Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC v. Michael L. Maddox

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/18/2012 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 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 2110337 Ocean Reef Developers I I , LLC v. M i c h a e l L. Maddox Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-08-900158) MOORE, Court Judge. Ocean Reef D e v e l o p e r s I I , LLC, a p p e a l s its motion Circuit f o r an award of attorney Court ("the Alabama t r i a l from t h e d e n i a l o f fees court"). We by t h e Etowah affirm. 2110337 Background T h i s i s t h e second time t h e p a r t i e s have been b e f o r e court. See Ex parte Ocean 2 1 0 0 9 4 2 , N o v . 4, 2 0 1 1 ] The pertinent follows. agreement Reef pursuant Ocean Reef Developers So. 3d underlying Ocean Reef 2011). a r e as Maddox Maddox agreed t o construct agreed entered into a c o n d o m i n i u m i n Panama agreement r e q u i r e d Maddox t o d e p o s i t a s p e c i f i e d agreement, Bank Maddox o f Alabama purchase fully h i s requirements under obtained a letter i n favor contractual i f Ocean of credit o f Ocean R e e f ' s agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t refunded terms City, purchase to satisfy The and ("the escrow; agreement"). an t o purchase Florida into purchase [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. Michael t o which I I , LLC, and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y facts and this Reef failed from Ocean Reef Exchange The deposit would to perform be any o f i t s obligations. fulfilled agreement. sum agent. A d i s p u t e subsequently arose r e g a r d i n g whether had that the purchase escrow t h e escrow of i t s contractual Maddox notified t o be i n d e f a u l t , obligations Ocean Reef under that Ocean the purchase he considered a n d he r e q u e s t e d t h e r e t u r n 2 Reef of 2110337 his letter of and allegations, credit. i t refused Maddox f i l e d court ("the that Reef disputed to return the l e t t e r Maddox's of credit. s u i t a g a i n s t Ocean Reef i n a F l o r i d a Florida action"), seeking a judgment circuit declaring O c e a n R e e f h a d b r e a c h e d t h e p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t ; he sought to terminate deposit, of Ocean a c a n c e l l a t i o n of the l e t t e r attorney pending, trial the purchase agreement, fees and costs. Maddox f i l e d court ("the suit Alabama While against a refund of c r e d i t , the Ocean Reef of h i s a n d an Florida also award action was Alabama asserting that, action"), i n the because Ocean Reef had d e f a u l t e d under t h e p u r c h a s e agreement, i t was not Maddox entitled sought agent credit, letter the t o draw a restraining preventing order them a permanent of c r e d i t against represented action and t h e Alabama judgment 11, i n favor letter of credit. Ocean Reef drawing against and i t s escrow the letter of i s s u e r of the to prevent the any f o r payment request under a n d an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s . was a from injunction Maddox December against from honoring l e t t e r of c r e d i t , On the by different counsel i n the Florida court entered action. 2008, the F l o r i d a o f Maddox, 3 finding circuit that Ocean Reef had 2110337 b r e a c h e d t h e p u r c h a s e agreement and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , was entitled interest, entered to a refund of a l ldeposits and a r e t u r n o f t h e l e t t e r by t h e F l o r i d a circuit he h a d p a i d , of credit. court Maddox also The stated plus judgment that "this c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s s u b j e c t m a t t e r and t h e p a r t i e s f o r a l l purposes, i n c l u d i n g t h e award o f a t t o r n e y and costs." After the t h a t j u d g m e n t was a f f i r m e d o n a p p e a l , Florida circuit costs, relying which provided: Agreement, on court section "In the the prevailing f o r an a w a r d 5(D) of event party that attorney 2009, motion, fees Maddox the purchase of shall a circuit fees court request On fees." March a judgment 4, awarding and c o s t s . action, seeking had p a i d t o h i s Alabama [Ocean R e e f ' s ] this f o r any I n J a n u a r y 2010, Maddox f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t Alabama and to receive attorney action. entered fees under be e n t i t l e d a moved agreement, dispute include r e l a t e d t o t h e Alabama the Florida Maddox a t t o r n e y d i d not Maddox of attorney i t s costs of enforcement, i n c l u d i n g reasonable In fees wrongful to recover legal draw the attorney counsel that he " f o r i t swork t o e n j o i n on t