Auburn's Gameday Center at Magnolia Corner Owners Association, Inc. v. Edward Murray and Sandra Murray

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 5/10/2013 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2012-2013 2110849 Auburn's Gameday Center a t Magnolia Corner Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. v. Edward Murray and Sandra Murray Edward Murray and Sandra Murray v. Auburn's Gameday Center a t Magnolia Corner Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. Appeals from Lee C i r c u i t (CV-10-900084) Court 2110849 DONALDSON, J u d g e . Auburn's Gameday Association, Center I n c . ("Magnolia judgment o f t h e Lee C i r c u i t and Sandra Murrays Murray arising on a Corner Corner other claims and Owners OA"), a p p e a l s Court i n favor claim from a o f Edward Murray asserted by t h e f r o m damage c a u s e d b y w a t e r judgment o f t h e t r i a l concealment, Magnolia negligence c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t t h e y own. their at intrusion to a The M u r r a y s c r o s s - a p p e a l f r o m t h e c o u r t i n f a v o r o f M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA on alleging breach of contract, negligence and their fraudulent claim seeking d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f an amendment t o a condominium agreement a f f e c t i n g t h e i r F a c t u a l Background unit. and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y T h i s d i s p u t e i n v o l v e s a house t h a t i s a u n i t o f Auburn's Gameday Center at Magnolia Corner condominium complex l o c a t e d i n Auburn. 1928, b u t i t was i n c o r p o r a t e d 2000 Centers S o u t h e a s t e r n , LLC Corner"), a The h o u s e was b u i l t i n i n t o Magnolia Corner w i t h the f i l i n g o f a d e c l a r a t i o n o f condominium October ("Magnolia i n t h e Lee County ("the d e c l a r a t i o n " ) i n Probate Court by ("GCS"), a company t h a t o p e r a t e s condominium complexes Gameday owns a n d i n v a r i o u s u n i v e r s i t y towns i n 2 2110849 the southeast. In addition t o the house, Magnolia Corner c o n s i s t s o f a t r a d i t i o n a l , L-shaped condominium b u i l d i n g t h a t was c o n s t r u c t e d i n 2000 a n d i s d i v i d e d i n t o s e v e r a l units. individual I n c l u d i n g the house, Magnolia Corner c o n s i s t s of e i g h t total units. The house contains a basement. An e x t e r i o r , s t a i r c a s e on t h e e a s t e r n s i d e o f t h e h o u s e p r o v i d e s a c c e s s t o t h e basement. a means o f A drain i s located i n the landing of t h e s t a i r c a s e , r i g h t o u t s i d e t h e basement d o o r . also concrete Another drain i s p o s i t i o n e d i n the middle of the i n t e r i o r p o r t i o n of t h e b a s e m e n t , a n d t h e f l o o r o f t h e basement s l o p e s t o w a r d t h a t drain. Until A p a t i o s i t s appurtenant to the top of the s t a i r c a s e . 2009, t h e p a t i o c o n s i s t e d o f h e x a g o n a l - s h a p e d c o n c r e t e pavers. The constructed patio, stairs, and i n e x i s t e n c e and basement were when GCS p u r c h a s e d already the house. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e basement h a s a p r o p e n s i t y t o f l o o d a f t e r heavy r a i n f a l l . air conditioning, indicates Until although t h a t t h e basement 2010, t h e basement i t contained flooded owned t h e p r o p e r t y . 3 d i d n o t have fans. Testimony a t l e a s t once w h i l e GCS 2110849 GCS established and d e v e l o p e d M a g n o l i a Corner directly a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t f r o m a s e p a r a t e c o n d o m i n i u m c o m p l e x i t owned and o p e r a t e d . 2000 At the time of the f i l i n g of the d e c l a r a t i o n i n and f o r s e v e r a l years prior, GCS owned u t i l i z e d i t as an o f f i c e f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n business. same significant from 2000 to 2003, a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e house i t s ownership of the property. GCS moved i t s o p e r a t i o n s o f i t s condominium and that GCS or p a t i o made a t any point t o A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a , GCS p l a c e d t h e I n September 2003, t h e M u r r a y s e n t e r e d a with GCS The sales contract condition. and i n d i c a t e s undertakings t o p u r c h a s e t h e house contract that Articles of Incorporation i n an "as i s " as of the r i g h t s i n acquiring be s u b j e c t into t h e house describes the "nature of the purchaser S u i t e a r e c o n t r o l l e d and w i l l Condominium, no I n 2003, s h o r t l y a f t e r house f o r s a l e . "Suite" and T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e house remained i n t h e condition during the house a and and owning such to a Declaration of the of Condominium A s s o c i a t i o n , Bylaws o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n , R u l e s and R e g u l a t i o n s of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n , operation owned a n d a management a g r e e m e n t r e g a r d i n g a n d management two u n i t s o f t h e condominium." i n t h e GCS condominium 4 complex the The M u r r a y s across the 2110849 s t r e e t from M a g n o l i a Corner. Further, the record t h a t E d w a r d M u r r a y was a p a s s i v e i n v e s t o r establishes i n GCS. I n December 2003, a f t e r t h e M u r r a y s h a d e n t e r e d i n t o t h e contract with closing, Magnolia declaration GCS t o purchase Corner OA t h e house filed an but before the amendment to the ("the amendment") i n t h e L e e C o u n t y P r o b a t e C o u r t . The amendment s p e c i f i e d t h a t M a g n o l i a C o r n e r was d i v i d e d two buildings. The amendment identified the into L-shaped s t r u c t u r e as " B u i l d i n g One" a n d t h e h o u s e as " B u i l d i n g Two." The amendment concerning modified the ownership section interest 6.01 each of the unit declaration owner had i n M a g n o l i a C o r n e r ' s common e l e m e n t s , w h i c h a l s o c o r r e s p o n d e d t o each owner's p e r c e n t a g e s h a r e o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e common e x p e n s e s incurred by t h e condominium. The amendment s t a t e s t h a t t h e amount o f o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t was b a s e d on t h e square f o o t a g e o f each i n d i v i d u a l u n i t . an i n c r e a s e 1,826.50. The amendment n o t e d i n t h e s q u a r e f o o t a g e o f t h e h o u s e f r o m 1,350 t o Thus, t h e o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n M a g n o l i a C o r n e r o f t h e owner o f t h e house i n c r e a s e d t o 19.58% i n t h e amendment. from 14.7% i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n The amendment p r e s e r v e d 5 Section 2110849 5.11 o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a "common e l e m e n t , " w h i c h s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : " [ A ] l l p o r t i o n s o f t h e Condominium o t h e r than Suites and w i l l include t h e common a r e a s facilities l o c a t e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s shown on P l a n s and P l a t . S u c h common a r e a s w i l l i n c l u d e following: "A. A l l of the Real "B. the and the the Property. A l l improvements and p a r t s o f t h e R e a l Property which are not a S u i t e or P r i v a t e Element. II "E. The mechanical systems and installations providing service to a Building