Robert L. Martin v. Angeline Caudell Glass
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 11/04/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100157 Robert L. M a r t i n v. Angeline Caudell Glass Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-900890) PITTMAN, Judge. Angeline that Caudell Martin, while Glass logging sued Robert on p r o p e r t y L. M a r t i n , adjacent alleging t o hers, had intentionally trespassed on h e r l a n d a n d c u t h e r t i m b e r . complaint, compensatory which sought and p u n i t i v e The damages, 2100157 stated a single claim of trespass. There were no claims a l l e g i n g conversion or seeking s t a t u t o r y p e n a l t i e s pursuant to Ala. of the Code 1975, § 35-14-1. complaint, she case proceeded that early one the heard the of noise her house Martin and f o u r o t h e r men he Martin was on to chain behind that her explained that on to which thought Thompson, b u t , up" with Glass. testified crew that cutting t h e men and the cutting Martin i f he and on her was was his s e v e r a l days trees would "go ran off into to the handle j a i l . " woods and She she property us." 2 and was told A Martin leave. done. cutting out Martin belonged would "settle departed. then Glass found Martin Glass Glass, her, few saw adjacent his property Martin's "Don't days and confronted came b a c k on h e r to woods she to the 2008 had p o i n t e d be again. According i t between him w r o n g , he crew later Martin said, of to the informed owner a r e a w h e r e he added, she to cut timber warned them t h a t i f t h e y they law; we'll he the into instructed the trial. i n September walked trees. and allegations a bench There, Thompson, the t h a t he and cutting a u t h o r i z e d him property saws property to the morning investigate. p r o p e r t y , had stated denied testified Glass and Martin call later, crew the Glass 2100157 saw Martin bill on Thompson's f o r what, later, Glass she land a third her property and "was where trees, cutting was and she muddied estimated Martin and h i s crew c u t t i n g a they shoot on came on insured that to week trees them t h a t i f t h e y going she his had crew t h e stumps could counted had were compensation removal had the of timber also road from that About a t h e l a w , " s t a t e d t h a t he was and seeking said, runoff with Martin that said cut a p a r t i a l caused her. him "straighten out" themselves. Martin She owed littered through a hillside water her d i d not object on in stumps i n the cutting on of o l d . Glass her hardwood testified for Martin's unauthorized her -- activity with debris, property her property h e r wooded acreage, and had t h a t , u n c h e c k e d by v e g e t a t i o n , a damages been 52 the remains some o f w h i c h w e r e o v e r 1 0 0 y e a r s she that, he presented them." her testified property. had she told between Glass area and and She i n f o r m e d Glass "not to c a l l matters had time. again bonded, that estimated, discovered Martin her asked property lake on totaled to that testimony. 3 her property. $25,000 to She $30,000. 2100157 Martin on G l a s s ' s cut any most property. trees of that, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he on which, after he Glass's After property said, walking side the and the he of saw the bench entered not maintained Glass's Thompson's l a n d s , on He had t h a t , i f he property, were he pines. property that intentionally line only had A had cut cut mistakenly only surveyor between 8 t o 10 trees 7 trees, testified Glass's t r e e s had been and cut line. trial, the the trial following court viewed Glass's judgment: " T h i s c a u s e came b e f o r e t h e c o u r t f o r trial. Having c o n s i d e r e d the testimony, v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n of the p r o p e r t y , the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ M a r t i n ] d i d i n f a c t e n c r o a c h onto [ G l a s s ' s ] p r o p e r t y ( t h o u g h not t o t h e e x t e n t t h o u g h t by [ G l a s s ] ) , w h i l e timbering t h e a d j o i n i n g p r o p e r t y . The court finds that this t r e s p a s s c o n t i n u e d to occur even a f t e r warning and protest by [Glass]. As a result of [Martin's] i n t e n t i o n a l t r e s p a s s , [ G l a s s ] has b e e n damaged and i n j u r e d by t h e l o s s o f h e r t r e e s and by [ M a r t i n ' s ] f a i l u r e t o remove d e b r i s f r o m [ G l a s s ' s ] p r o p e r t y . " I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d t h a t j u d g m e n t be, and it hereby i s , entered i n favor of [ G l a s s ] and a g a i n s t [ M a r t i n ] i n t h e t o t a l amount o f $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . " Martin filed a w a r d was a postjudgment motion, excessive. set aside i t s previous judgment in favor of The trial arguing court granted j u d g m e n t , and Glass: 4 entered that the damages Martin's motion, the f o l l o w i n g new 2100157 " T h i s c a u s e i s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on [Martin's postjudgment motion]. Having considered the motion