Russell Benton and Jason Benton v. Clegg Land Co., Ltd., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/22/12 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 be 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 2110317 R u s s e l l Benton and Jason Benton v. Clegg Land Co., L t d . , e t a l . Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900067) BRYAN, J u d g e . Russell appeal Ltd. Benton ("Russell") f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t ("Clegg"), and Jason i n favor Benton ("Jason") of Clegg L a n d Co., S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Ken B u c e . We a f f i r m . Facts 2110317 Sometime contracted lake") before 2002, Curtis Adams f o r Don C a s e y t o c o n s t r u c t and a 10-acre his l a k e ("the on a 6 4 6 - a c r e p a r c e l o f r e c r e a t i o n a l p r o p e r t y property") wife ("the i n Macon C o u n t y t h a t Adams a n d h i s w i f e t h e n owned. C a s e y c o n s t r u c t e d t h e l a k e w i t h a dam on one s i d e ; one s i d e o f the dam f a c e d t h e l a k e , and t h e o t h e r side faced dry land. S u b s e q u e n t t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e l a k e , Adams a n d h i s w i f e s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y t o C l e g g i n 2002. T h e r e a f t e r , C l e g g the existing cabin improved the hunting on the property, facilities the r o a d s on t h e p r o p e r t y . for hunting built on t h e p r o p e r t y , pole barn, and improved C l e g g ' s owners u s e d t h e p r o p e r t y and f i s h i n g . W i t h i n a year o f Clegg's purchasing owners a enlarged noticed that the water f l u c t u a t e . I n 2003, C l e g g level the property, Clegg's i n the lake would asked Casey t o i n s p e c t t h e l a k e t o d e t e r m i n e why t h e w a t e r l e v e l i n the lake used a b u l l d o z e r and a s m a l l e x c a v a t o r f l u c t u a t e d . Casey t o remove d i r t f r o m t h e s i d e o f t h e dam t h a t f a c e d d r y l a n d . He f o u n d some dampness i n the soil was seeping hole on t h a t s i d e o f t h e dam, w h i c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t w a t e r o r l e a k i n g o u t o f t h e l a k e , b u t he d i d n o t f i n d a o r any o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e seepage o r l e a k . 2 Casey 2110317 i n f o r m e d C l e g g t h a t he d i d n o t know what c o u l d be done t o s t o p the seepage o r l e a k and r e s t o r e d t h e d i r t its original location. Subsequently, listed he h a d removed t o Clegg i t f o r sale with decided to s e l l the property and Speaks L a n d Company f o r $3, 250 p e r a c r e . A f t e r t h e p r o p e r t y was l i s t e d f o r s a l e , members o f t h e C l e g g f a m i l y , w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f H a r o l d D e n n i s , who lived n e a r t h e p r o p e r t y , a n d D e n n i s ' s d a u g h t e r , p u t 10,000 t o 12,000 pounds o f b e n t o n i t e 1 i n the l a k e near t h e dam t o s e e i f t h e b e n t o n i t e w o u l d s t o p t h e s e e p a g e ; however, t h e w a t e r level i n t h e l a k e c o n t i n u e d t o f l u c t u a t e . C l e g g d i d n o t t a k e any o t h e r a c t i o n t o stop the water After the approximately level property 9 from had t o 12 months, Company a n d a s k e d fluctuating. been listed f o r sale Jason contacted t o see t h e p r o p e r t y . Jason Speaks for Land and h i s f a t h e r R u s s e l l a r e b o t h e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e p u r c h a s i n g o f l a n d a n d own businesses t h a t own l a n d i n s e v e r a l s t a t e s . T i m S p e a k s , t h e owner o f S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d B u c e , t h e q u a l i f y i n g real- estate Union broker f o r Speaks Land Company's office in S p r i n g s , met J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l a t t h e p r o p e r t y on O c t o b e r 11, 1 Bentonite i s a k i n d of c l a y that i s absorbent. 3 2110317 2007, when Macon C o u n t y was and Buce testified showing showed Jason e x p e r i e n c i n g a d r o u g h t , and and Russell the i n his deposition that, while them t h e Buce were w a t e r l e v e l i n t h e l a k e was low and t h a t t h e y a s k e d Speaks and Buce was water problem with the level lake. low seeing the whether ("the and c o n t r a c t . The R u s s e l l and $1,950,000, that 2007, t h a t t h e and t o t h e d r o u g h t and that Jason contract") the that the contract s a l e had t h a t t i m e was contained the of the t o be a Buce signed and a contract a s k e d Buce t o total on November c l o s e d on o r b e f o r e that a d d i t i o n , the was 26, date, contract following provisions: " C o n d i t i o n o f P r o p e r t y : N e i t h e r S e l l e r n o r any A g e n t makes any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o r w a r r a n t i e s regarding the c o n d i t i o n of the P r o p e r t y except to the e x t e n t expressly and specifically set forth herein. P u r c h a s e r has t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e , e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y or through or w i t h a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of 4 see Jason purchase p r i c e would e x p i r e essence. I n to on t h e t e r m s s t a t e d c o n t r a c t l i s t e d t h e p u r c h a s e r s as provided was Speaks and i f Clegg would agree to s e l l the p r o p e r t y i n the there lake. property, purchase the p r o p e r t y and l o w due no p r o b l e m w i t h t h e After Russell noticed Jason t e s t i f i e d t h a t s a i d t h a t t h e w a t e r l e v e l was t h e r e was and S p e a k s and Jason the the he property. that why property, Speaks 2110317 P u r c h a s e r ' s c h o o s i n g , any a n d a l l c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e P r o p e r t y m a t e r i a l t o P u r c h a s e r ' s d e c i s i o n t o buy t h e Property, i n c l u d i n g without l i m i t a t i o n [ : ] Subsurface c o n d i t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e presence o f absence o f sinkholes, mining a c t i v i t y , w e l l s , or b u r i e d tanks and o t h e r o b j e c t s [ ; ] s o i l c o n d i t i o n s ; u t i l i t y a n d sewer o r s e p t i c t a n k a v a i l a b i l i t y a n d c o n d i t i o n . E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e stated i n t h i s Contract or addenda, P u r c h a s e r a c c e p t s the Property in i t s p r e s e n t 'AS I S ' c o n d i t i o n . "NO ORAL STATEMENT, REPRESENTATION, PROMISE, OR INDUCEMENT SHALL HAVE ANY V A L I D I T Y NOR SHALL BE A PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. A l l c o v e n a n t s , p r o m i s e s , a n d understandings w r i t t e n herein survive the c l o s i n g . All rights, privileges, o b l i g a t i o n s and d u t i e s hereby granted o r assumed s h a l l inure to the b e n e f i t o f a n d s h a l l be b i n d i n g upon successors, a s s i g n s , h e i r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and e x e c u t o r s o f t h e p a r t i e s hereto. "DISCLAIMER "The S e l l e r and P u