o r any S u i t e , such as e l e c t r i c a l power, g a s , l i g h t , h o t a n d cold water, heating and a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g , s a n i t a r y a n d s t o r m sewer facilities and i n c l u d i n g a l l l i n e s , pipes, ducts, f l u e s , chutes, conduits, c a b l e s , w i r e s and a l l other apparatus and installations in connection therewith, whether located i n the Common E l e m e n t s o r i n t h e S u i t e s , e x c e p t when s i t u a t e d e n t i r e l y w i t h i n a Suite f o r service only of that Suite." Section 8.01 o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t Corner OA] i s responsible f o r maintenance, "[Magnolia repair, and r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e common e l e m e n t s , " was a l s o u n c h a n g e d b y t h e amendment. Paragraph 15 of the 6 amendment modified and 2110849 designated the areas that were t o be considered common e l e m e n t s , " i n c l u d i n g , a s t o t h e h o u s e , "limited the following: "The w a l k w a y a n d s t e p s a b u t t i n g t h e B u i l d i n g Two U n i t l e a d i n g from t h e ground t o t h e basement a r e L i m i t e d Common E l e m e n t s a p p u r t e n a n t t o t h e B u i l d i n g Two U n i t whose u s e i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e B u i l d i n g Two Unit. The maintenance, repair, upkeep and replacement o f t h e walkway and s t e p s a b u t t i n g t h e B u i l d i n g Two U n i t l e a d i n g t o t h e b a s e m e n t s h a l l be t h e e x c l u s i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e Owner o f t h e B u i l d i n g Two U n i t . " Concerning the maintenance amendment stated, o f t h e l i m i t e d common e l e m e n t s , t h e i n pertinent part, that "each r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e replacement, maintenance Owner i s and r e p a i r o f t h e L i m i t e d Common E l e m e n t s , i f a n y , a t t a c h e d t o t h e U n i t o f s a i d owner as p r o v i d e d f o r i n P a r a g r a p h 15 o f t h i s Amendment." p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e element In t h a t t h e p a t i o was c o n s i d e r e d a common of Magnolia Corner. January 2004, amendment, t h e M u r r a y s The Murrays claim amendment u n t i l Corner The OA closed that they i n 2007. subsequent they to on t h e p u r c h a s e d i d not receive r e q u e s t e d a copy The the warranty filing o f t h e house. notice o f i t from deed of the executed of the Magnolia by GCS c o n v e y i n g t h e house t o t h e M u r r a y s , however, r e f e r e n c e d b o t h the d e c l a r a t i o n a n d t h e amendment. 7 2110849 In 2005, following house f l o o d e d . three gallons that a heavy rain, Sandra Murray d i s c o v e r e d of water she removed t h e w a t e r u s i n g M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA I n May of the notified the vac." rain, vendor, located in the Chem-Dry, was stated down t h e testified She d i d not Sharon C o l l e y , discovered Murrays of the contacted a vendor, Roto-Rooter, to a s s i s t drain the flooding. 2006, f o l l o w i n g a h e a v y She flow Mrs. Murray a "shop managed t h e M a g n o l i a C o r n e r p r o p e r t y , basement. of Mrs. Murray f l o o d the p a t i o , s t e p s , and b r i m o v e r i n t o t h e b a s e m e n t . notify basement a p p r o x i m a t e l y two t o i n the basement. she w i t n e s s e d t h e w a t e r that the landing of the retained to extract who water i n the flood. Colley i n u n c l o g g i n g the stairwell. A second the water. Chem- D r y ' s i n v o i c e n o t e d t r e a t m e n t f o r m o l d and m i l d e w , b u t i t d i d not contain any reference to b i l l i n g f o r water extraction. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA p a i d t h e i n v o i c e s s u b m i t t e d by b o t h v e n d o r s . C o l l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t a M a g n o l i a Corner OA meeting following the flooding she received i n s t r u c t i o n s n o t t o b i l l t h e M u r r a y s f o r t h e w o r k p e r f o r m e d by the vendors pending r e s o l u t i o n of the i s s u e responsibility i t was t o pay t h o s e 8 bills. c o n c e r n i n g whose 2110849 In 2008, C o l l e y again following a rainstorm. and contacted extracting discovered As b e f o r e , Chem-Dry the water water i n t h e basement she n o t i f i e d S a n d r a M u r r a y and R o t o - R o o t e r and u n c l o g g i n g f o r assistance the s t a i r w e l l in drain. T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t Chem-Dry removed 650 g a l l o n s o f w a t e r f r o m t h e b a s e m e n t b u t t h a t t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n o f m o l d o r mildew present. The r e c o r d reveals that Magnolia Corner OA p a i d t h e i n v o i c e s s u b m i t t e d by t h e v e n d o r s . A t t h e September 2008 Magnolia Corner OA meeting, t h e owners discussed f l o o d i n g o f t h e house basement, i n c l u d i n g t h e t h e o r y rainwater flowed over the s t a i r w e l l , then i n t o t h e basement. redesign the possibility The patio that that the the landing, and A t t h a t m e e t i n g , t h e owners v o t e d t o outside the p a t i o reconstruction into the the house was t h e s o u r c e of the p a t i o to eliminate the of the f l o o d i n g . d i d n o t commence u n t i l the summer o f 2009. On June 3, 2009, b e f o r e Colley again discovered heavy r a i n s t o r m . t h e work on t h e p a t i o h a d b e g u n , water i n t h e basement following a C o l l e y n o t i f i e d t h e M u r r a y s , and t h e r e a f t e r she contacted Chem-Dry t o e x t r a c t t h e w a t e r . Chem-Dry removed 360 g a l l o n s of water. C o l l e y a l s o contacted 9 Roto-Rooter, who 2110849 discovered t h a t the d r a i n i n the l a n d i n g of the s t a i r c a s e been c l o g g e d . C o l l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r Chem-Dry c o m p l e t e d i t s work, t h e basement f l o o r was dry. M u r r a y s v i s i t e d t h e house f o r t h e flood. had They d i s c o v e r e d On A u g u s t 2, 2009, f i r s t time s i n c e the June 3 t h a t b o x e s i n t h e b a s e m e n t were damp, and t h e y n o t i c e d a m o l d and m i l d e w p r o b l e m . the still Dr. W i l l a r d B l e v i n s of S u n c r e s t L a b o r a t o r i e s i n s p e c t e d the i n t e r i o r of the h o u s e f o r m o l d . Dr. B l e v i n s t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t m o l d grows at l e v e l s of e l e v a t e d h u m i d i t y . He had vent a l l o w i n g no a i r conditioner and no i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e basement conditioned air f r o m t h e u p s t a i r s t o f l o w i n . He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e basement had not one Blevins dehumidifier testified that that the may have existing been conditions running. inside basement r e m a i n e d c o n d u c i v e t o m o l d a m p l i f i c a t i o n and had recommended e n t i r e house. on not the improved control h o u s e had or caulked mold r e m e d i a t i o n , throughout he the and a mold problem because i t properly. ServPro, a vendor, i t i n v o i c e d the work. i n turn sent i t to R e m e d i a t i o n r e q u i r e d t h e basement t o be 10 was performed Murrays f o r the Dr. B l e v i n s s e n t h i s i n v o i c e t o C o l l e y , who the Murrays. that the Dr. B l e v i n s ' s r e p o r t n o t e d t h a t t h e window w e l l f r o n t of the sealed humidity Dr. emptied, 2110849 the walls t o be t o r n down t o t h e s t u d s , removed a t a c o s t o f $8, 573.93. and l i n o l e u m t o be A t t h e September 2009 m e e t i n g o f M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA, t h e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t owners discussed t h e S e r v P r o i n v o i c e . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t C o l l e y i n s i s t e d to S e r v P r o and t o Dr. B l e v i n s t h a t give them p e r m i s s i o n them t o c o n t a c t she h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o t o do t h e work a n d t h a t she i n s t r u c t e d the Murrays. I n t h e summer o f 2009, t h e common p a t i o a r e a o u t s i d e t h e h o u s e was r e c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h e e x p e n s e The o f M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA. h e x a g o n a l p a v e r s were removed a n d a s o l i d concrete pour to a drain. The consisted of a one-foot catch basin with a drain pipe was i n s t a l l e d drain with a l l four sides sloped that d i r e c t e d water t o the s t r e e t . The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n work d i d n o t e l i m i n a t e t h e f l o o d i n g problems. after a I n the f a l l heavy rain. 2009, more w a t e r e n t e r e d On August 25, t h e basement 2011, Sandra Murray d i s c o v e r e d w a t e r i n t h e basement f o l l o w i n g a r a i n s t o r m . water had pooled a hulahoop. The around t h e basement d r a i n t o a s i z e o f about I n September 2011, T r o p i c a l Storm Lee p a s s e d over Auburn. C h a r l i e S t r i n g f e l l o w , t h e p r e s i d e n t o f M a g n o l i a Corner OA, inspected the patio and basement 11 while i t was still 2110849 raining and found that the patio and the stairs S t r i n g f e l l o w t e s t i f i e d t h a t w a t e r p o o l e d i n one landing of the stairwell t h e w a l l on t h e as i f the l e f t s i d e of the R o t o - R o o t e r . The Roto-Rooter w a t e r was stairwell. technician were c o r n e r of seeping Colley of the basement. The the basement d r a i n p i p e had t h a t he had d i s c o v e r e d the through contacted removed a p l u g t h e i n t e r i o r b a s e m e n t d r a i n , and t h e w a t e r i m m e d i a t e l y out dry. from drained t e c h n i c i a n t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l not been c l o g g e d . t h a t w a t e r was He that testified c o m i n g i n t o t h e basement t h r o u g h t h e w a l l o f t h e basement c l o s e s t t o M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , not through stairwell the landing door of the i n t o the the stated large that the d r a i n a g e box to p a t i o and that the of the slope Magnolia for handle from the who has worked i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had the p a t i o r o u g h l y three enough Auburn contractor i n d u s t r y f o r 27 y e a r s , h o u s e and leading the basement. James S m i t h , a g e n e r a l grading basement inspected weeks b e f o r e t r i a l . installed rainwater i n the that patio collects the water i s d i v e r t e d toward the the He is not on the h o u s e due to the of patio. Corner OA condemnation received of a 12 $65,000 portion of from the City condominium 2110849 p r o p e r t y as a r e s u l t o f t h e w i d e n i n g and improvement o f t h e roads the property. adjacent to Section 6.07 of the d e c l a r a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l s u r p l u s funds h e l d by Magnolia C o r n e r OA a r e t o be d i s t r i b u t e d to unit owners a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r a s s e s s m e n t p e r c e n t a g e . S e c t i o n 6.07 s t a t e s a s f o l l o w s : "6.07 Disposition of Surplus. "Each S u i t e s h a l l c a r r y w i t h i t a p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f Common S u r p l u s , a s t h e c a s e may be, a n d t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o f Common S u r p l u s s h a l l be t h e same r a t i o a s t h a t O w n e r s ' p e r c e n t a g e o w n e r s h i p o f t h e Common E l e m e n t s ; o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , s u c h s u r p l u s o r a n y p o r t i o n t h e r e o f may be added t o a reserve fund f o r maintenance, repair, and r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e Common E l e m e n t s , a t t h e s o l e discretion of the Association." At t h e September 18, 2009 M a g n o l i a Corner owners v o t e d t o p l a c e t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n future OA m e e t i n g , t h e funds i n r e s e r v e f o r expenses. On F e b r u a r y 23, 2010, t h e M u r r a y s s u e d M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA i n t h e Lee C i r c u i t Court. The M u r r a y s ' c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n e d counts a l l e g i n g ( 1 ) n e g l i g e n c e and gross n e g l i g e n c e r e l a t i n g to t h e water i n t r u s i o n i n t o t h e basement; ( 2 ) t r e s p a s s on t h e w a t e r f l o w from t h e p a t i o , the basement; ( 3 ) s t r i c t liability down t h e s t a i r s , based and i n t o f o r t h e w a t e r damage; ( 4 ) negligence r e l a t i n g to nondisclosure of the existence of the 13 2110849 amendment; ( 5 ) f r a u d u l e n t concealment ( 6 ) breach of contract f o r f a i l i n g o f t h e amendment; a n d to d i s t r i b u t e the surplus f u n d s ; the M u r r a y s ' complaint a l s o i n c l u d e d a count s e e k i n g a declaratory judgment Before trial, claim. The t r i a l as t o t h e v a l i d i t y t h e Murrays abandoned o f t h e amendment. their strict-liability court held a nonjury t r i a l on t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s on O c t o b e r 10, 2 0 1 1 , a n d O c t o b e r 19, 2 0 1 1 . On December 30, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l Murrays and c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e against Magnolia Corner OA i n t h e amount $20,728.67 f o r n e g l i g e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h e w a t e r i n t r u s i o n the into b a s e m e n t . The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o i n i t i a l l y f o u n d i n f a v o r o f the Murrays relating and of i n part on their to the disbursement ordered that declaratory-judgment o f t h e $65,000 h e l d t h e f u n d s be d i s t r i b u t e d claim i n reserve according to the a s s e s s m e n t p e r c e n t a g e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e amendment. The c o u r t found trespass, f o r Magnolia negligence fraudulent relating Corner to concealment, OA on the claims nondisclosure and b r e a c h of of the of contract. amendment, The court f u r t h e r f o u n d t h a t t h e amendment was n o t v o i d . On J a n u a r y 27, 2012, M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA f i l e d v a c a t e . On A p r i l a motion 25, 2012, t h e t r i a l 14 to alter, amend, o r court vacated a portion 2110849 of t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t c l a i m c o n c e r n i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e $65,000 s u r p l u s f u n d s to state that M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA s h a l l d i s t r i b u t e a n d / o r h o l d i n r e s e r v e t h e s u r p l u s " a s was d e t e r m i n e d b y v o t e t a k e n a t t h e S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009 a n n u a l m e e t i n g of [Magnolia Corner OA]." Both C o r n e r OA a n d t h e M u r r a y s this filed a timely notice of appeal t o court. Standard o f Review "'"When ore tenus evidence is presented, a presumption of correctness e x i s t s a s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on i s s u e s o f f a c t ; i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the e v i d e n c e . J & M B a i l B o n d i n g Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; G a s t o n v. Ames, 514 So. 2d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . When t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a n o n j u r y case e n t e r s a judgment w i t h o u t making s p e c i f i c findings of fact, the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o support the judgment.' Transamerica C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v . AmSouth Bank, 60 8 So. 2d 3 7 5 , 378 ( A l a . 