Howard Ross v. West Wind Condominium Association, Inc., and Joseph London III

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/4/12 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 2101167 Howard Ross v. West Wind Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc., and Joseph London III Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-08-596) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Howard R o s s a p p e a l s West f r o m summary judgments i n f a v o r o f Wind C o n d o m i n i u m A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ("West W i n d " ) , a n d J o s e p h L o n d o n I I I . We a f f i r m . 2101167 On December 3, 2 0 0 7 , West Wind the o f f i c e of the Probate recorded instruments i n Judge o f M a d i s o n C o u n t y t h a t gave n o t i c e t h a t i t c l a i m e d l i e n s on f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s owned by Ross (collectively r e f e r r e d t o as "the four condominium u n i t s " ) b a s e d on h i s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p a y West Wind dues he owed on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s . The f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s were U n i t A i n b u i l d i n g 3816 3816 ("Unit A " ) , U n i t ("Unit J " ) , U n i t C i n b u i l d i n g 3818 D i n b u i l d i n g 3818 On 2008, January West ( " U n i t C " ) , and U n i t ("Unit D"). 18, J a n u a r y Wind J in building published 25, F e b r u a r y notices 1, a n d F e b r u a r y i n the Madison 8, County Record, a l o c a l newspaper, s t a t i n g t h a t i t would s e l l t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s a t f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s on F e b r u a r y 15, 2008. On F e b r u a r y 15, 2008, West Wind c o n d u c t e d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s and made t h e h i g h e s t b i d on e a c h o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s . T h a t same d a y , t h e a u c t i o n e e r conducted executed the foreclosure foreclosure deeds sales on conveying behalf the of four West who Wind condominium u n i t s t o West Wind. On M a r c h 3, 2008, West Wind e x e c u t e d deeds c o n v e y i n g U n i t A and U n i t C t o Jimmy D. S p r u i l l and C y n t h i a I . Spruill, a deed conveying Unit 2 J to London, and a deed 2101167 conveying Unit D to D e l v i n S u l l i v a n . On April Spruills, 18, 2008, Ross s u e d West Wind, London, the and S u l l i v a n . R o s s a l l e g e d t h a t , i n A p r i l 2005, West Wind h a d a g r e e d t o g i v e h i m a c r e d i t a g a i n s t t h e dues on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s i n e x c h a n g e f o r (1) h i s p e r f o r m i n g o r p a y i n g f o r m a i n t e n a n c e and r e p a i r w o r k a t t h e c o n d o m i n i u m and (2) h i s a l l o w i n g a m a i n t e n a n c e man e m p l o y e d by West Wind t o l i v e i n one o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s w i t h o u t p a y i n g r e n t . He f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t , i n S e p t e m b e r 2006, West Wind h a d t o l d him that i t d i d n o t n e e d h i m t o p e r f o r m o r p a y f o r any more m a i n t e n a n c e o r r e p a i r w o r k and t h a t he h a d p a i d t h e dues on the through four 2007. He returned had condominium also units alleged h i s payments refused foreclosed to from that, i n May for April accept on t h e f o u r those December and May 2006 2007, West West claims. The those first Wind had condominium u n i t s w i t h o u t g i v i n g him t o do s o ; and t h a t he h a d not l e a r n e d o f the f o r e c l o s u r e s u n t i l a f t e r they had on had 2 0 0 7 ; t h a t West Wind payments; that any a c t u a l n o t i c e t h a t i t i n t e n d e d Based Wind May factual claim allegations, s o u g h t an order Ross occurred. stated two s e t t i n g aside the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t West Wind h a d f a i l e d t o 3 2101167 g i v e Ross p r o p e r n o t i c e t h a t i t i n t e n d e d four c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s and on t h e g r o u n d t h a t West Wind f a i l e d t o g i v e Ross t h e a p p r o p r i a t e the t o f o r e c l o s e on t h e dues on the four c r e d i t he was due condominium units pursuant had against to h i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h West Wind. The s e c o n d c l a i m s o u g h t r e d e m p t i o n of the four condominium o r i g i n a l complaint, units. Ross f i l e d Shortly after filing a f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t his that added t h e a d d r e s s e s o f t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s b u t was i n a l l material respects i d e n t i c a l to h i s o r i g i n a l complaint. On December 31, 2008, L o n d o n moved f o r a p a r t i a l judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o Ross's c l a i m seeking summary redemption. t h e g r o u n d s o f h i s m o t i o n , L o n d o n a s s e r t e d t h a t R o s s was e n t i t l e d t o redeem U n i t J f r o m L o n d o n p u r s u a n t t o § Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 , 1 t e n d e r e d payment 1 Section because, London said, As not 6-5-255, Ross had not p a i d or o f any money t o L o n d o n and t h a t R o s s was n o t 6-5-255 provides: "If t h e p u r c h a s e r o r h i s o r h e r vendee o r transferee f a i l s or refuses t o reconvey t o such p a r t y e n t i t l e d and d e s i r i n g t o redeem s u c h t i t l e as t h e p a r t y a c q u i r e d by t h e s a l e and p u r c h a s e , s u c h p a r t y so p a y i n g o r t e n d e r i n g payment s h a l l t h e r e u p o n have t h e r i g h t t o f i l e i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n thereof a complaint t o enforce h i s or her r i g h t s of redemption." 