Carol Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 11/10/2011 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 2100909 C a r o l Mahoney v. Loma A l t a Property Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-06-415) Court PER CURIAM. C a r o l Mahoney Baldwin ("Mahoney") appeals from a judgment o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t a w a r d i n g h e r $500 a s an a t t o r n e y f e e a n d c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o t h e Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , 2100909 § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 ("ALAA"). We r e v e r s e a n d remand. This i s the f o u r t h time this court. [Ms. 2100104, May these p a r t i e s have been I n Mahoney v. Loma A l t a 6, 2011)("Mahoney I I I " ) , 2011] Property So. 3d we s e t o u t t h e f a c t u a l h i s t o r y o f t h e case and t h e p r e v i o u s appeals before Owners A s s ' n , ( A l a . C i v . App. and p r o c e d u r a l thusly: " I n Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , 4 So. 3d 1130 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ' M a h o n e y I ' ) , we s e t out t h e f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y of the case as f o l l o w s : "'Loma Alta Property Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ("LAPOA"), s u e d C a r o l Mahoney i n t h e B a l d w i n District Court, claiming breach of contract, account s t a t e d , and a p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s - a s s o c i a t i o n l i e n on r e a l e s t a t e o c c u p i e d b y Mahoney. LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner o f u n i t C-1 i n Loma A l t a Townhomes; t h a t Ms. Mahoney was, t h e r e f o r e , b o u n d b y an agreement contained within the c o n d o m i n i u m d e c l a r a t i o n f o r t h e Loma A l t a s u b d i v i s i o n t o p a y property-owners-association fees, a s s e s s m e n t s , a n d l a t e c h a r g e s ; a n d t h a t Ms. Mahoney h a d f a i l e d t o p a y t h o s e fees, a s s e s s m e n t s , and charges. LAPOA a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r f r o m Ms. Mahoney damages, including late fees, i n t e r e s t , c o s t s , a n d an a t t o r n e y f e e , a n d t o h a v e a l i e n on t h e r e a l e s t a t e o c c u p i e d by Ms. Mahoney. 2 2100909 "'Ms. Mahoney a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , a d m i t t e d t h a t she "owe[d] some money, b u t n o t t h e t o t a l amount c l a i m e d by [LAPOA]," and a s s e r t e d t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o a s e t o f f b e c a u s e LAPOA h a d f a i l e d t o make n e e d e d r e p a i r s on t h e u n i t . On A p r i l 11, 2006, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA i n t h e amount o f $5,390, p l u s c o s t s and an a t t o r n e y f e e o f $500. Ms. Mahoney a p p e a l e d t h a t j u d g m e n t t o t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t on A p r i l 25, 2006, f o r a t r i a l de n o v o . "'On May 19, 2006, Ms. Mahoney f i l e d an amended answer i n t h e c i r c u i t court, generally denying the allegations of LAPOA's c o m p l a i n t and a s s e r t i n g , among other t h i n g s , t h a t she d i d n o t have a c o n t r a c t w i t h LAPOA. I n a d d i t i o n , Ms. Mahoney a s s e r t e d a c l a i m u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ("ALAA"), § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. On December 21, 2006, LAPOA amended i t s complaint, naming Ms. Mahoney's former h u s b a n d , J o s e p h Mahoney, as a d e f e n d a n t . LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Mr. Mahoney was t h e "owner" o f u n i t C-1 i n Loma A l t a Townhomes and t h a t Ms. Mahoney was a " r e s i d e n t " o f the unit. LAPOA a l s o added a claim a l l e g i n g t h a t , by v i r t u e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e of i t s p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s - a s s o c i a t i o n lien, i t was e n t i t l e d t o have Ms. Mahoney " e v i c t e d " f r o m u n i t C-1. "'The c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a b e n c h t r i a l on J a n u a r y 26, 2007, a t w h i c h o n l y one witness -Mary Garey, the s e c r e t a r y / t r e a s u r e r o f LAPOA -- t e s t i f i e d . Garey explained that the property-owners-association fees and assessments represent the u n i t owners' proportionate share of the cost of 3 2100909 m a i n t a i n i n g a n d p r e s e r v i n g t h e common a r e a s of t h e condominium. Garey t e s t i f i e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney h a d r e s i d e d i n u n i t C-1 o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s i n c e M a r c h 2000 a n d t h a t she had p a i d some o f t h e f e e s a n d a s s e s s m e n t s b u t t h a t she h a d s t o p p e d p a y i n g , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o s e t o f f a g a i n s t the b a l a n c e t h e c o s t of needed r e p a i r s t h a t LAPOA h a d f a i l e d t o make on t h e u n i t Ms. Mahoney was o c c u p y i n g . G a r e y s t a t e d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o the condominium d e c l a r a t i o n , r e p a i r s t o a u n i t are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the individual unit owner, n o t LAPOA. G a r e y i d e n t i f i e d a document s h o w i n g t h e p a s t - d u e f e e s a n d a s s e s s m e n t s t h a t , LAPOA c l a i m e d , were owed b y Ms. Mahoney. Garey testified that Ms. Mahoney had never returned the invoices f o r fees and assessments t o Garey w i t h a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e i n v o i c e s be f o r w a r d e d t o someone e l s e . Nor, a c c o r d i n g t o G a r e y , h a d Ms. Mahoney e v e r i n f o r m e d LAPOA t h a t she was n o t t h e owner o f t h e u n i t i n w h i c h she r e s i d e d . G a r e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t LAPOA, b y v i r t u e o f i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owner o f e a c h u n i t , has a l i e n on any u n i t f o r w h i c h t h e r e a r e u n p a i d f e e s and a s s e s s m e n t s . Garey s a i d t h a t LAPOA h a d f o r e c l o s e d i t s l i e n on u n i t C-1. 1 "'On cross-examination, Garey a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e owner o f e a c h u n i t i s solely responsible f o r payment o f t h e property-owners-association fees and a s s e s s m e n t s . G a r e y a d m i t t e d t h a t LAPOA h a d no d e e d s h o w i n g t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner o f t h e u n i t i n w h i c h she r e s i d e d , that LAPOA h a d no contract with Ms. Mahoney, a n d t h a t LAPOA h a d no document s t a t i n g t h a t someone o t h e r t h a n t h e owner o f t h e u n i t was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment o f t h e f e e s a n d a s s e s s m e n t s on t h e u n i t t h a t 4 2100909 Ms. Mahoney occupied. On redirect examination, Garey a f f i r m e d the t r u t h of t h e f o l l o w i n g i n q u i r y by LAPOA's c o u n s e l : "We're s i m p l y a s k i n g [ t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ] t o c o n f i r m t h a t we've g o t a j u d g m e n t on t h i s u n i t , w h e t h e r i t ' s owned [ b y ] Ms. Mahoney o r whoever i t i s , b e c a u s e t h a t u n i t has n o t p a i d any dues and a s s e s s m e n t s , i s t h a t right?" "'The circuit court admitted the f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by LAPOA: ( 1 ) t h e c o n d o m i n i u m d e c l a r a t i o n f o r t h e Loma A l t a s u b d i v i s i o n ; ( 2 ) a s t a t e m e n t o f f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , and l a t e c h a r g e s s e n t by LAPOA t o Ms. Mahoney on J a n u a r y 24, 2007, i n d i c a t i n g a b a l a n c e due o f $6,150; and (3) a " S t a t e m e n t o f L i e n " f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n P r o b a t e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 4, 2004, n a m i n g C a r o l Mahoney as t h e owner o f " L o t C-1, Loma A l t a , as r e c o r d e d i n Map Book 11, Page 176, i n t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge o f Probate, B a l d w i n County, Alabama." "'At the conclusion of Garey's t e s t i m o n y , LAPOA r e s t e d and Ms. Mahoney's c o u n s e l moved f o r a " d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , " arguing: 2 "'"[T]here's b e e n no proof of o w n e r s h i p [by] my c l i e n t , C a r o l Mahoney, ... o r t h a t s h e ' s b o u n d by any c o n t r a c t t h a t t h e y h a v e failed to present in court showing t h a t she's responsible for anything "'"[LAPOA has] gone a g a i n s t t h e wrong p e r s o n , and t h a t ' s why we move f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and ask for award of reasonable 5 2100909 attorney's fees fight this." f o r having to "'The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . On April 13, 2007, t h e c o u r t entered a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA a n d a g a i n s t Ms. Mahoney i n t h e amount o f $6,279.10 a n d a w a r d e d LAPOA an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e o f $5,000. The c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c o u n t e r c l a i m , b u t we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was i m p l i c i t l y d e n i e d . See H a r r i s v. Cook, 944 So. 2d 977, 981 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . On t h e same d a y , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t f o r t h e same amount i n f a v o r o f LAPOA a n d a g a i n s t J o s e p h Mahoney. Ms. Mahoney f i l e d a t i m e l y 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 May 15, 2007. " ' S e c t i o n 3 5 - 8 - 1 7 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f a c h a p t e r e n t i t l e d "Condominium Ownership," p r o v i d e s that "[l]iens for u n p a i d a s s e s s m e n t s may be f o r e c l o s e d b y an a c t i o n b r o u g h t i n t h e name o f t h e [ p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' ] a s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e same manner as a f o r e c l o s u r e o f a m o r t g a g e on real property." 