JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Margaret Bradshaw et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/05/2013 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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 , 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110999 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Margaret Bradshaw e t a l . Appeal from R u s s e l l C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-18) PITTMAN, J u d g e . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), appealed to Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f i t s m o t i o n , pursuant t o Rule 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r r e l i e f judgment of the Russell Circuit Court entered the filed from a i n favor of 2110999 M a r g a r e t B r a d s h a w and P a m e l a Ann H a g l e r on A p r i l 5, 2011. supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , to § 12-2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975. We r e v e r s e and The pursuant remand. On November 23, 2010, K a t h y Kane, a c t i n g p r o s e , f i l e d a complaint in Bradshaw and the Russell Hagler District were wrongfully Circle l o c a t e d on K a t h l e e n i n Phenix Kane a s s e r t e d , she h a d p u r c h a s e d B r i s b i n M. Court, occupying City a Hagler, that dwelling property f r o m D e b o r a h A. S k i l e s on June 29, 2009. s e , f i l e d an a n s w e r , d e n y i n g alleging that, Skiles and also acting pro the m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s of the c o m p l a i n t and a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e K a t h l e e n C i r c l e p r o p e r t y h a d been t h e home she h a d s h a r e d w i t h h e r h u s b a n d , B r i s b i n and their husband's two m i n o r c h i l d r e n girlfriend; and s i n c e 1998; that a t h a t Kane was court had awarded K a t h l e e n C i r c l e p r o p e r t y t o H a g l e r and h e r c h i l d r e n on 16, 2009. F o l l o w i n g a hearing, the d i s t r i c t the complaint. a trial In Skiles, her the January court dismissed Kane a p p e a l e d t o t h e R u s s e l l C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r de n o v o . the circuit proceeded pro se. court, Kane, Hagler, and Bradshaw B r a d s h a w moved t o d i s m i s s Kane's c o m p l a i n t , a t t a c h i n g a January 16, 2009, o r d e r t h a t h a d been e n t e r e d i n 2 2110999 a protection-from-abuse proceeding t h a t Hagler had i n s t i t u t e d against Brisbin Skiles i n the Russell Family f a m i l y c o u r t ' s 2009 o r d e r h a d d e t e r m i n e d , t h a t Hagler and B r i s b i n two minor children Court. The among o t h e r t h i n g s , S k i l e s had l i v e d together w i t h at the Kathleen Circle property their f o r 12 y e a r s a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e H a g l e r was in j a i l a n d S k i l e s was l i v i n g had awarded Skiles custody t o pay c h i l d i n Florida. of the children support; The f a m i l y c o u r t t o Hagler; had p l a c e d had ordered the children B r a d s h a w w h i l e H a g l e r was i n c a r c e r a t e d ; h a d "awarded with [Hagler] e x c l u s i v e possession of the [Kathleen C i r c l e property] f o r her use a n d t h e u s e o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r s o f the c o u r t " ; and had s e t t h e case f o r f u r t h e r review a f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f home s t u d i e s . The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d B r a d s h a w ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d conducted a b e n c h t r i a l on A p r i l 4, 2 0 1 1 . A t t h a t t r i a l , presented a warranty Kane d e e d , d a t e d June 29, 2009, f r o m B r i s b i n M. S k i l e s , a s i n g l e man, a n d D e b o r a h A. S k i l e s , a s i n g l e woman (who was apparently conveying the Kathleen presented an a instrument former Circle wife property evidencing 3 of Brisbin Skiles), to her. She a l s o h e r mortgage of the 2110999 p r o p e r t y t o Amerisave Mortgage C o r p o r a t i o n ("Amerisave"). circuit and t h e court admitted those documents, The following occurred: "THE COURT: A l lright. making a l l your payments? Now, have y o u been "MS. KANE: Y e s . "THE COURT: A n d y o u make y o u r payments t o whom? "MS. KANE: To C h a s e . "THE COURT: A n d t h i s i s t h e m o r t g a g e ? "MS. KANE: C o r r e c t . A n d I have a l e t t e r f r o m Chase s h o w i n g t h a t I ' v e p a i d s i n c e A u g u s t 2009, a n d I'm p r e s e n t l y s t i l l p a y i n g . T h i s j u s t i s a c t i v i t y t h r o u g h June o f 2010. I j u s t a s k e d them t o p r i n t o u t a l l my p a y m e n t s up t o t h a t p o i n t . "THE COURT: Okay. Now, have payments s i n c e t h e n , a s w e l l ? y o u been making "MS. KANE: Y e s , I am, a n d I'm up t o d a t e payments. "THE COURT: A l l