaliate knowledge. i n response Mrs. Leeth she had complained before the further testified proceedings by Leeth ha d simply t o t h e mayor's began. complained enforcement Mrs. agency no Mrs. office Leeth also complained However, e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t M r s . to s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o demonstrate governmental i t had deposition that t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had i n f o r m e d J & J t h a t she had t o t h e mayor's o f f i c e . J & J could to a complaint of which about the apartment eviction Clearly, charged the t h a t she with of a b u i l d i n g or housing Leeth also t e s t i f i e d mayor's is "complained responsibility not to a for code." t h a t she had 8 office complained t o the 2090758 fire department about c o n d i t i o n s i n the apartment. t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t J & J had Leeths's a l l e g e d complaint testified that she knowledge of to the f i r e department. "was sure [the However, fire Mrs. department] Mrs. Leeth did a r e p o r t because [employees of the f i r e department] t a l k e d t o [ J & J's o f f i c e m a n a g e r ] . " employees manager of the fire However, Mrs. 2 department does not indicate conversation; the content unknown. "'[E]vidence speculation, warrant Azalea Roberts Box v. Therefore, Co., the failed Therefore, circuit 2 So. alleged 2d 253, So. did to in the the Leeths the 254 2d not record to the have failed to to Turner 1987) v. (quoting (Ala. fire § is insufficient that indicates alleged more t h a n mere 946 establish office conversation (Ala. of that jury.'" 944, requirements & J's of guess i s w h o l l y a l l e g e d complaint satisfy the that case 377 Leeths evidence to or the Carroll, knowledge of the The of 508 substance J which a f f o r d s nothing conjecture, submission spoke w i t h the of Leeth's statement that J 1979)). & J had department. that the Leeths 35-9A-501(a)(1). establish c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t that the regarding T h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a copy o f t h e a l l e g e d r e p o r t . 9 2090758 the retaliatory-eviction counterclaim brought under that section. The Leeths Leeths['] unclear health contend that alleged "damages The L e e t h s l e g a l relevance "create general authority that Accordingly, 601 So. we do n o t a d d r e s s t h i s also attempting An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t will undelineated u n s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . " Spradlin, Leeths It is a p p e a r s t o h a v e no l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on v. The cite to the stated issue. propositions Spradlin to the [ a r e ] f o r p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e damages." what a r g u m e n t f o r r e v e r s a l t h e L e e t h s a r e t o make. not also argue that because, they say, the c i r c u i t 2d 76, 79 issue the court ( A l a . 1992). further. circuit court continued erred t h e summary- j u d g m e n t h e a r i n g w i t h o u t n o t i f y i n g them. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s that took place notice of t h e summary-judgment 2010, and However, attend the that that the the Leeths, that hearing. c i r c u i t court the hearing circuit hearing Leeths who had were proceeding court a hearing rescheduled f o r a date a f t e r A p r i l 10 that pro The L e e t h s now m i s t a k e n l y d i d not hold on A p r i l hearing. se, d i d not contend on A p r i l the 29, that 29, 2010, summary-judgment 29, 2010, a n d t h a t t h e y were 2090758 not n o t i f i e d o f t h e new simply does n o t s u p p o r t L e e t h s ' argument Based on hearing date. those However, allegations. the record Therefore, the fails. the foregoing, the circuit court's summary judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, with P . J . , and P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r . Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s writing. i n p a r t and c o n c u r s Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 11 i n the r e s u l t , writing. 