1 "' In actions t r i e d without a jury, t h e p r o p e r m o t i o n i s one f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s , pursuant t o Rule 52(c), A l a . R. C i v . P.' 2 "Mahoney I , 4 So. 3d a t 1131-33. I n Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , 52 So. 3d 510 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ' M a h o n e y I I ' ) , t h i s c o u r t f u r t h e r s e t o u t t h e f a c t s a n d p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h e c a s e as follows: "'[In Mahoney I,] [t]his court r e v e r s e d t h e j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Loma A l t a Property Owners Association, Inc. 6 2100909 ("LAPOA"), h o l d i n g t h a t LAPOA h a d w h o l l y f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t Ms. Mahoney was b o u n d to pay t h e f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , and l a t e c h a r g e s c l a i m e d b y LAPOA b e c a u s e LAPOA's contract obligated t h e owner of the condominium u n i t t o pay those charges and the evidence c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Ms. Mahoney was n o t t h e owner o f t h e u n i t . This court remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e circuit court with instructions to a d j u d i c a t e Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m . i t s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA, e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Ms. Mahoney, a n d s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m on S e p t e m b e r 17, 2008. Ms. Mahoney f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 2, 2008, complaining t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had, "without evidence or testimony entered a v e r d i c t f o r [LAPOA] as t o t h e ALAA c l a i m . " She a t t a c h e d t o h e r m o t i o n a f o r e c l o s u r e deed executed b y LAPOA's attorney on O c t o b e r 10, 2006, a n d f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n P r o b a t e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 16, 2006, a v e r r i n g t h a t J o s e p h Mahoney h a d b e e n t h e r e c o r d t i t l e owner o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y s i n c e May 10, 2005. "'Ms. Mahoney s p e c i f i c a l l y requested a h e a r i n g on h e r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The c i r c u i t court s e t the motion f o r a hearing on O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2008. The r e c o r d b e f o r e us c o n t a i n s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g . The p a r t i e s a g r e e , h o w e v e r , t h a t Ms. Mahoney did not appear, t h a t no e v i d e n c e was presented, and t h a t counsel f o r both p a r t i e s presented o r a l argument t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e h e a r i n g . On O c t o b e r 28, 2008, the circuit court denied Ms. Mahoney's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Ms. Mahoney t i m e l y a p p e a l e d on November 13, 2008.' 7 2100909 "Mahoney I I , 52 So. 3d a t 513-14. " I n Mahoney I I , we h e l d that, "'[i]n the present case, as i n S a n d e r s o n G r o u p [ , I n c . v. S m i t h , 809 So. 2d 823 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ] , the record shows i n d i s p u t a b l y t h a t LAPOA's action a g a i n s t Ms. Mahoney was g r o u n d l e s s i n l a w . All f o u r o f LAPOA's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Ms. Mahoney -- b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , account s t a t e d , p r o p e r t y owner's l i e n , and e v i c t i o n -- h i n g e d upon i t s p r o v i n g t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . LAPOA n o t o n l y f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner, b u t i t a l s o p r e s e n t e d as i t s only witness at the c i r c u i t - c o u r t trial someone who a c k n o w l e d g e d " t h a t LAPOA h a d no d e e d s h o w i n g t h a t Ms. Mahoney was t h e owner" o f t h e p r o p e r t y . Mahoney [ I ] , 4 So. 3d a t 1132. LAPOA h a d a c c e s s t o i t s own condominium d e c l a r a t i o n , which "'"makes i t c l e a r t h a t LAPOA's remedy i s s t r i c t l y a g a i n s t t h e owner. As A r t i c l e V I I , S e c t i o n 7, of the d e c l a r a t i o n , entitled 'Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments: Remedies of the A s s o c i a t i o n , ' s t a t e s : 'No owner may w a i v e o r o t h e r w i s e escape liability f o r the assessments p r o v i d e d f o r h e r e i n by non-use o f t h e Common A r e a o r abandonment o f his lot.'" "'Mahoney [ I ] , 4 So. 3d a t 1134. I n addition, the record conclusively demonstrates that LAPOA knew, before December 2 1 , 2006, when i t amended i t s c o m p l a i n t i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h a t Ms. 8 2100909 Mahoney's f o r m e r h u s b a n d , J o s e p h Mahoney, was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y because LAPOA's a t t o r n e y had, on O c t o b e r 16, 2006, filed i n the Baldwin Probate Court a foreclosure deed averring that Joseph Mahoney had b e e n t h e r e c o r d t i t l e owner o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y s i n c e May 10, 2005.' "Mahoney I I , 52 So. 3d a t 517. We r e v e r s e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m and remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make an a p p r o p r i a t e a w a r d p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. I d . a t 517¬ 18. "LAPOA p e t i t i o n e d t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , which t h a t court granted. Our supreme c o u r t a f f i r m e d o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Mahoney's c l a i m f o r an a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA, n o t i n g t h a t "'the determination that the claims a s s e r t e d by LAPOA a g a i n s t Mahoney i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t were g r o u n d l e s s r e s u l t s from r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t ownership of the p r o p e r t y was a r e q u i r e d l e g a l e l e m e n t o f e a c h c l a i m and t h a t , a t t h e t i m e LAPOA amended t h e c o m p l a i n t , LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Mahoney's f o r m e r h u s b a n d , and n o t Mahoney h e r s e l f , was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . ' "Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a P r o p . 518, 524 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . Owners A s s ' n , 52 So. 3d " J u s t i c e W o o d a l l and J u s t i c e M u r d o c k d i s s e n t e d f r o m t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a . B o t h J u s t i c e W o o d a l l and J u s t i c e M u r d o c k o p i n e d i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d i s s e n t s t h a t t h e y w o u l d have h e l d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t LAPOA's l a w s u i t a g a i n s t Mahoney was n o t g r o u n d l e s s i n l a w o r f a c t , v e x a t i o u s , o r i n t e r p o s e d f o r any improper purpose; t h e r e f o r e , they opined, the t r i a l 9 2100909 c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e c l i n i n g t o a w a r d Mahoney an a t t o r n e y f e e a n d c o s t s u n d e r t h e ALAA. "On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g , a t w h i c h Mahoney p r e s e n t e d testimony and e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y Mahoney as a r e s u l t o f LAPOA's l a w s u i t , t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of those c o s t s , and o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t an a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA. LAPOA p r e s e n t e d testimony and evidence regarding the reasonableness of Mahoney's c o u n s e l ' s c h a r g e s a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s t h a t i t f e l t w o u l d s u p p o r t o n l y a m i n i m a l award. "Following the hearing, the t r i a l court entered an o r d e r a w a r d i n g Mahoney an a t t o r n e y f e e o f $500. The t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s j u d g m e n t t h a t i t s a w a r d was b a s e d on ' t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e [Alabama] Supreme C o u r t ' s d i s s e n t s a n d [LAPOA's] recent submissions, [and] w h i c h i s i n l i n e w i t h t h e amount a w a r d e d [as an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l ] b y t h e Court of C i v i l Appeals.'" So. 3d a t Mahoney - appealed . the c i r c u i t court's judgment awarding h e r $500 on h e r ALAA c l a i m t o t h i s c o u r t . I d . I n Mahoney I I I , we reversed the c i r c u i t court's judgment, holding that the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t s t a t e s p e c i f i c r e a s o n s f o r i t s a w a r d , as i s r e q u i r e d b y § 12-19-273, A l a . Code 1975. I d ^ We a l s o h e l d t h a t t h e b a s i s s t a t e d by t h e c i r c u i t the reasoning c o u r t i n i t s j u d g m e n t -¬ o f t h e d i s s e n t s o f J u s t i c e W o o d a l l and J u s t i c e M u r d o c k i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , 52 So. 3d 518 ( A l a . 2010), and t h i s court's 10 a w a r d o f $500 i n a t t o r n e y 2100909 f e e s i n Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , 52 So. 510 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009)("Mahoney I I " ) -- were n o t 3d proper b a s e s on w h i c h t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f i t s a w a r d p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. I d . to enter our We remanded t h e a j u d g m e n t on o p i n i o n and with cause t o the circuit court Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m c o n s i s t e n t the i s s u e s as with d e t e r m i n e d i n Mahoney Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , 4 So. 3d 1130 (Ala. Civ. v. App. 2 0 0 8 ) ( " M a h o n e y I") Mahoney I I , Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a , and Mahoney III, the b e c a u s e o u r supreme c o u r t ' s and o u r c o n c l u s i o n s i s s u e s addressed i n those case. See Auerbach 1989)("'When decision on a case appeal, v. is appeals Parker, 558 remanded "issues to decided had regarding become law So. 2d a trial by the 900, of 902 court the (Ala. after appellate a court become law o f t h e c a s e and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y i s t o c o m p l y with So. the a p p e l l a t e m a n d a t e . . . . " ' " ( q u o t i n g E r b e v. 2d 778, 779 ( A l a . C i v . App. v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s App. Lumber Co., 1984), q u o t i n g 441 So. 2d 980, Eady, 447 i n t u r n Walker 982 (Ala. Civ. 1983))). On remand, t h e circuit c o u r t , on June 23, 2011, entered a j u d g m e n t a g a i n a w a r d i n g Mahoney $500 on h e r ALAA c l a i m . The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment c o n t a i n e d e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s of fact 11 2100909 and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . Mahoney s u b s e q u e n t l y appealed to t h i s court. The amount o f an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s u n d e r t h e ALAA i s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l W i l l i a m s v. Capps T r a i l e r (Ala. S a l e s , I n c . , 607 So. 2d 1272, 1275 C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . On findings not c o u r t . § 12-19-273; appeal, Mahoney i n the c i r c u i t supported argues court's that many of the factual June 23, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t a r e by t h e r e c o r d . "'When o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d , a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s j u d g m e n t based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t will n o t be d i s t u r b e d unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y unjust, or against the g r e a t weight of the evidence. J & M B a i l Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . ' " F a r m e r s I n s . Co. v. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s A s s o c s . , 252, Post, 254 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g 831 So. 2d 622, 627 Mahoney f i r s t court's f i n d i n g s concerning C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. ( A l a . C i v . App. challenges I n c . , 873 So. 2d 2002)). the correctness of the c i r c u i t w h e t h e r Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc.("LAPOA"), had a v a l i d c l a i m a g a i n s t h e r and whether i t h a d made e f f o r t s t o ensure 12 the v a l i d i t y of i t s 2100909 claim against h e r f o r p a s t - d u e homeowners' a s s o c i a t i o n I n i t s June 23, 2011, j u d g m e n t , t h e c i r c u i t court fees. stated: "This Court notes that with regards to the o r i g i n a l issue of property owners a s s o c i a t i o n fees and a s s e s s m e n t s , [LAPOA] h a d e x e r c i s e d due d i l i g e n c e i n researching the public records and divorce s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e Mahoneys, [LAPOA] h a d d e t e r m i n e d the v a l i d i t y of i t s c l a i m before asserting i t , [LAPOA] h a d p r o s e c u t e d i t s c l a i m i n g o o d f a i t h a n d for a proper purpose, the issues of fact d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f [LAPOA's] c l a i m s were r e a s o n a b l y i n c o n f l i c t as e v i d e n c e d b y [LAPOA's] s u c c e s s i n two l o w e r c o u r t s , a n d [LAPOA] h a d no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that i t s claims were i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e i t h a d succeeded i n s e c u r i n g a judgment a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l e v e l and a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t l e v e l i n a t r i a l de n o v o , a n d h a d C a r o l Mahoney b e e n p r e s e n t a t t r i a l [LAPOA] c o u l d h a v e c r o s s - e x a m i n e d h e r w i t h t h e divorce settlement evidence later submitted by [LAPOA,] without objection by Carol Mahoney's c o u n s e l , w h i c h d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t C a r o l Mahoney h a d i n f a c t r e c e i v e d o w n e r s h i p i n t h e Loma A l t a u n i t pursuant to her divorce decree." As Mahoney p o i n t s o u t , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d that supports the c i r c u i t validated i t s claim records. In fact, we secretary/treasurer deed showing t h a t which she by court's performing a Ms. Mahoney that admitted was LAPOA that search s t a t e d i n Mahoney f o r LAPOA,] resided, findings "Garey[, the LAPOA h a d no t h e owner o f t h e u n i t i n had no contract with Mahoney, a n d t h a t LAPOA h a d no document s t a t i n g t h a t 13 had of the p u b l i c I that that LAPOA Ms. someone 2100909 other of t h a n t h e owner o f t h e u n i t was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment the fees and assessments occupied." 4 So. 3d a t 1132. found i t s June on in examination, 23, the u n i t that Ms. Mahoney In a d d i t i o n , the c i r c u i t 2011, judgment that, "on court cross- G a r e y c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e d e e d o f p u b l i c r e c o r d was i n J o s e p h Mahoney's name d e s p i t e C a r o l Mahoney b e i n g t h e s o l e resident of the u n i t court held Furthermore, i n Mahoney I I t h i s that " t h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t LAPOA knew, b e f o r e December 2 1 , 2006, when i t amended i t s c o m p l a i n t i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h a t Ms. Mahoney's f o r m e r h u s b a n d , J o s e p h Mahoney, was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e LAPOA's a t t o r n e y h a d , on O c t o b e r 16, 2006, f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n Probate Court a f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d a v e r r i n g t h a t J o s e p h Mahoney h a d b e e n t h e r e c o r d t i t l e owner o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y s i n c e May 10, 2005." 52 So. 3d a t 517. of the p u b l i c Therefore, records would i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t any h a v e shown that LAPOA's search claim a g a i n s t Mahoney was n o t v a l i d . The divorce circuit court's findings judgment a l s o a r e w i t h o u t regarding t h e Mahoneys' any b a s i s i n the record. LAPOA d i d n o t e n t e r t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t i n t o e v i d e n c e the trial hearing. on t h e m e r i t s The only during o f i t s a c t i o n o r a t any s u b s e q u e n t testimony 14 presented concerning the 2100909 Mahoneys' d i v o r c e on Mahoney's ALAA j u d g m e n t was a t t h e J u l y 27, 2010, claim. At that hearing, hearing LAPOA's counsel testified: " [ S ] i n c e a l l t h e s e m a t t e r s went up on a p p e a l [ i n Mahoney I ] , Y o u r Honor, a n d I c o u l d n ' t s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d a t t h e t i m e , I , a t my own e x p e n s e , have gone a n d p u l l e d t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e f r o m t h e P i [ k ] e C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e . A n d t h a t d e c r e e s e t o u t t h a t Ms. Mahoney w o u l d e n d up w i t h a r e s i d e n c e o u t o f t h e divorce. I would submit t o the Court t h a t I b e l i e v e that that i s just, i n fact, this residence." LAPOA's c o u n s e l ' s t e s t i m o n y i s f a r f r o m c o n c l u s i v e . it only property his In f a c t , s t a t e s h i s b e l i e f t h a t t h e Loma A l t a p r o p e r t y a w a r d e d t o Mahoney i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t . t e s t i m o n y i s mere s p e c u l a t i o n . i s the As s u c h , "[M]ere s p e c u l a t i o n cannot support a f i n d i n g of f a c t . " Greater Mobile Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. A t t e r b e r r y , 11 So. 3d 835, 844 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t i n g ArvinMeritor, App. I n c . v. H a n d l e y , 12 So. 3d 669, 685 2007)(opinion on return t o remand)). (Ala. C i v . Therefore, the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e d i v o r c e judgment p r o v e d t h a t Mahoney owned t h e Loma A l t a property and t h a t that divorce j u d g m e n t s e r v e d t o v a l i d a t e LAPOA's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Mahoney a r e not s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . Moreover, even i f LAPOA's counsel's amounted t o more t h a n mere s p e c u l a t i o n 15 testimony concerning had Mahoney's 2100909 alleged ownership of the from h i s testimony property, i t i s apparent t h a t he d i d n o t o b t a i n t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t u n t i l a f t e r t h e c a s e was the m e r i t s Loma A l t a on a p p e a l w e l l a f t e r the t r i a l o f LAPOA's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Mahoney. on Thus, LAPOA's c l a i m s c o u l d n o t have b e e n f o u n d e d on i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Mahoneys' d i v o r c e judgment. Furthermore, t h i s w h i c h h o l d i n g was prevents a valid See supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n t h a t LAPOA's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Mahoney were i n law. Thus, the doctrine t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f r o m now of law determining of the case t h a t LAPOA had b a s i s on w h i c h t o p u r s u e i t s c l a i m s a g a i n s t Mahoney. A u e r b a c h , 558 So. 2d a t Mahoney n e x t c h a l l e n g e s they a l r e a d y h e l d i n Mahoney I I , a f f i r m e d i n our Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a , groundless c o u r t has 902. the circuit r e l a t e t o Mahoney's c r e d i b i l i t y . judgment, the c i r c u i t court court's f i n d i n g s as I n i t s June 23, stated: " T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t b e c a u s e [Mahoney] n e v e r again appeared before t h i s Court a f t e r her d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n s w e r and t e s t i m o n y , b e c a u s e [Mahoney] f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t r i a l and f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a t numerous, s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g s wherein t h e r e was a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t e s t i m o n y t o be h e a r d as w e l l as f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n by [LAPOA], that [Mahoney's] attorney purposefully kept [Mahoney] away f r o m a l l p r o c e e d i n g s so t h a t t h e C o u r t a n d / o r [LAPOA] c o u l d n o t e x a m i n e h e r r e g a r d i n g 16 2011, 2100909 t h e new d e f e n s e she h a d a s s e r t e d w h i c h was c o n t r a r y t o h e r a s s e r t i o n s and t e s t i m o n y i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t ; t h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [Mahoney] m i s l e d [LAPOA] and t h e C o u r t and i s w h o l l y l a c k i n g i n c r e d i b i l i t y i n t h a t h e r own sworn p l e a d i n g s and t e s t i m o n y a r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n t r a r y , i n c o n s i s t e n t , and n o t c r e d i b l e o r due t o be c o n s i d e r e d due t o h e r w i l l