1992) . M o r e o v e r , '[u]nder t h e o r e tenus r u l e , the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and a l l i m p l i c i t f i n d i n g s necessary t o support i t carry a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' T r a n s a m e r i c a , 608 So. 2d at 378. However, when t h e t r i a l court improperly a p p l i e s the law t o [ t h e ] f a c t 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 e x i s t s as t o the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment. A l l s t a t e I n s . 15 Magnolia 2110849 Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; M a r v i n ' s , I n c . v. R o b e r t s o n , 608 So. 2d 391 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ; G a s t o n , 514 So. 2d a t 878; S m i t h v . S t y l e A d v e r t i s i n g , I n c . , 470 So. 2d 1194 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; L e a g u e v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . ' Q u e s t i o n s o f law are not s u b j e c t t o the ore tenus standard of review.' Reed v. B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, 793 n. 2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on l e g a l i s s u e s c a r r y 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 on a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e C a s h , 624 So. 2d 576, 577 ( A l a . 1993). This c o u r t reviews t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o f a c t s de novo. A l l s t a t e , 675 So. 2d a t 379 ('[W]here t h e f a c t s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a r e e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i s p u t e d and the c o n t r o v e r s y i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s o f law for the court to consider, the [ t r i a l ] c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness.')."' " [ F a r m e r s I n s . Co. v. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s A s s o c s . , I n c . , ] 873 So. 2d [252,] 254-55 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. P o s t , 831 So. 2d 622, 627-28 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . " Kellis App. v. E s t a t e of Schnatz, 983 So. 2d 408, 412 (Ala. C i v . 2007). Discussion I. M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA's A p p e a l - N e g l i g e n c e , C o n t r i b u t o r y N e g l i g e n c e , a n d M i t i g a t i o n o f Damages R e l a t i n g t o t h e W a t e r I n t r u s i o n Issue "'To e s t a b l i s h negligence, t h e p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e : (1) a duty t o a foreseeable p l a i n t i f f ; (2) a b r e a c h o f t h a t duty; (3) p r o x i m a t e c a u s a t i o n ; a n d (4) damage o r i n j u r y . ' " M a r t i n v . 16 2110849 Hodges C h a p e l , LLC, 89 So. 3d 756, 762-763 2011) ( q u o t i n g Martin v. A r n o l d , 643 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 564, 567 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n A l b e r t v. Hsu, 602 So. 2d 895, 897 ( A l a . 1992)). On appeal, Magnolia Corner OA fist contends that, i n f i n d i n g t h a t i t was l i a b l e t o t h e M u r r a y s f o r t h e i n t r u s i o n o f the water into incorrectly Murrays. was to Murrays' determined the l e g a l refrain from property. OA cites channeling duty the that landowner lower landowner. So. 2d 606 rainwater In support of cases holding that r e s u l t i n g from surface-water upper basement, trial i t owed court to the M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA a s s e r t s t h a t i t s o n l y l e g a l d u t y Murrays' Corner the this an runoff onto argument, action for the Magnolia damages f l o w i s s u s t a i n a b l e o n l y when an has c h a n n e l e d w a t e r onto the property I n E a s t e r l i n g v. A w t r e y B u i l d i n g C o r p . , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , t h i s court held: " S i n c e i t d e c i d e d W.T. R a t l i f f [ Co. v. H e n l e y , 405 So. 2d 141 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ] , w h i c h i n v o l v e d t h e d e p o s i t o f s a n d and g r a v e l upon a d j a c e n t l a n d , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e c h a n n e l i n g of s u r f a c e water onto a lower p r o p r i e t o r ' s l a n d w i l l s u p p o r t an i n d i r e c t t r e s p a s s c a u s e o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t the p a r t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c h a n n e l i n g . I n Johnson v. W a s h i n g t o n , 474 So. 2d 651 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , t h e p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d t h a t a f t e r the defendant had d e v e l o p e d h i s a d j o i n i n g p r o p e r t y , t h e y h a d begun t o 17 of a 770 2110849 e x p e r i e n c e f l o o d i n g a n d damage t o t h e i r home, a l o n g w i t h s u r f a c e - w a t e r r u n o f f and r e d d i r t coming onto t h e i r l a n d . On a p p e a l f r o m an a d v e r s e j u d g m e n t , t h e defendant contended that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on t h e l a w o f i n d i r e c t t r e s p a s s as s t a t e d i n W.T. R a t l i f f . However, t h e Supreme Court concluded that the t r i a l court's i n s t r u c t i o n concerning i n d i r e c t trespass was n o t e r r o n e o u s , n o t i n g t h a t 'the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t surface w a t e r , r e d d i r t , sand, and o t h e r d e b r i s e n t e r e d onto t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' l a n d . ' 474 So. 2d a t 653 ( e m p h a s i s added). Johnson thus r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e d e p o s i t o f s u r f a c e w a t e r a n d d e b r i s upon l a n d as a r e s u l t o f t h e change o f t h e n a t u r a l t o p o g r a p h y o f a d j a c e n t l a n d w i l l g i v e r i s e t o an i n d i r e c t - t r e s p a s s c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e owner o f t h e a d j o i n i n g l a n d . See a l s o F i s h e r v . Space o f P e n s a c o l a , I n c . , 483 So. 2d 392, 395 ( A l a . 