B & B Wrecker Service, Inc. v. City of Citronelle

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/2/11 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, 2011-2012 2100820 B & B Wrecker S e r v i c e , Inc. v. City of Citronelle Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-10-902536) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . B & B Wrecker S e r v i c e , summary judgment i n f a v o r city"). We r e v e r s e I n c . ("B & B " ) , a p p e a l s of the City a n d remand. from a o f C i t r o n e l l e ("the 2100820 Undisputed The f o l l o w i n g officers of department") the Facts f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d . On December 19, 2008, city's police department obtained a search warrant ("the authorizing s e a r c h a m o b i l e home ("the m o b i l e home") l o c a t e d f o r evidence r e l a t i n g t o the manufacture Pursuant to the search warrant, other things, B t o come department to the mobile p o l i c e department o f methamphetamine. the o f f i c e r s seized, days automobiles after among ("the Dodge then c a l l e d B & B and asked B & home. O f f i c e r Bill Newburn o f t h e t h e n d i r e c t e d B & B t o tow t h e Dodge Ram a n d t h r e e o t h e r a u t o m o b i l e s t o B & B's s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y . five them t o i n Citronelle a 2000 Dodge Ram 3500 p i c k u p t r u c k Ram"). The p o l i c e police towing t h e Dodge to i t s storage Ram facility, Four o r and t h e t h r e e B & B asked other Officer Newburn w h e t h e r t h e c i t y w a n t e d t o move t h e Dodge Ram a n d t h e three other automobiles to a f a c i l i t y storage because the fees f o r s t o r i n g owned b y t h e c i t y f o r t h e Dodge Ram t h r e e o t h e r a u t o m o b i l e s a t B & B's f a c i l i t y p e r d a y . O f f i c e r Newburn t o l d B & B t h a t t h e mayor a n d t h e p o l i c e & B that chief. and t h e would t o t a l $100 he w o u l d check w i t h O f f i c e r Newburn l a t e r t o l d B t h e c i t y w a n t e d t o l e a v e t h e Dodge Ram a n d t h e t h r e e 2 2100820 other automobiles On F e b r u a r y a t B & B's facility. 27, 2009, t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a i n s t i t u t e d an a c t i o n i n the Mobile C i r c u i t Court, seeking the f o r f e i t u r e of t h e Dodge Ram and o t h e r i t e m s s e i z e d a t t h e p r e m i s e s where t h e mobile owner") home was l o c a t e d . The contested conclusion owner the f o r f e i t u r e of the bench t r i a l 2009, t h e M o b i l e Circuit o f t h e Dodge Ram o f t h e Dodge Ram. of t h a t a c t i o n Court orally Circuit Court At the on December 1, a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t was g o i n g t o r u l e i n f a v o r o f t h e owner. On F e b r u a r y Mobile ("the entered a written 3, 2010, t h e judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e owner. The j u d g m e n t o r d e r e d t h e S t a t e t o r e t u r n t h e Dodge Ram t o t h e owner. On J a n u a r y 22, 2010, t h e owner sued B & B i n the M o b i l e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The owner a l l e g e d t h a t t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t had released i t s hold on the Dodge Ram pursuant to the judgment o f t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t i n t h e f o r f e i t u r e action but to the t h a t B & B h a d r e f u s e d t o r e l e a s e t h e Dodge Ram owner. The owner s o u g h t a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g h i m p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e Dodge Ram. fees B & B counterclaimed, for storing bench t r i a l , t h e Dodge Ram the Mobile at i t s f a c i l i t y . District 3 seeking to recover i t s Court, Following a on A u g u s t 4, 2010, 2100820 e n t e r e d a judgment for (1) f i n d i n g s t o r i n g t h e Dodge Ram owed by t h e owner and that, i f B & B was at i t s f a c i l i t y , owed f e e s t h e f e e s were (2) f i n d i n g i n f a v o r o f t h e owner w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s c l a i m s e e k i n g p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e Dodge B & B appealed December 22, M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment not Dodge Ram at owner w i t h Dodge responsible for B its facility respect Ram. from the judgment of the M o b i l e C o u r t t o t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t . On owner was not to and his & B's (2) District 2010, the (1) f i n d i n g t h a t t h e fees finding claim seeking for storing the i n favor of the possession of the Ram. Procedural History On November 8, C i r c u i t Court. 