h e l e t t e r 4 fees i n the of credit and t o 2110337 advise on and a s s i s t section i n the F l o r i d a 5(D) of the case." purchase p r e v a i l i n g party to recover Maddox a g a i n agreement, attorney fees, relied allowing as s u p p o r t a f o rh i s motion. Ocean by R e e f moved t o d i s m i s s Maddox things, in the Alabama t h a t Maddox's t h e amended action, request complaint asserting, f o r attorney filed among fees other and c o s t s i n t h e A l a b a m a a c t i o n was b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a . The Alabama Ocean trial Reef's July 2011, relief, Ocean petition. on Reef that, that filed 4, 2011, Ocean R e e f , Ocean Reef's i n the motion; "motion petitioned November Ex p a r t e granting concluded denied subsequently and, In court i t also to reconsider." In this court f o r mandamus this court granted So. 3d a t action, that . mandamus p e t i t i o n , Florida denied Maddox this court had had an opportunity to present h i s claim f o r a l l attorney fees r e l a t e d to Ocean his dispute incurred present Ocean failed with i n the Alabama that Reef, claim action, 3d a t . including and to the F l o r i d a So. to [present Reef, that circuit This court a claim i n the F l o r i d a 5 he attorney had fees failed court. stated: Ex to parte "Having action f o r attorney 2110337 fees incurred doctrine i n the Alabama a c t i o n ] , of res judicata Alabama a c t i o n . " ___ the court Alabama t r i a l amended c o m p l a i n t On court prevailing section award of trial trial 2011, i n the of the attorney court against to enter Ocean Ocean i s now pursuing a t ___ . an entered an Reef, and, on the directed order dismissing Maddox's Reef. fees, Alabama and that, 28, December 6, entitled 2011, dismissing pursuant the Maddox's 2011, the c o u r t d e n i e d Ocean R e e f ' s m o t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y Alabama t r i a l court stated, trial a s s e r t i n g t h a t i t was November order in therefore, p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t , i t was On the claim that by We, Alabama a c t i o n fees. barred Ocean R e e f moved t h e award of a t t o r n e y party 5(D) 3d against November 23, f o r an So. from he in pertinent to to an Alabama action Alabama fees. part: " [ O c e a n R e e f ] may n o t h a v e i t s c a k e a n d e a t i t too. I t may not seek d i s m i s s a l of the a c t i o n of [ M a d d o x ] on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e P u r c h a s e A g r e e m e n t i s s u e s have a l r e a d y been l i t i g a t e d and thus the m a t t e r i s r e s j u d i c a t a , and t h e n s e e k t o receive a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i t s e l f u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e same agreement. The p o i n t i s made e v e n m o r e p r o f o u n d when c o n s i d e r i n g [ M a d d o x ] p r e v a i l e d i n t h e previous litigation." 6 the The 2110337 On December 20, 2011, t h e Alabama Reef's motion t o a l t e r , order. trial court denied Ocean amend, o r v a c a t e t h e D e c e m b e r 6, 2 0 1 1 , Ocean Reef t i m e l y appealed. Analysis "Under t h e A m e r i c a n the rule, the parties responsibility paying of However, t h e l a w r e c o g n i z e s and when attorney fees provided equity." their contract, Ex p a r t e Horn, bear attorney fees. own c e r t a i n exceptions are recoverable by to a lawsuit or 718 to this when a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e , when by justified So. 2d 6 9 4 , 702 special ( A l a . 1998). Ocean R e e f a s s e r t s t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f fees pursuant to contract, rule, attorney i . e . , s e c t i o n 5(D) o f t h e p u r c h a s e agreement. Our supreme court r e v i e w o f an a t t o r n e y ' s review de refusal novo a to enforce review the t r i a l LLC, court's an u n a m b i g u o u s that, on appellate decision or i t s a n d we f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on t h a t i s s u e f o r an See, e.g., C l a s s r o o m d i r e c t . c o m , LLC v. So. 2d 692, because, 7 contract to enforce we provision, court's 992 recognized f e e awarded p u r s u a n t t o a c o n t r a c t , trial abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . Draphix, has 710 ( A l a . 2008). That i s 2110337 " [ i ] n A l a b a m a , when t h e t e r m s o f a c o n t r a c t a r e unambiguous, t h e c o n t r a c t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n and l e g a l e f f e c t become a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e c o u r t , a n d w h e n a p p r o p r i a t e may b e d e c i d e d b y s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . Jehle-Slauson C o n s t r . Co. v. H o o d - R i c h , A r c h i t e c t s and C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 7 1 6 , 720 ( A l a . 