and r e v i e w e d t h e f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e c o u r t f i n d s that the judgment i s e x c e s s i v e in light of the damage s u s t a i n e d b y [ G l a s s ] a n d t h e c u l p a b i l i t y o f [Martin]. A c c o r d i n g l y , the [postjudgment motion] i s GRANTED. The O r d e r o f J u l y 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 , i s h e r e b y s e t a s i d e and h e l d f o r naught. "Judgment i n t h e amount o f $15,000.00 i s h e r e b y e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f [Glass] and a g a i n s t [ M a r t i n ] f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n may i s s u e . " Martin 404 , 59 So. argues that nominal 2d 799 (1 9 5 2 ) , the t r i a l damages evidence court because, he Citing and before erred supreme c o u r t 257 A l a . authorities, i n awarding Glass says, and i m m e d i a t e l y to establish Ford v. S e l l e r s , other of the d i f f e r e n c e between immediately failed timely appealed. by neglecting the value after her entitlement Martin more to of her present property the trespass, t o damages. than Glass In Ford, our held: " [ I ] n a c o u n t f o r damages f o r t r e s p a s s q u a r e c l a u s u m f r e g i t , t h e damages r e c o v e r a b l e a r e f o r i n j u r y t o the l a n d s and n o t f o r t h e v a l u e o f t h e t i m b e r . ... ' [ T ] h e mere f a c t t h a t i t i s a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t t h a t t i m b e r was c u t , i n j u r e d , a n d r e m o v e d f r o m t h e l a n d does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a c l a i m f o r damages as f o r the value of the timber,' that being 'a mere description of the nature and c h a r a c t e r of the trespass to the land.'" 257 Ala. A l a . a t 4 0 5 , 59 S o . 2 d a t 800 2 4 3 , 2 4 4 , 82 S o . 3 4 1 , 342 5 ( q u o t i n g R i g g i n v . Hogg, 203 (1919)). See a l s o Persky v. 2100157 Vaughn, 741 So. 2d 414, 416 that " [ t ] h e measure been ( A l a . C i v . App. o f damages cut i s the difference 1998 ) f o r t r e s p a s s when between the value (stating trees of the b e f o r e t h e c u t t i n g and t h e v a l u e o f t h e l a n d i m m e d i a t e l y the c u t t i n g " ) . review Glass argues have land after t h a t M a r t i n has not p r e s e r v e d f o r the issue that her f a i l u r e to present evidence of the v a l u e o f h e r p r o p e r t y b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e t r e s p a s s means she i s not e n t i t l e d t o more t h a n nominal that damages b e c a u s e , she s a y s , M a r t i n d i d n o t o b j e c t t o h e r t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g damages or otherwise bring the issue to the attention of the trial court. Citing (1948), a Loper postjudgment following in A l a . 584 , t h a t he p r e s e r v e d motion Loper 250 challenging i s similar to 35 timber thereon," the p l a i n t i f f the value damages the present after the trespass but, 341 filing award case as i n the stated a single claim and f o r 250 A l a . a t 5 8 4 , 35 S o . 2 d a t 3 4 1 ; presented of the land 2d t h e i s s u e by the r e s p e c t s : (a) t h e c o m p l a i n t So. " t r e s p a s s t o ... l a n d s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , cutting (b) Ganguet, M a r t i n contends excessive. for v. no e v i d e n c e immediately instead, 6 as t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e before presented and immediately evidence that 2100157 "tended to prove the value Ala. at object trial 585, 35 So. 2d of the trees at to the p l a i n t i f f ' s court awarded entered 341; proof a judgment substantial after severance," (c) t h e d e f e n d a n t concerning i n favor damages; and damages; court held that, (e) t h e d e f e n d a n t because basis f o r c o m p u t i n g t h e damages land, "'the t r i a l court could the evidence for injury So. 2d Daniels, at 342 (quoting & in apparently found awarding) nominal Loper, that punitive damages, Glass Edey the evidence damages. are awarded i f i t i s a p r o p e r Weed, 457 So. 2d 428, (and 432 v. damages that, unlike the the punitive trial court a basis damages, damages AAA E m p ' t , ( A l a . C i v . App. 7 Co. to the present court's actual c a s e t o do s o . " no (1921)). established "Once established, furnished Lumber its similarities sought excessive. 250 A l a . a t 5 8 5 , c a s e c a n b e u p h e l d on t h e b a s i s plaintiff a render[ed] c a s e , Loper i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , and t h e t r i a l award i n t h i s filed [have] 205 A l a . 5 2 0 , 5 2 1 , 88 S o . 6 5 7 , 658 We c o n c l u d e t h a t , d e s p i t e and plaintiff's not p r o p e r l y Patterson (d) t h e to the a j u d g m e n t f o r more t h a n n o m i n a l damages.'" 