2010, B & B sued the I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , B & B's city i n the complaint Mobile alleged: "3. T h a t [ t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t ] impounded [ t h e Dodge Ram] p u r s u a n t t o a l a w f u l d r u g a r r e s t and p l a c e d i t f o r s t o r a g e and s a f e k e e p i n g w i t h [ B & B ] p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s and civil forfeiture proceedings initiated by [the S t a t e ] through the M o b i l e County D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s Office. "4. T h a t on o r a b o u t December 1, 2009, t h e [ M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t ] o r d e r e d t h e [Dodge Ram] t o be r e l e a s e d t o t h e r i g h t f u l owner. "5. [ T h e c i t y ] has r e f u s e d t o pay t h e s t o r a g e f e e s e v e n t h o u g h l a w f u l demand was made f o r t h e 4 2100820 same. fees "6. [B & B] h a s i n c u r r e d s u b s t a n t i a l as a r e s u l t o f t h e impoundment." Answering, the c i t y B's f e e s denied that i t was o b l i g a t e d f o r s t o r i n g t h e Dodge Ram storage t o pay B & at i t s f a c i l i t y . On M a r c h 11, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i t y moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . The c i t y a s s e r t e d store t h e Dodge fees because, requires t h a t , a l t h o u g h i t h a d a s k e d B & B t o tow and Ram, i t was i t said, not l i a b l e (1) § f o r B & B's 11-47-5, storage A l a . Code 1975, 1 c o n t r a c t s w i t h m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o be i n w r i t i n g a n d B & B d i d n o t have a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e c i t y r e l a t i n g t o the towing 1 Section or storage 11-47-5 of t h e Dodge Ram and (2) § 20-2- provides: " C o n t r a c t s e n t e r e d i n t o by a m u n i c i p a l i t y s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g , s i g n e d a n d e x e c u t e d i n t h e name o f t h e c i t y o r town b y t h e o f f i c e r s a u t h o r i z e d t o make t h e same a n d b y t h e p a r t y c o n t r a c t i n g . I n c a s e s n o t otherwise directed by law or o r d i n a n c e , such c o n t r a c t s s h a l l be e n t e r e d i n t o a n d e x e c u t e d by t h e mayor i n t h e name o f t h e c i t y o r town a n d a l l obligations f o r t h e payment o f money by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y , e x c e p t f o r bonds a n d i n t e r e s t c o u p o n s , s h a l l be a t t e s t e d b y t h e c l e r k . T h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o c o v e r p u r c h a s e s f o r t h e o r d i n a r y needs o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y . " 5 2100820 93(e)(2), storage not fees on 2 does n o t seized property authorize when t h e t h e payment of seized property is forfeited. In opposition asserted B's A l a . Code 1975, (1) that to the summary-judgment § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( e ) ( 2 ) was c l a i m b e c a u s e t h e Dodge Ram that B & B was Dodge Ram 2011, a storage 2 B applicable to B & judgment for storing the and t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on A p r i l granting the summary-judgment n o t o b l i g a t e d t o pay f e e s u n d e r § 20-2-93 b e c a u s e t h e I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 20-2-93(e)(2) Dodge Ram provides: "(e) When p r o p e r t y i s f o r f e i t e d under chapter the state, county, or municipal enforcement agency may: this law II "(2) S e l l t h a t w h i c h i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o be d e s t r o y e d by l a w and w h i c h i s n o t h a r m f u l t o t h e p u b l i c . The p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s s u b s e c t i o n s h a l l be u s e d , f i r s t , f o r payment o f all proper expenses of the proceedings for f o r f e i t u r e and s a l e , i n c l u d i n g e x p e n s e s o f s e i z u r e , m a i n t e n a n c e o f o r c u s t o d y , a d v e r t i s i n g and court costs " 6 (2) of i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t m o t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c i t y was & B's & i t s fees doctrines Following a hearing, entered B had n o t b e e n f o r f e i t e d and to recover by v i r t u e o f t h e quantum m e r u i t . 18, entitled not motion, B had 2100820 not been f o r f e i t e d . T h e r e a f t e r , B & B timely appealed to this court. Standard of Review "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t 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 . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w 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 e n t e r t a i n 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 b e e n f r e e to draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [ ( A l a . 2000)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t Real Estate Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). Analysis B & B f i r s t argues t h a t the t r i a l 7 court erred i n granting 2100820 the summary-judgment motion because, i t says, the s e n t e n c e o f § 11-47-5 i m p l i e s t h a t a c i t y may o r a l l y final contract f o r " p u r c h a s e s f o r t h e o r d i n a r y needs o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y " a n d B & B presented had orally s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the c i t y contracted f o r B & B t o s t o r e t h e Dodge Ram a t B & B's f a c i l i t y . However, t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e that B & B presented that t h e r e f o r e , we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r argument us does n o t i n d i c a t e to the t r i a l court; i t . See Ex p a r t e R y a l s , 773 So. 2d 1011, 1013 ( A l a . 