CAM Investments, LLC v. Charles Totty, Jr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110977 CAM Investments, LLC v. Charles T o t t y , J r . Charles T o t t y , J r . v. CAM Investments, LLC Appeals from Elmore C i r c u i t (CV-12-33) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . CAM I n v e s t m e n t s , LLC, appeals f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t i n favor of Charles Totty, J r . ,i n i t s breach-of-contract action 2110977 against Totty. Totty attorney-fee claim cross-appeals pursuant to from the the denial Alabama of h i s Litigation A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ("ALAA"), § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. We also affirm affirm attorney-fee t h e summary judgment the circuit court's order denying Following hail Totty's Background damage t o h i s r o o f , Totty received from homeowner's i n s u r e r a c h e c k i n t h e amount o f $8,812.29 f o r replacement of the roof. the roof damage with On A p r i l Chuck 12, 2010, Isbell, then Totty an discussed employee A m e r i c a n S h i n g l e & S i d i n g , I n c . ( " A S S I " ) , and c o n t r a c t e d ASSI t o r e p l a c e t h e r o o f . to Totty endorsed the insurance of with check ASSI. In ASSI June 2010, Amber M c M u l l e n and f o r m e d a new left her r o o f i n g company, CAM employment h i r e d other former ASSI employees, Aboveboard. undertaken explained stated any that that he Isbell, work he on with I n v e s t m e n t s , LLC, d o i n g b u s i n e s s as A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g ( " A b o v e b o a r d " ) . for we claim. F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l his i n favor of Totty; McMullen including Isbell, t o work was aware had Totty's roof, who had left "would see that contacted h i s employment to 2 i t " that ASSI with Totty's not Totty, ASSI, and roof was 2110977 r e p l a c e d by Aboveboard. he Totty subsequently wished t o cancel h i s roof-replacement and receive a refund d e l i v e r e d t o ASSI. of the insurance n o t i f i e d ASSI t h a t contract with proceeds ASSI t h a t he h a d I s b e l l and T o t t y then o r a l l y agreed that Aboveboard would r e p l a c e t h e r o o f and I s b e l l would t u r n over to Aboveboard the refund he received A b o v e b o a r d an a d d i t i o n a l $78 9 cost of the roof replacement from ASSI and pay t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a n d t h e amount o f t h e ASSI refund. ASSI sent Totty a l e t t e r of t h e c o n t r a c t and s t a t i n g acknowledging the c a n c e l l a t i o n that "a r e f u n d i n t h e amount o f $8,812.29 w i l l be made o u t t o you a n d y o u r m o r t g a g e company." Totty informed Isbell, I s b e l l t h a t A S S I h a d a g r e e d t o make t h e r e f u n d . i n t u r n , informed soon as [ T o t t y ] get[s] M c M u l l e n t h a t T o t t y w o u l d p a y "as [his] refund" and s t a t e d t h a t h o p e d t h e r e f u n d w o u l d a r r i v e w i t h i n two weeks. 2010, Isbell prepared a work order/invoice T o t t y ' s payment was "due a f t e r r e f u n d The parties agree that ASSI Isbell On J u l y 20, stating that from ASSI." became insolvent, sought b a n k r u p t c y p r o t e c t i o n , and never i s s u e d a r e f u n d t o T o t t y and t h a t T o t t y d i d n o t make any payments t o A b o v e b o a r d o t h e r $789. The parties disagree about 3 whether the than signature 2110977 purporting t o be t h a t o f T o t t y on t h e work order/invoice i s genuine. In September D i s t r i c t Court, install a pay the sued T o t t y i n the Elmore a l l e g i n g t h a t i t had c o n t r a c t e d w i t h T o t t y t o new satisfactorily to 2011, A b o v e b o a r d roof on Totty's residence, that i t c o m p l e t e d t h e work, b u t t h a t T o t t y h a d contract price. The district court had failed entered a judgment i n f a v o r o f T o t t y ; A b o v e b o a r d a p p e a l e d t o t h e E l m o r e Circuit Court f o r a t r i a l de novo. T o t t y moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . motion, affidavit 2010, Totty submitted a brief, his o f I s b e l l , and a c a n c e l e d Totty claimed work o r d e r / i n v o i c e was work order/invoice agreement affidavit with a forgery, on the behalf he affidavit, signature terms on the that the of h i s Aboveboard. 