Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin, McKnight & James and Randy James v. Steven D. Burt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 8/3/12 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110528 Baxley, D i l l a r d , Dauphin, McKnight & James and Randy James v. Steven D. Burt Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t (CV-11-77) Court Dillard, & James PER CURIAM. Baxley, firm") Dauphin, a n d Randy James, an a t t o r n e y from a judgment i n f a v o r remand. McKnight o f Steven ("the i n the law firm, D. B u r t . law appeal We r e v e r s e a n d 2110528 In civil 2003, C o r n e t t P u b l i s h i n g Company action Partners, Calhoun ("the C o r n e t t I n c . ("Target Circuit Court. Media"), James T a r g e t Media i n the C o r n e t t Burt, a photographs employ Moore, former action") ("Cornett") against and o t h e r filed Target Media parties and t h e law f i r m a i n the represented action. employee of Target Media, had taken ("the p h o t o g r a p h s " ) f o r T a r g e t M e d i a w h i l e i n i t s and had p r o v i d e d one Subsequently, of the James copies of the photographs attorneys representing and t h e law f i r m served to Neal Cornett. Burt with a subpoena i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n r e q u i r i n g him t o appear f o r a deposition on February deposition copies 18, 2008, and o f any p h o t o g r a p h s t o produce he at h i s had p r o v i d e d to C o r n e t t o r i t s a t t o r n e y s . B u r t a p p e a r e d f o r h i s d e p o s i t i o n on F e b r u a r y 18, 2008, b u t d i d n o t b r i n g c o p i e s o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h s w i t h h i m . James a n d t h e l a w f i r m f i l e d a motion f o r an o r d e r compelling Burt t o produce copies of the photographs. 17, 2008, t h e j u d g e order been ("the w r i t t e n subpoenaed instructed by t o make On M a r c h i n the Cornett action entered a w r i t t e n order") Target s t a t i n g : "Mr. S t e v e Media the requested 2 Partners, documents Burt having I n c . , he i s available for 2110528 inspection and c o p y i n g to the requesting party." (Emphasis added.) B u r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r he r e c e i v e d t h e w r i t t e n o r d e r , he had a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the judge i n the C o r n e t t There i s no evidence i n the record indicating action. that this c o n v e r s a t i o n was on t h e r e c o r d . A c c o r d i n g t o B u r t , he t o l d t h e judge i n the Cornett photographs, with there were 40,000 of the t h a t t h e y were on B u r t ' s p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r a l o n g Burt's photographs, action that wedding and t h a t photographs Burt wanted and t o make other personal copies of the p h o t o g r a p h s f o r James i n s t e a d o f a l l o w i n g James t o i n s p e c t t h e photographs on B u r t ' s computer and copy them. A c c o r d i n g to B u r t , t h e j u d g e i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n t o l d B u r t t h a t he c o u l d copy t h e p h o t o g r a p h s h i m s e l f and b i l l h a l f t h e c o s t t o C o r n e t t and the other h a l f to Target M e d i a . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t James o r any o t h e r e m p l o y e e o f t h e law firm were present when Burt allegedly c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the judge i n the C o r n e t t a c t i o n . t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e order this Moreover, i n the r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the judge i n the Cornett a c t i o n ever memorialized oral had granting Burt permission 3 i nwriting his alleged t o copy t h e p h o t o g r a p h s 2110528 himself and to b i l l Furthermore, Cornett and Target t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e Media f o r doing so. i n d i c a t i n g that, before Burt u n d e r t o o k t o c o p y t h e p h o t o g r a p h s h i m s e l f , James and law t h a t B u r t c o u l d copy the photographs h i m s e l f f i r m agreed the and t h a t James and t h e l a w f i r m w o u l d pay him f o r doing so. Burt t e s t i f i e d t h a t , subsequent to h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the judge i n the C o r n e t t action, he spent approximately h o u r s p u t t i n g c o p i e s o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h s on 3 compact 100 disks, t h a t he gave t h e 3 compact d i s k s t o Moore, and t h a t Moore gave James a copy