1986) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a t r e s p a s s a c t i o n c a n be m a i n t a i n e d i n a proper case i n v o l v i n g d i r e c t d i v e r s i o n of surface water, but d e c l i n i n g t o apply r u l e because t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s t r e s p a s s c l a i m was v o l u n t a r i l y dismissed before t r i a l ) . " 770 So. 2d a t 609-610. We n o t e t h a t E a s t e r l i n g a n d t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n i n v o l v e d trespass r a t h e r than negligence moreover, this water-runoff interest case cases i s distinguishable because community. The Magnolia that Corner responsibilities M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA a r e s e t f o r t h amendment. from claims; the standard is a common- and duties of i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n and t h e The d e c l a r a t i o n a n d t h e amendment make i t c l e a r Magnolia Corner i s governed pursuant U n i f o r m Condominium A c t o f 1991 ("the A c t " ) t o t h e Alabama codified at Ala. Code 1975 § 38-8A-101 e t s e q . B a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s 18 case, 2110849 M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA owed a d u t y , b o t h u n d e r t h e A c t a n d u n d e r the declaration, the patio, owners' t o m a i n t a i n t h e common e l e m e n t s , t o prevent property. surface Section water from damaging 35-8A-307(a), including the unit A l a . Code 1975, states: "Except t o t h e e x t e n t p r o v i d e d by t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , subsection ( b ) , o r s e c t i o n 3 5 - 8 A - 3 1 3 ( h ) , [ A l a . Code 1975,] the association is responsible for m a i n t e n a n c e , r e p a i r , a n d r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e common e l e m e n t s , a n d e a c h u n i t owner i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r maintenance, r e p a i r , and replacement o f h i s u n i t . E a c h u n i t owner s h a l l a f f o r d t o t h e a s s o c i a t i o n a n d the o t h e r u n i t owners, and t o t h e i r agents o r employees, access through h i s unit reasonably n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e p u r p o s e s . I f damage i s i n f l i c t e d on t h e common e l e m e n t s , o r on a n y u n i t t h r o u g h w h i c h a c c e s s i s t a k e n , t h e u n i t owner r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e damage, o r t h e a s s o c i a t i o n i f i t i s r e s p o n s i b l e , i s l i a b l e f o r t h e prompt r e p a i r t h e r e o f . " The declaration a n d t h e amendment do n o t i n v a l i d a t e o r a l t e r t h i s duty. Section Magnolia Section Corner OA's d u t y t o m a i n t a i n t h e common reaffirms elements. 8.01 s t a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e a s s o c i a t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e maintenance elements." that 8.01 o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , i n f a c t , and repair, Further, Magnolia Corner and Section replacements of the 5.11 o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n OA a l s o has t h e duty for common suggests to maintain the d r a i n a t t h e bottom o f t h e s t a i r w e l l , because "the mechanical systems and i n s t a l l a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g 19 service t o a B u i l d i n g or 2110849 any S u i t e , s u c h a s ... s a n i t a r y a n d s t o r m sewer f a c i l i t i e s a n d including a l l lines, pipes, elements. Magnolia Thus, pursuant Corner common e l e m e n t ducts " are considered common t o t h e A c t and t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , OA owed a d u t y t o prevent water onto t h e Murrays' OA from flowing as a from t h e p a t i o property. Magnolia to maintain the patio erred by against Corner finding that next asserts the evidence i t f o r negligence Specifically, relating that the t r i a l supported to water M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA c o n t e n d s t h e f l o o d i n g o f t h e basement i s a d i s p u t e d a court judgment intrusion. that the source of f a c t and t h a t there i s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p a t i o was t h e source of the f l o o d i n g . I n i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l n o t make any f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . court d i d We must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g m e n t . T r a n s a m e r i c a , 608 So. 2d a t 378. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s evidence determined from that Sandra Murray the which stairwell the t r i a l the patio court could was t h e s o u r c e sufficient have properly of the flooding. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w i t n e s s e d w a t e r f l o w i n g down during a heavy rain i n 2005. She further t e s t i f i e d t h a t " w a t e r t r a c k s " were p r e s e n t on t h e s t a i r s a f t e r 20 2110849 the heavy basement. rains Also, reconstruct the the flooding. reconstruction that precipitated Magnolia Corner p a t i o to e l i m i n a t e Although of the the the OA undertook the patio flooding patio, flooding the a source of after as to the court could r e a s o n a b l y b e e n c o n v i n c e d by t h e t e s t i m o n y o f M u r r a y s ' w i t n e s s t h a t the r e c o n s t r u c t e d p a t i o c o n t i n u e d toward the not stairwell and l a r g e enough t o c a t c h Although Magnolia Corner that the newly i n s t a l l e d presented have expert to d i r e c t water the water flow d u r i n g OA the action continued trial in drain was heavy r a i n s . testimony concerning o t h e r p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f t h e f l o o d i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was in t h e u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o d i r e c t l y o b s e r v e t h e w i t n e s s e s and to a s s e s s t h e i r demeanor and So. 2d 631, 633 credibility. (Ala. 2001). See Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 There i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n the r e c o r d to support the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g of negligence r e l a t i n g to the water i n t r u s i o n . Magnolia erred in not n e g l i g e n t by and Corner OA finding next the asserts Murrays that to f a i l i n g to p r o p e r l y maintain be the trial contributorily the s t a i r w e l l the basement d r a i n . " I t has b e e n s a i d a number o f t i m e s t h a t t h e three elements e s s e n t i a l to c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence 21 court drain 2110849 are that the party charged with contributory negligence (1) h a d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n o r f a i l u r e (2) a p p r e c i a t e d t h e d a n g e r a n d (3) f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e reasonable care i n the premises, b u t w i t h such knowledge and a p p r e c i a t i o n , p u t h i m s e l f i n t o t h e way o f d a n g e r . B a p t i s t M e d i c a l C e n t e r v. B y a r s , 289 A l a . 713, 271 So. 2d 847 [ 1 9 7 2 ] ; Kingsberry Homes C o r p . v. R a l s t o n , 285 A l a . 600, 235 So. 2d 371 [ 1 9 7 0 ] ; F.W. W o o l w o r t h Company v . B r a d b u r y , 273 A l a . 392, 140 So. 2d 824 [ 1 9 6 2 ] ; F o s t e r & C r e i g h t o n Co. v. S t . P a u l M e r c u r y I n d e m n i t y Co., 264 A l a . 5 8 1 , 88 So. 2d 825 [ 1 9 5 6 ] ; M a c k i n t o s h Co. v. W e l l s , 218 A l a . 260, 118 So. 276 [ 1 9 2 8 ] . "Some o f t h e cases cited supra involved a s s u m p t i o n o f r i s k . I n o t h e r s , t h e r e was a s p e c i a l d u t y o f c a r e i m p o s e d upon t h e owner o f t h e p r e m i s e s . However, i t has long been recognized that c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e may a l s o be p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e f a i l u r e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e d a n g e r when t h e r e i s a reasonable opportunity t o do so u n d e r t h e circumstances." A l a b a m a Power Co. v. M o s l e y , 260, 263 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . 294 A l a . 394, 398, 318 So. 2d M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e M u r r a y s appreciated or should t h e danger i n not maintaining the d r a i n a t the bottom of the s t a i r w e l l outside their have appreciated basement d o o r a n d i n n o t u n p l u g g i n g m i d d l e o f t h e basement f l o o r . the drain i n the As s t a t e d , s u p r a , p a r a g r a p h E. o f § 5.11 o f t h e d e c l a r a t i o n i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g w i t h i n t h e definition o f common e l e m e n t s : "The mechanical systems and installations p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e t o a B u i l d i n g , o r t o any S u i t e , s u c h as e l e c t r i c a l power, g a s , l i g h t , h o t a n d c o l d 22 2110849 water, h e a t i n g and a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g , s a n i t a r y and s t o r m sewer f a c i l i t i e s , and i n c l u d i n g a l l l i n e s pipes, ducts, f l u e s , chutes, conduits, cables, wires and a l l other apparatus and i n s t a l l a t i o n s i n c o n n e c t i o n t h e r e w i t h , w h e t h e r l o c a t e d i n t h e Common E l e m e n t s o r i n t h e S u i t e s , e x c e p t when s i t u a t e d e n t i r e l y w i t h i n a Suite f o r service only of that Suite." Pursuant t o paragraph considered to a limited 15 o f t h e amendment, the s t a i r s are common e l e m e n t "whose u s e i s r e s t r i c t e d t h e B u i l d i n g Two U n i t . " The f a c t t h a t the s t a i r s are a l i m i t e d common e l e m e n t u n d e r t h e amendment does n o t n e g a t e t h e fact that the drain classified a s a common declaration. clogging the a t the bottom Magnolia element Corner of the s t a i r w e l l pursuant is t o § 5.11 o f t h e OA h a d k n o w l e d g e o f b o t h t h e o f t h e s t a i r w e l l d r a i n and t h e improper d r a i n i n g o f patio before declaration t h e June 2009 a n d t h e amendment, court event. the Murrays maintain the drain i n the s t a i r w e l l . basement d r a i n , t h e t r i a l rain Under t h e h a d no d u t y t o Concerning the i n t e r i o r c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t i t was p l u g g e d was i r r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e , i t c o u l d have properly still concluded, would property. have had t h i s entered drain been t h e basement operational, and damaged t h e The i s s u e o f t h e M u r r a y s ' c o n t r i b u t o r y was a d i s p u t e d i s s u e o f f a c t , and t h e r e f o r e 23 water negligence the ore tenus r u l e 2110849 applies. the trial S u f f i c i e n t evidence e x i s t s i n the r e c o r d to support court's determination contributorily negligent. that the Murrays were not We w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h i s f i n d i n g on appeal. M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA to m i t i g a t e t h e i r f u r t h e r argues t h a t the Murrays failed damages. "[T]he law i m p o s e s upon a l l p a r t i e s who seek recompense f r o m a n o t h e r a d u t y t o m i t i g a t e t h e i r l o s s e s o r damages. A e t n a L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co. v. L a v o i e , 470 So. 2d 1060 ( A l a . 1984). I t i s e q u a l l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a p l a i n t i f f can r e c o v e r o n l y for t h a t damage o r l o s s t h a t w o u l d have b e e n s u s t a i n e d i f t h e p l a i n t i f f had e x e r c i s e d s u c h c a r e as a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n w o u l d have e x e r c i s e d under l i k e circumstances t o m i t i g a t e t h e damage o r l o s s ( E q u i l e a s e C o r p . v. M c K i n n e y , 52 A l a . App. 109, 289 So. 2d 809 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ) ; and w h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f has s u f f i c i e n t l y m i t i g a t e d t h e damages, g e n e r a l l y speaking, i s a q u e s t i o n of f a c t . C a r n i v a l C r u i s e L i n e s , I n c . v. G o o d i n , 535 So. 2d 98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . " S t a t e d o t h e r w i s e , t h e i n j u r e d o r damaged p a r t y i s l e g a l l y b o u n d t o l e s s e n t h e r e c o v e r a b l e damages so f a r as i s p r a c t i c a b l e by t h e use o f o r d i n a r y c a r e and d i l i g e n c e . Thus, t h e r u l e o f m i t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e s a p a r t y s u f f e r i n g i n j u r y , damage, o r l o s s t o t a k e reasonable steps to reduce i t . "The r u l e o f m i t i g a t i o n f i n d s i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y i n the context of e v i d e n c e from which the f a c t f i n d e r may r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h a t t h e claimant r e j e c t e d a reasonable course of a c t i o n t h a t an o r d i n a r i l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n w o u l d have t a k e n u n d e r similar circumstances to minimize the injury, damage, o r l o s s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g to invoke the rule must meet a threshold 24 2110849 ' s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence' t e s t , l e s t the i s s u e be r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t t h e movant as a m a t t e r o f l a w . The r u l e does n o t a p p l y where t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y , i n an e f f o r t t o m i n i m i z e t h e l o s s , w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o i n c u r c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r s o n a l r i s k or expense w i t h but a s l i g h t c h a n c e o f an a l t e r n a t i v e r e c o v e r y . I d . " A v c o F i n . S e r v s . , I n c . v. Ramsey, 631 So. 2d 940, 942-43 ( A l a . 1994). of The t r i a l c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on t h e i s s u e m i t i g a t i o n o f damages. after the Auburn June 2009 flood, the Murrays i n a reasonably timely M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA come M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA c o n t e n d s t h a t , to inspect someone e l s e failed to come to f a s h i o n t o i n s p e c t the house. argues t h a t , because the Murrays d i d not the house to inspect accumulated i n the house. until t h e house August and earlier, d i d not mold and send mildew B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e , we f i n d this argument t o be u n p e r s u a s i v e . The t r i a l c o u r t h a d b e f o r e i t t h e following e-mail, which M u r r a y s on June 7, was sent by Stringfellow to 2009: " S u b s e q u e n t l y , we n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f the f l o o d i n g you have j u s t e x p e r i e n c e d . T h i s r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r a s s e s s m e n t and e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e i s s u e and w i l l r e q u i r e t h e I n v o l v e m e n t o f a l l home o w n e r s . " A f t e r t a l k i n g w i t h S h a r o n [ C o l l e y ] , we will keep you p o s t e d on what i s b e i n g done. The most u r g e n t i s g e t t i n g w a t e r pumped o u t o f y o u r house and t h i n g s d r i e d o u t w h i c h S h a r o n may a l r e a d y have u n d e r 25 the 2110849 c o n t r o l . Then t h e p r i o r i t y i s t o g e t t h e p a t i o r e c o n s t r u c t e d . We, as w e l l as S