4 2101167 e n t i t l e d t o redeem U n i t J f r o m London p u r s u a n t t o § 6-5-256, Ala. Code 1975, 2 because, London said, Ross had neither demanded a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s t o redeem U n i t J n o r p a i d any money i n t o c o u r t . London s u p p o r t e d h i s summaryjudgment motion with his affidavit. In pertinent part, i t stated: " I p u r c h a s e d t h e r e a l e s t a t e w h i c h i s made t h e b a s i s of the p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint at a sale f o r u n p a i d c o n d o m i n i u m a s s o c i a t i o n d u e s . ... I n e v e r r e c e i v e d a demand f o r l a w f u l c h a r g e s , n o m i n a t i o n o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f a r e f e r e e , f r o m t h e p l a i n t i f f , Howard Ross and/or h i s agents p r i o r t o b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e a b o v e - s t y l e d a c t i o n . I have n o t been c o n t a c t e d a t any p o i n t p r i o r t o , o r d u r i n g t h i s litigation, by Howard R o s s and/or his agents c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r d e s i r e t o redeem t h e r e a l e s t a t e w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f Howard R o s s ' s c o m p l a i n t . " On F e b r u a r y 28, 2009, R o s s f i l e d London's p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t 2 Section a written response m o t i o n . Ross a s s e r t e d 6-5-256 p r o v i d e s : "Upon t h e f i l i n g o f any c o m p l a i n t as p r o v i d e d i n t h e s e s e c t i o n s and p a y i n g i n t o c o u r t t h e amount o f p u r c h a s e money and the i n t e r e s t necessary f o r r e d e m p t i o n and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s , i f t h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t t h e r e o f has been f u r n i s h e d o r , i f n o t f u r n i s h e d , o f f e r i n g t o pay such debt or p u r c h a s e p r i c e and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s , t h e c i r c u i t court s h a l l take j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e r e o f and s e t t l e and a d j u s t a l l t h e r i g h t s and e q u i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s , as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e . " 5 to that 2101167 London was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o R o s s ' s c l a i m s e e k i n g r e d e m p t i o n b e c a u s e , R o s s s a i d , he c o u l d not d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f t h e l a w f u l c h a r g e s t o be t e n d e r e d b e c a u s e West Wind h a d f a i l e d the t o i n f o r m h i m o f t h e amount o f d e b t i t was c l a i m i n g he owed a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , sought the equitable assistance of the t r i a l he h a d court d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f t h e l a w f u l c h a r g e s . R o s s a l s o his affidavit affidavit i n opposition to London's motion. filed Ross's stated: "On o r a b o u t A p r i l 2, 2005, ... I e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t w i t h West W i n d C o n d o m i n i u m s , t h r o u g h i t s agent C h a r l e s Ragland, w h e r e i n t h e condominium a s s o c i a t i o n w o u l d a c c e p t m a i n t e n a n c e and r e p a i r s p e r f o r m e d b y me on t h e c o n d o m i n i u m ' s p r e m i s e s i n l i e u o f my h a v i n g t o p a y c o n d o m i n i u m d u e s . A r o u n d S e p t e m b e r o f 2006, I s p o k e w i t h West Wind's new p r e s i d e n t , R a y H a n s o n , who t o l d me t h a t further m a i n t e n a n c e b y me w o u l d n o t be n e c e s s a r y a n d t h a t I s h o u l d b e g i n m a k i n g my r e g u l a r dues p a y m e n t s . I began m a k i n g t h e s e p a y m e n t s i n December o f 2006 a n d made my r e g u l a r p a y m e n t s f o r December 2006, J a n u a r y 2007, F e b r u a r y 2007, a n d M a r c h 2007. West W i n d a c c e p t e d a l l t h e s e p a y m e n t s . When I made my payments f o r A p r i l a n d May o f 2007, West Wind's a t t o r n e y , Mac M a r t i n s o n , r e t u r n e d them t o me w i t h a l e t t e r s a y i n g West Wind would not accept t h e payments and requesting documentation that would dispute the c h a r g e s b e i n g c l a i m e d b y West Wind. I s u b m i t t e d an i t e m i z e d l i s t o f c h a r g e s f o r my work done t h r o u g h my a t t o r n e y P a t r i c k Jones, b u t I n e v e r r e c e i v e d any further correspondence from West Wind. I s u b s e q u e n t l y t r i e d t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h West Wind t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f dues t h a t I w o u l d owe, 6 in 2101167 t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n my s t a t e m e n t f o r work done. I a l s o t r i e d t o c o n t a c t s e v e r a l o t h e r West Wind b o a r d members t o f i n d o u t t h e dues t h a t w o u l d be due. I n F e b r u a r y o f 2008, West Wind f o r e c l o s e d on t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s I owned, p u r c h a s e d t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s i t s e l f , and t h e n s o l d t h e c o n d o m i n i u m s t o t h e o t h e r defendants i n the lawsuit. I learned of the f o r e c l o s u r e s o n l y when I r a n i n t o an attorney, Elizabeth Cvetetic." (Emphasis added.) On M a r c h 25, 2009, R o s s f i l e d a s e c o n d amended w h i c h added a c l a i m only, a claim of breach of contract of i n t e n t i o n a l interference complaint, against with West Wind business or c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s " a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s , " and a c l a i m o f "unlawful detention of property" against the S p r u i l l s only. On M a r c h 30, 2009, London moved t o s t r i k e R o s s ' s s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was On April 13, 2009, Ross untimely. filed a response m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t . to London's Ross asserted t h a t t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t was t i m e l y b e c a u s e , he s a i d , it added c l a i m s after the amended filing complaint. prejudiced the t h a t were b a s e d on e v e n t s t h a t h a d of h i s o r i g i n a l He also complaint asserted that and London occurred his was by t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e , he breach-of-contract c l a i m was 7 asserted against West first not said, Wind 2101167 only, the claims of i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e with business or contractual were relations asserted "none and " u n l a w f u l against the S p r u i l l s of the newly-added D e f e n d a n t London summary On motion January judgment of and, property" therefore, are p l e d against " London's complaint. only, causes of a c t i o n On December 30, 2009, granting detention 4, i n favor the t r i a l to court strike the 2010, t h e t r i a l o f London entered as an second court order amended entered t o a l l of a Ross's claims. On J a n u a r y 29, 2010, Ross f i l e d m o t i o n s a s k i n g t h e t r i a l court strike to reconsider i t s rulings granting t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t London's motion t o and e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f London as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s . I n h i s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e r u l i n g e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f London as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s , R o s s a s s e r t e d that t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e r r e d by e n t e r i n g t h a t summary j u d g m e n t as to a l l of Ross's claims because London's p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - judgment