2090758 THOMAS, result. I Judge, agree Properties opinion concurring that i n part t h e summary and concurring judgment i n favor i n the of J & J ("J & J") s h o u l d be a f f i r m e d . I c o n c u r i n t h e m a i n i n s o f a r as i t c o n c l u d e s that t h e L e e t h s w a i v e d any c h a l l e n g e t o t h e summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m s other t h a n t h e i r r e t a l i a t o r y - e v i c t i o n c o u n t e r c l a i m . However, b e c a u s e my review of provisions the record convinces me and that of the a p p l i c a b l e the Leeths failed statutory to present s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o overcome J & J ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e L e e t h s ' retaliatory-eviction counterclaim, I c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d i n t h e main as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t on t h e L e e t h s ' retaliatory-eviction counterclaim. The and a Leeths relied on A l a . Code 1975, § 3 5 - 9 A - 5 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) , w h i c h p r o h i b i t r e t a l i a t o r y c o n d u c t b y a l a n d l o r d when tenant has c o m p l a i n e d to certain entities about certain d e f i c i e n c i e s o r problems t h a t a f f e c t h e a l t h and s a f e t y . subsections Those r e a d as f o l l o w s : "(a) E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , a l a n d l o r d may not r e t a l i a t e by discriminatorily increasing rent or decreasing services o r by b r i n g i n g o r t h r e a t e n i n g t o b r i n g an a c t i o n f o r possession because: 12 2090758 " ( 1 ) t h e t e n a n t has c o m p l a i n e d t o a governmental agency charged with responsibility for enforcement of a b u i l d i n g o r h o u s i n g code o f a v i o l a t i o n applicable to the premises materially a f f e c t i n g h e a l t h and s a f e t y ; [ o r ] "(2) t h e t e n a n t has c o m p l a i n e d t o t h e l a n d l o r d of a v i o l a t i o n under Section 35-9A-204." Under A l a . Code 1975, "(a) § 35-9A-204: A landlord shall: "(1) comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f applicable building and housing codes m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t i n g h e a l t h and s a f e t y ; " ( 2 ) make a l l r e p a i r s and do w h a t e v e r i s n e c e s s a r y t o p u t and keep t h e p r e m i s e s in a habitable condition; " "(4) m a i n t a i n i n g o o d and s a f e w o r k i n g order and condition a l l electrical, plumbing, s a n i t a r y , heating, v e n t i l a t i n g , a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g , and o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s and appliances, including elevators, supplied o r r e q u i r e d t o be s u p p l i e d by t h e l a n d l o r d The p r o b l e m s the that t h e L e e t h s c o m p l a i n e d o f t o J & J and governmental agencies discussed i n t h e main o p i n i o n p r i m a r i l y the p r e s e n c e of a l l e g e d l y " t o x i c mold" and were alleged problems w i t h e i t h e r the v e n t i l a t i o n system or the s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y of the apartment such t h a t the Leeths' apartment 13 was 2090758 often faced with an i n f l u x o f c i g a r e t t e a n d o t h e r smoke a d j o i n i n g apartments. its motion apartment for a J & J presented evidence i n support of summary judgment indicating that the d i d n o t s u f f e r f r o m any v e n t i l a t i o n o r s t r u c t u r a l deficiencies; genuine from the Leeths presented no evidence creating a i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t t h a t such d e f i c i e n c i e s e x i s t e d o t h e r t h a n t e s t i m o n y f r o m M r s . L e e t h i n d i c a t i n g t h a t smoke h a d entered the apartment. In a d d i t i o n , the Leeths failed to p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i r h e a l t h and s a f e t y had been m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e p r e s e n c e have i n v a d e d t h e i r J & J also o f smoke t h a t might apartment. presented as evidence i n support of i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n an a f f i d a v i t f r o m an i n s p e c t o r s t a t i n g that no mold presented was evidence present i n the apartment. i n t h e form of Mrs. Leeth's The Leeths deposition t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t m o l d was p r e s e n t on c e r t a i n w a l l s , b u t t h e L e e t h s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e m o l d Mrs. Leeth saw on t h e w a l l s was "toxic" other than hearsay t e s t i m o n y t h a t a fireman had i n d i c a t e d t o Mrs. Leeth t h a t the m o l d was problems. "toxic," and c o u l d be causing the Leeths' health Thus, I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e L e e t h s f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t 14 2090758 evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the p o s s i b l e presence o f mold which the Leeths complained m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d t h e i r and of health safety. For main t h e s e r e a s o n s , I concur i n t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d by t h e opinion respecting the claim. 15 Leeths' r e t a l i a t o r y - e v i c t i o 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.