right." The c o u r t t h e n a s k e d H a g l e r "how [she] c l a i m e d rights t o the [Kathleen t h a t she a n d B r i s b i n Circle] Skiles no d i v o r c e Russell Family judgment Court property." possessory Hagler had l i v e d together t h a t she h a d f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t that on my asserted f o r 13 y e a r s , f o r a d i v o r c e from S k i l e s b u t h a d been had awarded 4 rendered, and t h a t t h e her possession of the 2110999 Kathleen January had Circle The c i r c u i t 16, 2009, f a m i l y - c o u r t o r d e r received "until property. only "temporary f u r t h e r orders settlement." court and s t a t e d t h a t possession" of the court" The f o l l o w i n g t h e n reviewed the Hagler of the property not a " f i n a l property occurred: "THE COURT: L e t me a s k Ms. H a g l e r a question, p l e a s e , b e c a u s e t h i s w h o l e t h i n g b o i l s down t o one i s s u e . Were y o u , i n d e e d , a t one t i m e common l a w m a r r i e d t o Mr. S k i l e s ? "MS. HAGLER: Y e s , sir. "THE COURT: A n d t h a t ' s t h e i s s u e . "MS. HAGLER: Y e s , sir. "THE COURT: A n d [ t h e R u s s e l l F a m i l y C o u r t j u d g e ] made a f i n d i n g o f f a c t t h a t y ' a l l h a d l i v e d t o g e t h e r [on] K a t h l e e n C i r c l e . He f u r t h e r made a f i n d i n g o f f a c t , I t h i n k you had been t o g e t h e r , d i d n ' t I see somewhere i n h e r e , f o r 12 y e a r s ? "MS. HAGLER: Y e s , "THE together? COURT: sir. When did y'all start living "MS. HAGLER: I n '98." After questioning Hagler, the c i r c u i t court announced i t s r u l i n g from t h e bench: " I f , i n d e e d , and i t appears here t h a t [the R u s s e l l F a m i l y Court judge] found t h a t [Hagler and S k i l e s ] were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r ... w h i c h means t h a t t h e y were common l a w , t h e o n l y way t o s e v e r t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p 5 2110999 is with a divorce. Consequently, [Hagler] had h o m e s t e a d r i g h t s . Mr. S k i l e s ... d i d n o t have t h e power t o t r a n s f e r [ t h e K a t h l e e n C i r c l e ] p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t Ms. H a g l e r ' s s i g n a t u r e . Now, [Ms. Kane,] y o u ' v e g o t a f r a u d u l e n t t r a n s f e r t o you i s my r u l i n g h e r e , so you may want t o g e t you an a t t o r n e y and see what y o u ' r e g o i n g t o do a b o u t i t . B u t b a s e d on what I have i n f r o n t o f me, I'm g o i n g t o have t o r u l e f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s c a s e , Ms. B r a d s h a w and Ms. Hagler. A l l r i g h t . You have 42 days t o a p p e a l . Thank y o u . " On A p r i l 5, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n favor o f H a g l e r and Bradshaw t h a t f a c t or c o n c l u s i o n s of law. this c o u r t from t h a t January 6, Bradshaw 2012, c o n t a i n e d no judgment. We a f f i r m e d the judgment without issuing Civ. App. this court granted, leave to f i l e circuit court; appeal (table). such ( c a s e no. an opinion. See Kane So. 3d On M a r c h 6, 2012, on v. (Ala. Chase s o u g h t , and a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i n the was n e c e s s a r y because Kane's still pending i n t h i s a motion 2100702) was Kane's a p p l i c a t i o n of A c t i n g p r o s e , Kane a p p e a l e d t o (No. 2100702, J a n u a r y 6, 2 0 1 2 ) , 2012) findings for rehearing. See R u l e 60(b) c o u r t on ("Leave t o make t h e m o t i o n n e e d n o t be o b t a i n e d f r o m any a p p e l l a t e c o u r t except d u r i n g such actually overruled pending Kane's time before as an such appeal from court."). application for 6 the After rehearing, judgment i s this Kane court sought 2110999 certiorari supreme review i n t h e Supreme court denied the p e t i t i o n on May 11, 2 0 1 2 , a n d t h i s court Court o f Alabama. The f o r the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i issued i t s c e r t i f i c a t e of j u d g m e n t t h e same d a y . On seeking March 7, 2 0 1 2 , Chase t o s e t aside filed the c i r c u i t a Rule court's 60(b) m o t i o n , April 5, 2 0 1 1 , judgment a n d t o be j o i n e d as an i n d i s p e n s a b l e action. Chase a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was t h e s e r v i c i n g a g e n t f o r the successor Kane $83,250 t o purchase the Kathleen Circle a n d i n f a v o r o f whom, i t a l l e g e d , Kane h a d e x e c u t e d a p r o m i s s o r y note and mortgage. had t o the i n i n t e r e s t t o A m e r i s a v e , f r o m whom, i t a l l e g e d , had borrowed property party first learned Chase a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t i t of the c i r c u i t court's April 5, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t on November 25, 2011, when i t s l e g a l d e p a r t m e n t h a d received a copy o f t h e b r i e f of the appellees, B r a d s h a w , i n c a s e no. 2 1 0 0 7 0 2 . Chase alleged that, Hagler and 1 initially, i t h a d been advised by c o u n s e l t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s i n g Kane's c l a i m s h a d n o t a d d r e s s e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f Kane's d e e d o r Kane's T h e a p p e l l e e s ' b r i e f i n c a s e no. 2100702 c o n t a i n s a c e r t i f i c a t e o f s e r v i c e d a t e d O c t o b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 , t o "Chase M o r t g a g e " a t an a d d r e s s i n Columbus, O h i o . 