motion had c h a l l e n g e d Ross's c l a i m s e e k i n g redemption o n l y . The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a r u l i n g by t h e t r i a l regarding Ross's motions t o r e c o n s i d e r 8 the r u l i n g s court granting 2101167 London's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e and e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f London as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s . On June 8, 2009, judgment Ross's the S p r u i l l s motion seeking claim seeking filed a summary j u d g m e n t partial-summary-judgment their affidavits. summary-judgment identical with r e d e m p t i o n . The S p r u i l l s same g r o u n d s t h a t London h a d a s s e r t e d with a partial-summary- motion Ross motion asserted and s u p p o r t e d filed he had to the as t h e g r o u n d s o f h i s their opposed t h e S p r u i l l s ' and to the a f f i d a v i t respect an affidavit filed motion partial- that i n opposition was to L o n d o n ' s p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . On M a r c h 18, 2 0 1 1 , the trial Spruills On court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n favor of the for a summary as t o a l l o f R o s s ' s c l a i m s . March 28, 2011, West Wind moved j u d g m e n t . As t h e g r o u n d o f i t s m o t i o n , West Wind a s s e r t e d that R o s s owed u n p a i d dues on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s ; t h a t West Wind h a d g i v e n Ross n o t i c e f o u r condominium u n i t s ; would place pay liens the unpaid that he owed u n p a i d dues t h a t i t had g i v e n on t h e him n o t i c e t h a t i t on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s i f he d i d n o t dues; that i t had p l a c e d c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s due t o R o s s ' s f a i l u r e 9 liens on t h e f o u r t o p a y dues on t h e 2101167 f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s ; t h a t i t had m a i l e d A. Jones, an attorney Wind i n t e n d e d to R o s s d i d n o t pay had published representing foreclose on the a l e t t e r to P a t r i c k Ross, four stating purchased the s a l e ; and four t h a t i t had the S p r u i l l s , U n i t 2007; that i t f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s i n the C o u n t y R e c o r d once a week f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e had West condominium u n i t s i f t h e u n p a i d dues by December 22, n o t i c e of the that condominium u n i t s Madison weeks; that i t at the foreclosure s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n v e y e d U n i t s A and J t o L o n d o n , and Unit D to C to Sullivan. West Wind i n i t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n with, among Martinson, May other who things, copies then represented 2007 n o t i f y i n g him of condominium u n i t s ; c o p i e s the of of letters West Wind, had amounts he the liens attorney s e n t Ross i n owed on i t had Mac the filed four on the f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s ; a l e t t e r d a t e d December 11, 2007, f r o m R o b e r t F. V a r g o , an attorney to copies Jones e n c l o s i n g four condominium commence units foreclosure of and e x e c u t e d by the the then represented liens stating proceedings amounts owed by December 22, affidavits who i t had that i f Ross 2007; copies West Wind, filed West did Wind not of the Madison County Record 10 on pay the would the publisher's certifying 2101167 that i t had p u b l i s h e d January 18, January notices 25, of the f o r e c l o s u r e February 1, and February c o p i e s o f the f o r e c l o s u r e deeds conveying the f o u r u n i t s t o West Wind; and c o p i e s sales 8, on 2008; condominium o f the deeds conveying U n i t and U n i t C t o t h e S p r u i l l s , U n i t A J t o L o n d o n , and U n i t D t o Sullivan. On A p r i l Wind's 1, 2011, R o s s f i l e d summary-judgment "Narrative of Facts" West Wind's motion. as w e l l summary-judgment a number o f u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d a w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e t o West His response contained a as arguments i n o p p o s i t i o n to m o t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , Ross documents and an a f f i d a v i t by him. In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , h i s a f f i d a v i t facts contained Summary Judgment contained belief." signed i n my and Plaintiff's the t h e r e i n , are true ( E m p h a s i s added.) to Motion Statement and c o r r e c t t o my Ross a l s o signed s t a t e d : " A l l of the Response Narrative filed and affidavit part: " 1 . I have n o t r e p r e s e n t e d n o r a c t e d as a t t o r n e y f o r Howard R o s s i n any m a t t e r s b e t w e e n s a i d Howard R o s s and W e s t w i n d [ s i c ] Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n . "2. I have no k n o w l e d g e o f r e c e i p t o f any a l l e g e d n o t i c e s o r communications s e n t by R o b e r t V a r g o , a t t o r n e y a t l a w , t o Howard R o s s . " 11 Facts knowledge s u b m i t t e d an by J o n e s , w h i c h s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t of for 2101167 (Emphasis On added.) April affidavit 7, 2011, West Wind moved to strike Ross's and t h e u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d documents he h a d f i l e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . As one o f i t s grounds f o r s t r i k i n g R o s s ' s a f f i d a v i t , West Wind a s s e r t e d t h a t Ross's a f f i d a v i t d i d not s a t i s f y the personal-knowledge r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b e c a u s e , West W i n d s a i d , Ross had q u a l i f i e d h i s a f f i r m a t i o n of the t r u t h of the f a c t s r e c i t e d i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n w i t h t h e p h r a s e " t o my k n o w l e d g e and b e l i e f " i n s t e a d o f a f f i r m i n g t h a t t h e y were t r u e w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Ross d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o West Wind's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e . Also signed by on April Vargo 7, with p e r t i n e n t p a r t , Vargo's 2011, West a number affidavit Wind of filed documents an affidavit attached. In stated: " I r e p r e s e n t e d D e f e n d a n t West W i n d C o n d o m i n i u m Association, I n c . ( h e r e i n r e f e r r e d t o as 'West Wind') i n t h e m a t t e r s o f a t t e m p t e d c o l l e c t i o n o f p a s t due a s s e s s m e n t s f r o m Howard R o s s , who i s t h e P l a i n t i f f i n the above-styled a c t i o n pending before t h i s C o u r t . My c l i e n t a t t h e t i m e , West Wind, p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o me c o n c e r n i n g t h e