2000) ("[T]he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r an a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t o n l y t o the extent the trial that the record court court before on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s record presenting material from t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l or a t the time of submission of the motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t . Andrews v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 1992)." (emphasis B & B a l s o argues in t h e case forfeited now and fees implied contract argues that before from B (1) t h a t § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( e ) ( 2 ) does n o t a p p l y (2) t h a t storage omitted)). us b e c a u s e B & B the c i t y i s entitled pursuant a n d quantum m e r u i t . & B t h e Dodge was n o t t o recover i t s to the doctrines In response, d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y 8 Ram plead a of the c i t y claim of 2100820 implied contract o r quantum meruit. However, A l a . R. C i v . P., s t a t e s t h a t " [ a ] p l e a d i n g claim for relief ... shall contain Rule 8(a)(1), which sets f o r t h a (1) a short and plain statement of the c l a i m showing t h a t the p l e a d e r i s e n t i t l e d t o relief." B & B's complaint alleged that "[the police d e p a r t m e n t had] i m p o u n d e d [ t h e Dodge Ram] p u r s u a n t t o a l a w f u l d r u g a r r e s t and p l a c e d i t f o r s t o r a g e and s a f e k e e p i n g w i t h [B & B] p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s and c i v i l f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s , " t h a t " [ t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t had] o r d e r e d t h e [Dodge Ram] t o be r e l e a s e d t o t h e r i g h t f u l owner," that " [ B & B] h a [ d ] i n c u r r e d substantial storage fees r e s u l t o f t h e impoundment," and t h a t " [ t h e c i t y ] h a [ d ] as a refused t o p a y t h e s t o r a g e f e e s e v e n t h o u g h l a w f u l demand was made f o r the same." sufficient Under Rule 8(a)(1), to state a claim meruit. Accordingly, we w i l l argument those of implied consider allegations were contract o r quantum the merits o f B & B's (1) t h a t § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( e ) ( 2 ) does n o t a p p l y i n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e us b e c a u s e t h e Dodge Ram was n o t f o r f e i t e d and (2) that B & B i s entitled t o recover i t s storage fees from the c i t y p u r s u a n t t o t h e d o c t r i n e s o f i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t and quantum meruit. 9 2100820 "The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o a s c e r t a i n and g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , plain, o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , and where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n effect." IMED C o r p . v. Systems Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. It 1992). Section 20-2-93(e)(2) is not ambiguous. c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t "[w]hen p r o p e r t y i s f o r f e i t e d municipal law enforcement agency may ... [s]ell ... t h e ... [property] w h i c h i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o be d e s t r o y e d by l a w and w h i c h i s n o t h a r m f u l t o t h e p u b l i c " and t h a t " [ t ] h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e ... s h a l l be u s e d , f i r s t , f o r payment o f a l l p r o p e r expenses o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s f o r f o r f e i t u r e and s a l e , i n c l u d i n g expenses of s e i z u r e , maintenance costs o f o r c u s t o d y , a d v e r t i s i n g and court " I t does n o t p u r p o r t t o p r o v i d e what s h o u l d o c c u r i f s e i z e d p r o p e r t y i s n o t f o r f e i t e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e that the p l a i n language of § 20-2-93(e)(2) i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t does n o t g o v e r n t h e c a s e now was not b e f o r e us b e c a u s e t h e Dodge Ram 293 A l a . 89, 93, forfeited. In Bethune v. C i t y of Mountain Brook, 10 2100820 300 So. 2d despite 350, the 352 (1974), requirement the of T i t l e supreme c o u r t 37, § 467, stated Ala. that, Code 1940 (Recomp. 