8, $789. oral Totty's i n pertinent part: "The work o r d e r p r e p a r e d by Chuck I s b e l l clearly i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e x p e c t e d payment t o A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g w o u l d be 'due a f t e r r e f u n d f r o m [ A S S I ] . ' " I h a d no d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h anyone r e p r e s e n t i n g A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g , o t h e r t h a n Chuck I s b e l l . My o r a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h Chuck I s b e l l c o n s i s t e d o n l y o f 4 the September acknowledged actual of of t h a t i n t h e amount o f h i s purported reflected Isbell states, that own check dated and made p a y a b l e t o A b o v e b o a r d Although In support 2110977 an a g r e e m e n t t h a t I w o u l d t u r n o v e r a n y r e f u n d c h e c k from American S h i n g l e and pay t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n c o s t s i n t h e amount o f $789.00, w h i c h I d i d . ... The o r a l a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n me a n d Chuck I s b e l l as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g was t h e t o t a l a g r e e m e n t . A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g assumed t h e r i s k t h a t t h e r e f u n d w o u l d n o t be f o r t h c o m i n g . "... [ T ] h e work o r d e r r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t t h a t [ A b o v e b o a r d ] r e l i e d on t h e r e f u n d c h e c k f r o m [ASSI] i n p u t t i n g t h e r o o f on o u r home. I agreed t o sign over the refund check from [ASSI] t o t h e new o r g a n i z a t i o n composed o f f o r m e r e m p l o y e e s o f [ A S S I ] , but d i d n o t agree t o pay a n y t h i n g e l s e , except t h e $789 o v e r a g e w h i c h I p a i d on S e p t e m b e r 8, 2010." Isbell's affidavit states: "My name i s Chuck I s b e l l . I am a f o r m e r employee of [ASSI], a now-defunct national c o r p o r a t i o n engaging i n the business of roof r e p a i r . D u r i n g my employment w i t h [ A S S I ] , I met C h a r l e s T o t t y , J r . , a n d e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h h i m on b e h a l f o f [ASSI] f o r t h e r e p a i r o f t h e r o o f on h i s home f o l l o w i n g h a i l damage. A c h e c k i n t h e amount o f $8,812.29 was i s s u e d b y Mr. T o t t y ' s insurance company a n d d e l i v e r e d t o [ASSI] i n payment f o r t h e r o o f . However, [ASSI] n e v e r d i d t h e r o o f i n g work. Mr. T o t t y c a n c e l e d h i s c o n t r a c t w i t h [ASSI] a n d r e q u e s t e d a r e f u n d o f t h e amount o f t h e c h e c k t h a t h a d b e e n i s s u e d b y h i s i n s u r a n c e company. [ASSI] f i l e d f o r bankruptcy. " [ A S S I ] f a i l e d t o i n s t a l l many r o o f s t h a t i t a g r e e d t o r e p l a c e . I l e f t t h e employment o f [ASSI] and went t o work f o r CAM I n v e s t m e n t s w h i c h d i d b u s i n e s s as A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g . CAM I n v e s t m e n t s was o r g a n i z e d b y Amber M c M u l l e n a f t e r [ASSI] b e g a n t o d e f a u l t on c o n t r a c t s . A number o f f o r m e r e m p l o y e e s o f [ASSI] went t o work f o r A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g . I t a c t u a l l y r e p l a c e d a number o f r o o f s t h a t [ASSI] h a d a g r e e d t o r e p l a c e , a f t e r [ASSI] d e f a u l t e d . 5 2110977 "When I l e a r n e d t h a t Mr. T o t t y ' s r o o f h a d n o t been r e p l a c e d by [ A S S I ] , I g o t i n t o u c h w i t h him. I t o l d him t h a t Aboveboard Roofing would r e p l a c e h i s r o o f . I saw a c o p y o f a l e t t e r f r o m [ASSI] a g r e e i n g t o c a n c e l t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h Mr. T o t t y a n d r e f u n d h i s insurance money. I p r e p a r e d a work o r d e r f o r A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g t o r e p l a c e Mr. T o t t y ' s r o o f . Mr. T o t t y d i d n o t s i g n t h a t work o r d e r . (See E x h i b i t A attached hereto). I was t h e o n l y p e r s o n from A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g who d e a l t w i t h Mr. T o t t y i n p e r s o n . I s e n t an e m a i l t o Amber M c M u l l e n t e l l i n g h e r a b o u t t h e r e f u n d f r o m [ASSI] (See E x h i b i t B attached hereto). Mr. T o t t y ' s o n l y o b l i g a t i o n was t o t u r n o v e r t h e r e f u n d c h e c k f r o m [ASSI] a n d t o p a y a s m a l l amount o f money. "Mr. Totty f u l f i l l e d a l l h i s obligations to A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g . A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g assumed t h e r i s k t h a t [ASSI] w o u l d n o t make t h e a g r e e d r e f u n d . " Aboveboard motion, arguing to a contract filed a response i n opposition that assumption of the r i s k claim and a t t a c h i n g to Totty's i s not a defense the a f f i d a v i t o f Amber McMullen, which s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " I n e a r l y 2010, Chuck I s b e l l was e m p l o y e d b y [ A b o v e b o a r d ] as an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r t o s e l l roofs. On o r a b o u t J u l y 20, 2010, Mr. I s b e l l c o n t r a c t e d w i t h C h a r l e s T o t t y t o r e p l a c e a r o o f on Mr. T o t t y ' s home "Aboveboard R o o f i n g proceeded w i t h r e p l a c i n g t h e r o o f on Mr. T o t t y ' s home. Mr. T o t t y l o d g e d no complaint and never gave n o t i c e t o A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g t h a t he f a i l e d t o p r o c u r e t h e r e f u n d f r o m [ A S S I ] . Mr. T o t t y f a i l e d t o p u r s u e a r e f u n d f r o m [ASSI] b e y o n d r e c e i v i n g t h e r e f u n d l e t t e r a n d u r g e d Aboveboard R o o f i n g t o complete the p r o j e c t under t h e 6 2110977 p r o m i s e o f payment. To d a t e , Mr. T o t t y h a s r e c e i v e d a new r o o f a n d has o n l y p a i d $789.00 t o A b o v e b o a r d R o o f i n g . Mr. T o t t y f u r t h e r made s t a t e m e n t s t o Mr. I s b e l l t h a t t h e r e f u n d was f o r t h c o m i n g a n d t h a t i t w o u l d be f o r w a r d e d when r e c e i v e d . " On May 16, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f T o t t y t h a t d i d n o t a d j u d i c a t e T o t t y ' s ALAA c l a i m ; on June 13, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r denying Totty's ALAA claim, judgment o f t h a t c o u r t . 384, thereby amending See C a s e y v . M c C o n n e l l , 388-89 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . notice of appeal, timely and T o t t y f i l e d The expressly the 975 So. 2d Aboveboard f i l e d a t i m e l y a timely cross-appeal. Appeal Standard o f Review We r e v i e w standard a summary j u d g m e n t de novo, a p p l y i n g t h e same of review Westhampton C o u r t , as t h e t r i a l court applied. L.L.C., 903 So. 2d 82, 87 Turner v. (Ala. 2004). A m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i s t o be g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a facie showing material fact "that there and t h a t matter of law." i s no genuine issue as t o any [ i t ] i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; s e e Lee v . C i t y 7 o f Gadsden, 2110977 592 So. 2d 1036, 1038 ( A l a . 1992). I f t h e movant meets this b u r d e n , " t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o r e b u t movant's p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g by ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . ' " 592 So. 2d evidence minded persons proved." 2d 1038 (footnote omitted). i s e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and reasonably So. at i n the infer the Lee, "[S]ubstantial quality exercise of impartial existence of the that fair- judgment fact sought can to West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989); see § the 12-21-12(d), be 547 A l a . Code 1975. Discussion Aboveboard entering says, a there whether argues summary that judgment were g e n u i n e Totty (a) had the i n favor issues signed of f a c t r e g a r d i n g work We material because was Totty Totty of m a t e r i a l erred in because, i t fact concerning and (b) f r o m ASSI and p a y t h e b a l a n c e a g r e e t h a t t h e r e was whether order/invoice of court t h e work o r d e r / i n v o i c e had a d u t y t o o b t a i n the r e f u n d due t o A b o v e b o a r d . circuit Totty's purported genuine, admitted but that that a disputed signature issue the terms issue on t h e was not o f t h e work o r d e r / i n v o i c e r e f l e c t e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e o r a l agreement he h a d reached with I s b e l l on b e h a l f of Aboveboard. 8 A b o v e b o a r d' s 2110977 argument t h a t T o t t y had the balance question, due to Aboveboard does factual and fact, namely: contract that Totty's a mixed q u e s t i o n of the term i n the parties' payment was "due after not refund from law turn ASSI" c o n d i t i o n precedent to Totty's duty to on pay a on whether but a d u t y t o o b t a i n t h e r e f u n d and constituted a pay. A c o n d i t i o n precedent i s " ' [ a ] n a c t or event, other than a l a p s e o f t i m e , t h a t must e x i s t or occur before a duty perform something promised a r i s e s . ' " L.L.C. v. (Ala. HLH 2010) 2004)). Lemoine Co. o f A l a b a m a , C o n s t r u c t o r s , I n c . , 62 (quoting Black's Law to So. 3d 1020, 1025 n.5 312 (8th ed. Dictionary Because the f a i l u r e of the o c c u r r e n c e of a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , see W i n k l e b a c k v. Murphy, 811 So. 2d 521, 529 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., T o t t y bore "'"the burden of making a prima f a c i e showing that [he summary this was] entitled defense." 