amounts o f t h e u n p a i d a s s e s s m e n t p a y m e n t s , i n t e r e s t and l a t e c h a r g e s owed t o West W i n d by Howard R o s s p e r t a i n i n g t o f i v e condo u n i t s t h a t Howard R o s s owned a t [ t h a t ] t i m e , w h i c h was t h e t i m e p e r i o d o f November a n d December, 2007. T h e r e a r e f o u r o f t h o s e u n i t s t h a t 12 2101167 are the s u b j e c t of t h i s pending l a w s u i t , those b e i n g : U n i t Number J o f B u i l d i n g 3816 o f t h e West W i n d C o n d o m i n i u m s ; U n i t Number A o f B u i l d i n g 3816, U n i t Number C o f B u i l d i n g 3818 and U n i t Number D o f B u i l d i n g 3818. "The P r e s i d e n t o f West Wind a t t h a t t i m e , J o s e p h L o n d o n , I I I , v e r i f i e d t h o s e amounts owed by Howard R o s s on f i v e d o c u m e n t s t h a t I p r e p a r e d w i t h h i s a s s i s t a n c e , o f w h i c h t h e r e a r e f o u r documents w h i c h p e r t a i n to the f o u r u n i t s t h a t are the s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h i s l a w s u i t . I have a t t a c h e d h e r e t o c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s of the f o u r documents, each t i t l e d ' C l a i m Of L i e n F o r U n p a i d A s s e s s m e n t s , ' w h i c h a r e a t t a c h e d and m a r k e d c o l l e c t i v e l y as Defendant's E x h i b i t W-6(CC)(since they are c e r t i f i e d copies of t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-6 a l r e a d y f i l e d by West Wind i n s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t ) . I t o o k t h e s t e p s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e f o u r C l a i m s Of L i e n t o be r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge o f P r o b a t e o f M a d i s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , on December 3, 2007. "Having reviewed correspondence between the o f f i c e s o f Mr. A. Mac M a r t i n s o n , an a t t o r n e y who h a d p r e v i o u s l y r e p r e s e n t e d West W i n d i n t h e same m a t t e r o f c o l l e c t i o n o f a s s e s s m e n t s f r o m Howard R o s s , and Mr. P a t r i c k A. J o n e s , I u n d e r s t o o d t h a t Howard R o s s was b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t i m e by Mr. P a t r i c k A. J o n e s . P a r t o f t h a t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i s a t t a c h e d as e x h i b i t s t o t h e r e s p o n s e o f Howard R o s s t o t h e motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , n a m e l y Plaintiff's E x h i b i t s 6 and 17. I n r e p r e s e n t i n g my c l i e n t , and i n order not t o v i o l a t e a t t o r n e y e t h i c s r e g a r d i n g not communicating about the subject matter of the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h a p a r t y under c i r c u m s t a n c e s i m p l y i n g t h a t such p a r t y i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n the m a t t e r by an a t t o r n e y ( i . e . R u l e 4.2, A l a b a m a R u l e s Of P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t ) , I p r e p a r e d my l e t t e r f o r Howard R o s s t o be a d d r e s s e d t o a t t o r n e y P a t r i c k A. J o n e s . I m a i l e d t h e l e t t e r t o Mr. P a t r i c k A. J o n e s v i a U n i t e d States M a i l , proper postage p r e p a i d , 13 2101167 d a t e d December 11, 2007, c o n c e r n i n g Howard R o s s . A t r u e and c o r r e c t copy of t h a t l e t t e r , and i t s e n c l o s u r e s , i s a t t a c h e d as D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-8 t o t h e M o t i o n F o r Summary Judgment f i l e d by West Wind i n t h i s c a u s e . The l e t t e r ' s e n c l o s u r e s a r e t h e f i v e l i e n s - c l a i m s documents t h a t I had c a u s e d t o be r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama, of which f o u r ( D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W-6 and W-6(CC)) p e r t a i n t o t h i s m a t t e r , as s t a t e d above. The l e t t e r c o n t a i n s a s t a t e m e n t t h a t , 'In t h e e v e n t t h e s u b j e c t amounts a r e n o t p a i d i n f u l l by December 22 2007, we w i l l commence f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . ' " I d i d n o t e v e r r e c e i v e any r e s p o n s e f r o m e i t h e r Howard R o s s o r P a t r i c k A. J o n e s t o t h a t l e t t e r d a t e d December 11, 2007, n o r was t h a t l e t t e r r e t u r n e d t o me i n t h e m a i l as u n d e l i v e r e d . On b e h a l f o f West Wind, I p r o c e e d e d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s o f f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e l i e n s t h a t West W i n d had on t h e f o u r condo u n i t s t h a t b e l o n g e d t o Howard R o s s . I c a u s e d n o t i c e s o f f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s on e a c h o f t h e f o u r u n i t s t o be run i n a newspaper of l o c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Madison County, Alabama, which i s the Madison County Record. T r u e and c o r r e c t c o p i e s o f t h o s e v e r i f i e d n o t i c e s o f publication p r e p a r e d by the Publisher of that newspaper are a t t a c h e d as c o l l e c t i v e Defendant's E x h i b i t W-2 t o West Wind's M o t i o n F o r Summary Judgment, and t h e o r i g i n a l d o c u m e n t s were a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence at a hearing before t h i s Court. The n o t i c e s o f e a c h o f t h e f o u r f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s were p u b l i s h e d f o r f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e weeks, as t h e n o t i c e s state. " I h e l d t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s as a u c t i o n e e r f o r e a c h o f t h e f o u r s u b j e c t condo u n i t s on F e b r u a r y 15, 2008. I d u l y p r e p a r e d , e x e c u t e d , and c a u s e d t o be r e c o r d e d i n t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama, a F o r e c l o s u r e Deed f o r e a c h o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s o f e a c h o f the four subject condo u n i t s . T r u e and correct c o p i e s o f t h o s e f o u r F o r e c l o s u r e Deeds a r e a t t a c h e d 14 2101167 as c o l l e c t i v e D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t W.3 t o West Wind's Motion f o r Summary Judgment, and c o p i e s were admitted i n t o evidence at a hearing before this Court." On A p r i l 14, 2011, t h e t r i a l striking Ross's affidavit documents Ross had filed and with court entered a l l the h i s response an o r d e r (1) unauthenticated t o West summary-judgment m o t i o n and (2) g r a n t i n g West Wind's Wind's summary- judgment m o t i o n . On J u l y 22, 2 0 1 1 , R o s s f i l e d a motion asking the trial