r c h a s e r hereby acknowledge and confirm that this contract states the e n t i r e agreement between the p a r t i e s hereto a n d no modification of this c o n t r a c t s h a l l be b i n d i n g u n l e s s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o and s i g n e d by a l l p a r t i e s . The S e l l e r a n d P u r c h a s e r f u r t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t neither of them have relied upon the representations, covenants, statements, warranties, o r a d v i c e o f any B r o k e r , o r a g e n t o f any B r o k e r r e l a t e d t o t h e l e g a l and t a x consequences o f t h i s contract o r any o t h e r aspect of t h i s contract unless expressly stated herein, including but without l i m i t a t i o n s , the square footage, acreage, c o n d i t i o n o f t h e house a n d f i x t u r e s , t h e o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , the e l e c t r i c a l , heating, plumbing, water h e a t i n g system and a p p l i a n c e s , t h e a v a i l a b i l i t i e s o f utilities to the property or the investment 5 2110317 p o t e n t i a l o r r e s a l e v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y made t o t h e S e l l e r o r t h e P u r c h a s e r by t h e S e l l e r , S e l l e r ' s B r o k e r o r a g e n t o r b u y e r ' s B r o k e r o r a g e n t o r any p e r s o n w h a t s o e v e r . P u r c h a s e r and S e l l e r have e n t e r e d i n t o t h i s a g r e e m e n t b a s e d upon t h e i r own i n s p e c t i o n and p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h i s p r o p e r t y and any f i n a n c i a l agreements c o n c e r n i n g s a i d p r o p e r t y . The S e l l e r and P u r c h a s e r b o t h a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t i f any s u c h m a t t e r as e n u m e r a t e d h e r e i n has b e e n o f c o n c e r n t o them, t h e y have s o u g h t and o b t a i n e d i n d e p e n d e n t advice r e l a t i n g thereto." (Capitalization o r i g i n a l ; e m p h a s i s added.) The contract did n o t c o n t a i n any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e lake. Indeed, Moreover, obligation the the contract contract to purchase did the did not even not state property mention that was the l a k e and determining t o them. A l o n g w i t h t h e the amount o f earnest $100, 000, money i f C l e g g terms s t a t e d i n the the investigating c o n t r a c t , J a s o n g a v e Buce a c h e c k i n w h i c h was agreed to to sell be held the i n escrow property on as the contract. the p r o p e r t y contract the and on t h a t i t s c o n d i t i o n was s a t i s f a c t o r y Clegg agreed to s e l l the lake. purchasers' conditioned l a k e b e i n g f r e e from d e f e c t s or the p u r c h a s e r s ' the the signed contract on t h e t e r m s s t a t e d i n on October 15, 2007. Jason t e s t i f i e d i n h i s deposition that, a f t e r Clegg signed the c o n t r a c t , he c o m m u n i c a t e d t o Buce t h a t he w a n t e d t o c l o s e the 6 2110317 s a l e on a s p e c i f i c d a t e , a l t h o u g h he c o u l d n o t remember what t h a t s p e c i f i c d a t e was, access to testified agree the property before t h a t Buce l a t e r to close would not agree the and t h a t he and R u s s e l l w a n t e d t o have the closing. i n f o r m e d him on t h e s p e c i f i c Jason t h a t Clegg would d a t e J a s o n had t h a t J a s o n and R u s s e l l further not requested and c o u l d have a c c e s s t o p r o p e r t y b e f o r e t h e s a l e was c l o s e d . J a s o n t e s t i f i e d that, as a r e s u l t o f C l e g g ' s r e f u s a l t o c l o s e on t h e s p e c i f i c date he had r e q u e s t e d and t o a l l o w J a s o n and R u s s e l l t o have a c c e s s t o t h e p r o p e r t y b e f o r e t h e c l o s i n g , he s t o p p e d payment on h i s $100,000 earnest-money check and that, i n response to h i s s t o p p i n g payment on t h a t c h e c k , C l e g g t h r e a t e n e d t o sue him. However, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , on O c t o b e r 16, 2007, J a s o n Clegg agreed that the sale w o u l d be closed on and November 2007. M o r e o v e r , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e s a l e was 9, actually c l o s e d on November 5, 2007. A l t h o u g h R u s s e l l n e v e r s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t , he a d m i t t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he and J a s o n jointly purchased t h e p r o p e r t y , t h a t t h e y had b o t h s i g n e d a p r o m i s s o r y note t o f i n a n c e the purchase t h a t he had s i g n e d t h e c l o s i n g After had p u r c h a s i n g the o f t h e p r o p e r t y , and statement. property, Jason 7 and Russell made 2110317 improvements t o t h e p r o p e r t y , which included constructing a l o d g e b e s i d e t h e l a k e a n d c o n s t r u c t i n g two p e r m a n e n t d o c k s on t h e l a k e . However, t h e y d i s c o v e r e d t h a t the water l e v e l i n the lake stayed low except f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s immediately f o l l o w i n g a h e a v y r a i n . J a s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when t h e w a t e r l e v e l low, was 30 t o 40 f e e t o f s h o r e l i n e was e x p o s e d a n d t h e p e r m a n e n t d o c k s were a b o v e t h e h e a d o f anyone i n a b o a t on t h e l a k e . R u s s e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n d J a s o n h a d p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y to e n t e r t a i n c l i e n t s , t h a t t h e y had i n t e n d e d be t h e " j e w e l " o f t h e p r o p e r t y , f o r the lake to and t h a t t h e low water levels made t h e l a k e an e y e s o r e r a t h e r t h a n a j e w e l . Jason t e s t i f i e d that, before action against discussed he a n d R u s s e l l f i l e d their C l e g g , S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d B u c e , he h a d the problem w i t h the water l e v e l Adams a n d t h a t Adams h a d t o l d him t h a t i n the lake with C l e g g had had Casey w o r k on t h e l a k e a f t e r Adams s o l d i t t o C l e g g , t h a t C l e g g h a d ruined the the lake, lake, a n d t h a t , when C a s e y c o m p l e t e d h i s w o r k on C l e g g knew t h a t the lake would water. Jason also t e s t i f i e d that, before the action, Russell determined that h a d met w i t h this was -- 8 not stay he a n d R u s s e l l Casey "and t h a t ' s this full was of filed when we fraudulently 2110317 misrepresented." discussed Russell testified the problem with Dennis before that Jason the water l e v e l they f i l e d t h e i r had also i n the lake with action. Procedural History On A u g u s t 9, 2009, J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l s u e d C l e g g , L a n d Company, a n d B u c e , Company, allegedly a n d Buce 2 claiming (1) t h a t C l e g g , Speaks L a n d had committed misrepresenting that various the lake forms of fraud Speaks L a n d Company, (2) t h a t a n d Buce h a d c o m m i t t e d forms o f f r a u d by a l l e g e d l y s u p p r e s s i n g was a m a t e r i a l d e f e c t i n t h e l a k e , the fact various that there (3) t h a t C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce h a d b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t b y s e l l i n g and Russell property with a defective lake, (4) t h a t Jason Clegg, S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce h a d b e e n u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d s e l l i n g Jason and R u s s e l l p r o p e r t y that Clegg, hired, Speaks trained, Land Company, or supervised by was l o w due t o t h e d r o u g h t a n d t h a t t h e r e was no p r o b l e m w i t h t h e l a k e , Clegg, Speaks by w i t h a d e f e c t i v e l a k e , (5) a n d Buce their had n e g l i g e n t l y agents, and (6) that The Bentons a l s o sued C l e g g C a p i t a l , I n c . , and Matthew R. C l e g g ; h o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d the claims a g a i n s t them on J u l y 19, 2010, a n d R u s s e l l a n d J a s o n have n o t appealed the d i s m i s s a l of those claims. 