h a r o n , w i l l keep you posted." The trial court reasonably could relied have on determined Magnolia that Corner the OA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to handle the water e x t r a c t i o n . Murrays and its F u r t h e r , the t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from Sandra Murray i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the Murrays the flood were u n a b l e t o v i s i t because residence that they had were been t h e house i m m e d i a t e l y busy rebuilding d e s t r o y e d by a their tornado after primary in another county. The negligence submitted disputed to the facts. sufficient count trial Based evidence related court on to the to for water intrusion was a resolution based on evidence presented, there was support the trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n s t h a t M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA b r e a c h e d a d u t y owed t o t h e M u r r a y s , and t h a t t h e M u r r a y s n e i t h e r were contributorily n e g l i g e n t n o r f a i l e d t o m i t i g a t e t h e i r damage. T h e r e f o r e , a f f i r m the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e c o u n t o f n e g l i g e n c e r e l a t i n g t o the i s s u e of the water II. A. we The Murray's intrusion. Cross-Appeal N e g l i g e n c e and F r a u d u l e n t C o n c e a l m e n t R e l a t i n g t o t h e Amendment 26 2110849 The M u r r a y s c o n t e n d on c r o s s - a p p e a l t h a t M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA was o b l i g a t e d t o d i s c l o s e t h e e x i s t e n c e the Murrays at the M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA the Murrays time they purchased fraudulently and n e g l i g e n t l y o f t h e amendment t o the house and that c o n c e a l e d t h e amendment f r o m f a i l e d to d i s c l o s e the existence o f t h e amendment: "To e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f f r a u d u l e n t c o n c e a l m e n t o f a m a t e r i a l f a c t , a p l a i n t i f f must show (1) t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e a m a t e r i a l f a c t , (2) t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n c e a l e d o r f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e a m a t e r i a l f a c t , (3) t h a t t h e defendant's concealment or f a i l u r e to d i s c l o s e the m a t e r i a l f a c t induced the p l a i n t i f f to a c t or to r e f r a i n f r o m a c t i n g , and (4) t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r e d a c t u a l damage as a p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t . S o n i a t v. J o h n s o n - R a s t & Hays, 626 So. 2d 1256 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; see C o r n e l i u s v. A u s t i n , 542 So. 2d 1220, 1223 ( A l a . 1989) . "Mere s i l e n c e i s n o t f r a u d u l e n t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e . A d u t y t o d i s c l o s e may a r i s e from the p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the case, from a c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , or from a r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . H a r d y v. B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 585 So. 2d 29, 32 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; K i n g v. N a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n L i f e I n s . Co., 541 So. 2d 502 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . One may a l s o r e c o v e r f o r f r a u d u l e n t concealment by s h o w i n g active concealment of a m a t e r i a l f a c t w i t h an i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e o r m i s l e a d . § 6-5-103, A l a b a m a Code 1975; S o n i a t v. J o h n s o n - R a s t & Hays; C o r n e l i u s v. A u s t i n ; H a r r e l l v. Dodson, 3 98 So. 2d 272, 276 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . " Dodd v. N e l d a 1293-94 Stephenson Chevrolet, ( A l a . 1993). 27 I n c . , 626 So. 2d 1288, 2110849 "The a q u e s t i o n whether a p a r t y had a duty question Barnett 1074 o f l a w t o be d e t e r m i n e d v. F u n d i n g (Ala. 1999). Plus of America, Our supreme to disclose i s by t h e t r i a l Inc., court court." 740 So. 2d 1069, has e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f a c t o r s t h e t r i a l c o u r t must c o n s i d e r a n d a p p l y i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a duty the p a r t i e s ; the value opportunity to disclose exists: (2) t h e r e l a t i v e of "(1) t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f knowledge o f t h e p a r t i e s ; the p a r t i c u l a r fact; to ascertain the fact; (4) the of the S t a t e Farm F i r e & C a s u a l t y Co. v. Owen, 729 So. 2d 834, 842-43 see a l s o A r m s t r o n g B u s . S e r v s . , plaintiffs' (5) t h e c u s t o m s t r a d e ; a n d (6) o t h e r r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " ( A l a . 1998); I n c . v. AmSouth Bank, 817 So. 2d 665 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . "A d u t y t o c o m m u n i c a t e c a n a r i s e f r o m a c o n f i d e n t i a l relationship between the p l a i n t i f f and t h e defendant, from t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e , o r f r o m a r e q u e s t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t mere s i l e n c e i n t h e absence o f duty t o d i s c l o s e i s n o t fraudulent. " T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h a t w h e t h e r one h a s a d u t y t o s p e a k depends upon a f i d u c i a r y , o r o t h e r , relationship of the p a r t i e s , the value of the particular fact, the r e l a t i v e knowledge o f t h e p a r t i e s , a n d o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e . ... When t h e p a r t i e s t o a t r a n s a c t i o n d e a l w i t h e a c h other a t arm's length, with no confidential 28 (3) 2110849 r e l a t i o n s h i p , no o b l i g a t i o n t o d i s c l o s e i n f o r m a t i o n a r i s e s when t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t r e q u e s t e d . " Mason v. C h r y s l e r C o r p . , The Murrays 653 So. 2d 951, 954-55 assert that, ( A l a . 1995). a l t h o u g h i t was n o t a p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e h o u s e , M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA h a d an o b l i g a t i o n t o c o m m u n i c a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e amendment, a material fact, t o the Murrays. The M u r r a y s c i t e M i l l e r v. M i l l e r ' s L a n d i n g , L.L.C., 29 So. 3d 228 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , i n support of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . In t h a t case, t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d that a common-interest reasonably community i n the exercise of has a duty "'to act i t s discretionary powers, i n c l u d i n g r u l e m a k i n g , enforcement, and d e s i g n - c o n t r o l powers.' The d u t y t o a c t r e a s o n a b l y a l s o a p p l i e s t o t h e power t o amend the d e c l a r a t i o n , o r g o v e r n i n g documents, o f a common-interest community." 