1983) (citations omitted). However, when t h e t e r m s of a c o n t r a c t a r e ambiguous i n any r e s p e c t , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t r u e meaning o f t h e c o n t r a c t i s a question of fact f o r the [fact-finder]. H a l l v. I n t e g o n L i f e I n s . C o . , 454 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 8 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . Whether a c o n t r a c t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w for the court. H a r t f o r d [ A c c i d e n t & Indemn. Co. v. Morgan Cnty. Ass'n o f V o l u n t e e r F i r e f i g h t e r s , 454 So. 2 d 960 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] . " Colonial Bank o f Alabama v. Coker, 482 S o . 2 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 ( A l a . 1985). On is appeal, Ocean Reef does n o t a s s e r t a m b i g u o u s , a n d we c o n c l u d e t h a t that section i t i s n o t . We, therefore, must d e t e r m i n e i f Ocean Reef e s t a b l i s h e d i t s e n t i t l e m e n t award o f a t t o r n e y 5(D) fees under the express o f t h e purchase agreement. fees under that express established (1) t h a t arose the purchase under In order language, the dispute, agreement, of Ocean Reef s o u g h t t o r e c o v e r enforcement." We conclude Reef (2) t h a t attorney must Ocean have action, Reef was a n d (3) t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y were i n c u r r e d as t h e " c o s t s that, 8 to recover Ocean t o an of section i . e . , t h e Alabama the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h e d i s p u t e , fees language 5(D) even assuming t h a t Ocean 2110337 Reef e s t a b l i s h e d the first decide, e s t a b l i s h the the i t failed attorney enforce the fees i t was purchase Although i s s u e a s we to we persuasive. In association filed compel the a at Ala. On to an were f i n d Baumann v. 668 S.E.2d supra, 420 R. Civ. of incurred addressing Long Cove a 668 S.E.2d appeal, award of 423. After a bench the and the at 423. The for attorney fees by 2008), 380 the pursuant trial to a motion 380 a s s o c i a t i o n appealed Id. Rule for S.C. the fees. t h a t i t was virtue of the entitled following covenants: " ' S e c t i o n 1. Who May E n f o r c e G e n e r a l l y . I n event of a violation or breach of any of 9 to S.C. with prejudice. both motions. association asserted attorney the Club seeking trial, association filed t r i a l court denied i t s motion to homeowners' action a postjudgment motion, P., f e e s ; the not i . e . , that ( C t . App. members the homeowners' c o m p l a i n t 59, of recover declaratory-judgment homeowners f i l e d denial 131, Baumann, The 136-37, to factor, need agreement. S.C. S.E.2d court dismissed at third i s s u e we a s s o c i a t i o n to comply w i t h i t s covenants. 668 attorney seeking h a v e p h r a s e d i t , we 380 136, f a c t o r s , an f i n d no A l a b a m a c a s e s d i r e c t l y Owners A s s ' n , at two the the 2110337 a f f i r m a t i v e o b l i g a t i o n s or r e s t r i c t i o n s contained i n t h i s D e c l a r a t i o n b y any P r o p e r t y Owner o r a g e n t o f s u c h P r o p e r t y Owner, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o r any o t h e r p r o p e r t y owners o r any o f them j o i n t l y and s e v e r a l l y s h a l l have the r i g h t t o p r o c e e d a t law or i n e q u i t y to compel a compliance w i t h the terms h e r e o f or t o p r e v e n t t h e v i o l a t i o n o r b r e a c h i n any e v e n t . " ' S e c t i o n 2. Enforcement. foregoing, the A s s o c i a t i o n or a have the r i g h t t o p r o c e e d at compel compliance t o the terms t h e v i o l a t i o n o r b r e a c h i n any In a d d i t i o n to the P r o p e r t y Owner s h a l l law or i n e q u i t y t o hereof or to prevent event. " ' I n t h e e v e n t o f any l i t i g a t i o n , t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r i t s r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s o f s u c h l i t i g a t i o n . If the v i o l a t i o n i s not e x p e d i t i o u s l y terminated, the A s s o c i a t i o n may e n g a g e l e g a l c o u n s e l ... t o e n f o r c e these covenants. V i o l a t o r s s h a l l be o b l i g a t e d t o reimburse the A s s o c i a t i o n i n f u l l f o r a l l i t s d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o legal fees incurred by the Association in maintaining compliance with these covenants.'" 