Fred Griffith v. G.A.K.E., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/26/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, 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, 2012-2013 2110316 Fred G r i f f i t h v. G.A.K.E., Inc. Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-09-900349) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . F r e d G r i f f i t h a p p e a l e d f r o m a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g G.A.K.E., I n c . , damages f o r b r e a c h o f a c o m m e r c i a l - l e a s e a g u a r a n t y a g r e e m e n t , an a t t o r n e y agreement and f e e , and c o u r t c o s t s . The a p p e a l was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , 2110316 Ala. Code 1975. We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n u n t i m e l y filed. In 2001, G.A.K.E. e n t e r e d i n t o a 1 0 - y e a r commercial-lease a g r e e m e n t w i t h Crown M o t o r s , I n c . ( " C r o w n " ) . Griffith, s h a r e h o l d e r o f Crown a n d i t s p r e s i d e n t , p e r s o n a l l y a 50% guaranteed Crown's o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e l e a s e a n d a g r e e d t o " i n d e m n i f y and h o l d [ G . A . K . E . ] h a r m l e s s f r o m any a n d a l l l o s s e s , o f e v e r y k i n d and c h a r a c t e r , i n c l u d i n g r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s and a t t o r n e y s f e e s , s u f f e r e d b y [ G . A . K . E . ] as t h e r e s u l t o f any d e f a u l t b y [Crown] under said lease f o r a period of eighteen months f o l l o w i n g d e f a u l t by [ C r o w n ] o r u n t i l the premises are r e - l e t by [ G . A . K . E . ] , occur." In whichever first s o l d h i s Crown s t o c k t o F o r r e s t Frost. In c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s t o c k - p u r c h a s e agreement, F r o s t agreed to n e g o t i a t e w i t h G.A.K.E. f o r t h e r e l e a s e the 2008, G r i f f i t h shall guaranty Griffith agreement and, failing of G r i f f i t h that, to from indemnify f o r any l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g u n d e r t h e c o m m e r c i a l - l e a s e or g u a r a n t y a g r e e m e n t s . I n 2009, Crown d e f a u l t e d on t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t b y f a i l i n g t o p a y r e n t , a n d G.A.K.E. s u e d alleging agreements. breach of Griffith the commercial-lease answered and f i l e d 2 and Griffith, guaranty third-party claims 2110316 against Frost. counterclaims On June Frost against asserted various defenses and Griffith. 27, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f G.A.K.E a n d a w a r d e d i t $ 1 1 3 , 3 6 7 . 2 7 . That sum and represented interest ( a ) past-due late o f $ 9 6 , 0 6 6 . 9 1 , ( b ) an a t t o r n e y ( c ) c o u r t c o s t s o f $1,558.36. entry rent, of a f i n a l Griffith, judgment penalties, f e e o f $15,742, and The c i r c u i t court d i r e c t e d the a s t o G.A.K.E.'s c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. On J u l y 22, 2 0 1 1 , G r i f f i t h reasserting the substantive against 1 f i l e d a postjudgment motion, arguments he had made in o p p o s i t i o n t o G.A.K.E.'s summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d o b j e c t i n g to the attorney-fee u n r e a s o n a b l e and t h a t him an o p p o r t u n i t y Griffith's award to object. postjudgment submit proof allowing Griffith t h e grounds i t had been e n t e r e d S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 , e n t e r e d to on i n support Following motion, an o r d e r the that without oral circuit i t was providing a r g u m e n t on court, on a l l o w i n g G.A.K.E 10 d a y s of i t s attorney-fee 11 d a y s " t o d i s p u t e request the reasonableness and of The c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d n o t a d j u d i c a t e d G r i f f i t h ' s t h i r d party claims against Frost or Frost's counterclaims against Griffith. 1 3 2110316 [that r e q u e s t ] by n o t i f y i n g hearing on t h e i s s u e . " circuit court t h [ e ] court and/or r e q u e s t i n g a I n i t s S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r , t h e denied "[a]ll other portions of [Griffith's i n support of postjudgment] motion." G.A.K.E. attorney-fee submitted request, additional seeking $115,735.74 t o i n c l u d e fees proof t o i n c r e a s e i t s t o t a l award t o incurred after June 27, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t i n d e f e n d i n g motion. entered i t s the entry Griffith's On O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t of the postjudgment court rendered and the f o l l o w i n g judgment: " I t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED t h a t summary j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d i n f a v o r o f P l a i n t i f f G.A.K.E. a n d a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t F r e d G r i f f i t h i n t h e amount o f $ 1 1 5 , 7 3 5 . 