f u l r e f u s a l to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the proceeding, thereby p r e c l u d i n g any e x a m i n a t i o n o f h e r by [LAPOA] o r t h e C o u r t . " The circuit c o u r t made much of the fact that Mahoney changed her p o s i t i o n between the d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g and the c i r c u i t was c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g by a d d i n g a d e f e n s e t h a t she n o t t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e u n i t , and elsewhere Court that heard both i n t h e above p a s s a g e i n i t s j u d g m e n t , where i t s t a t e d t h a t undisputed [Mahoney] stated evidence to the and District testimony Court "[t]his from under [LAPOA] oath w h i l e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e same l a w y e r t h a t t h e u n i t b e l o n g e d and to h e r and t h a t she owed some o f t h e m o n i e s c l a i m e d b u t n o t a l l o f them We n o t e t h a t " ' [ a ] t r i a l de novo means t h a t t h e s l a t e i s wiped c l e a n and a t r i a l i n the C i r c u i t C o u r t i s had w i t h o u t any c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e i n g g i v e n t o p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s i n another c o u r t . ' " Ex parte Dison, 469 So. 2d 662, 665 (Ala. 1 9 8 4 ) ( o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e C i t y o f D o t h a n , 501 So. 2d 1136 Birmingham, 353 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) ( q u o t i n g Yarbrough So. 2d 75, 78 17 ( A l a . Crim. v. App. City of 1977)). 2100909 T h e r e f o r e , Mahoney was n o t p r e c l u d e d f r o m a d d i n g an defense i n the c i r c u i t court proceedings. additional Additionally, r e c o r d i n the c i r c u i t court proceedings does n o t evidence of testimony g i v e n by Mahoney i n t h e d i s t r i c t Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t i s t o v i e w an a p p e a l novo on t h e m e r i t s rather contain of the i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d that proceeding, testimony the July than in any court. for a t r i a l of de to i t during any purported i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and b e c a u s e t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f 26, 2007, h e a r i n g i n the r e f e r e n c e t o Mahoney's t e s t i m o n y court, light the the credible circuit because court's she with her court not supported is a pleadings court or p l e a d i n g s finding added conflicted circuit i n the that testimony the record is not may i n the and no district Mahoney defense new that or by contains have district is without foundation. The with circuit the 2007, fact hearing hearings, court that in citing further Mahoney d i d n o t take appear at circuit court or her absence as reason However, appear of any to the credibility. at appears the Mahoney was hearings 18 a under i n the at great the any no circuit to issue July 26, subsequent doubt obligation court -- her to the 2100909 record does n o t c o n t a i n Moreover, the circuit a subpoena court's r e q u i r i n g her presence. findings that Mahoney's t e s t i m o n y l a c k s c r e d i b i l i t y a n d t h a t Mahoney n e v e r a p p e a r e d i n the circuit court from t h e r e c o r d are d i f f i c u l t to reconcile. t h a t Mahoney n e v e r t e s t i f i e d i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t , e i t h e r i n p e r s o n o r b y way o f a f f i d a v i t . see no s u p p o r t f o r t h e c i r c u i t court's circuit court Mahoney's c o u n s e l , also stating attacked Therefore, we f i n d i n g t h a t Mahoney's t e s t i m o n y , o f w h i c h t h e r e was none, l a c k s The I t i s clear credibility. the c r e d i b i l i t y of that "when this Court asked several questions of [Mahoney's] counsel regarding the reason f o r [Mahoney's] f a i l u r e t o appear t h a t counsel f o r [Mahoney] r e s p o n d e d t h a t s h e w o u l d l o s e h e r j o b , t h a t s h e w o r k e d f o r an a t t o r n e y i n M o b i l e , a n d t h a t h i s name was J o s e p h l a s t name unknown; t h i s C o u r t l a t e r and i n d e p e n d e n t l y l e a r n e d t h a t c o u n s e l f o r [Mahoney] was aware o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f Mahoney's employer a t t h e time b u t d i d not p r o v i d e h i s identity The t o the Court." circuit court purposely also stated that "Mahoney's attorney k e p t [Mahoney] away f r o m a l l p r o c e e d i n g s so t h a t t h e Court and/or [LAPOA] c o u l d n o t e x a m i n e h e r r e g a r d i n g t h e new d e f e n s e s h e h a d a s s e r t e d w h i c h was c o n t r a r y t o h e r a s s e r t i o n s and testimony i n d i s t r i c t court." u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . These f i n d i n g s a r e w h o l l y The r e c o r d 19 contains no e v i d e n c e 2100909 t h a t c o u l d l e a d t o an i n f e r e n c e t h a t Mahoney's c o u n s e l misled t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e g a r d i n g Mahoney's e m p l o y e r o r t h a t he purposely Moreover, k e p t Mahoney f r o m a p p e a r i n g as we concluded o b l i g a t i o n to appear i n the above, circuit i n the Mahoney circuit was had court. under no court. I t f u r t h e r appears from the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t b e l i e v e d t h a t LAPOA had v a l i d c l a i m s against Mahoney and s h o u l d h a v e p r e v a i l e d on t h e m e r i t s o f i t s c l a i m s . The c i r c u i t c o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s J u n e 23, 2011, judgment t h a t , " d e s p i t e [LAPOA's] p r e v a i l i n g a t b o t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and c i r c u i t c o u r t l e v e l s b a s e d on [Mahoney's] a c t i o n s over s e v e r a l y e a r s h o l d i n g h e r s e l f out t o t h e p u b l i c and [LAPOA] as t h e r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y and Owner, t h e [ C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s ] r e v e r s e d the j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f [LAPOA] b a s e d on t h e i s s u e o f r e c o r d o w n e r s h i p s t a t i n g t h a t [LAPOA] d i d n o t have a c o n t r a c t w i t h [Mahoney]." (Emphasis added.) I n o t h e r p a r t s o f i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e circuit court circuit s t a t e d t h a t Mahoney had court and that Mahoney's "misled" LAPOA and defense was the "disingenuous." 1 We note t h a t the defense t h a t Mahoney was n o t t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e u n i t w h i c h d e f e n s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t l a b e l s as " d i s i n g e n u o u s , " i s t h e v e r y d e f e n s e upon w h i c h t h i s c o u r t b a s e d i t s r e v e r s a l of the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment i n Mahoney I . I t i s a l s o t h e same d e f e n s e t h a t t h i s c o u r t u s e d as a b a s i s f o r i t s h o l d i n g i n Mahoney I I t h a t LAPOA's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Mahoney were g r o u n d l e s s i n law, and upon w h i c h o u r supreme c o u r t b a s e d i t s a f f i r m a n c e o f o u r o p i n i o n i n Mahoney 1 20 2100909 Regardless of the c i r c u i t of Mahoney's ownership d e c i d e d by t h i s c o u r t ' s view of the case, the i s s u e of the u n i t has been c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Mahoney I . conclusively The d o c t r i n e o f law o f t h e case p r e c l u d e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t from d i s r e g a r d i n g our o p i n i o n i n Mahoney I and d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t Mahoney owned t h e Loma A l t a p r o p e r t y . See A u e r b a c h , 558 So. 2d a t 902. Mahoney also challenges factual findings relating of Mahoney's counsel's some of the circuit to the issue of the attorney fees. The court's reasonableness circuit court s t a t e d i n i t s J u n e 23, 2011, j u d g m e n t : " [ O ] n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , [Mahoney's] s e c o n d w i t n e s s testified that attorney's fees i n excess of $30,000.00 were n o t r e a s o n a b l e s i n c e t h e amount i n controversy i n this c a s e was o n l y approximately $5,000.00 t o $6,000.00 o f p a s t due p r o p e r t y owners association fees. [Mahoney's] second witness t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n t h e amount o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $10,000.00 w o u l d be r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e t r i a l p r o c e s s and a p p e a l s p r o c e s s " Mahoney's second attorney. A testimony does court. The examination II review not witness o f Hudgens's support following o f Hudgens i n Ex p a r t e Loma was these David testimony findings exchange o c c u r r e d at the J u l y Alta. 21 Hudgens, shows by during the a local that h i s circuit the cross- 27, 2010, h e a r i n g on t h e 2100909 issue of the reasonableness of Mahoney's claimed attorney fees: "[LAPOA's c o u n s e l ] : I s i t y o u r t e s t i m o n y to Judge W i l t e r s t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $30,000 l e g a l f e e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e f e e and a r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t i n a c a s e t h a t s o u g h t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 o r $6,000 i n b a c k p r o p e r t y owners a s s o c i a t i o n d u e s ? " [ H u d g e n s ] : W e l l , ... n o r m a l l y , I w o u l d s a y no. But I t h i n k t h i s i s a r e a l u n u s u a l case, i n t h a t t o s t a r t w i t h she was s u e d when t h e r e was, as I see i t , no b a s i s f o r s u i n g h e r . I b e l i e v e Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s s a i d t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r s u i n g h e r . "And i n order to o b t a i n the r e s u l t that h i s c l i e n t -- i n o r d e r t o c o m p e n s a t e h i s c l i e n t f o r t h e e x p e n s e s t h a t she s p e n t on t h e l i t i g a t i o n and t h e e f f o r t s i t took to get a c o u r t order to enforce t h o s e r i g h t s , t h a t i s t o g e t a c o u r t o r d e r -- t h e w r i t o f mandamus, t h r o u g h t h e w r i t o f mandamus t h a t b a s i c a l l y g o t us where we a r e , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , I do t h i n k that's a reasonable fee." Nowhere in his counsel's testimony attorney f