2 9 2110317 C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce h a d c o m m i t t e d t h e t o r t o f bad faith by allegedly misrepresenting and suppressing m a t e r i a l facts i n connection with the sale of the property t o Jason and answered Russell. the conducted, evidence Clegg, complaint filed Speaks and, Land after summary-judgment Company, discovery motions and had with Buce been supporting and b r i e f s . Clegg, S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce a s s e r t e d t h a t they were e n t i t l e d t o summary j u d g m e n t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c l a i m s of misrepresentation, they s a i d , those emptor suppression, that respect to because, c l a i m s were b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f c a v e a t a n d t h e "as i s " c l a u s e asserted and n e g l i g e n c e they the were i n the contract. entitled They also t o summary j u d g m e n t s with misrepresentation and suppression claims because, they s a i d , Jason and R u s s e l l c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t they had r e a s o n a b l y and s u p p r e s s i o n . Buce asserted relied on t h e a l l e g e d m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n In a d d i t i o n , Clegg, that they were entitled with respect to the negligence did n o t owe J a s o n Russell S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d judgments c l a i m because, they s a i d , and R u s s e l l a duty h a d assumed t o summary the r i s k . 10 of care and Jason Moreover, Clegg, Speaks they and Land 2110317 Company, a n d Buce a s s e r t e d judgments with because, they respect said, t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o summary to they the had n o t b r e a c h e d Jason and R u s s e l l had c o n t r a c t e d is," breach-of-contract and they had r e c e i v e d the contract t o purchase the property the property i n that C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce a s s e r t e d entitled t o summary judgments because, with enrichment claim contracted t o purchase the property $1,950,000, t h e y r e c e i v e d they said, Clegg, Buce h a d n o t b e e n u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d payment of the $1,950,000. Company, a n d Buce a s s e r t e d judgments w i t h said, a respect bad-faith insurance contract Jason condition. to the unjust- and R u s s e l l had i n that condition f o r Speaks L a n d Company, a n d by Jason Finally, Clegg, and R u s s e l l ' s Speaks Land t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o summary depended between on c l a i m because, the existence the p a r t i e s c o n t r a c t e x i s t e d b e t w e e n J a s o n and R u s s e l l , and "as i n "as i s " c o n d i t i o n f o r to the bad-faith claim -¬ t h a t t h e y were respect the property $1,950,000, a n d , t h e r e f o r e , claim and no they o f an insurance on t h e one hand, C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, o r B u c e , on t h e o t h e r . Jason and Russell filed evidence and a brief in o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n s . I n t h e i r b r i e f i n 11 2110317 o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n s , J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l asserted that t h e i r suppression doctrine c l a i m s were n o t b a r r e d b y t h e o f c a v e a t emptor because, t h e y s a i d , C l e g g , L a n d Company, a n d Buce knew t h a t lake, the defect there was a d e f e c t was n o t r e a d i l y d i s c o v e r a b l e Speaks i n the by Jason and R u s s e l l , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce had a duty to disclose their misrepresentation of caveat i t . In a d d i t i o n , they asserted that c l a i m s were n o t b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e emptor because, they said, they had specifically a s k e d S p e a k s and Buce why t h e w a t e r l e v e l i n t h e l a k e was l o w and w h e t h e r t h e r e was a p r o b l e m w i t h t h e l a k e a n d t h a t and Buce h a d m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e w a t e r l e v e l was l o w due t o t h e drought and t h a t t h e r e was no p r o b l e m w i t h t h e l a k e . Jason and R u s s e l l a s s e r t e d and suppression claims were that their not barred misrepresentation by p r o v i s i o n i n the c o n t r a c t because, they s a i d , not Speaks sign the contract, (2) n e i t h e r the "as i s " (1) R u s s e l l d i d Jason nor R u s s e l l drafted t h e c o n t r a c t -- i t was a f i l l - i n - t h e - b l a n k s c o n t r a c t t h a t Buce provided, a n d (3) t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a p r o v i s i o n t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n t o purchase the property on t h e i r conditioning determining t h a t t h e l a k e was s a t i s f a c t o r y t o them w o u l d have b e e n 12 futile 2110317 because, they said, Clegg p r o p e r t y between t h e date had d e n i e d them access to the C l e g g s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e date t h e s a l e c l o s e d . Jason and R u s s e l l a s s e r t e d t h a t C l e g g , S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce were n o t e n t i t l e d t o summary judgments w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m because, and Russell indeed owe said, Jason Clegg, S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce d i d and R u s s e l l a duty R u s s e l l h a d n o t assumed t h e r i s k . asserted that Clegg, Jason of care Finally, and J a s o n and Jason and R u s s e l l S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce were 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 t h e b r e a c h - o f c o n t r a c t and u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m s because, wanted a parcel "jewel" they s a i d , they o f p r o p e r t y w i t h a l a k e t h a t w o u l d be t h e of the p a r c e l , which they c o u l d use t o entertain c l i e n t s , t h e y d i d n o t r e c e i v e a p a r c e l w i t h such a l a k e , and, therefore, t h e y d i d n