testified of the 3 compact disks. that, after he gave t h e In addition, Burt 3 compact d i s k s t o Moore, Burt attended a h e a r i n g i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n and t h a t Moore and Ron an a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t i n g Ed L e a d e r , one Held, defendants i n the C o r n e t t a c t i o n , h e a r i n g . T h e r e i s no James o r any other evidence i n the employee o f the that hearing. Burt testified judge if asked Burt p h o t o g r a p h s w i t h him, he the at that record indicating that law f i r m was present that, during that hearing, had his that Burt t h e j u d g e t o l d B u r t t o g i v e one other b i l l were a l s o p r e s e n t of told bills the for copying j u d g e he of the b i l l s the the did, that t o Moore and t o H e l d , and t h a t t h e j u d g e t o l d Moore and H e l d 4 at the to 2110528 pay the b i l l s . Each b i l l t h a t h e a r i n g was record totaled not recorded. indicating $1,715. B u r t a d m i t t e d There that the judge i s no e v i d e n c e that i n the i n the Cornett a c t i o n ever m e m o r i a l i z e d i n w r i t i n g h i s a l l e g e d o r a l o r d e r d i r e c t i n g Moore and H e l d t o p a y t h e b i l l s B u r t h a d g i v e n them a t t h a t h e a r i n g o r t h a t t h e j u d g e i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n e v e r o r d e r e d James o r the law f i r m , either orally or i n w r i t i n g , t o pay t h e bill B u r t h a d g i v e n H e l d . I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Moore p a i d t h e b i l l B u r t had g i v e n him a t t h a t h e a r i n g and t h a t the b i l l B u r t had g i v e n H e l d was n e v e r p a i d b y a n y o n e . On O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2010, B u r t s u e d James and t h e l a w f i r m i n the s m a l l - c l a i m s d i v i s i o n o f the Calhoun D i s t r i c t Court d i s t r i c t c o u r t " ) , s e e k i n g payment o f t h e $1,715 b i l l given Held a t the hearing i n the Cornett a c t i o n . ("the B u r t had Answering, James a n d t h e l a w f i r m d e n i e d t h a t t h e y were o b l i g a t e d t o p a y the bill. February Following a bench t r i a l , 28, 2 0 1 1 , e n t e r e d the d i s t r i c t court, a judgment i n f a v o r of B u r t on and a w a r d e d h i m damages i n t h e amount o f $1,715 p l u s c o u r t c o s t s . On M a r c h 11, 2 0 1 1 , James a n d t h e l a w f i r m a p p e a l e d Calhoun Circuit d i f f e r e n t judge Court, and the appeal was assigned to the to a ("the t r i a l j u d g e " ) t h a n t h e one who h a d b e e n 5 2110528 assigned trial to the C o r n e t t judge, on a c t i o n . F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l , February 7, 2012, entered the the following judgment: "This i s an a p p e a l from D i s t r i c t Court. " [ B u r t ] p r o v i d e d over Seven Thousand (7,000) p i c t u r e s f r o m a group o f over T h i r t y - f i v e Thousand (35,000) p i c t u r e s i n CV-2003-789. "To a c c o m p l i s h t h i s t a s k , i t t o o k n i n e t y - e i g h t h o u r s a t T h i r t y - f i v e D o l l a r s ($35.00) p e r h o u r . Mr. N e a l Moore p a i d h i s s h a r e o f One T h o u s a n d , S e v e n H u n d r e d , F i f t e e n D o l l a r s ( $ 1 , 7 1 5 . 0 0 ) . The [ l a w f i r m and J a m e s ] d i d n o t pay t h e i r s h a r e . "The C o u r t f i n d s f o r [ B u r t ] and a g a i n s t t h e [ l a w f i r m and J a m e s ] i n t h e amount o f One T h o u s a n d , S e v e n Hundred, F i f t e e n D o l l a r s ($1,715.00) p l u s court costs." The l a w f i r m and James t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t on M a r c h 6, 2012. "'"[W]hen a t r i a l c o u r t s i t s i n j u d g m e n t on f a c t s that are undisputed, an appellate court will d e t e r m i n e whether the t r i a l c o u r t m i s a p p l i e d the law t o t h o s e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s . " ' H a r r i s v. M c K e n z i e , 703 So. 2d 309, 313 ( A l a . 