e e was t h e $10,000 i n a t t o r n e y he had accrued, did the Hudgens Because the circuit On that the f e e s t h a t LAPOA's c o u n s e l replied had e n t i r e course of the support f o r the state unreasonable. " a m a z i n g " t h a t LAPOA's c o u n s e l during Hudgens court's circuit f i n d i n g s of f a c t t h a t are court's that of stated that thought was a c c r u e d s u c h a meager fee Therefore, above-stated judgment we find no findings. contains c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and 22 subject i t case. he Mahoney's numerous because the 2100909 c i r c u i t court's judgment c o n t a i n s conclusions o f law t h a t a f o u l o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e law o f t h e c a s e , we the judgment of the The j u d g m e n t t h a t was judgment trial circuit that i s before reverse court. before us again run now us i n Mahoney I I I and the indicate that judge i s having d i f f i c u l t y the original putting aside his original v i e w o f t h e ALAA c l a i m , w h i c h we h e l d was e r r o n e o u s i n Mahoney II. In 2007), C.D.S. v. which K.S.S., involved an 978 So. analogous 2d 782 (Ala. situation, Civ. this stated: " ' I n c a s e s where t h e r e i s no p r o o f o f personal bias, the Second C i r c u i t has persuasively enumerated factors which s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t in deciding whether to exercise its s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y to r e a s s i g n a case. These c r i t e r i a i n c l u d e : "'"(1) whether the o r i g i n a l judge w o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d upon remand to have substantial d i f f i c u l t y i n p u t t i n g out of h i s or her mind previously-expressed views or f i n d i n g s d e t e r m i n e d t o be e r r o n e o u s o r b a s e d on e v i d e n c e that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment i s a d v i s a b l e to p r e s e r v e the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would e n t a i l waste 23 App. court 2100909 and d u p l i c a t i o n o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o any g a i n i n p r e s e r v i n g t h e appearance of f a i r n e s s . " " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. R o b i n , (2d C i r . 1977) (en b a n c ) . 553 F.2d 8, 10 " [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W h i t e , ] 846 F.2d [678] a t 696 [ ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ] . ... We a d o p t and a p p l y t h e f a c t o r s s e t o u t i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. R o b i n , 553 F.2d 8 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) , t o t h i s m a t t e r . I n d o i n g s o , we are m i n d f u l of t h e statement the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t made i n R o b i n , i . e . , t h a t r e a s s i g n m e n t on remand 'does n o t i m p l y any p e r s o n a l c r i t i c i s m o f t h e t r i a l o r s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e . ' 553 F.2d a t 10. T h a t b e i n g n o t e d , " ' [ i ] n t h e r a r e c a s e where a j u d g e has r e p e a t e d l y a d h e r e d t o an e r r o n e o u s v i e w a f t e r the e r r o r i s c a l l e d to h i s a t t e n t i o n , see, e.g., U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Brown, 470 F.2d 285, 288 (2d C i r . 1972) ( c o u r t t w i c e u s e d improper sentencing procedure), reassignment to another judge may be a d v i s a b l e i n o r d e r t o a v o i d "an e x e r c i s e i n futility i n which the Court i s merely m a r c h i n g up t h e h i l l o n l y t o march r i g h t down a g a i n . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u c k e r , 40 4 U.S. 443, 452, 92 S.Ct. 589, 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).' " R o b i n , 553 F.2d a t 11. A p p l y i n g t h e R o b i n f a c t o r s t o t h i s c a s e , we h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t r e a s s i g n m e n t of t h i s case t o a d i f f e r e n t c i r c u i t c o u r t judge i s w a r r a n t e d because i t i s l i k e l y t h a t '"the o r i g i n a l j u d g e w o u l d have d i f f i c u l t y p u t t i n g h i s p r e v i o u s v i e w s and f i n d i n g s a s i d e . " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i n , 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T o r k i n g t o n , 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . The r e a s s i g n m e n t o f t h i s c a s e t o a d i f f e r e n t c i r c u i t c o u r t judge i s a l s o ' a d v i s a b l e t o p r e s e r v e 24 2100909 t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f j u s t i c e . ' R o b i n , 553 A d d i t i o n a l l y , we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s case t o a d i f f e r e n t c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t a i l 'waste ... o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o p r e s e r v i n g t h e appearance o f f a i r n e s s . ' F.2d a t 696." 978 F.2d a t 10. reassigning judge would any g a i n i n W h i t e , 846 So. 2d a t 790-91. B a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f C.D.S., we remand t h e c a s e w i t h instructions t h a t i t be r e a s s i g n e d for the determination t o another c i r c u i t judge o f an a p p r o p r i a t e a w a r d p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. Mahoney's appeal a n d LAPOA's are denied. requests f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on 2 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman and Bryan, J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r a t i o n a l e in the result, with i n p a r t and concurs writing. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n part w r i t i n g , w h i c h Thompson, P . J . , and d i s s e n t s i n part, with joins. O u r d e n i a l o f Mahoney's r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l s h o u l d n o t be v i e w e d a s a c o n c l u s i o n b y t h i s c o u r t t h a t Mahoney i s n o t due a n y a w a r d f o r t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s h e i n c u r r e d i n prosecuting t h i s appeal; rather, the t r i a l court should c o n s i d e r t h e a d d e d f e e i n c u r r e d b y Mahoney d u r i n g this a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g when i t d e t e r m i n e s a p r o p e r a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA. 2 25 2100909 MOORE, Judge, concurring in the rationale i n part and concurring i n the r e s u l t . I c o n c u r w i t h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n s o f a r as i t r e v e r s e s t h e judgment of the trial court and remands i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t i t be r e a s s i g n e d t o a n o t h e r not the case judge, with b u t I do concur e n t i r e l y w i t h i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r doing so. In Mahoney 2100104, May ("Mahoney Baldwin v. Loma Alta 6, 2011] III"), So. 3d this Circuit court Court Code 1975. Act This $500, t h e t r i a l reversed court Ass'n, [Ms. t h e judgment o f t h e court") awarding Carol fees under t h e Alabama L i t i g a t i o n ("the A L A A " ) , court Owners ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ("the t r i a l Mahoney $500 i n a t t o r n e y ' s Accountability Property held § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , that, i n limiting Ala. i t s award t o (1) h a d f a i l e d t o b a s e i t s j u d g m e n t on t h e 12 f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 , A l a . Code 1975; (2) h a d impermissibly Property (Woodall relied Owners on t h e d i s s e n t s i n Ex p a r t e Ass'n, 52 So. 3d 518, and Murdock, J J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ; 525-27 Loma Alta ( A l a . 2010) (3) h a d i m p e r m i s s i b l y r e l i e d on t h i s c o u r t ' s a w a r d t o Mahoney o f $500 i n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s on a p p e a l i n Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , 52 So. 3d 510 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) 26 ("Mahoney I I " ) ; a n d (4) 2100909 had erroneously limiting the submissions" Inc. the failed amount of specify the reasons f o r based the Property on Owners "recent Association, T h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e j u d g m e n t a n d remanded case f o r t h e t r i a l award p u r s u a n t i t s other award o f t h e Loma A l t a ("LAPOA"). On to court t o t h e ALAA." remand, the trial " t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n Mahoney I I I , court entered o f an So. 3d a t a new . six-page judgment t h a t s e t f o r t h i n d e t a i l i t s r e a s o n s f o r l i m i t i n g t h e award o f a t t o r n e y ' s fees t r i a l court addressed o m i t t e d any e x p r e s s t o $500. I n t h e new j u d g m e n t , t h e many o f t h e f a c t o r s s e t o u t i n t h e ALAA, r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d i s s e n t s i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n , o m i t t e d any r e f e r e n c e t o t h e a w a r d o f $500 i n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s t o Mahoney on a p p e a l i n Mahoney I I , and identified the "recent e f f e c t on i t s a w a r d . submissions" o f LAPOA and On a p p e a l , Mahoney a r g u e s t h a t t h e new judgment c o n t a i n s m u l t i p l e e r r o n e o u s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t to t h e ALAA f a c t o r s and t h a t t h e t r i a l t h e ALAA, a trial court relating c o u r t has a g a i n on i m p e r m i s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r i t s a w a r d . Under their I must relied agree. use i t s "sound d i s c r e t i o n " i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s t o be 27 2100909 awarded. See § 12-19-273. consideration of various T h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s t o be g u i d e d b y statutory factors, including: "(1) The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n y e f f o r t was made t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y o f any a c t i o n , c l a i m o r d e f e n s e b e f o r e i t was a s s e r t e d ; "(2) The e x t e n t o f a n y e f f o r t made a f t e r t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n t o r e d u c e t h e number o f c l a i m s b e i n g a s s e r t e d o r t o d i s m i s s c l a i m s t h a t have b e e n f o u n d n o t t o be v a l i d ; "(3) The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f a c t s t o a s s i s t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f an a c t i o n , c l a i m o r defense; "(6) Whether or not issues of fact, determinative of the v a l i d i t y of a p a r t i e s ' claim or d e f e n s e , were r e a s o n a b l y i n c o n f l i c t ; " "(10) The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t was made t o d e t e r m i n e p r i o r t o t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g o f an a c t i o n o r c l a i m t h a t a l l p a r t i e s s u e d o r j o i n e d were p r o p e r p a r t i e s o w i n g a l e g a l l y d e f i n e d d u t y t o any p a r t y o r p a r t i e s a s s e r t i n g t h e c l a i m o r a c t i o n ; and "(11) The e x t e n t o f a n y e f f o r t made a f t e r t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n t o r e d u c e t h e number o f parties i n the action." § 12-19-273. plaintiff inquiry or prior Those factors the p l a i n t i f f ' s to or after a l lrelate attorney commencement 28 t o "whether t h e made a reasonable of the s u i t , " "the 2100909 availability in the plaintiff's o r " w h e t h e r t h e r e were f a c t u a l i s s u e s attorney," of 'reasonably conflict.'" 