o t r e c e i v e what t h e y h a d p a i d f o r . In a d d i t i o n t o f i l i n g e v i d e n c e and a b r i e f i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n s , a Rule 56(f), opportunity trial A l a . R. t o depose Jason and R u s s e l l a l s o C i v . P., Adams, Casey, affidavit seeking and Dennis c o u r t r u l e d on t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n s . filed the before the Jason and R u s s e l l a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y n e e d e d t o d e p o s e Adams, C a s e y , a n d 13 2110317 Dennis in because, "who order they to said, oppose the summary-judgment motions Adams c o u l d p r o v i d e t e s t i m o n y regarding c r e a t e d t h e d e f e c t i n t h e l a k e and when i t was and Casey work and Dennis could provide testimony they had performed on the created" regarding lake while Clegg the owned the property. F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on May June 28, 2011, 18, 2011, the t r i a l c o u r t , on e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f C l e g g , S p e a k s L a n d Company, and Buce w i t h o u t s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . On J u l y 18, 2011, J a s o n and R u s s e l l f i l e d a m o t i o n amend, o r v a c a t e t h e June 28, 2011, by o p e r a t i o n of law p u r s u a n t to alter, j u d g m e n t , w h i c h was denied to Rule 59.1, A l a . R. Civ. P. J a s o n and R u s s e l l t h e n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h e supreme c o u r t , which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s c o u r t pursuant to § 7(6), A l a . Code 1975. Standard of Review "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence 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 t h a t no genuine issue of 14 12-2- 2110317 m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f such 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 judgment 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 a n d 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.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. I n s . Co.f v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [ ( A l a . 2000)] (citations o m i t t e d ) , quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t R e a l E s t a t e Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 ( A l a . 2002). Analysis I. M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and S u p p r e s s i o n C l a i m s Jason entering and R u s s e l l argue a judgment summary misrepresentation that the t r i a l with court erred i n respect and s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m s because, to their they say, (1) C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce knew o f a d e f e c t i n t h e l a k e t h a t was n o t known o r r e a d i l y o b s e r v a b l e b y J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l a n d , t h e r e f o r e , C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce had a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e i t , which they breached, (2) J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l a s k e d S p e a k s a n d Buce why t h e w a t e r l e v e l o f t h e l a k e 15 2110317 was l o w and w h e t h e r there was a problem with S p e a k s and Buce m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t due to the drought lake, and t h a t and (3) Russell therefore, was not and t h e w a t e r l e v e l was low there was not sign did bound the lake by the "as no p r o b l e m the with contract i s " clause the and, i n the contract. In Moore Partnership, court v. Prudential Residential 849 So. 2d 914, 923-25 Services Limited ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e supreme stated: " A l t h o u g h A l a b a m a has a b r o g a t e d t h e r u l e o f c a v e a t e m p t o r i n t h e s a l e o f new r e a l e s t a t e , t h a t r u l e s t i l l a p p l i e s i n the s a l e of used r e a l e s t a t e . B l a y l o c k v. C a r y , 709 So. 2d 1128, 1130 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ray v. Montgomery, 399 So. 2d 230, 233 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . Thus, i n t h e s a l e o f u s e d r e a l e s t a t e , a s e l l e r o r t h e s e l l e r ' s a g e n t g e n e r a l l y has no d u t y t o d i s c l o s e t o t h e p u r c h a s e r any d e f e c t s i n the property. B l a y l o c k , 709 So. 2d a t 1130; C a t o v. Lowder R e a l t y Co. , 630 So. 2d 378, 382 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . However, t h i s C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s r u l e : "'Under § 6-5-102, A l a . Code, 1975, t h e s e l l e r has a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e d e f e c t s t o a buyer i f a f i d u c i a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between t h e p a r t i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , i f the buyer specifically inquires about a material condition concerning the property, t h e s e l l e r has an o b l i g a t i o n t o d i s c l o s e known d e f e c t s . ' "Commercial C r e d i t Corp. 1291, 1294 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . 16 v. Lisenby, 579 So. 2d 2110317 "'Moreover, i f t h e agent (whether o f t h e b u y e r o r o f t h e s e l l e r ) [ o r t h e s e l l e r ] has knowledge o f a m a t e r i a l d e f e c t o r c o n d i t i o n t h a t a f f e c t s h e a l t h o r s a f e t y and t h e defect i s not known to or readily o b s e r v a b l e by t h e b u y e r , t h e agent [or s e l l e r ] i s under a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e t h e d e f e c t a n d i s l i a b l e f o r damages c a u s e d b y nondisclosure.' " F e n n e l l R e a l t y Co. v . M a r t i n , 529 So. 2d 1003, 1005 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . See a l s o B l a y l o c k , 709 So. 2d a t 1131. "Where a p u r c h a s e r ' s d i r e c t i n q u i r y would o t h e r w i s e impose a d u t y o f t r u t h f u l d i s c l o s u r e , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t a p u r c h a s e r ' s f r a u d c l a i m i s p r e c l u d e d by language i n a s a l e s c o n t r a c t s t a t i n g t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e i s 'as i s . ' L e a t h e r w o o d , I n c . v . B a k e r , 619 So. 2d 1273, 1274 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Haygood v . B u r l P o u n d e r s R e a l t y , I n c . , 571 So. 2d 1086, 1089 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; M a s s e y v. Weeks R e a l t y Co., 511 So. 2d 171, 173 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . I n M a s s e y , a f t e r t h e p u r c h a s e r n o t e d damage t o some e x t e r i o r c o l u m n s , t h e r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e damage was c a u s e d b y dry r o t a n d t h a t t h e damage was inexpensively r e m e d i e d . The p u r c h a s e r t h e n s i g n e d an 'as i s ' c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e house w i t h o u t having t h e house inspected f o r termites. The contract f u r t h e r provided that the r e a l t o r d i d not warrant or guarantee the c o n d i t i o n of the property. A f t e r he moved i n t o t h e h o u s e , t h e p u r c h a s e r f o u n d t h a t t h e house was i n f e s t e d w i t h t e r m i t e s . This C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e r ' d i d n o t have t h e r i g h t t o r e l y on t h e o r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f [ t h e agent] made prior to the execution by [the purchaser] o f t h e form c o n t a i n i n g t h e "as i s " p r o v i s i o n and t h e p u r c h a s e agreement t h a t p r o v i d e d that the r e a l t o r d i d not warrant or guarantee the c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y . ' M a s s e y , 511 So. 2d a t 173. 