c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g s g r a n t i n g West Wind's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e and g r a n t i n g West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . R o s s argued that the t r i a l court should reconsider i t s ruling g r a n t i n g West Wind's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e h i s a f f i d a v i t he because, said, " t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s n a r r a t i v e summary t h a t a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s a f f i d a v i t a r e the knowledge of the P l a i n t i f f , or are statements made by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f West Wind, t h e p a r t y opponent i n t h i s matter, and a r e n o t o f f e r e d t o prove the matter asserted. The offering of s t a t e m e n t s made by West Wind a g e n t s were o f f e r e d t o show t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s b e l i e f t h a t he was m a k i n g r e p a i r s and p e r f o r m i n g work w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f reimbursement i n the form of c r e d i t toward h i s c o n d o m i n i u m d u e s . The e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f P l a i n t i f f ' s s a i d b e l i e f s u p p o r t s h i s c l a i m f o r dues c r e d i t t h a t he h a d p e r s o n a l l y s e n t t o West Wind's c o u n s e l . " R o s s d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e West Wind's argument t h a t h i s a f f i d a v i t 15 2101167 did n o t meet t h e p e r s o n a l - k n o w l e d g e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 56(e) because Ross had q u a l i f i e d h i s a f f i r m a t i o n of the t r u t h of t h e f a c t s r e c i t e d i n h i s r e s p o n s e w i t h t h e p h r a s e " t o my and knowledge belief." Ross argued t h a t the t r i a l court should reconsider i t s r u l i n g g r a n t i n g West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n he said, whether a genuine West foreclosures regarding Wind and whether a i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t had given genuine he owed him issue West f o r e c l o s e d on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m existed proper of regarding notice material Wind because, any fact dues of the existed when i t units. Ross d i d n o t a s s e r t , i n e i t h e r h i s m o t i o n t o reconsider t h e r u l i n g g r a n t i n g West Wind's m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o r h i s m o t i o n to r e c o n s i d e r t h e r u l i n g g r a n t i n g West Wind's summary-judgment motion, that affidavits he the trial court should had filed i n opposition S p r u i l l s ' partial-summary-judgment Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . On court entered have considered t o London's motions and the the i n r u l i n g on West J u l y 25, 2011, the trial an o r d e r d e n y i n g R o s s ' s m o t i o n a s k i n g t h e trial c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g s g r a n t i n g West Wind's m o t i o n t o strike and i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary 16 judgment. 2101167 Ross's claims against Sullivan were d i s p o s e d o f by t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t judgment i n f a v o r o f Ross. Ross timely judgments appealed i n favor to this court from the summary o f West Wind a n d L o n d o n . Due t o l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h i s c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h e supreme c o u r t . The supreme c o u r t t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l this back t o c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t R o s s d i d n o t name t h e S p r u i l l s as appellees i n h i s n o t i c e of appeal, in h i s notice judgment circuit of appeal i n favor appeal, he was a p p e a l i n g of the S p r u i l l s , court c l e r k t o serve notice of appeal. this that d i d not otherwise indicate t h e summary and d i d n o t d i r e c t t h e t h e S p r u i l l s w i t h a copy o f h i s Therefore, the S p r u i l l s are not p a r t i e s t o a n d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e summary judgment i n t h e i r f a v o r was p r o p e r i s n o t b e f o r e u s . See V e t e t o v . Swanson Servs. C o r p . , 886 So. 2d 756, 763-65 Ross argues t h a t the t r i a l ( A l a . 2003) . court erred i n striking his a f f i d a v i t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n because, either he facts statements says, the facts of which he recited i n h i s response had p e r s o n a l made b y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 17 were k n o w l e d g e o r were o f West Wind that were 2101167 m e r e l y o f f e r e d t o show R o s s ' s b e l i e f r e g a r d i n g h i s r i g h t t o a c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s d u e s . However, one o f t h e g r o u n d s r a i s e d b y West Wind for striking Ross's affidavit was that he h a d q u a l i f i e d h i s a f f i r m a t i o n of the t r u t h of the facts r e c i t e d i n his response instead of with the phrase affirming the t r u t h qualification. In pertinent "[s]upporting and personal knowledge." " t o my part, opposing of Rule affidavits (Emphasis a f f i d a v i t s be made on p e r s o n a l p a r t e Head, 572 So. 2d 1276, knowledge those and b e l i e f " facts without 56(e) p r o v i d e s shall be that made added.) The r e q u i r e m e n t on that k n o w l e d g e i s m a n d a t o r y . See Ex 1279 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . Alabama courts have h e l d t h a t an a f f i d a v i t b a s e d on " i n f o r m a t i o n a n d b e l i e f " does n o t meet 56(e). of Rule I d . A l t h o u g h we have n o t f o u n d an A l a b a m a c a s e that has c o n s i d e r e d the the personal-knowledge requirement t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r an a f f i a n t ' s a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t f a c t s contained i n h i s or her a f f i d a v i t are true k n o w l e d g e a n d b e l i e f " meets t h e p e r s o n a l - k n o w l e d g e of Rule 5 6 ( c ) , " t o my requirement t h e G e o r g i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h a s h e l d t h a t an affiant's a f f i r m a t i o n that the facts contained affidavit are true i n h i s or her " t o t h e b e s t o f my k n o w l e d g e a n d b e l i e f " does n o t meet t h e p e r s o n a l - k n o w l e d g e 18 requirement i n Georgia's 2101167 version of Rule 56(e), which i s identical to the knowledge r e q u i r e m e n t i n Alabama's R u l e 5 6 ( e ) . P a p e r Co. 544-45 v. Coleman, 188 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . We i n an a f f i d a v i t fails to 56(e). Accordingly, err 809, 811, Morris-Bancroft 374 S.E.2d 544, a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t an a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t facts meet Ga. App. personal- the are true " t o my k n o w l e d g e and personal-knowledge we requirement conclude t h a t the t r i a l i n s t r i k i n g Ross's affidavit filed the belief" of Rule court d i d not i n opposition t o West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n . Ross d i d not assert to t h i s Wind's assert court i n the that the t r i a l summary-judgment m o t i o n , affidavits he had trial filed i n opposition 2d 409, the ... a r g u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d 410 ( A l a . 