380 S.C. App. The South the a t 135, covenants Carolina "'"violators" S.E.2d at 425 668 Court 920 of Appeals, (emphasis however, omitted). concluded that allowed recovery of a t t o r n e y fees o n l y a g a i n s t of the covenants.'" (quoting R e g i m e v . G r e e n w o o d Dev. 902, S.E.2d a t 422-23 ( C t . App. Queen's Corp., S.C. Grant II 368 S.C. Horizontal 342, 375, 628 Prop. S.E.2d of any covenants, had no 10 that the association 668 a l l e g e d o r shown t h a t t h e homeowners were i n v i o l a t i o n concluded the a t 139, not court Because App. had the 2006)). 380 association 2110337 contractual right t o an award of a t t o r n e y Willow L a k e R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n v. (Ala. Civ. App. association attorney was 2010) in Lake, attorney fees asserted against Apparel, I n c . v. App. attorney the i t had 2003) fees the attorney derived (recognizing so Capital 141 (Ala. Civ. defense of seek to by the that a 242 homeowners' to contract, against association recover defending s t a t e s but provision in the from, a f o r e c l o s u r e of in 226, i t s counterclaim not association "only G.E. defense a also those against claims homeowner); Austin So. 2d 158, mortgagee 166 may (Ala. recover i n c u r r e d i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e m o r t g a g e when fees to did See 3d pursuant B a n k o f P r a t t v i l l e , 872 contract entitled So. that recover, incurred the 80 Id. r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s ; the however, mortgage c o n t r a c t case, to fees i n c u r r e d i n prosecuting Willow Civ. Juliano, (recognizing entitled a homeowner t o e n f o r c e fees. further event an 1994) award a lessee's a tort of not and from (recognizing that be 11 fees sounding part in that recovery the of the and 646 So. 2d a l e s s o r was costs of proceeds mortgage"); Tomlinson Inc., attorney that, authorized Fin., complaint could of, of th[e] Dealer-Distributor App. recognizing v. 139, not for its because the "'enforc[ement of] in tort 2110337 any as of the terms, required f o r an parties' lease Colonial Pac. 1999) conditions, award of (noting t h a t the supra, "provided for be read Like not as the initiate action the supra, association the Alabama agreement. section enforcement of never Black's act or Law that sought process of ed. West). action and did any enforce in any defines dismissed, 12 did in that provisions we & purchase fees Reef which assert not Alabama of the Ocean agreement. mean a law, "[t]he mandate, Dictionary asserted cannot in action, to the agreement that Law of Eubanks, incurred compliance with Ocean the Reef i n Eubanks Black's by Ocean "enforcement" agreement." Tomlinson, claims"). as aspect App. agreement, the the v. Civ. in of attorney Inc. incurred supra, parties' agreement; A l a b a m a a c t i o n m u s t be (Ala. the Eubanks, fees i n Baumann, lease'" under & offensive the Because costs terms of t h a t lease compelling or of of Dictionary command, d e c r e e , (9th recovery of to and th[e] 442 437, Additionally, recovery of p r o v i s i o n at issue violated 5(d) authorizes Reef 2d encompassing only t h a t Maddox had purchase Eubanks So. 757 the fees and lease lessor i n 'enforcing' can attorney agreement); Leasing, or p r o v i s i o n s only conclude that that 60 8 the i t 2110337 e v e r sought i n t h a t a c t i o n t o compel Maddox t o comply w i t h terms of the purchase agreement, enforce the purchase the i . e . , t h a t i t ever sought to agreement, as required by the express language of s e c t i o n 5(D). "A c o n t r a c t '"'must be g i v e n e f f e c t , i f at a l l , a c c o r d i n g t o i t s p l a i n and i n e s c a p a b l e meaning.'"' J a m e s A. H e a d & Co. v . R o l l i n g , 265 A l a . 3 2 8 , 3 3 8 , 90 S o . 2 d 8 2 8 , 836 ( 1 9 5 6 ) ( q u o t i n g O a t e s v . L e e , 222 A l a . 5 0 6 , 5 0 7 , 133 S o . 4 4 , 45 ( 1 9 3 1 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n U n i o n C e n t r a l R e l i e f A s s ' n v . T h o m a s , 213 A l a . 6 6 6 , 6 6 7 , 106 S o . 1 3 3 , 134 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ) . Moreover, where the terms o f a c o n t r a c t a r e ' p l a i n and unambiguous, t h e r e i s no r o o m f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d t h e p a r t i e s thereto "may stand upon the letter" of the c o n t r a c t . ' D u n l a p v . M a c k e , 233 A l a . 2 9 7 , 3 0 0 , 171 S o . 7 2 1 , 724 ( 1 9 3 7 ) . " Horne v. TGM A s s o c s . , L.P., Ocean Reef factors: (1) 56 the that "the 'prevailing however, the case and of a p r e v a i l i n g including reasonable attorney must effect give to must and party.'" are unambiguous, recovery 3d c o n s t r u e s s e c t i o n 5(D) d i s p u t e under t h i s Agreement'" be So. the 615, as 622 ( A l a . 