7 4 ; a n d f u r t h e r t h a t t h e r e b e i n g no j u s t i f i a b l e r e a s o n f o r d e l a y , t h e C o u r t h e r e b y e x p r e s s l y d i r e c t s t h e e n t r y o f f i n a l judgment i n f a v o r o f G.A.K.E i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A l a . R. C i v . P. 54(b) ." Griffith 15, filed a n o t i c e of appeal 42 d a y s l a t e r , on November 2 0 1 1 , r a i s i n g t h e s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s he h a d a r g u e d i n t h e c i r c u i t - c o u r t proceedings attorney-fee award. G.A.K.E. moved t h i s contending 2011, b u t r a i s i n g no i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e that court to dismiss September Griffith's 1, 2 0 1 1 , r a t h e r than was t h e d a t e t h a t t r i g g e r e d t h e r u n n i n g 4 appeal, October 4, o f t h e 42-day 2110316 period i n w h i c h G r i f f i t h was r e q u i r e d t o f i l e appeal as t o t h e m e r i t s 2011, in i t says, on S e p t e m b e r 1, the c i r c u i t court denied G r i f f i t h ' s postjudgment motion a l l substantive jurisdiction at because, h i s notice of a later Griffith respects and expressly reserved t o determine the appropriate attorney-fee date. argues Citing that Rule 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. t h e 42-day period App. t o appeal "An award o f a t t o r n e y ' s fees P., 2 d i d not commence u n t i l O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 1 1 , when t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was f i n a l l y award aspect disposed. i s an a w a r d o f c o s t s , n o t damages," D a v i s v. E v e r e t t , 443 So. 2d 1232, 1238 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , and " [ t ] h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r s h a l l n o t be d e l a y e d for the t a x i n g of c o s t s , " Rule decision 2 Rule on t h e m e r i t s 4(a)(5) 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. disposing of a l l claims is a "[A] final provides: "A n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment but before the d i s p o s i t i o n of a l l p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 50, 52, 55, a n d 59, A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure, s h a l l be h e l d i n a b e y a n c e u n t i l a l l p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 50, 52, 55, a n d 59 a r e r u l e d u p o n ; s u c h a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l become e f f e c t i v e upon t h e d a t e o f d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e l a s t of a l l such motions." 5 2110316 d e c i s i o n f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l must be t i m e l y t a k e n , w h e t h e r a request Bd. of for attorney Educ. v. (citing Budinich 199-200 fees remains Waldrop, v. 840 Becton for adjudication." So. 2d 893, Dickinson 899 & Co., State (Ala. 2002) U.S. 196, 486 (1988)) . I n B u d i n i c h , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d a bright-line rule that "an unresolved issue of attorney's f e e s f o r t h e l i t i g a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n does n o t p r e v e n t on t h e m e r i t s f r o m b e i n g and litigants are best final," judgment and i t s t a t e d t h a t " [ c ] o u r t s s e r v e d by t h e b r i g h t - l i n e accords with t r a d i t i o n a l understanding, rule, which t h a t a d e c i s i o n on m e r i t s i s a ' f i n a l d e c i s i o n ' ... w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e the remains f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n a request f o r attorney's fees a t t r i b u t a b l e to the case." t h e Bay 486 v. EMD U.S. a t 202 and 203. See S o l u t i o n s , I n c . , 81 So. 2 0 1 1 ) , and Edwards v. E d w a r d s , 999 So. also Pediatrics by 3d 381 (Ala. Civ. App. 2d 939 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). The circuit court entered a summary judgment on a l l s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s b e t w e e n G.A.K.E. and G r i f f i t h and d i r e c t e d the e n t r y of a f i n a l 27, 2011. It judgment p u r s u a n t denied Griffith's 6 to Rule postjudgment 54(b) on June motion with 2110316 respect to the Griffith's substantive 42-day on to appeal period issues September -- insofar 1, as 2011. Griffith s o u g h t r e v i e w o f t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s -- began t o r u n on September 1, 2011. His n o t i c e of appeal, on November 15, 2011, was, t h e r e f o r e , Griffith's n o t i c e of appeal was f i l e d 75 d a y s later untimely. timely with respect to t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d made i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 4, 2011, 919, judgment. 923 See N i e z e r ( A l a . C i v . App. v. S o u t h T r u s t 2004) (stating matters are separate and d i s t i n c t merits and of a dispute final judgment as to ... N a t i o n s C r e d i t F i n . Servs. App. 2004) that an ancillary aspect may of to denying an a be an earlier award of decision So. 2d "attorney-fee taken case"); C o r p . , 902 So. 2d 75, 81 (concluding t h a t "Niezer stands order that 887 from m a t t e r s going an a p p e a l either Bank, to the from Hunt a v. (Ala. Civ. f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n attorney that fees has that is completely a d j u d i c a t e d a l l m a t t e r s i n c o n t r o v e r s y between t h e p a r t i e s i s immediately with appealable" federal appeal, precedent, however, attorney-fee and t h a t presents such no award. 7 as "Niezer i s thus Budinich"). issues with consistent Griffith's respect to the 2110316 Conclusion Because G r i f f i t h d i d not f i l e a n o t i c e of appeal within 42 d a y s o f t h e September 1, 2 0 1 1 , d e n i a l o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on t h e m e r i t s , t h e c i r c u i t court's action i n granting the p a r t i e s a d d i t i o n a l time t o address the a t t o r n e y - f e e i s s u e and i t s r e n d e r i n g and e n t e r i n g an amended j u d g m e n t on O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 1 1 , w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d d i d n o t t o l l t h e t i m e f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s . We therefore grant G.A.K.E.'s m o t i o n a n d d i s m i s s Griffith's appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 8 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.