1992) K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 2012] not on West considered London's the and motions. Therefore, ("[O]ur the we Wells So. 3d Fargo , do 612 review i s r e s t r i c t e d to by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) ; B o s h e l l v. ( A l a . 1982) t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , v. does in ruling have to and t h a t i s s u e . See Andrews v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., So. Jackson court, should S p r u i l l s ' partial-summary-judgment not consider court Bank, ("When an a p p e l l a n t that issue i s waived."); N.A., [Ms. ( A l a . 2012) 19 fails 1100594, ("'It and Feb. 17, i s not the 2101167 f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s t r u c t and the parties on a address arguments f o r [nonjurisdictional] point.'" P e r f o r m a n c e , I n c . v. (quoting Dawson, 57 (Ala. 2010))). court erred i n granting Ross a l s o argues t h a t the So. trial 3d 90, 99 West Wind's summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he s a y s , § 35-8A316(a), advance A l a . Code 1975, notice of the r e q u i r e d West W i n d t o g i v e him foreclosure of the four actual condominium u n i t s and West W i n d f a i l e d t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t i t had given him such n o t i c e . "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 presented 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 m a t e r i a l f a c t . " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence" is " 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 t o draw.' 20 2101167 "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 [(Ala. 2000)] ( c i t a t i o n s omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." Potter v. F i r s t Real Estate Section 35-8A-316(a) Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). provides: " ( a ) The a s s o c i a t i o n has a l i e n on a u n i t f o r any a s s e s s m e n t l e v i e d a g a i n s t t h a t u n i t o r f i n e s i m p o s e d a g a i n s t i t s u n i t owner f r o m t h e t i m e t h e a s s e s s m e n t o r f i n e becomes due. The association's l i e n may be f o r e c l o s e d i n l i k e manner as a m o r t g a g e on real estate but the association shall give r e a s o n a b l e advance n o t i c e of i t s proposed a c t i o n to t h e u n i t owner and a l l l i e n h o l d e r s o f r e c o r d o f t h e u n i t . U n l e s s the d e c l a r a t i o n o t h e r w i s e provides, f e e s , c h a r g e s , l a t e c h a r g e s , f i n e s , and i n t e r e s t charged pursuant to s e c t i o n 35-8A-302(a)(10), (11) and (12) a r e e n f o r c e a b l e as a s s e s s m e n t s u n d e r t h i s section. If an assessment is payable in i n s t a l l m e n t s , t h e f u l l amount o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t i s a l i e n from the time the f i r s t i n s t a l l m e n t t h e r e o f becomes due." (Emphasis added.) West Wind supported i t s summary-judgment motion with, among o t h e r t h i n g s , V a r g o ' s a f f i d a v i t . I n h i s a f f i d a v i t , V a r g o authenticated a l e t t e r he had 2007. T h a t l e t t e r m a i l e d t o J o n e s on December stated: " I r e p r e s e n t West I n c . i n an e f f o r t t o f r o m Howard R o s s . I t r e p r e s e n t Mr. R o s s i n Wind Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , c o l l e c t p a s t due assessments i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t you connection with t h i s subject 21 11, 2101167 matter. " E n c l o s e d p l e a s e f i n d t h e l i e n c l a i m s f i l e d by my c l i e n t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f a i l u r e o f y o u r c l i e n t t o pay a s s e s s m e n t s . In t h e e v e n t t h e s u b j e c t amounts a r e n o t p a i d i n f u l l by December 22, 2007, we w i l l commence f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s . " (Emphasis added.) R o s s s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t f r o m J o n e s i n w h i c h he stated t h a t he h a d " n o t r e p r e s e n t e d n o r a c t e d as a t t o r n e y f o r Howard Ross [sic] i n any m a t t e r s between Condominium said Howard R o s s Association." That and testimony Westwind tends e s t a b l i s h a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g Jones had a c t u a l authority t o a c t as R o s s ' s agent to whether i n Ross's d e a l i n g s w i t h West Wind. However, R o s s s u b m i t t e d a f f i d a v i t s i n opposition to London's and the Spruills' summary-judgment m o t i o n s i n w h i c h he s t a t e d t h a t " I s u b m i t t e d an i t e m i z e d o f c h a r g e s f o r my work done [ t o West Wind] t h r o u g h my P a t r i c k J o n e s . " By g i v i n g J o n e s t h e i t e m i z e d l i s t Ross cloaked communications of Ross. Jones with apparent attorney of charges f o r w h i c h R o s s s o u g h t a c r e d i t a g a i n s t h i s dues and Jones t o p r o v i d e t h a t i t e m i z e d l i s t allowing o f c h a r g e s t o West Wind, authority to r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s p u t e o v e r t h e dues on receive behalf "'Where t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e a c t o r has 22 list been 2101167 h e l d out by the possessing the scope of the authority alleged principal, authority assumed by principal's can be as b e i n g business, invoked by one such the who has J o h n s o n v. 389, 640 So. Williams, 198 A l a . 290, Vargo Patrick "'"A testified A. prepaid, 2d 636, Jones dated letter via properly Farm F i r e 2004) (quoting 2d 708, Co. v. 710 received "[he] 11, Ins. S i s s o n v. Co., the letter a by However, i n t h e p r e s e n t the Mail, to Ala. i n due 892 jury 83, 2d mailed 121 So. that 66, 67 regarding he case Jones d i d not knowledge of receipt of 23 any 368 Co., v. (Ala. 824 So. Trust (1929)). The whether received he i t . Id. deny t h a t he alleged is McCray 363, & Cas. Ross." i n t u r n C o r i n t h Bank & question denying and Mr. postage Howard course."'" So. to proper stamped, v. (1916)). r e c e i v e d V a r g o ' s l e t t e r . R a t h e r , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t "[he] no his 291 letter concerning S t a t e Farm F i r e A l a . 