1991) facts to the p l a i n t i f f T i d w e l l v. W a l d r o p , 583 So. 2d 243, 244 ( A l a . (emphasis added). In i t s findings determined ascertain that of LAPOA the v a l i d i t y litigation, i t had acted of reaching before against Mahoney h e r and t h a t , with a good-faith i n maintaining efforts court"), owned the y e a r s and LAPOA had throughout the belief that as t o t h e action. alone at issue because unit (2) Mahoney h a d c o n s i s t e n t l y p a i d t h e f e e s court proceedings, further found that, t h e owner in the that (1) f o r many owed b y o b j e c t i o n or c o n d i t i o n . Mahoney h a d a d m i t t e d only ("the indicating i n t h e condominium c o n d o m i n i u m owner, w i t h o u t LAPOA t h a t unit In court noted that, information condominium to before i t f i l e d i t s a c t i o n i n the Baldwin D i s t r i c t Court Mahoney h a d r e s i d e d trial essentially undertaken d i l i g e n t against i t s claims court that f a c t u a l conclusion, the t r i a l district Mahoney the t r i a l of i t s claims an a c t i o n validity fact, had instituting the or The district-court t h a t she owed some money t o of t h e condominium u n i t w o u l d owe and h a d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y d e n i e d t h a t she owned t h e c o n d o m i n i u m 29 2100909 unit. Notably, J u s t i c e M u r d o c k c i t e d t h a t v e r y same evidence i n h i s d i s s e n t i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s ' n i n asserting a claim against that LAPOA had n o t f i l e d t h a t was " g r o u n d l e s s remand o r d e r i n fact." 52 So. 3d a t 526-27. i n Mahoney I I I , t h i s court s p e c i f i c a l l y Mahoney In our ordered the t r i a l c o u r t not t o c o n s i d e r J u s t i c e Murdock's d i s s e n t . merely d e l e t i n g the express maintaining i t s reasoning, reference the t r i a l to that court By dissent, but f a i l e d t o comply w i t h o u r mandate. I n Mahoney I I I , t h i s c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t t o r e l y on t h e d i s s e n t s i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a Ass'n because they d i d not express o f o u r supreme c o u r t . Alta Property the opinion of a m a j o r i t y So. 3d a t Owners A s s ' n , P r o p e r t y Owners . I n Ex p a r t e Loma 52 So. 3d a t 524, t h e supreme c o u r t a f f i r m e d t h i s c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Mahoney I I t h a t LAPOA's a c t i o n a g a i n s t Mahoney was " g r o u n d l e s s i n l a w " b e c a u s e Mahoney i n d i s p u t a b l y was n o t t h e owner o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t a t any time. Property As this court Owners A s s ' n , determined i n Mahoney 4 So. 3d 1130 (Ala. v. Loma C i v . App. Alta 2009) ("Mahoney I " ) , t h e c o v e n a n t s upon w h i c h LAPOA b a s e d i t s c l a i m s required only that the "record 30 owner" p a y t h e homeowners' 2100909 association dues. law, could LAPOA 4 So. 3d a t 1134. maintain a valid Thus, claim as a m a t t e r o f only against that p e r s o n i d e n t i f i e d b y r e c o r d as t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . By i t s own c o v e n a n t s , LAPOA c o u l d n o t , i n good f a i t h , p r e m i s e i t s c l a i m s on o t h e r , l e s s f o r m a l , i n d i c i a o f o w n e r s h i p , as J u s t i c e Murdock's d i s s e n t and t h e t r i a l Nevertheless, on Mahoney's condominium court because the t r i a l failure unit to raise maintained. court her nonownership at the d i s t r i c t - c o u r t w a r r a n t s some d i s c u s s i o n . r e l i e d so h e a v i l y level, of that the factor I n i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l court r e a s o n e d t h a t LAPOA h a d a g o o d - f a i t h b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t Mahoney indicate instead owned t h e condominium otherwise raising during u n i t b e c a u s e Mahoney the d i s t r i c t - c o u r t contradicts that f o r the f i r s t proceedings. circuit-court the issue The time undisputed d i d not proceedings, during the evidence chronology. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Mahoney d i d n o t f o r m a l l y r a i s e her nonownership o f t h e condominium u n i t i n t h e d i s t r i c t - c o u r t proceedings. Mahoney o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d h e r a n s w e r , p r o s e , on November 14, 2005, on a f o r m s u p p l i e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t she marked a l i n e on t h e f o r m i n d i c a t i n g 31 court; t h a t she owed some 2100909 money t o LAPOA, and, i n a l o w e r a typewritten plea of s e t o f f a r e a on t h e f o r m , she f o r LAPOA's a l l e g e d f a i l u r e p e r f o r m r e p a i r s on t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t . an a t t o r n e y , attorney i n January contacted conversation, 2006, LAPOA's Mahoney's entered She l a t e r to represent attorney, attorney retained her. Mahoney's based and, believed to on their the p a r t i e s had r e s o l v e d t h e c a s e u n t i l he r e c e i v e d a M a r c h 27, 2006, letter f r o m LAPOA's a t t o r n e y point, because otherwise. i n the d i s t r i c t the t r i a l suggesting court A p r i l 11, 2006, Mahoney's and sent LAPOA's attorney answer and a letter as r e q u e s t e d , dated scheduled April [he c o u l d ] counterclaim." Mahoney's a t t o r n e y w r o t e : continued was attorney f i l e d a motion t o r e q u e s t i n g an a c c o m m o d a t i o n " s o t h a t appropriate At that In for continue 7, 2006, a l s o f i l e the that letter, " I f f o r some r e a s o n t h e c a s e i s n o t we, of course, will file an appeal." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d the motion to continue, and Mahoney did answer before not file scheduled amended or counterclaim the trial. However, notify an LAPOA i t i s undisputed that condominium u n i t . she was that not the Mahoney record did informally owner of the The r e c o r d shows, w i t h o u t d i s p u t e , t h a t , on 32 2100909 A p r i l 11, 2006, j u s t b e f o r e court trial, Mahoney's t h e commencement attorney of the d i s t r i c t - hand-delivered to LAPOA's a t t o r n e y a c o p y o f t h e w a r r a n t y d e e d s h o w i n g t h a t Mahoney was not the record owner of the condominium u n i t . LAPOA's a t t o r n e y e x p r e s s l y acknowledged i n a l e t t e r w r i t t e n l a t e r t h a t he became aware t h a t Mahoney was d i s p u t i n g h e r o w n e r s h i p o f the c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t when Mahoney's a t t o r n e y w i t h a document a t t h e [ d ] i s t r i c t to vest that a n d LAPOA o b t a i n e d date. presented undisputed The record to the d i s t r i c t Contrary that me purports i n t h e name o f [Mahoney's Despite that information, the p a r t i e s proceeded with the t r i a l , on [c]ourt t r i a l ownership t o the property ex-]husband." "presented to the does a judgment a g a i n s t not contain Mahoney the evidence court. findings of the trial court, the e v i d e n c e shows t h a t Mahoney n o t i f i e d LAPOA t h a t she was n o t t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t on A p r i l 11, 2006, b e f o r e it is true nonownership attorney continued, the t r i a l that began i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Mahoney did i n the pleadings plainly indicated not before that, formally that Mahoney w o u l d c e r t a i n l y a p p e a l , 33 assert trial, i f the Although case her Mahoney's was which, of not course, 2100909 would give time. Mahoney t h e r i g h t t o amend h e r Thus, LAPOA was proceedings record that owner thereafter the the ownership of the Any could premise amended h e r allegation that asserting answer as an in unit. not district-court she In Mahoney was light reasonably Mahoney the have was on district May LAPOA's owned 19, not of the those believed conceding her the thereafter supporting pay a which its claim her d i s c o v e r y condominium the did that Mahoney its unit, and LAPOA d i d n o t an not owed have counterclaim action "to owe." t o LAPOA, r e q u e s t i n g When LAPOA d i d n o t requests, on she every including Mahoney a l s o s t a t e d a sent discovery a s s o c i a t i o n dues. hearing debt judgment, denying complaint, LAPOA u n d e r t h e ALAA f o r f i l i n g to court's 2006, a f f i r m a t i v e defense that c o n t r a c t w i t h Mahoney. [Mahoney] the that that d o u b t as t o Mahoney's f o r m a l p o s i t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n contained against the at condominium u n i t . allegation any claiming that e r a s e d when, a f t e r a p p e a l i n g Mahoney during condominium LAPOA on notice Mahoney was of circumstances, on pleadings any the force Mahoney evidence delinquent immediately respond Mahoney f i l e d a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l . motion to 34 compel on October 17, to At 2006, 2100909 Mahoney's letter attorney setting requested out grounds f o r f i l i n g that "the f a c t s this LAPOA's a t t o r n e y and s p e c i f i c s on lawsuit against write a [LAPOA]'s [Mahoney]." Armed w i t h t h e k n o w l e d g e t h a t Mahoney c o n t e n d e d t h a t she did n o t owe the delinquent a s s o c i a t i o n dues b e c a u s e she was n o t t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t , i n O c t o b e r 2006 LAPOA p r o c e e d e d t o f o r e c l o s e on a l i e n t h a t i t h a d s e c u r e d on the property. LAPOA's a t t o r n e y prepared a foreclosure deed t h a t r e c i t e d t h e e n t i r e t i t l e h i s t o r y of t h e condominium u n i t . That h i s t o r y s e t out t h a t had first Inc., been v e s t e d i n 1988, and the t i t l e t o t h e condominium u n i t i n Bahama I s l a n d S u r f that i t had since been & Racquet Club, transferred J o s e p h Mahoney I I , Mahoney's e x - h u s b a n d , on May 10, 2005. to The f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d , w h i c h was d a t e d O c t o b e r 13, 2006, i d e n t i f i e d Mahoney s o l e l y as Subsequently, on "the occupant" December 21, of t h e condominium 2006, LAPOA unit. amended i t s c o m p l a i n t t o name J o s e p h Mahoney I I as a d e f e n d a n t and as t h e "owner" of "resident" Despite the u n i t and of the u n i t . to designate Mahoney See Mahoney I , 4 So. having a l l the foregoing information, s o l e l y as 3d a t a 1134. LAPOA d i d n o t d i s m i s s Mahoney as a d e f e n d a n t , see § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 2 ) ( r e q u i r i n g 35 2100909 a t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r e f f o r t s t o d i s m i s s " c l a i m s t h a t have been f o u n d n o t t o be v a l i d " ) , and p e r s i s t e d i n i t s e f f o r t s t o o b t a i n a j u d g m e n t and t o e n f o r c e In i t s new court's decision LAPOA's conduct judgment entered i n Mahoney on the t h a t judgment a g a i n s t h e r . on remand I I I , the ground that e x e r c i s e d due d i l i g e n c e i n s e a r c h i n g trial LAPOA following court had, this excused in fact, the p u b l i c records and d i s c o v e r i n g a d i v o r c e - s e t t l e m e n t document t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t Mahoney owned c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t . LAPOA d i d c o n d u c t a title s e a r c h a t some p o i n t d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e c i r c u i t - c o u r t proceedings. As stated above, a subsequent t i t l e search r e v e a l e d t h a t Mahoney h a d n e v e r b e e n t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e condominium u n i t . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t LAPOA's a t t o r n e y d i d not o b t a i n the d i v o r c e - s e t t l e m e n t after LAPOA h a d trial court secured a judgment against and t h a t LAPOA d i d n o t r e l y prosecuting the a c t i o n against testifying to support the Mahoney. i n the hearing validity on of remand Mahoney until i n the on t h a t document i n p o i n t , LAPOA c o u l d n o t have r e l i e d on t h e document document E v e n more to the divorce-settlement i t s claims. from our After decision i n Mahoney I I I t h a t he h a d o n l y i n f e r r e d f r o m h i s r e a d i n g o f some 36 2100909 language i n the d i v o r c e - s e t t l e m e n t obtained ownership settlement, record" the condominium LAPOA's a t t o r n e y 3 still Hence, t h e in showed existence "that of the condominium u n i t could properly seek unit had in the divorce acknowledged t h a t the "public J o s e p h Mahoney owns t h i s divorce-settlement n o t a l t e r t h e f a c t t h a t Mahoney was the document t h a t Mahoney unit." document d i d n o t t h e " r e c o r d owner" o f i . e . , t h e o n l y p a r t y f r o m whom LAPOA a s s o c i a t i o n dues under i t s covenants. 4 Apparently, t h a t t e s t i m o n y was t h e main p a r t of the " r e c e n t s u b m i s s i o n s " f r o m LAPOA upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t relied. 3 The m a i n o p i n i o n p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e i n v a l i d i t y of LAPOA's c l a i m s has a l r e a d y b e e n d e c i d e d by t h i s c o u r t and t h a t the t r i a l court v i o l a t e d the law-of-the-case d o c t r i n e by c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e d i v o r c e - s e t t l e m e n t document p r o v e d t h a t Mahoney d i d , i n f a c t , own t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t . So. 3d a t . Under t h e l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e , " w h a t e v e r i s once e s t a b l i s h e d between the same p a r t i e s i n t h e same c a s e c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e law o f t h a t c a s e , w h e t h e r o r n o t c o r r e c t on g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , so l o n g as t h e f a c t s on w h i c h t h e d e c i s i o n was p r e d i c a t e d c o n t i n u e t o be t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . " B l u m b e r g v. Touche R o s s & Co., 514 So. 2d 922, 924 ( A l a . 1987) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . A t t h e t i m e t h i s c o u r t d e c i d e d i n Mahoney I I t h a t LAPOA had no v a l i d c l a i m a g a i n s t Mahoney, t h i s c o u r t did n o t h a v e b e f o r e i t any e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o Mahoney's d i v o r c e - s e t t l e m e n t document. Apparently, the t r i a l court b e l i e v e d t h a t t h a t document c h a n g e d t h e f a c t s by p r o v i n g t h a t Mahoney had obtained ownership of the condominium u n i t ; h o w e v e r , as e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , even i f s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e supported a f i n d i n g t h a t Mahoney d i d o b t a i n an o w n e r s h i p interest in the condominium unit through her divorce s e t t l e m e n t , w h i c h i s h i g h l y q u e s t i o n a b l e , see So. 3d a t 4 37 2100909 See Touchstone v. Peterson, 443 So. 2d 1219 (Ala. 1983) ( h o l d i n g t h a t p r o p e r t y - d i v i s i o n p r o v i s i o n s of d i v o r c e judgment g i v e e q u i t a b l e t i t l e t o l a n d s d e s c r i b e d t h e r e i n and t h a t p a r t y a w a r d e d s u c h l a n d s becomes " r e c o r d owner" o n l y upon o b t a i n i n g valid deed). The trial court f u r t h e r e x c u s e d LAPOA's c o n d u c t on the g r o u n d t h a t Mahoney had i n t e n t i o n a l l y made h e r s e l f unavailable for condominium questioning unit. As record does the main not Mahoney o r h e r any regarding her opinion contain any ownership evidence attorney w i l l f u l l y evidence from which the t r i a l inferred t h a t Mahoney f a i l e d the So. holds, of 3d to at substantiate does not deposition or compelling her indicate that the LAPOA trial that or c o u r t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have t o a p p e a r i n bad that the evaded such q u e s t i o n i n g faith h e r p o s i t i o n as t o o w n e r s h i p l a c k e d c r e d i b i l i t y . also , ever court attendance at t r i a l . c o u r t does n o t a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n how noticed issued At any any rate, so The that record Mahoney's subpoena the trial Mahoney's a p p e a r a n c e a t , i t does n o t change t h e c r u c i a l f a c t t h a t Mahoney d i d n o t acquire record ownership. Hence, I c o n c u r t h a t t h e trial c o u r t was p r e c l u d e d f r o m r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f LAPOA's c l a i m s under the l a w - o f - t h e - c a s e d o c t r i n e . 38 2100909 trial w o u l d have v a l i d a t e d LAPOA's c l a i m s . maintains The t r i a l court t h a t LAPOA c o u l d have c r o s s - e x a m i n e d Mahoney as t o the contents o f h e r d i v o r c e s e t t l e m e n t a n d p r o v e n t h a t she h a d a c q u i r e d o w n e r s h i p o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t ; h o w e v e r , LAPOA d i d n o t d i s c o v e r t h e d i v o r c e - s e t t l e m e n t document u n t i l l o n g the t r i a l attorney after h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d , and, as s e t o u t a b o v e , LAPOA's l a t e r acknowledged t h a t the d i v o r c e settlement d i d n o t make Mahoney t h e " r e c o r d owner" o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t . I t seems t h a t w h a t e v e r t e s t i m o n y Mahoney w o u l d have provided w o u l d n o t have c h a n g e d t h e f a c t t h a t J o s e p h Mahoney I I was t h e record even owner of t h e condominium u n i t , attempt (requiring to court dispute of at record trial. to issues of f a c t , determinative LAPOA summary, t h e u n d i s p u t e d asserted i t s claims court, i t made no record owner effort See 5 consider LAPOA d i d n o t § 12-19-273(6) "[w]hether of the v a l i d i t y c l a i m o r d e f e n s e , were r e a s o n a b l y In a fact of a or not [party's] in conflict"). evidence against shows Mahoney that, i n the before district t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r she was of t h e condominium u n i t , the see § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 1 ) & I n f a c t , LAPOA o b t a i n e d a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t J o s e p h Mahoney I I b a s e d , i n p a r t , on i t s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he was t h e s o l e r e c o r d owner o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t . 