1 7 2110999 title t o the mortgaged p r o p e r t y , property would asserted that n o t be i t had affected sought c o u n s e l , who h a d r e v i e w e d proceedings concluded a by t h e judgment. second directly the c i r c u i t property. affected Chase a t t a c h e d underlying proceedings to had Kane d a t e d from court's ruling Chase's from t h e bench t o t h e p r o p e r t y and, mortgage interest t o i t s motion a t r a n s c r i p t March o f Chase's v i c e p r e s i d e n t , 23, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t court Thomas E. R e a r d o n . summarily denied Chase a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t On Chase's court erred i n d e n y i n g i t s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , judgment i s void for failure p a r t y pursuant t o Rule to 19(a), Kane f i l e d an a p p e l l a t e b r i e f i n s u p p o r t Hagler and t h e a hearing. On a p p e a l , indispensable of the June 29, 2009; t h e n o t e a n d m o r t g a g e t h a t Kane motion without 2011, i n the i n c a s e no. 2100702; t h e w a r r a n t y d e e d e x e c u t e d i n f a v o r o f A m e r i s a v e on t h e same d a t e ; affidavit other i n c a s e no. 2100702 a n d h a d i m p l i c a t e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f Kane's t i t l e thus, opinion Chase the t r a n s c r i p t of the c i r c u i t - c o u r t u n d e r l y i n g the appeal that i t s mortgage i n t e r e s t i n t h e join the A p r i l 5, i t as an A l a . R. C i v . P. o f Chase's p o s i t i o n . a n d B r a d s h a w have n o t f a v o r e d t h i s c o u r t w i t h a b r i e f . 8 2110999 " R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a trial c o u r t may relieve a party from a final judgment or o r d e r f o r c e r t a i n r e a s o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h a t the order i s ' v o i d . ' See R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i s a p p e a l a b l e , see F o o d W o r l d v. C a r e y , 980 So. 2d 404, 406 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , b u t an a p p e a l f r o m s u c h a d e n i a l p r e s e n t s f o r review o n l y the p r o p r i e t y of t h a t d e n i a l ; t h u s , when a m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f , s u c h as t h a t f i l e d i n t h i s c a s e , a t t a c k s an o r d e r as b e i n g v o i d , t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i n q u i r y may be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : ' I f t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d , i t i s t o be s e t a s i d e ; i f i t i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d . ' S m i t h v. stand. C l a r k , 468 So. 2d 138, 141 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . " P a l i s a d e s C o l l e c t i o n , LLC v. D e l a n e y , 29 So. Civ. App. 2009) Alabama (footnote appellate addressed the courts have on several i s s u e whether the n o n j o i n d e r the mortgagee's interest in property supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e a mortgagee in a P o s e y , 271 the 464 joined A l a . 640, boundary-line had been a d m i t t e d dispute The court set So. but between no The party stated: "The g e n e r a l r u l e i n a c o u r t o f e q u i t y i s t h a t a l l persons having a m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t , l e g a l or e q u i t a b l e , i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f a s u i t , must be 9 2d t o have judgment. i n evidence at t r i a l sought t o j o i n the mortgagee. be 126 failure a d j o i n i n g landowners r e q u i r e d r e v e r s a l of the m o r t g a g e had occasions d i c t a t e s t h a t a judgment I n R o l l a n v. our (Ala. of a mortgagee i n a s i d e as v o i d . (1961), 886 omitted). an a c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o r e a l p r o p e r t y affecting 3d 885, 2110999 made p a r t i e s , e i t h e r as p l a i n t i f f s o r d e f e n d a n t s . The r u l e p r o c e e d s on t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t no man's r i g h t s s h o u l d be c o n t r o v e r t e d i n a c o u r t o f j u s t i c e unless he h a s f u l l opportunity t o appear and v i n d i c a t e them; a n d f u r t h e r , t h a t c o m p