81, create apparent Co., 503-04 mailed 2007, ( A l a . 2001), q u o t i n g may Ins. 502, States received & Cas. C o c h r a n , 219 addressee So. addressed, p r e s u m e d t o have b e e n State 73 United December of as the (1973) ( q u o t i n g R o b e r t s & Son 292, that within been m i s l e d Shenandoah L i f e 281 agent doctrine detriment.'" 394, h i s agent or notices had ha[d] or 2101167 communications sent by R o b e r t Vargo, attorney at law, t o Howard R o s s . " H i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t he h a d no k n o w l e d g e the regarding r e c e i p t o f V a r g o ' s l e t t e r was n o t t a n t a m o u n t t o a d e n i a l t h a t he r e c e i v e d that l e t t e r . to genuine establish a issue w h e t h e r he r e c e i v e d V a r g o ' s Accordingly, we Thus, Jones's a f f i d a v i t of material fact failed regarding letter. conclude that the evidence before the t r i a l c o u r t made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t J o n e s h a d a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o r e c e i v e V a r g o ' s l e t t e r on b e h a l f o f Ross a n d t h a t J o n e s was p r e s u m e d t o have r e c e i v e d c o n c l u d e t h a t Ross f a i l e d the l e t t e r . M o r e o v e r , we t o produce evidence r e b u t t i n g prima f a c i e showing. Vargo's l e t t e r c l e a r l y n o t i f i e d West Wind w o u l d f o r e c l o s e on t h e f o u r c o n d o m i n i u m did that Ross t h a t u n i t s i f he n o t p a y t h e dues West W i n d was c l a i m i n g b y December 22, 2007. We further requirement that letter prima reasonable facie advance showing notice that Wind the Thus, no m e r i t i n R o s s ' s argument West satisfied r e a s o n a b l e advance n o t i c e o f t h e p r o p o s e d f o r e c l o s u r e s . a 35-8A-316(a) that Ross make § that give we f i n d of conclude t h a t West W i n d f a i l e d t o i t had of the foreclosures 35-8A-316(a). 24 given him the required by § 2101167 Ross a l s o argues t h a t t h e t r i a l West Wind's Wind f a i l e d summary-judgment motion t o make a p r i m a f a c i e court erred i n granting b e c a u s e , he says, West s h o w i n g t h a t he owed West Wind a d e b t . However, West Wind s u p p o r t e d i t s summary-judgment motion with the l i e n probate court with units. Each l i e n claims respect subject of the lien v e r i f i e d by L o n d o n , who "I, Wind had r e c o r d e d t o each of the four c l a i m s t a t e d t h e amount t h a t R o s s owed w i t h r e s p e c t the West i n the condominium West Wind claimed t o the condominium u n i t t h a t claim, signed and each lien claim was was the f o l l o w i n g v e r i f i c a t i o n : Joseph London, I I I , d e c l a r e that: " I am t h e P r e s i d e n t o f West Wind Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , an A l a b a m a c o r p o r a t i o n , named as t h e A s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e f o r e g o i n g c l a i m o f l i e n ; I am authorized t o make t h i s verification f o r the Association. " I h a v e r e a d i t and know i t s c o n t e n t s ; i t i s t r u e t o my own k n o w l e d g e and c o n t a i n s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f my demand a f t e r d e d u c t i n g a l l j u s t c r e d i t s and o f f s e t s . " Ross argues that the lien claims were not admissible e v i d e n c e . However, he d i d n o t move t o s t r i k e them. B e c a u s e he did not move to strike the lien claims, he o b j e c t i o n on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s of the lien claims. See Ex 25 parte Secretary waived any consideration of Veterans 2101167 Affairs, (Ala. [Ms. 1101171, F e b . 10, 2012] unauthenticated waived any o b j e c t i o n Accordingly, Wind f a i l e d on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g of the a f f i d a v i t we find no m e r i t i n Ross's Therefore, we showing affirm court to u n c e r t i f i e d , and t h a t a f f i d a v i t , he the t r i a l and s u p p o r t i n g t o make a p r i m a f a c i e a debt. favor and t h e unsworn, documents t h a t a c c o m p a n i e d consideration court's documents."). argument t h a t West t h a t he owed West t h e summary judgment i n o f West Wind. Ross a l s o argues t h a t t h e t r i a l London's Ross's sales motion Ross's partial-summary-judgment claim seeking because, he an o r d e r says, d i d not challenge London's sales , 2012) ("Because F r a n k f a i l e d t o move t h e t r i a l s t r i k e the H i a t t a f f i d a v i t Wind So. 3d seeking i s correct. i n granting motion with respect London's that an o r d e r Because erred setting Ross's motion setting London's aside to the foreclosure partial-summary-judgment claim. partial-summary-judgment claim court contention d i d not aside that challenge the foreclosure partial-summary-judgment motion d i d not c h a l l e n g e Ross's c l a i m seeking an o r d e r setting a s i d e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s , i t d i d n o t meet L o n d o n ' s initial b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o 26 2101167 a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h respect to that claim. See Employees o f t h e Montgomery C n t y . S h e r i f f ' s Dep't v. M a r s h a l l , 2d 326, 330 challenge ( A l a . 2004) the individual burden of plaintiffs' capacity, the against motion did in his '"the b u r d e n o f p r o d u c t i o n , facie s h o w i n g t h a t he parte B e r n e r v. prevail on foreclosure against his 769 Caldwell, claim not sheriff meet in his initial that i s , t o summary j u d g m e n t . " ' 543 2d 903, 909 (Ala. 1999) So. 2d 686, 691 (Ala. 1989) s p e c i a l l y ) ) . " ) . However, i n o r d e r seeking party an who c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s , and R o s s has order setting aside that actually foreclosed West W i n d w i t h conclude that the respect trial to that court's claim. error partial-summary-judgment motion w i t h seeking an order s e t t i n g aside the claim on the the i n granting respect favor Consequently, we London's to Ross's claim foreclosure sales did i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t R o s s ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s and, 27 to f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l j u s t i f y i n g a r e v e r s a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n of Ex So. s a l e s , R o s s w o u l d have t o p r e v a i l on West Wind, t h e the i n d i v i d u a l capacity, is entitled (Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g the i . e . , the burden of making a prima General Motors Corp., (quoting not claims the sheriff So. s h e r i f f ' s motion d i d ("Since the 893 not therefore, 2101167 c o n s t i t u t e d h a r m l e s s e r r o r t h a t does n o t