17 2110317 " I n Haygood, t h e b u y e r s a s k e d t h e s e l l e r s , t h e m s e l v e s r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t s , i f t h e basement h a d ever l e a k e d , and t h e s e l l e r s r e p l i e d , '[N]o, i t i s well constructed.' T h e r e was e v i d e n c e , however, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e l l e r s h a d h a d r e p a i r work p e r f o r m e d i n t h e basement b e c a u s e o f c r a c k s i n t h e foundation walls that had p e r m i t t e d water t o p e n e t r a t e t h e b a s e m e n t . The b u y e r s s i g n e d an 'as i s ' c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e h o u s e . The s a l e s contract also contained a clause that stated: " ' " N e i t h e r t h e S e l l e r n o r t h e B r o k e r have made o r make any o t h e r representations about t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e P u r c h a s e r a g r e e s t h a t he has n o t r e l i e d on any o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n "' "571 So. 2d a t 1089. A f t e r h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Haygoods had not alleged that they had r e l i e d on t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , t h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t 'even i f t h e y h a d made s u c h an a l l e g a t i o n , t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' s i g n i n g o f t h e two documents t h a t i n d i c a t e d no r e l i a n c e w o u l d have made t h e summary j u d g m e n t ... p r o p e r . ' 571 So. 2d a t 1089. "In Leatherwood, t h e purchasers asked a r e a l e s t a t e agent t o i n q u i r e about t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f a house t h e y were i n t e r e s t e d i n p u r c h a s i n g . The r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t c o n t a c t e d t h e a g e n t who h a d p r e v i o u s l y l i s t e d t h e house, and t h a t agent i n f o r m e d h e r t h a t t h e s e l l e r s knew o f o n l y one c r a c k a r o u n d t h e a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g s y s t e m . The B a k e r s t h e n s i g n e d an 'as i s ' s a l e s c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p r o p e r t y . A f t e r t h e B a k e r s moved i n t o t h e h o u s e , t h e y d i s c o v e r e d s e v e r e p r o b l e m s ; t h e house b e g a n t o c r a c k i n several p l a c e s . The r e a l t y company h a d documents i n i t s possession that indicated that t h e house h a d structural problems. This Court held that the B a k e r s ' s i g n i n g o f an 'as i s ' c o n t r a c t p r o h i b i t e d them f r o m p u r s u i n g b o t h t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e a n d f r a u d c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e r e a l t y company. L e a t h e r w o o d , 619 So. 2d a t 1274." 18 2110317 In Teer knew seller v. Johnston, that 60 the r e a l So. estate located had f l o o d i n g problems routine basis before 3 d 253 on which and t h a t she d e c i d e d ( A l a . 2010), the h e r house i t had f l o o d e d on a i t . Despite that k n o w l e d g e , she r e p r e s e n t e d to the purchasers that there were no the r e a l f l o o d i n g problems never flooded. purchase After The p u r c h a s e r s the r e a l the r e a l with estate estate sued t h e s e l l e r , induced seller when and t h a t signed an a g r e e m e n t t o then that contained flooded that the r e a l to sign i t had an "as i s " c l a u s e . s e v e r a l times, she knew o t h e r w i s e the purchasers the purchasers estate and t h a t intentional h a d no f l o o d i n g she h a d the purchase thereby agreement. The moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e purchasers' claims were barred e m p t o r and t h e "as i s " c l a u s e trial estate c l a i m i n g t h a t she h a d c o m m i t t e d f r a u d by r e p r e s e n t i n g problems to s e l l was court appealed supreme granted court to overrule the doctrine of caveat i n t h e p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t . The the s e l l e r ' s t o t h e supreme by court. motion, The the l i n e and t h e p u r c h a s e r s purchasers of cases that asked the includes Moore, L e a t h e r w o o d , I n c . v . B a k e r , 619 So. 2d 1273, 1274 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Haygood v. B u r l P o u n d e r s R e a l t y , I n c . , 571 So. 2d 1086, 19 2110317 1089 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; a n d M a s s e y v. Weeks R e a l t y Co., 511 So. 2d 171, 173 favor ( A l a . 1987), of the s e l l e r ; and r e v e r s e t h e summary h o w e v e r , t h e supreme court judgment i n refused to o v e r r u l e t h a t l i n e o f c a s e s a n d a f f i r m e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n favor of the s e l l e r . In the present that the property case, the undisputed was u s e d r e a l estate evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t was s o l d i n an a r m ' s - l e n g t h t r a n s a c t i o n i n w h i c h none o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e transaction Moreover, defect So. 2d owed any o f t h e o t h e r there i s no e v i d e n c e i n the lake parties a fiduciary i n d i c a t i n g that "'affects health o r s a f e t y . ' " Moore, ( A l a . 1988)). Therefore, J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l ' s argument t h a t C l e g g , and there 849 529 So. i s no m e r i t i n S p e a k s L a n d Company, Buce h a d a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e t h e e x i s t e n c e defect not the a l l e g e d 2d a t 923 ( q u o t i n g F e n n e l l R e a l t y Co. v . M a r t i n , 1003, 1005 duty. of the a l l e g e d m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e y knew o f i t s e x i s t e n c e a n d i t was known o r r e a d i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e b y J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l . See Moore, 849 So. 2d a t 923. Jason and R u s s e l l ' s d i r e c t i n q u i r y r e g a r d i n g t h e l a k e d i d impose a duty on C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce t o d i s c l o s e any d e f e c t s i n t h e l a k e t h a t were known t o them. I d . 