l e t e j u s t i c e may be done a n d f u t u r e l i t i g a t i o n a v o i d e d , t h e performance of the decree being s a f e , because o f t h e presence i n court o f a l l p a r t i e s who have an i n t e r e s t i n i t s s u b j e c t m a t t e r . The g e n e r a l r u l e f u r t h e r i s t h a t i f a b i l l i s d e f e c t i v e f o r t h e want o f p r o p e r p a r t i e s , a d v a n t a g e s h o u l d be t a k e n o f t h e d e f e c t b y p l e a , d e m u r r e r , o r a n s w e r , a n d i f n o t so t a k e n , t h e o b j e c t i o n i s w a i v e d . The r u l e i s s u b j e c t t o t h e e x c e p t i o n t h a t i f a c a u s e c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y d i s p o s e d o f , on t h e m e r i t s , w i t h o u t t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e a b s e n t p a r t i e s , t h e o b j e c t i o n may be made a t t h e h e a r i n g , o r on e r r o r , i t may be t a k e n b y t h e c o u r t ex mero motu." 271 A l a . a t 645, 126 So. 2d a t 468-69. I n J.R. M c C l e n n e y (Ala. 1983), & Son, I n c . v. R e i m e r , o u r supreme " e s t o p p e d ... f r o m r a i s i n g court trial, that a defendant was [by way o f R u l e 60(b) ( 4 ) , a f t e r t h e time f o r appeal had expired,] nonjoinder," held 435 So. 2d 50 t h e i s s u e o f i t s own m o r t g a g e e ' s i d . a t 52, i n a b o u n d a r y - l i n e d i s p u t e because, a t t h e d e f e n d a n t , who h a d b e e n aware o f t h e m o r t g a g e e ' s s t a t u s from t h e o u t s e t o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n , had e s t a b l i s h e d h i s title to mortgage.'" court the property I d . a t 51 "'without (quoting stated: 10 trial ... suggestion court's order). of a The 2110999 " T h a t t h e m o r t g a g e e was n o t made a p a r t y does n o t , under t h e s e f a c t s , compel t h e v a c a t i o n o f t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t . The f a i l u r e t o j o i n an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y does n o t c o m p e l t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i n every i n s t a n c e . Wright and M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , C i v i l , § 1611 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , n o t e s t h a t '[b]ecause t h e d o c t r i n e o f i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s i s equitable i n character, the court w i l l not dismiss f o r n o n j o i n d e r when s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d make i t u n e q u i t a b l e t o do s o . ' " Id. a t 52. The c o u r t continued: "There i s no prescribed formula t o be mechanically a p p l i e d i n every case t o determine w h e t h e r a p a r t y i s an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y o r m e r e l y a p r o p e r o r n e c e s s a r y one. T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n t o be decided i n the context of the p a r t i c u l a r case. P r o v i d e n t Tradesmens Bank & T r u s t Co. v. P a t t e r s o n , 390 U.S. 102, 88 S. C t . 733, 19 L. E d . 2d 936 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . The i s s u e i s one t o be d e c i d e d b y a p p l y i n g e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s and, u n d e r 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 , i t w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e t o v a c a t e t h i s j u d g m e n t on m o t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , w h i c h h a s s o blatantly ignored the rules under which i t s m o r t g a g e e b a n k c o u l d have s o e a s i l y b e e n made a party." Id. In (Ala. Frander 1984), relief & Frander, residents against home on t h e i r l o t . the mortgagors 457 So. 2d 375 o f a s u b d i v i s i o n sought i n j u n c t i v e mortgagors, violated a restrictive I n c . v. G r i f f e n , alleging t h a t the mortgagors had covenant by assembling a manufactured The t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d t h e i n j u n c t i o n a n d appealed, arguing 11 that the f a i l u r e t o have 2110999 j o i n e d t h e i r m o r t g a g e e as an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y r e n d e r e d t h e trial court's judgment v o i d . Our supreme court disagreed, f i r s t e x p l a i n i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y and a necessary p a r t y as f o l l o w s : " ' I n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s ' a r e p e r s o n s who n o t o n l y have an i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y b u t an i n t e r e s t o f such a nature t h a t a f i n a l decree cannot be made w i t h o u t e i t h e r a f f e c t i n g t h a t i n t e r e s t o r l e a v i n g t h e c o n t r o v e r s y i n such a c o n d i t i o n t h a t i t s f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n may be w h o l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e . " "'Necessary p a r t i e s ' a r e those a f f e c t e d by t h e judgment and a g a i n s t w h i c h i n f a c t i t w i l l o p e r a t e . " 457 So. 2d a t 377 ( q u o t i n g Rules The of C i v i l court 1 Champ L y o n s , A l a b a m a P r a c t i c e , P r o c e d u r e , a t 389 (1973) (citations omitted)). concluded: "We a r e u n a b l e t o s e e how [ t h e m o r t g a g e e ] c o u l d be c a l l e d an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . Even t h o u g h n o t a p a r t y t o the a c t i o n , [the m o r t g a g e e ' s ] i n t e r e s t s have b e e n p r o t e c t e d b y t h e mortgagors ... s i n c e t h e y a r e s e e k i n g t h e same r e s u l t as [ t h e m o r t g a g e e ] . T h i s w o u l d n o t make [ t h e m o r t g a g e e ] an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y , b u t r a t h e r , a t most, a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y , a n d t h u s an e q u i t a b l e judgment could be entered affecting [the mortgagee]." Id. 2d See a l s o Hun Es Tu M a l a d e ? No. 16, LLC v. T u c k e r , 963 So. 55, 69 ( A l a . 2006) (citing 12 Frander and h o l d i n g that the 2110999 mortgagee was mortgagors were mortgagee's The Reimer, not an "present supra, case by court is action made of aware Kane r e g a r d i n g the t h a t Chase be the circuit attribute of her j o i n e d , and We Rollan, fact that the that, court d i d not, and Tucker, cases were parties' had reason, supra not been note and the the to to engage disavowed in mechanically in holding protected the Reimer: applied To that by the parties the action using a every also Chase. order 13 that to join Chase's s e , and in we Frander, mortgagees because in their are protected of the of t h i s case would our "prescribed case pro mortgagors h o l d t h a t Kane had very in i t seek decisions i n t e r e s t s o f Chase u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s be but ex mero motu, failure indispensable applicability. unlike none o f t h e p a r t i e s moved t o the that and h i s t o r y of payments t o for limited the Kane's mortgage, believe interests protect to f a c t t h a t t h e y were p r o c e e d i n g those the Not o n l y was j o i n d e r to the supra, because supra, i n evidence at t r i a l . Nevertheless, Chase. [the] like virtue m o r t g a g e were a d m i t t e d questioned in party interests"). present circuit indispensable supreme formula determine court to whether be a 2110999 party is necessary an indispensable one." i n the context Chase "an necessary in one." merely a Instead, or case, merely a whether proper court's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Kane's d e e d was of a f r a u d u l e n t conveyance a f f e c t e d Chase's judgment was Alabama t o such "'wholly conscience.'" or our t a s k i s t o particular party proper or Id. t h e mortgage Before of t h i s indispensable The c i r c u i t product or 435 So. 2d a t 52. determine, was party Frander, Practice, Rules a degree t h a t inconsistent 457 interest the c i r c u i t with equity the court's and So. 2d a t 377 (quoting of C i v i l Procedure, a t 389 good Lyons, (1973)). t h e r e n d i t i o n o f t h a t j u d g m e n t , Chase h a d no n o t i c e o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e f e n d i t s mortgage i n t e r e s t . I t appears t h a t e v e n H a g l e r and B r a d s h a w , who have n o t f a v o r e d t h i s c o u r t w i t h a brief on dramatically this appeal, recognized a f f e c t e d Chase's mortgage that the interest, judgment because i n t h e p r i o r a p p e a l t h e y a r g u e d : "The m o r t g a g e t h a t K a t h y A. Kane has w i t h Chase M o r t g a g e a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y i s f r a u d u l e n t and the property mortgage should be removed " 14 as collateral against this 2110999 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g would be judgment action inequitable denying against authorities, not to reverse Chase's Hagler Rule we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t the c i r c u i t 60(b) motion and Bradshaw could because o f , on t h e m e r i t s , w i t h o u t Rollan, 271 A l a . a t 645, 126 So. 2d a t 469. indispensable of this party, case, the presence of Chase and t h e c i r c u i t i t s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . We r e v e r s e was, court Kane's n o t "be p r o p e r l y disposed circumstances court's Under t h e therefore, erred the c i r c u i t [Chase]." an i n denying court's March 23, 2012, j u d g m e n t a n d i n s t r u c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on remand t o vacate to i t s April 5, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t a n d t o make Chase a p a r t y Kane's a c t i o n a g a i n s t H a g l e r and Bradshaw. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, concur. 15 and Donaldson, 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.