w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f L o n d o n . See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. T h e r e f o r e , we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f London. Finally, granting complaint. he Ross argues that the London's motion to strike However, R o s s r e p r e s e n t e d had a s s e r t e d two o f t h e t h r e e trial court the second to the t r i a l claims erred in amended court that added b y t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t , i . e . , the claim of i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e with contractual business or relations unlawful detention of property, above, Ross has n o t a p p e a l e d favor of the S p r u i l l s . favor of the S p r u i l l s to Precision Standard, the judgment Therefore, judgment i n t h e summary judgment i n judgment t h a t the claims against amended complaint. i n favor the p l a i n t i f f , ] of Windsor[, bars them t h a t he s o u g h t See Stevenson v. (Ala. 1999) I n c . , 762 So. 2d 820, 827 ("[B]ecause S t e v e n s o n [ , of t h e summary h a s become a f i n a l add i n t h e second the claim a g a i n s t t h e S p r u i l l s o n l y . As noted Ross from p r o s e c u t i n g and d i d not appeal one o f t h e from defendants], t h a t j u d g m e n t h a s become f i n a l ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s judicata bars a new trial on 28 the issue of Windsor's 2101167 liability."). court in C o n s e q u e n t l y , any granting the e r r o r c o m m i t t e d by motion to strike those the trial two claims a g a i n s t the S p r u i l l s d i d not a f f e c t Ross's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , c o n s t i t u t e s h a r m l e s s e r r o r . See The remaining claim amended c o m p l a i n t was Wind. T h a t c l a i m was Ross sought to add a breach-of-contract in Rule the 45. second c l a i m a g a i n s t West b a s e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t West Wind's agreement t o g i v e Ross a c r e d i t a g a i n s t the dues on the four condominium u n i t s f o r p e r f o r m i n g or p a y i n g f o r maintenance and r e p a i r work a t t h e c o n d o m i n i u m and f o r a l l o w i n g a maintenance man temporarily e m p l o y e d by four condominium contract failing on West Wind t o and that without West Wind had paying rent breached Indeed, Ross's claim original complaint filed on part, t h o s e same a l l e g e d April 18, seeking f a c t s . Yet, 2008, the contract f a c t s t h a t were known t o R o s s when he complaint. of constituted that s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s , w h i c h he on i n one t o g i v e R o s s s u c h a c r e d i t . Thus, t h a t c l a i m was alleged original units live his order included i n his was based, Ross d e l a y e d his s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t f o r a l m o s t a y e a r a f t e r he his o r i g i n a l complaint. in filing filed Moreover, the f i r s t t r i a l s e t t i n g 29 by based filed an a was 2101167 scheduled f o r M a r c h 2009, and complaint l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e In Rector (Ala. v. 2001), the Ross f i l e d B e t t e r Houses, supreme c o u r t h i s s e c o n d amended that f i r s t Inc., 820 trial So. 2d setting. 75, 77-78 stated: " R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n s amendments t o pleadings. I t provides, i n pertinent part: " ' U n l e s s a c o u r t has o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t t o d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own m o t i o n o r a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t any t i m e more t h a n forty-two (42) days before the first s e t t i n g o f t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l , and s u c h amendment s h a l l be f r e e l y a l l o w e d when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . T h e r e a f t e r , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e of c o u r t , and l e a v e s h a l l be g i v e n o n l y upon a s h o w i n g o f good c a u s e . ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) I n B o r o s v. 240 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , we e x p l a i n e d : Baxley, 621 So. 2d " ' A l t h o u g h R u l e 15(a) i t s e l f c a l l s f o r l i b e r a l amendment, t h i s C o u r t has held c o n s i s t e n t l y t h a t "the g r a n t or d e n i a l of l e a v e t o amend i s a m a t t e r t h a t i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i s s u b j e c t t o r e v e r s a l on a p p e a l o n l y f o r an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " ' "621 So.2d a t 245 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . Thus, 'Rule 15, [ A l a . R. Civ. P.], i s not carte blanche authority to amend a c o m p l a i n t at any time.' S t a l l i n g s v. A n g e l i c a U n i f o r m Co., 388 So. 2d 942, 947 ( A l a . 1980) ( q u o t i n g S t e a d v. B l u e Cross-Blue S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 294 A l a . 3, 6, 310 So. 2d 469, 471 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . '[U]ndue d e l a y i n f i l i n g an amendment, 30 2101167 when i t c o u l d have b e e n f i l e d e a r l i e r b a s e d on t h e information a v a i l a b l e or d i s c o v e r a b l e , i s i n i t s e l f g r o u n d f o r d e n y i n g an amendment.' P u c k e t t , T a u l & Underwood, I n c . v . S c h r e i b e r C o r p . , 551 So. 2d 979, 984 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' [ I ] f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s ... t h a t a p a r t y has had s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t a t e a c l a i m ... b u t h a s f a i l e d t o do s o , l e a v e t o amend may p r o p e r l y be d e n i e d . ' W a l k e r v. T r a u g h b e r , 351 So. 2d 917, 922 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) . " In the present case, because Ross had knowledge o f a l l t h e a l l e g e d f a c t s upon w h i c h he b a s e d h i s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m when he f i l e d h i s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t y e t d e l a y e d his second his o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t a n d b e c a u s e he f i l e d h i s s e c o n d filing amended c o m p l a i n t f o r a l m o s t a y e a r a f t e r he filed amended c o m p l a i n t l e s s t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t t r i a l s e t t i n g , we conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s t r i k i n g the second amended c o m p l a i n t as t o R o s s ' s breach-of- c o n t r a c t c l a i m . See R e c t o r v. B e t t e r H o u s e s . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r . Thomas writings. a n d Moore, J J . , concur 31 i n the r e s u l t , without

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.