20 2110317 T h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l , t h o u g h n o t u n d i s p u t e d , the trial court tending e x i s t e d and t h a t C l e g g , the existence made their undisputed and t o prove that a defect before i n the lake S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce knew o f of that alleged defect direct evidence inquiry when J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l regarding the lake. evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g that, There was i n response t o Jason Russell's d i r e c t inquiry regarding the lake, Speaks and Buce d i d n o t d i s c l o s e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any d e f e c t i n t h e l a k e and a f f i r m a t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e l a k e was l o w due t o t h e d r o u g h t a n d t h a t t h e r e was no p r o b l e m w i t h t h e l a k e . However, i t i s undisputed inquiry and Speaks contract, although is t h a t subsequent t o Jason and R u s s e l l ' s d i r e c t which and Buce's contained an response, "as i s " clause. he a d m i t t e d Jason had j o i n t l y purchased t h e p r o p e r t y , a promissory property, the Moreover, and t h a t note to finance he h a d s i g n e d Speaks Land Company, and the purchase of the the c l o s i n g statement. In Buce c o n t r a c t t h a t he c o n t e n d s i s n o t b i n d i n g 21 t h a t he a n d t h a t they had b o t h a d d i t i o n , he h a s a s s e r t e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t Clegg, signed R u s s e l l d i d n o t s i g n t h e c o n t r a c t a n d a r g u e s t h a t he n o t b o u n d b y t h e "as i s " c l a u s e , signed Jason based claim on against the very on h i m f o r p u r p o s e s 2110317 of h i s m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m s . "A p a r t y , b y h i s a c t i o n s and a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e b e n e f i t s o f a c o n t r a c t and by operating u n d e r s u c h a g r e e m e n t , may r a t i f y c o n t r a c t t o which h i s a c t u a l signature v. Atomic Elec. Consequently, binding Co., 384 So. 2d t h e "as i s " c l a u s e i s not a f f i x e d . " 1067, 1068 inquiry disclosure, would ... otherwise a purchaser's Rush i s j u s t as "Where a p u r c h a s e r ' s impose fraud a ( A l a . 1980). i n the contract on R u s s e l l as i t i s on J a s o n . direct and c o n f i r m a claim duty of truthful i s precluded by l a n g u a g e i n a s a l e s c o n t r a c t s t a t i n g t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e i s 'as i s . ' " Moore, 849 So. 2d a t 924. A c c o r d i n g l y , the "as i s " c l a u s e i n t h e c o n t r a c t b a r r e d misrepresentation and s u p p r e s s i o n d i s c l o s u r e i m p o s e d on C l e g g , Jason and Therefore, Russell's that Jason and R u s s e l l ' s despite the duty of Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce b y direct inquiry regarding the lake. we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e misrepresentation and s u p p r e s s i o n II. In t h e t r i a l asserted claims we c o n c l u d e that Negligence court, Clegg, Claim Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce t h e y were e n t i t l e d respect to the negligence claims. t o summary j u d g m e n t s c l a i m on t h r e e g r o u n d s : 22 with (1) t h a t t h e 2110317 "as i s " clause Clegg, i n the contract S p e a k s L a n d Company, Russell a duty of care, barred that claim, a n d Buce d i d n o t owe and (3) t h a t Jason (2) t h a t Jason and and R u s s e l l had assumed t h e r i s k . I n r e s p o n s e , J a s o n and R u s s e l l a r g u e d Clegg, Speaks Land Company, a n d Buce were summary j u d g m e n t s w i t h r e s p e c t on grounds Clegg, (2) a n d Speaks Land Company, not e n t i t l e d to the negligence ( 3 ) ; however, they that not e n t i t l e d to the negligence to c l a i m based d i d not argue a n d Buce were summary j u d g m e n t s w i t h r e s p e c t that to c l a i m based on g r o u n d ( 1 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t s t a t e i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t . On a p p e a l , argued that the t r i a l court erred J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l have i f i t entered judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e grounds trial The erred i f i t entered to the negligence supreme contract summary c l a i m on t h e b a s i s o f (2) a n d ( 3 ) ; h o w e v e r , t h e y have n o t a r g u e d t h a t t h e court respect a court has a summary c l a i m on t h e b a s i s held that an f o r the purchase of used r e a l the p u r c h a s e r ' s m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n also h i s or her negligence 2d a t 1274. T h e r e f o r e , claims. "as judgment of ground ( 1 ) . i s " clause in a estate bars not only and s u p p r e s s i o n See with claims but L e a t h e r w o o d , 619 So. g r o u n d (1) was a v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d f o r 23 2110317 a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m , w h i c h Jason and R u s s e l l d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e i n the t r i a l c o u r t and have n o t c h a l l e n g e d on a p p e a l . "When an a p p e l l a n t c o n f r o n t s an i s s u e b e l o w t h a t t h e a p p e l l e e c o n t e n d s w a r r a n t s a judgment i n i t s f a v o r and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r does n o t s p e c i f y a b a s i s f o r i t s r u l i n g , t h e o m i s s i o n o f any a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l as t o t h a t i s s u e i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f c o n s t i t u t e s a waiver with respect t o the issue." Fogarty v. S o u t h w o r t h , 953 So. 2d 1225, 1232 Thus, Jason trial c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h to a n d R u s s e l l have (Ala. the negligence claim. 3 waived the i s s u e whether the Therefore, we judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e III. 2006). Breach-of-Contract affirm respect t h e summary claim. Claim E v e n i f J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l h a d c h a l l e n g e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m on t h e b a s i s o f g r o u n d (1) on a p p e a l , we c o u l d n o t have c o n s i d e r e d t h a t c h a l l e n g e because they d i d not argue t o the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t C l e g g , Speaks L a n d Company, a n d Buce were 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 t h e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m b a s e d on g r o u n d ( 1 ) . See Ex p a r t e R y a l s , 773 So. 2d 1011, 1013 ( A l a . 2000) ("[T]he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r an argument a g a i n s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e c o r d p r e s e n t i n g t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e f o r e o r a t t h e time of submission of the motion for summary judgment."(emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . 3 24 2110317 Jason and R u s s e l l argue that the t r i a l e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t court erred i n to their breach-of- c o n t r a c t c l a i m because, they say, they c o n t r a c t e d w i t h S p e a k s L a n d Company, a n d Buce t o p u r c h a s e p r o p e r t y f r e e f r o m any m a t e r i a l d e f e c t a n d C l e g g , Clegg, that was S p e a k s L a n d Company, and Buce b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t b y s e l l i n g them p r o p e r t y had a material defect. However, a s s u m i n g , w i t h o u t that deciding, t h a t Speaks L a n d Company a n d Buce c o u l d be l i a b l e f o r breach of Jason a contract t o which they were not p a r t i e s , and R u s s e l l ' s argument has no m e r i t b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t c o n t r a c t to purchase property t h a t was f r e e f r o m any m a t e r i a l defect. They c o n t r a c t e d t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y i n "as i s " c o n d i t i o n , and they received Nonperformance essential Regions of the the property contract in by "as the element of a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t F i n . Corp., 29 So. 3d 872, 880 elements of a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t under the defendant claim. i s an Shaffer ( A l a . 2009) v. ("'The c l a i m under Alabama law a r e (1) a v a l i d c o n t r a c t b i n d i n g t h e p a r t i e s ; performance i s " condition. contract; (2) t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' (3) the defendant's n o n p e r f o r m a n c e ; a n d (4) r e s u l t i n g damages.'" ( e m p h a s i s added) (quoting Reynolds Metals Co. v . H i l l , 25 825 So. 2d 100, 105 2110317 (Ala. 2002))). establish they In the present that essential contracted Therefore, for case, Jason element because they the property r e c e i v e d what i n "as i s " c o n d i t i o n . we a f f i r m t h e summary judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e breach-of-contract claim. IV. U n j u s t - E n r i c h m e n t Jason entering and R u s s e l l cannot and R u s s e l l argue a summary that judgment Claim the t r i a l with respect court to erred i n the unjust- e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m . However, t h e o n l y l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t h e y cited i n support o f t h a t argument a r e two c a s e s e s s e n t i a l elements of a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t law have s t a t i n g the claim. Obviously, regarding the e s s e n t i a l elements of a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o the i s s u e whether t h e trial to c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary judgment w i t h the unjust-enrichment c l a i m . Rule P., r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s "citations Jason t o ... c a s e s , respect 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f s t a t u t e s , [and] o t h e r contain authorities." and R u s s e l l ' s c i t a t i o n o f l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n of law t h a t i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o the issue whether the t r i a l court erred i n entering judgment w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e u n j u s t - e n r i c h m e n t 26 a summary c l a i m does n o t 2110317 constitute sufficient judgment w i t h r e s p e c t v. argument for reversal o f t h e summary t o t h a t c l a i m . See C i n c i n n a t i I n s . C o s . B a r b e r I n s u l a t i o n , I n c . , 946 So. 2d 441, 449 ("'[A]n a p p e l l a n t ' s not specifically c i t a t i o n s to general applicable ( A l a . 2006) propositions to the issues of law p r e s e n t e d by the a p p e a l do n o t meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P.'" 621 ( q u o t i n g B a n k A m e r i c a Hous. S e r v s . v . L e e , 833 So. 2d 609, (Ala. 2002))). Accordingly, we d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r and R u s s e l l ' s argument r e g a r d i n g Jason the unjust-enrichment claim, and we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t V. B a d - F a i t h claim. Claim I n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l d i d n o t p r e s e n t any argument i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e a s s e r t i o n b y C l e g g , S p e a k s L a n d Company, and judgment w i t h Buce that respect were entitled to a summary t o the b a d - f a i t h c l a i m . Moreover, they have n o t a r g u e d t o t h i s entering they court that a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h the t r i a l respect court to that erred i n c l a i m and, t h e r e f o r e , have w a i v e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t erred in that regard. (Ala. 4 See B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 E v e n i f J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l h a d c h a l l e n g e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e b a d - f a i t h c l a i m on a p p e a l , we c o u l d n o t have c o n s i d e r e d t h a t c h a l l e n g e b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t 4 27 2110317 1982) ("When an brief, that appellant issue is summary j u d g m e n t w i t h fails to waived."). respect erred Jason and Buce without C a s e y , and giving them we in i t s affirm the claim. Affidavit argue Rule 56(f) summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r issue to the b a d - f a i t h Russell in ignoring their an Therefore, VI. Rule 56(f) Finally, argue that the affidavit trial and court entering o f C l e g g , S p e a k s L a n d Company, an opportunity to depose a and Adams, Dennis. "Rule 56(f) allows a party opposing a summary-judgment motion to file an affidavit a l e r t i n g the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t i t i s p r e s e n t l y unable to p r e s e n t ' f a c t s e s s e n t i a l to j u s t i f y the p a r t y ' s o p p o s i t i o n . ' The C o m m i t t e e Comments t o A u g u s t 1, 1992, Amendment t o R u l e 5 6 ( c ) and R u l e 5 6 ( f ) s t a t e that '[s]uch an affidavit should state with specificity why the opposing evidence is not presently available and should state, as s p e c i f i c a l l y as p o s s i b l e , what f u t u r e a c t i o n s a r e c o n t e m p l a t e d t o d i s c o v e r and p r e s e n t t h e o p p o s i n g evidence.' The disposition of a request made pursuant to Rule 56(f) i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h the t r i a l court." S c r u s h y v. T u c k e r , 955 So. added). reviewing Moreover, in 2d 988, a 1007 trial ( A l a . 2006) court's (emphasis failure to a r g u e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t C l e g g , S p e a k s L a n d Company, and Buce were 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 t h a t c l a i m . See R y a l s , s u p r a . 28 2110317 grant a continuance based on a R u l e 5 6 ( f ) affidavit, "'[s]ome f e d e r a l cases have, in fact, p e r m i t t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r "ample t i m e and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r d i s c o v e r y have a l r e a d y l a p s e d . " SEC v. Spence & G r e e n Chem. Co., 612 F.2d 896, 901 (5th C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ; see a l s o K o z i k o w s k i v. T o l l B r o s . , Inc., 354 F.3d 16, 26 ( 1 s t C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a c o u r t may grant a Rule 56(f) continuance i f the p a r t y s e e k i n g the continuance "demonstrates that i t was diligent i n pursuing discovery before summary judgment surfaced"); Aviation S p e c i a l t i e s , I n c . v. U n i t e d T e c h n o l o g i e s C o r p . , 568 F.2d 1186, 1190 ( 5 t h C i r . 