29 So. 3d a t 236 ( q u o t i n g § 6.13 a n d c i t i n g § 6.10 (Comment f) Restatement (Third) of Property: (2000)). We n o t e t h a t , u n t i l t h e s a l e o f t h e house was t h e M u r r a y s were n o t members o f M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA. f i n d M i l l e r t o be i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s We trial conclude that, based Servitudes final, Thus, we case. on t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t , t h e c o u r t c o u l d have c o r r e c t l y determined that, under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA d i d n o t have a 29 2110849 duty to disclose Magnolia house Corner OA the existence t h e amendment. First, d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s a l e of the t o the Murrays; rather, of GCS, the developer p r o p e r t y , s o l d t h e house d i r e c t l y t o t h e M u r r a y s . of the See G a u l d e n v. M i t c h e l l , 849 So. 2d 192 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e p a r t y f a i l i n g t o d i s c l o s e i n f o r m a t i o n was n o t t h e s e l l e r ) . Second, t h e s a l e s agreement e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n GCS a n d t h e M u r r a y s r e f e r s t o t h e d e c l a r a t i o n , and t h e g e n e r a l d e e d e x e c u t e d b y GCS s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e s the existence of t h e amendment a n d i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g location The o f t h e amendment w i t h i n t h e p r o b a t e Murrays publicly were p l a c e d recorded on n o t i c e declaration warranty the precise court of the existence a n d amendment. M u r r a y s were f a m i l i a r w i t h a n d h a d e x p e r i e n c e records. of the Further, the i n the workings o f c o n d o m i n i u m s ; t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e M u r r a y s owned two u n i t s o f a n o t h e r condominium complex i n Auburn and t h a t E d w a r d M u r r a y was a p a s s i v e business. that We cannot, t h e judgment i n v e s t o r i n GCS, a condominium b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s i n favor of Magnolia Corner M u r r a y s ' n e g l i g e n c e and f r a u d u l e n t - c o n c e a l m e n t OA hold on t h e claims r e l a t i n g t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e amendment was e r r o n e o u s . 30 case, 2110849 B. The erred Declaratory M u r r a y s c o n t e n d on c r o s s - a p p e a l by initio. Judgment C o n c e r n i n g t h e Amendment failing In t h i s argue t h a t to find portion that of t h e i r that the t r i a l t h e amendment cross-appeal, was court void ab the Murrays t h e amendment i s i n v a l i d b e c a u s e i t i m p o s e s upon them, as owners o f B u i l d i n g Two, an a s s e s s m e n t f o r t h e c o s t o f exterior Ala. repairs to Building One. S e c t i o n 35-8A-315(c)(2), Code 1975, s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , a s f o l l o w s : "(c) To t h e e x t e n t r e q u i r e d by t h e d e c l a r a t i o n : " "(2) Any common e x p e n s e o r p o r t i o n t h e r e o f b e n e f i t i n g f e w e r t h a n a l l o f t h e u n i t s must be assessed exclusively against the units benefited." Per t h e amendment, t h e M u r r a y s ' common e x p e n s e s i s 19.58%. portion o f assessments f o r The M u r r a y s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t b e n e f i t f r o m t h e r e p a i r s t o B u i l d i n g One and, thus, should n o t be o r d e r e d t o p a y a s h a r e o f t h a t a s s e s s m e n t . The M u r r a y s f u r t h e r a s s e r t t h a t t h e y a r e due r e i m b u r s e m e n t f r o m M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA f o r a n y a s s e s s m e n t t h e y may have p a i d where o n l y t h e owners i n B u i l d i n g One were Section limitation benefited. 3 5 - 8 A - 2 1 7 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, e s t a b l i s h e s a t i m e on a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f an amendment t o 31 2110849 a d e c l a r a t i o n of condominium. That s e c t i o n s t a t e s t h a t action the to challenge the validity a s s o c i a t i o n pursuant to t h i s than one reveals year that a f t e r the the of s e c t i o n may recorded P r o b a t e C o u r t i n December 2003. The year limitation amendment a d o p t e d be The the The record Lee County Murrays f i l e d t h i s i n F e b r u a r y 2010, period. in Murrays action w e l l beyond the contend by b r o u g h t more amendment i s r e c o r d e d . " amendment was over s i x years l a t e r , an "[n]o that one- because M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA f r a u d u l e n t l y c o n c e a l e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f amendment from statutory period should t o l l e d p u r s u a n t t o § 6-2-3, A l a . Code 1975. That be statute the Murrays, the one-year the states: " I n a c t i o n s s e e k i n g r e l i e f on t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d where t h e s t a t u t e has c r e a t e d a b a r , t h e c l a i m must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g a c c r u e d u n t i l t h e discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d , a f t e r w h i c h he must have two years w i t h i n which to prosecute h i s a c t i o n . " As discussed, supra, f r a u d u l e n t l y conceal hold that barred, the we h o l d t h a t M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e amendment. Murrays' challenge to the did not Thus, we amendment i s and we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n that amendment i s v a l i d . C. Weight of V o t i n g & Breach of the 32 time- Declaration the 2110849 The Murrays cross-appeal. failing to weighted raise They c o n t e n d find that according find the to i n d i v i d u a l u n i t and to two additional (1) t h a t t h e t r i a l vote the of to however, (2) t h a t t h e t r i a l distribute have each failed surplus to cite unit assessment t h a t M a g n o l i a C o r n e r OA failing arguments any their claim consideration "[t]his presented Asam v. court and for of breach the will of It only f o r which supporting Devereaux, 686 So. 2d of i t held. The substantiate precludes well those our settled that issues properly 1224 (Ala. cited." Civ. 1996) . " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] requires t h a t arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s of f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s . Ltd. P'ship, 849 So. 2d 914, 923 ( A l a . 2002); A r r i n g t o n v. M a t h i s , 929 So. 2d 468, 470 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m .App. 2 0 0 2 ) . ' T h i s i s s o , b e c a u s e " ' i t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make and a d d r e s s l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s 33 by Murrays, a u t h o r i t y has b e e n 1222, failing claims, including This is be each declaration a u t h o r i t y to arguments. i s to court erred i n contract. address owner percentage t h e s e a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l t o s u p p o r t t h e i r their court erred i n breached the funds in App. 2110849 not supported by sufficient authority or a r g u m e n t . ' " ' Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " White 1058 Sands Group, ( A l a . 2008). L.L.C. v. PRS I I , LLC, Thus, we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l 998 So. 2d 1042, c o u r t ' s judgment on t h e s e m a t t e r s . Conclusion For trial the reasons set forth c o u r t i s due t o be APPEAL t h e judgment of the affirmed. AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL Thompson, above, AFFIRMED P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 34 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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

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