2004) 909 to Richardson v. Terry, judgment"' based 893 277, So. 2d ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , on 285 769 So. 2d ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B e r n e r v. C a l d w e l l , 2d 686, 691 By Isbell ( A l a . 1989) submitting his (Ala. 543 903, So. (Houston, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) ) ) . own affidavit and the affidavit b o t h of w h i c h a s s e r t e d t h a t Aboveboard had 9 of assumed 2110977 the r i s k t h a t ASSI would not i s s u e a r e f u n d t o T o t t y Totty s a t i s f i e d h i s burden of making a prima f a c i e showing t h a t "due-after-refund" p r o v i s i o n of the condition precedent submitted no rebut that to Totty's evidence, much duty less to c o n t r a c t was pay. Aboveboard s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, pay in or, mechanisms Kruger, supreme construction rather, contracts, whether f o r payment. Inc., court contractor to c o n s t r u i n g "pay-when-paid" in which the issue whether such c l a u s e s c r e a t e c o n d i t i o n s precedent t o the to a showing. This case i s s i m i l a r to cases clauses parties' the 829 So. See, 2d construed t o pay they e.g., 732 a c o n s t i t u t e merely Federal ( A l a . 2002) . clause a subcontractor Ins. w i t h i n 30 duty timing Co. v. In Kruger, requiring the days is I. our general after the owner's f i n a l payment t o t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r t o be a t i m i n g mechanism r a t h e r t h a n pay. The a c o n d i t i o n precedent c o u r t posed the to the duty following question: "Can i t be r e a s o n a b l y supposed, w i t h o u t express evidence i n support thereof, that [the general c o n t r a c t o r ] and [ t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ] e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h [ t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ] was e x p e c t e d t o p e r f o r m a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f work and t o p r o v i d e a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f m a t e r i a l s u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e s u b c o n t r a c t , w i t h o u t an a b s o l u t e a g r e e m e n t f r o m [ t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r ] t o pay [ t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r ] f o r i t s s e r v i c e s and m a t e r i a l s ? We 10 to 2110977 t h i n k n o t , and n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t [the s u b c o n t r a c t o r ] a g r e e d t o assume t h e r i s k o f nonpayment by t h e [owner] f o r e v e n t s completely o u t s i d e i t s c o n t r o l or i n f l u e n c e . " Kruger, 829 So. 2d at 739 (emphasis added). In Kruger, our supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p a y - w h e n - p a i d c l a u s e was § 227 s u p p o r t e d by t h e R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f (1981), which s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t Contracts part: "'(1) I n r e s o l v i n g d o u b t s as t o w h e t h e r an e v e n t i s made a c o n d i t i o n o f an o b l i g o r ' s d u t y , and as t o t h e n a t u r e o f s u c h an e v e n t , an interpretation is p r e f e r r e d t h a t w i l l reduce the o b l i g e e ' s r i s k of f o r f e i t u r e , u n l e s s the event i s w i t h i n the o b l i g e e ' s c o n t r o l o r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n d i c a t e t h a t he has assumed t h e r i s k . ' " K r u g e r , 829 So. 2d a t 739. The court f u r t h e r noted that, " [ u ] n d e r § 227, t h e p r e f e r r e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r t h e pay-when-paid clause contained in the ... subcontract i s one t h a t m i n i m i z e s the risk of forfeiture to [the subcontractor], unless the circumstances indicate that [the subcontractor] assumed t h e r i s k o f nonpayment. As s t a t e d a b o v e , nothing in the record indicates that [the s u b c o n t r a c t o r ] assumed s u c h a r i s k . " Id. at 739-40. In the indicating present case, Totty that he and submitted "express Isbell, as a representative A b o v e b o a r d , u n d e r s t o o d t h a t A b o v e b o a r d had t h a t ASSI might not issue W a t t s & Sons C o n t r a c t o r s , a refund to assumed t h e Totty. I n c . v. N a b o r s , 484 11 evidence" Cf. So. of risk James 2d 373, E. 374 2110977 (Ala. 1985) contractor paid (holding that p r o v i s i o n i n o r a l contract and until Rainsville subcontractor after was a that subcontractor contractor condition had been paid precedent would not be the of by because between City subcontractor " t e s t i f i e d t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d when he went on t h e job t h a t w o u l d n o t be p a i d u n t i l [ i t s ] money from the It received City"). is