1978) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e " [ p ] l a i n t i f f must b e a r the consequences of i t s d e c i s i o n t o proceed w i t h d i s c o v e r y p i e c e m e a l " and h o l d i n g t h a t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d not abuse i t s discretion in failing to grant a c o n t i n u a n c e when t h e p l a i n t i f f had not i n i t i a t e d any d i s c o v e r y u n t i l h i s a c t i o n h a d b e e n on f i l e f o r s i x months and a f t e r a pretrial conference had been conducted).'" Scrushy, So. 955 So. 2d a t 1006-07 ( q u o t i n g McGhee v. M a r t i n , 2d 398, In the affidavit and and ( A l a . C i v . App. present case, 2004)). Jason and Russell's Rule i n order they said, to oppose the summary-judgment Adams c o u l d p r o v i d e t e s t i m o n y c r e a t e d t h e d e f e c t i n t h e l a k e and when i t was Casey 56(f) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y n e e d e d t o d e p o s e Adams, C a s e y , Dennis because, "who 405 892 and Dennis could provide 29 testimony motions regarding created" regarding the 2110317 work they had performed on t h e l a k e w h i l e p r o p e r t y . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l discretion Speaks Clegg owned t h e c o u r t d i d not exceed i t s i n 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 C l e g g , Land Company, a n d Buce without affording Jason and R u s s e l l t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e p o s e Adams, C a s e y , a n d D e n n i s f o r the following Russell reasons: (1) t h e t e s t i m o n y e x p e c t e d Adams, C a s e y , a n d D e n n i s that Jason and to give regarding t h e s u b j e c t s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e R u l e 5 6 ( f ) a f f i d a v i t w o u l d have been c u m u l a t i v e ; Adams, Casey, (2) t h e t e s t i m o n y J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l and Dennis to give r e g a r d i n g those expected subjects w o u l d n o t have d e f e a t e d t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n s ; the t r i a l a n d (3) c o u r t c o u l d p r o p e r l y have c o n c l u d e d t h a t J a s o n a n d R u s s e l l h a d h a d ample t i m e t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f Adams, C a s e y , and D e n n i s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t summary-judgment m o t i o n was filed. First, have been the testimony cumulative o f Adams, C a s e y , because Clegg and Dennis admitted that, would before S p e a k s a n d Buce r e p r e s e n t e d t o J a s o n and R u s s e l l t h a t t h e l a k e was l o w due t o t h e d r o u g h t a n d t h a t t h e r e was no p r o b l e m t h e l a k e , C l e g g knew (1) t h a t t h e w a t e r been f l u c t u a t i n g and t h a t water 30 with l e v e l i n t h e l a k e had had been s e e p i n g o r l e a k i n g 2110317 out of the tried to l a k e s i n c e 2003 a t t h e determine why f l u c t u a t i n g i n 2003, from the the seeping water (2) t h a t C a s e y level in the f a c i n g dry or l e a k i n g out l a n d and of the had lake was moved soil determined that (3) t h a t , i n 2003, C a s e y had s i d e o f t h e dam w a t e r was latest, lake but he did not f i n d an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i t and d i d n o t know what c o u l d be done to from stop the continued 2003, water seeping or leaking, (3) that water t o seep o r l e a k o u t o f t h e l a k e a f t e r C a s e y l e f t (4) that assistance of members Dennis of and the his Clegg family, daughter, had put with 10,000 12,000 pounds o f b e n t o n i t e i n t h e l a k e a f t e r C l e g g had the p r o p e r t y f o r s a l e , and (5) t h a t w a t e r c o n t i n u e d leak the out lake. of lake despite Moreover, regarding the Jason substance of testified the in testimony his Jason the to listed t o seep o r their putting bentonite had in in the deposition and Russell e x p e c t e d Adams t o g i v e r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Rule 56(f) a f f i d a v i t , regard was therefore, hearsay, i t was and, no motion properly c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r u l i n g on we have c o n s i d e r e d although to before the strike the i t was trial i n that filed court the and, for i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n s , i t i n reviewing 31 Jason's testimony summary j u d g m e n t . and See 2110317 Ex p a r t e S e c r e t a r y o f V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s , 2012] So. 3d Second, the , [Ms. 1101171, Feb. 10, ( A l a . 2012). testimony J a s o n and R u s s e l l e x p e c t e d Adams, C a s e y , and D e n n i s t o g i v e r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b j e c t s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e R u l e 5 6 ( f ) a f f i d a v i t w o u l d n o t have d e f e a t e d judgment m o t i o n s because t h a t t e s t i m o n y a genuine i s s u e r e g a r d i n g w h i c h were t h a t the c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n e d Third, first 2011, an a c t i o n was "as filed testimony and months later. Jason f a c t s i n the case, u s e d r e a l e s t a t e and August 9, 2009, and not filed until and Russell's the March well knowledge r e g a r d i n g aware the of those potential 14, deposition i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e y had t a l k e d t o Adams, C a s e y , were (2) i s " clause. on summary-judgment m o t i o n was 18 Dennis the c o u l d n o t have c r e a t e d the d i s p o s i t i v e (1) t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was t h e summary- and witnesses's s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d i n the Rule 56(f) a f f i d a v i t b e f o r e J a s o n and R u s s e l l f i l e d the a c t i o n . Jason and Russell's Rule 56(f) e x p l a i n why had not taken t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f Adams, C a s e y , and the 18-month p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e filing of the first court could have affidavit d i d not filing they Dennis o f t h e a c t i o n and summary-judgment m o t i o n . Thus, t h e concluded 32 that during "'"ample time the trial and 2110317 opportunities f o r discovery ha[d] a l r e a d y lapsed"'" by t h e t i m e t h e f i r s t summary-judgment m o t i o n was f i l e d . S c r u s h y , 955 So. 2d a t 1006-07 in turn ( q u o t i n g McGhee, SEC v. Spence (5th C i r . 892 So. 2d a t 405, q u o t i n g & G r e e n Chem. Co., 612 F.2d 896, 901 1980)). Conclusion For the reasons d i s c u s s e d judgment i n f a v o r o f C l e g g , a b o v e , we affirm the summary Speaks L a n d Company, a n d B u c e . AFFIRMED. Thompson, Moore, P . J . , and P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , concur. J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 33 writing.

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.