35 d i d not of the p l a i n t i f f p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was The L o p e r 250 1 984 ) for even may be I n c . v. (citing 2100157 National Sales I n s . Co. v. Jones, 393 So. 2d 1361, 1368 (Ala. 1980)). " P u n i t i v e d a m a g e s a r e ... a v a i l a b l e t o a p l a i n t i f f i n a t r e s p a s s a c t i o n , e v e n i f o n l y n o m i n a l damages are awarded, ' i f the trespass is attended by rudeness, w a n t o n n e s s , r e c k l e s s n e s s o r an insulting manner o r i s a c c o m p a n i e d by c i r c u m s t a n c e s of f r a u d and malice, oppression, aggravation, or gross n e g l i g e n c e . ' R u s h i n g [ v . H o o p e r - M c D o n a l d , I n c . ] , 293 Ala. [ 5 6 , ] 6 1 , 300 So. 2d [ 9 4 , ] 98 [ ( 1 9 7 4 ) ] . " Downs v . L y l e s , 41 So. 3d 86, 92 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2009). In the reflects present that, "culpability." that after warning and [criminal be premises months deduced after legal of or another, preceding So. not to That from Code to so.'" of punitive that a "[f]ormer 13-2-100, ' (a)ny enter[ed] been warned Peeples Montgomery, 506 2d 366, 367 (Ala. Crim. c a s e l a w has recognized that the wantonness 8 after award § excuse, do even occur found fact the having court trespass [penalized] after Martin's the 1975,] good judgment continued warrants warning, cause i t considered continued protest amended judgment, the t r i a l [Glass]." statute, Ala. trespass without by court's damages, trespass protest can trial In i t s i n i t i a l and damages the awarding "[Martin's] warning to] in case, App. [pertaining person ... who, on the within six v. City 1986). necessary for of Our the 2100157 imposition of punitive damages as t o a c i v i l "is s h o w n b y m e r e ' k n o w l e d g e on t h e p a r t the invasion of the p l a i n t i f f ' s I n c . , 439 S o . 2 d 9 5 , 101 & Marsh Coal Co. v . P a s s , In C a l v e r t the word Co. v . P a s s , governed by same action." 393 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 6 . h e l d , wantonness premises with rights." Id. (Ala. 1991) defendant's knowledge (concluding admission was to Drennen used in a that i s not negligence action, the court an i n v a s i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' the violation not but that Timber that wantonness of plaintiffs' shown t h e b o u n d a r y was i n d i s p u t e , cut the timber the defendant had Company the jury could was " t h a t he was i n f o r m e d a t l e a s t discontinue until have f o u n d that the cutting the by and t h a t he dispute the was t o have timber"); ( A l a . 1985) (holding the defendant's conduct was w a n t o n b e c a u s e , " e v e n a f t e r he was p u t on n o t i c e 9 by twice "made no e f f o r t S t e w a r t v . L o w e r y , 484 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 5 , 1060 that noted S e e a l s o W r a y v . M o o n e y h a m , 589 S o . 2 d 1 8 1 , 183 that resolved," of when Calvert f o r trespass In a trespass "means s i m p l y [the p l a i n t i f f ] asked as Vester ( A l a . 1980)). the court when u s e d i n an a c t i o n rules v. ( A l a . 1983) ( q u o t i n g 'wanton' the Hickox 393 S o . 2 d 9 5 5 , 956 & Marsh Coal claim of the defendant[] of rights.'" Morgan, trespass that the 2100157 [plaintiffs] claimed the property between hedgerow[, the defendant] continued and debris, erecting fence piling the road coming posts, and the on t h a t property and doing other w h i c h c o u l d have l e d t h e j u r y t o c o n c l u d e t h a t [ t h e attempted t o take over property Because the evidence trespass was w a n t o n , punitive damages v. the t r i a l a conclusion t o him"). Martin's was a u t h o r i z e d court that t o award i n a d d i t i o n to nominal L y l e s , 41 S o . 3 d a t 9 4 . defendant] that d i dnot belong supports acts damages. S e e Downs 1 " I n the presence of such evidence, p u n i t i v e damages a r e f o r t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t . " Driver This v. H i c e , court unless may 618 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 132 ( A l a . C i v . App. not reverse court's i t i s " p a l p a b l y wrong, or ... m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . " is so e x c e s s i v e award 490, a will 492 ... w i t h o u t Id. reversed." C i v . App. Underwood 1990). The damages supporting "[U]nless as t o i n d i c a t e p r e j u d i c e n o t be (Ala. trial 1993). award evidence, t h e amount awarded or passion, s u c h an v. H a l l , record 572 So. 2 d indicates no Although t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a p p o r t i o n i t s damages a w a r d as r e q u i r e d b y A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 6-11-1, " a n y e r r o r b a s e d on t h a t g r o u n d c a n n o t s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l b e c a u s e i t was n o t a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See G r e e n T r e e Acceptance, I n c . v. S t a n d r i d g e , 565 S o . 2 d 3 8 , 4 6 ( A l a . 1990)." Downs v . L y l e s , 41 S o . 3 d a t 9 3 - 9 4 . 1 10 2100157 reason to conclude prejudice The or that t h e damages award was the r e s u l t of passion. judgment of the Shelby Circuit Court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n result, without writings. 11 and Moore, J J . , concur i n the
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.