2010). requiring only concern an 'event (2) t h a t " O c e a n R e e f The terms of section or fees." unambiguous agreement. 13 "costs of (Emphasis terms of a [must] 5(D), that provision authorizes party's two only enforcement, added.) the We parties' 2110337 Ocean Reef r e l i e s So. 605 ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 955 (1906), cases contract. Bank, an a w a r d an award of costs 1 4 6 A l a . 1 8 7 , 40 S o . made p u r s u a n t of attorney v . Hook, fees made to a statute pursuant to a on B a y F i n a n c i a l S a v i n g s 648 S o . 2 d 3 0 5 (Fla. Dist. C t . App. f o r t h e p r e m i s e t h a t t h e d e f e n s e o f r e s j u d i c a t a "does necessarily avert 307. 1 0 3 A l a . 3 1 8 , 15 o f i t sargument; however, b o t h o f those Ocean R e e f f u r t h e r r e l i e s F.S.B. 1995), not i n support than v. Brown, and P r i t c h a r d v. Fowler, involved rather on H i l l i a r d an award of attorney's fees." Id.at Bay F i n a n c i a l , however, addresses a F l o r i d a s t a t u t e t h a t a u t h o r i z e d an a w a r d o f r e a s o n a b l e action i n which the court absence o f a j u s t i c i a b l e the complaint or defense n.1 (quoting F l o r i d a finds attorney fees that there " ' i n any c i v i l was a complete i s s u e of e i t h e r law o r f a c t r a i s e d by of the losing S t a t . § 57.105(1) party.'" (1993)). 1 I d . a t 306 The c u r r e n t Florida S t a t . § 57.105 has been amended s i n c e t h e d e c i s i o n i n B a y F i n a n c i a l was i s s u e d . I n i t s c u r r e n t form, § 57.105(1) p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 1 "[T]he c o u r t s h a l l award a reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s f e e ... a t a n y t i m e d u r i n g a c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g o r a c t i o n in which the court finds that the l o s i n g party or the losing party's attorney knew o r s h o u l d have known that a claim or defense when initially p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t o r a t any time b e f o r e trial: 14 2110337 version its of that claim s t a t u t e , however, f o r an award 5(D) of the purchase Reef asserts time i n i t s reply does n o t a i d Ocean of attorney agreement. f o r the f i r s t fees pursuant time on appeal, i t i s entitled that this v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., See A n d r e w s 410 ( A l a . 1992) for the f i r s t to the evidence court."). (Ala. 2005) appellate in See argument and also ("We arguments Kyser note v. the r e v i e w t h a t we w i l l an a p p e l l a t e ' s rather, brief.'" (quoting 227, v. 612 So. award before 2d arguments considered 908 by So. 'well-established not consider the 2d 409, raised trial 914, principle 917 of an i s s u e n o t r a i s e d but r a i s e d only St. Vincent's Hosp., i n i t s reply 899 " ( a ) Was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e m a t e r i a l facts necessary to e s t a b l i s h the claim or defense; or "(b) W o u l d n o t be s u p p o r t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e n - e x i s t i n g law t o those material facts." 15 first an (Ala. 2004))). 234 Brown Ocean our review i s r e s t r i c t e d Harrison, i n i t i a l brief, to i s not properly ("This C o u r t cannot c o n s i d e r t i m e on a p p e a l ; section and f o r t h e pursuant to § 57.105(1), court. to A d d i t i o n a l l y , because that brief, Reef i n So. 2d 2110337 The plain and court, the terms of unambiguous and when i t c a n n o t be attorney incurred s e c t i o n 5(D) fees disputed the Reef's r i g h t s thereunder. R e e f was the not basis can court, and reasoning as although Motors affirm Reef As the our sought issue a The by to we trial recover the trial 812 So. judgment on a basis affirm a judgment can of the t r i a l the judgment Specialty Ins. court itself Co v. is 2d Ocean fees pursuant court's 305 not judgment on a See i f we So. trial with j u d g m e n t , as v. ("'We the disagree 2d is Verchot to (quoting to different ( A l a . 2001) asserted proper.'" 551 any not conclude that court. 296, were Ocean i n e n t e r i n g the Hammond, this of i s premised Corp., we are before agreement or a result, affirmance on agreement t h a t , i n the Alabama a c t i o n , purchase agreement. than that r e l i e d General purchase e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y purchase affirmed, the applied to Ocean in enforcing of the long Progressive 333, 337 (Ala. 1989))). AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 16 Bryan, and Thomas, JJ.,

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.