1 9 5 8 ) , a s t a t u t o r y p r e d e c e s s o r o f § 11-47-5, t h a t contract with purchases for a municipality the ordinary relating needs o f to the matter other municipality a than be in writing, "provided a c o n t r a c t i s w i t h i n the scope of i t s c o r p o r a t e powers, a m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n may be h e l d l i a b l e on an i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t , e i t h e r where t h e c o n t r a c t i s i m p l i e d i n f a c t from c o r p o r a t e a c t s , or i s i m p l i e d i n law, t o p r e v e n t the m u n i c i p a l i t y from e n r i c h i n g i t s e l f by a c c e p t i n g and r e t a i n i n g b e n e f i t s without paying j u s t compensation t h e r e f o r . " I n G r e e n v. H o s p i t a l B u i l d i n g A u t h o r i t y Ala. 467, 470, 318 So. 2d 701, 704 of Bessemer, (1975), the supreme explained: " T h e r e a r e two k i n d s o f i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t s -¬ t h o s e i m p l i e d i n f a c t and t h o s e i m p l i e d i n l a w . C o n t r a c t s i m p l i e d i n l a w a r e more p r o p e r l y d e s c r i b e d as q u a s i o r c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t r a c t s where t h e law fictitiously supplies the promise to prevent a m a n i f e s t i n j u s t i c e or u n j u s t enrichment." In the case of q u a s i or c o n s t r u c t i v e contracts, " ' " ' [ t ] h e r u l e i s t h a t i f one knowingly a c c e p t s s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d by a n o t h e r , and t h e b e n e f i t and r e s u l t t h e r e o f , t h e law i m p l i e s a p r o m i s e on t h e p a r t o f t h e one who so a c c e p t s w i t h k n o w l e d g e , t o pay the reasonable value of such services r e n d e r e d . ' R i c h a r d s v. W i l l i a m s , 231 A l a . 11 294 court 2100820 450, 453, 165 So. 820, 823 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . I n o r d e r t o s u c c e e d on a c l a i m o f u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t , t h e p l a i n t i f f must show t h a t he h a d a reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n of compensation f o r his s e r v i c e s . U t a h Foam P r o d s . , I n c . v . P o l y t e c , I n c . , 584 So. 2d 1345, 1350 ( A l a . 2d " A s s o c i a t e s C o m m e r c i a l C o r p . v . R o b e r t s , 844 So. 2( 1256, 1261 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( q u o t i n g P h i l l i p ; i ! ^ O 1 A a ^ O O C O O O / O- T v. TFT u ,l, l!e ,r, , 814 So. 2d 885, 888 (- A 1 -l a . C IiTv . -A,^,^ A , App. 2001))." CIT G r o u p / E q u i p . F i n . , I n c . v . R o b e r t s , 885 So. 2 d 185, 189-90 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . In t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s , t h e t r i a l substantial evidence indicating c a l l e d B & B t o the mobile directed B automobiles & B that the police department home; t h a t t h e p o l i c e department t o tow t h e Dodge Ram other later, B & B asked Officer there; that, four or f i v e Newburn w h e t h e r w a n t e d t o move t h e Dodge Ram t o a f a c i l i t y for and three t o B & B's s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y a n d t o s t o r e t h e Dodge Ram a n d t h e t h r e e o t h e r a u t o m o b i l e s days court had before i t the c i t y owned b y t h e c i t y s t o r a g e b e c a u s e t h e f e e s f o r s t o r i n g t h e Dodge Ram a n d t h e three other automobiles would t o t a l $100 p e r d a y ; a n d t h a t O f f i c e r Newburn l a t e r t o l d B & B t h a t t h e c i t y w a n t e d t o l e a v e the Dodge facility. Ram a n d t h e t h r e e Although other automobiles a t B & B's t h e c i t y d i d not e x p r e s s l y promise t o pay 12 2100820 B & B f o r s t o r i n g t h e Dodge Ram knowingly accepted the b e n e f i t Ram a t B & B's f a c i l i t y for at i t sf a c i l i t y , o f B & B's s t o r i n g t h e Dodge a n d knew t h a t B & B was c h a r g i n g a fee t h a t s e r v i c e . Moreover, the evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t B & B t o l d O f f i c e r Newburn t h a t t h e s t o r a g e Ram a n d t h e t h r e e and other fees f o r t h e Dodge automobiles would t o t a l $100 p e r d a y t h a t O f f i c e r Newburn l a t e r t o l d B & B t h a t t h e c i t y w a n t e d t o l e a v e t h e Dodge Ram a n d t h e t h r e e B's f a c i l i t y storing the Dodge Ram at automobiles at B & facie case of a t h a t i t w o u l d be p a i d f o r i t s facility. conclude that the evidence before prima other c o n s t i t u t e s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g that B & B had a reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n a the c i t y quasi the t r i a l or Accordingly, court we established constructive contract p u r s u a n t t o which t h e law would imply a promise by t h e c i t y t o pay B & B f o r s t o r i n g t h e Dodge Ram. A c c o r d i n g l y , we reverse t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e c i t y a n d remand t h e c a u s e to the t r i a l this court f o r further proceedings consistent with opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 13 Thomas, a n d Moore, 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.