1997) (quoting Craig Constr. Co., I n c . v. H e n d r i x , 568 So. 2d 752, 756 (Ala. 1 9 9 0 ) ) . The o r e t e n u s ' s t a n d a r d ' s presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s has no a p p l i c a t i o n t o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on q u e s t i o n s o f l a w . ' B e a v e r s [v. W a l k e r C o u n t y ] , 645 So. 2d [1365] a t 1372 [(Ala. 1994)]. '[O]n appeal, t h e r u l i n g on a q u e s t i o n o f law c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , and this C o u r t ' s r e v i e w i s de n o v o . ' Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215, 1221 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . " 6 2110528 Rogers (Ala. Found. Inc. v. Powell, 748 So. 2d the law f i r m argue t h a t the t r i a l 869, 871 1999). James and in Repair, judge e r r e d e n t e r i n g a judgment i n f a v o r of B u r t because, they say, t h e y were n o t o b l i g a t e d t o pay t h e b i l l B u r t had g i v e n H e l d a t t h e h e a r i n g i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n . We Neither Cornett the alleged action granting p h o t o g r a p h s h i m s e l f and t h a t judge's B u r t had oral order Burt to b i l l agree. of the permission the p a r t i e s judge to in copy f o r d o i n g so a l l e g e d o r a l o r d e r d i r e c t i n g H e l d t o pay t h e g i v e n him memorialized in the the nor bill a t t h e h e a r i n g i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n were writing. Rule 58(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides: "A j u d g e may r e n d e r an o r d e r o r a j u d g m e n t : (1) by executing a separate w r i t t e n document, (2) by i n c l u d i n g the order or judgment i n a judicial o p i n i o n , (3) by e n d o r s i n g upon a m o t i o n t h e words ' g r a n t e d , ' ' d e n i e d , ' ' m o o t , ' o r words o f s i m i l a r i m p o r t , and d a t i n g and s i g n i n g o r i n i t i a l i n g i t , (4) by m a k i n g o r c a u s i n g t o be made a n o t a t i o n i n t h e c o u r t r e c o r d s , o r (5) by e x e c u t i n g and t r a n s m i t t i n g an e l e c t r o n i c document t o t h e electronic-filing system." In Ex parte Chamblee, 899 So. 2d 244, 248 ( A l a . 2004), supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "Although Rule 58(a) relates 7 simply to the the 2110528 ' r e n d i t i o n ' o f j u d g m e n t s and o r d e r s , w h e r e a s R u l e 5 8 ( c ) d e s c r i b e s t h e f o r m a l i t i e s t h a t must a t t e n d t h e ' e n t r y ' o f a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r , even R u l e 58(a) requires, in each instance, a written m e m o r i a l i z a t i o n by t h e j u d g e o f h i s o r h e r r e n d i t i o n of the order or judgment i n q u e s t i o n . Stated o t h e r w i s e , R u l e 58(a) does n o t a l l o w f o r an o r a l r e n d i t i o n o f a judgment or o r d e r . " (Emphasis added.) A l t h o u g h Chamblee was oral the decided, R u l e 58(a) that rule still has b e e n amended s i n c e does n o t a l l o w f o r an r e n d i t i o n of a judgment or o r d e r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no evidence indicating because t h a t the alleged o r a l o r d e r s o f t h e j u d g e i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n upon w h i c h relies were m e m o r i a l i z e d in writing and because the Burt record c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e j u d g e i n t h e C o r n e t t a c t i o n e v e r o r d e r e d James and in writing, t o pay the b i l l j u d g e e r r e d i n s o f a r as he may of had Burt on ordered given the the law f i r m , theory James and B u r t had either orally given Held, the or trial have b a s e d h i s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r that the the law judge i n the f i r m t o pay Cornett the b i l l action Burt had Held. M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t James and t h e l a w f i r m e v e r a g r e e d t o pay B u r t f o r c o p y i n g photographs. may Therefore, the trial judge erred insofar have b a s e d h i s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B u r t 8 on the as the he theory 2110528 that pay James a n d t h e l a w f i r m were c o n t r a c t u a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o the b i l l Burt had g i v e n & C a s . Co. v. W i l l i a m s , order H e l d . See, e.g., S t a t e 926 So. 2d 1008, 1013 ( A l a . 2005) ("In t o p r e v a i l on a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t must e s t a b l i s h : (1) t h e e x i s t e n c e the p a r t i e s , the claim, defendant's Accordingly, plaintiff of a v a l i d contract nonperformance (emphasis under the contract, binding and (3) (4) added)). we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s this a (2) h i s own p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t , r e s u l t i n g damages." with Farm F i r e consistent opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 9

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.