difficult assumed t h e it [the c o n t r a c t o r ] he r i s k of the apparently Restatement t o u n d e r s t a n d why had no A b o v e b o a r d w o u l d have o c c u r r e n c e of a c o n d i t i o n over which control. See (Second) o f C o n t r a c t s , Comment b. to § 227, which s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "When ... t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i s s u c h t h a t t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i s n o t l i k e l y t o be r e s o l v e d u n t i l a f t e r t h e o b l i g e e has r e l i e d by p r e p a r i n g t o p e r f o r m or by performing at least i n part, he risks f o r f e i t u r e . I f t h e e v e n t i s w i t h i n h i s c o n t r o l , he w i l l o f t e n assume t h i s r i s k . I f i t i s n o t w i t h i n h i s c o n t r o l , i t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y u n u s u a l f o r him to assume the risk that, in case of doubt, an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s p r e f e r r e d under which the event i s n o t a c o n d i t i o n . The r u l e i s , o f c o u r s e , s u b j e c t t o a s h o w i n g o f a c o n t r a r y i n t e n t i o n , and e v e n w i t h o u t c l e a r l a n g u a g e , c i r c u m s t a n c e s may show t h a t he assumed t h e r i s k o f i t s n o n - o c c u r r e n c e . " (Emphasis added.) clearly, and Nevertheless, unequivocally they agree t h a t the " ' [ i ] f two p a r t i e s k n o w i n g l y , enter respective 12 into liability an agreement whereby of the p a r t i e s will 2110977 be determined by some type of agreed-upon Alabama law w i l l p e r m i t the enforcement written.'" (US), I n c . v. 2009)). of L e m o i n e Co., We, Ohio 62 Cas. therefore, So. 3d I n s . Co., then o f t h a t a g r e e m e n t as a t 1025 38 formula, So. (quoting Holcim 3d 722, 729 (Ala. a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Totty. The "[W]hen stating the trial i t s reasons, Cross-Appeal court this denies an court w i l l ALAA claim without r e v e r s e o n l y when the r e c o r d shows i n d i s p u t a b l y t h a t t h e ' a c t i o n , c l a i m , o r d e f e n s e ' is either 'groundless i n f a c t , ' So. 2d 321 ( A l a . C i v . App. Sanderson App. Group[, 2001)]." 3d 510, 517 I n c . v. see B r a s h e a r v. S p i n k s , 1993)], or 'groundless i n law,' Smith, 809 So. 2d 823 2009). see (Ala. Civ. Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p . Owners A s s ' n , 52 ( A l a . C i v . App. [623 So. B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t , when A b o v e b o a r d f i l e d i t s b r e a c h of-contract action against Totty i n the district court a p p e a l e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s a d v e r s e judgment t o t h e c o u r t , t h e a c t i o n was in law. action court's Indeed, i n the u n l e s s Aboveboard to circuit e i t h e r groundless i n f a c t or groundless district judgment or knew, when i t f i l e d c o u r t or appealed the circuit 13 court, from the the substance the district of 2110977 Isbell's rather unexpected b e h a l f of Aboveboard, affidavit testimony that he, on h a d assumed t h e r i s k t h a t A S S I w o u l d not i s s u e a r e f u n d t o T o t t y (and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t A b o v e b o a r d w o u l d not be paid materials in the Aboveboard. contract price for Totty's replacing l i t i g a t i o n would, of full the most l i k e l y , We, therefore, roof), i t s labor result of and this have b e e n a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r a f f i r m the t r i a l court's order d e n y i n g T o t t y ' s m o t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. T o t t y r e q u e s t s an a w a r d o f damages and Rule 38, A l a . R. App. P. 1 That request fees pursuant i s granted in to the amount o f $1,000. APPEAL AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Thomas and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, 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 writing. D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t § 12-19-276, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e p r o v i s i o n s o f [ t h e ALAA] a r e c u m u l a t i v e and i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e damages w h i c h may be a w a r d e d f o r a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 38, A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e , " T o t t y does n o t r e q u e s t an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. C f . Sam v. B e a i r d , 685 So. 2d 742 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; and Fox v. M u r r e l l , 622 So. 2d 386 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . 1 14

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.