5 39 2100909 (10), although record, as a such after and d u r i n g not the record and (11). So. available i n the i t acquired irrefutable public Mahoney information t h e c i r c u i t - c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t she was owner o f t h e u n i t . The t r i a l court had made a r e a s o n a b l e "prior was s e e § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 3 ) , a n d LAPOA d i d n o t d i s m i s s 6 defendant before evidence to or a f t e r See § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 2 ) , ( 6 ) , thus e r r e d i n f i n d i n g that LAPOA i n q u i r y as t o Mahoney's r e c o r d o w n e r s h i p commencement o f t h e s u i t . " Tidwell, 583 2d a t 244. As f o r the other factors s e t out i n § 12-19-273, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t make any f i n d i n g r e l a t i v e t o t h e f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , s e e § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 4 ) , e x c e p t i n s o f a r as it r e c i t e d , without position supporting evidence, o f [LAPOA] i s i n j e o p a r d y due t o nonpayment o f dues because i t i s a n o t - f o r - p r o f i t e n t i t y obviously the intended financial that courts position of that "the f i n a n c i a l " The l e g i s l a t u r e of record would i n q u i r e the p a r t i e s relative respective a b i l i t i e s t o p a y an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y ' s that presented regard, LAPOA no evidence to as t o their fees. regarding In its The t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t h a t t h e d e e d upon w h i c h Mahoney r e l i e d t o show t h a t she was n o t t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e u n i t was "a m a t t e r o f e x i s t i n g p u b l i c r e c o r d . " 6 40 2100909 f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o r t h e i m p a c t any a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y ' s w o u l d have on i t s t r e a s u r y , s o t h e t r i a l for limiting The action court against purpose. c o u r t h a d no b a s i s i t s a w a r d b a s e d on f i n a n c i a l trial reasons. f o u n d t h a t LAPOA d i d n o t p r o s e c u t e Mahoney i n bad See § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 5 ) faith or f o r an (requiring court consider "[w]hether defended, i n whole o r i n p a r t , i n bad f a i t h purpose"). that or not the a c t i o n In her b r i e f LAPOA m a i n t a i n e d to this fees court, i t s action against was the improper of record t o prosecuted or or f o r improper Mahoney p o i n t s o u t her long after i t r e a l i z e d t h a t she was n o t t h e r e c o r d owner o f t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t a n d t h a t LAPOA e v e n s o u g h t i n i t s c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r t h e delinquent a s s o c i a t i o n dues owed b y t h e p r e v i o u s owner o f t h e condominium u n i t . LAPOA does n o t d i s p u t e e i t h e r c o n t e n t i o n i n its court. brief to this u n d e r an i n n o c e n t E v e n i f LAPOA h a d b e e n misunderstanding proceeding as t o t h e c u r r e n t record ownership o f t h e condominium u n i t , which c o n t e n t i o n has been thoroughly r e j e c t e d by t h i s court, i t certainly would have b e e n i m p r o p e r f o r LAPOA t o a t t e m p t t o r e c o v e r dues owed b y t h e previous owner. The t r i a l court erred i n finding 41 otherwise. 2100909 The trial court was also required t o determine " [ t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e p a r t y p r e v a i l e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e amount o f a n d number o f c l a i m s o r d e f e n s e s i n c o n t r o v e r s y . " 273(7) . § 12-19- I n i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t LAPOA h a d p r e v a i l e d on i t s t h r e e the c i r c u i t - c o u r t claims levels. at both the d i s t r i c t - c o u r t and U l t i m a t e l y , however, t h i s c o u r t and o u r supreme c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t LAPOA d i d n o t h a v e any v a l i d c l a i m s a g a i n s t Mahoney. Thus, i t was Mahoney, n o t LAPOA, prevailed claims. failing on a l l three that fact and trial court erred i n i n basing i t s limited a w a r d , i n p a r t , on t h e e r r o n e o u s d i s t r i c t - c o u r t and c i r c u i t - court to recognize The who judgments. S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 ( 9 ) , A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s a c o u r t o f r e c o r d t o c o n s i d e r " [ t ] h e amount o r c o n d i t i o n s o f any o f f e r o f judgment o r s e t t l e m e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e amount o r c o n d i t i o n s of t h e u l t i m a t e r e l i e f g r a n t e d by t h e c o u r t . " the record The e v i d e n c e i n i n d i c a t e s t h a t Mahoney o f f e r e d t o s e t t l e t h e c a s e by p a y i n g i n f u l l the delinquent dues owed b y J o s e p h Mahoney I I , b u t t h a t LAPOA i n s i s t e d on a d d i t i o n a l payment o f a p o r t i o n of i t s attorney's fees, consummate any s e t t l e m e n t . and that In l i g h t 42 the parties of the f a c t d i d not that this 2100909 court determined statutory trial in that Mahoney f a c t o r weighs d i d n o t owe heavily court mentioned the settlement that o f Mahoney. i n favor any d u e s , The p o s i t i o n s of the p a r t i e s i t s judgment, b u t i t i s apparent t h a t i t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h o s e p o s i t i o n s i n l i g h t o f t h e u l t i m a t e outcome o f t h e c a s e . In t h a t regard, The the t r i a l trial court court erred. further erred regarding r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y ' s by Mahoney. In a d d i t i o n opinion, So. 3d a t on that the fact to the errors , the t r i a l Mahoney p r e s e n t e d noted fees. i n t h e main no d o c u m e n t a r y the f u l l lawsuits that are groundless i n law." in light other evidence amount o f As t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d i n Mahoney I I I , "an a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA i s d e s i g n e d as a s a n c t i o n t o ALAA p r o v i d e s incurred court erred i n r e l y i n g i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she h a d p a i d h e r a t t o r n e y the requested fees the t h a t an a w a r d s h o u l d So. 3d a t be " r e a s o n a b l e " discourage . The i n amount o f t h e f a c t o r s s e t o u t i n § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 , as w e l l as relevant factors. N e i t h e r t h e purpose o f t h e award n o r t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e ALAA r e q u i r e s t h a t a movant p r o v e t h a t he or she a c t u a l l y p a i d t h e r e q u e s t e d 43 amount. 2100909 The t r i a l of the c o u r t a l s o e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e amount attorney's controversy. [Ms. should See W i l l o w relate So. 3d ( r e j e c t i n g s i m i l a r argument). the f a c t o r s to the amount L a k e R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n v. 2081099, Aug. 27. 2010] App. 2010) to fee s e t o u t i n t h e ALAA, , in Juliano, (Ala. Civ. Rather, i n a d d i t i o n the t r i a l court should have a p p l i e d t h e c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d i n P e e b l e s v. M i l e y , 439 So. 2d 137 ( A l a . 1983), which i n c l u d e : " ' ( 1 ) t h e n a t u r e and v a l u e o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e employment; (2) t h e l e a r n i n g , s k i l l , and l a b o r r e q u i s i t e t o i t s p r o p e r d i s c h a r g e ; (3) t h e t i m e consumed; (4) t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l experience and r e p u t a t i o n o f t h e a t t o r n e y ; (5) t h e w e i g h t o f h i s responsibilities; (6) t h e measure of success a c h i e v e d ; (7) t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d ; (8) w h e t h e r a f e e i s f i x e d o r c o n t i n g e n t ; (9) t h e n a t u r e and l e n g t h o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ; (10) t h e fee c u s t o m a r i l y c h a r g e d i n t h e l o c a l i t y f o r s i m i l a r legal services; (11) the likelihood that a p a r t i c u l a r employment may p r e c l u d e o t h e r employment; and (12) t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s i m p o s e d by t h e c l i e n t or b y t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' " W i l l o w Lake R e s i d e n t i a l Ass'n, Schaack v. AmSouth 1988)). Mahoney attorney and factors. As undisputed. an Bank, So. 3d a t N.A., presented expert Mahoney Although 530 So. evidence, witness, argues, 2d from relating their ( q u o t i n g Van 740, 749 ( A l a . both her own to the Peebles testimony was largely LAPOA's a t t o r n e y a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d 44 2100909 n e v e r c h a r g e d a c l i e n t more t h a n t h e amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y that he had throughout requested incurred the only litigation, $10,000 LAPOA d i d n o t attorney's attack the by Mahoney as b e i n g u n r e a s o n a b l e i n any The foregoing errors a l l necessitate judgment of the trial court. history case, as nature in of of this the evidence Given w e l l as i n the case, amount r e v e r s a l of attorney's relatively undisputed I considered f e e a w a r d f o r Mahoney, as brief. However, unusual I procedure. find I no binding further the appellate strongly w h e t h e r I w o u l d recommend t h a t t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d s i m p l y an fees respect. the prolonged the and she requests precedent considered render for whether in such I her an would recommend r e m a n d i n g t h e c a s e w i t h s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e trial c o u r t as t o how evidence. reasoning action trial In the i s to d i r e c t judge other end, however, I am convinced by s e t o u t i n t h e main o p i n i o n t h a t t h e b e s t c o u r s e f o r the award of a t t o r n e y ' s and to apply the a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r s to that this c a s e be purposes of f e e s b a s e d on factors. 45 reassigned determining the an to the the of another appropriate appropriate statutory 2100909 THOMAS, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and dissenting in part. I c o n c u r w i t h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n s o f a r as i t r e v e r s e s the judgment of the c i r c u i t c o u r t ; however, I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t i n s o f a r as i t o r d e r s r e a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e c a s e t o a new c o u r t j u d g e on I n my remand. view, the f o r c e d reassignment of a case should used only i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances at t h i s time i n t h i s case. which clearly conclusions doctrine, judge i n t h i s to law serve are as a and what guide, c a s e s h o u l d be cause instructions to to the law-of-the-case the original enter an award and court opportunity t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Therefore, circuit that fact circuit an a d d i t i o n a l c o u r t and original opinion, of C o u r t i n c r a f t i n g an a w a r d u n d e r t h e ALAA. the warranted by the given be findings settled f o l l o w t h e mandates o f t h i s remand i s not With t h i s court's l a t e s t establishes of to circuit court I would judge with with our complies a p p e l l a t e mandates i n Mahoney I , Mahoney I I , Mahoney I I I , and the main opinion Supreme C o u r t ' s in this appeal, along with o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a . Thompson, P . J . , concurs. 46 the Alabama
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.
