Aaron Brian Fielder v. Robert Chandler

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/26/2013 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 ((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 2120223 Aaron B r i a n F i e l d e r v. Robert Chandler Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-08-902086) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . In February 2007, Robert Chandler, a postman, was a t t a c k e d b y a R o t t w e i l e r owned b y K e n n e t h C a i n when C h a n d l e r delivered mail t o Cain's residence, p r o p e r t y owned b y A a r o n B r i a n F i e l d e r . which was a rental I n J u l y 2008, C h a n d l e r 2120223 s u e d F i e l d e r and s e v e r a l f i c t i t i o u s l y that Fielder because s h o u l d be held named p a r t i e s , responsible f o r his injuries F i e l d e r h a d a l l o w e d C a i n t o keep a d a n g e r o u s F i e l d e r ' s premises. Chandler l a t e r alleging dog on amended h i s c o m p l a i n t t o name C a i n as a d e f e n d a n t ; C a i n , h o w e v e r , f a i l e d t o answer t h e complaint, and Chandler ultimately sought and received a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , w i t h l e a v e t o p r o v e damages, a g a i n s t C a i n . In O c t o b e r 2009, F i e l d e r moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t ; he supplemented h i s motion i n M a r c h 2010. C h a n d l e r m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , and t h e t r i a l motion. The e n t i r e Fielder had motion, the t r i a l docket for a bankruptcy petition. court restored the court denied the a c t i o n was s t a y e d i n M a r c h 2011 On the action i n December 2 0 1 1 , and t h e t r i a l a trial The filed opposed because Chandler's to the active court s e t the matter on M a r c h 26, 2012. case was M a r c h 29, 2012. tried before a jury on M a r c h 26 through F i e l d e r was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e t r i a l , b u t he was r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l . Fielder f i l e d two m o t i o n s f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 50, A l a . R. C i v . P., during the course of the t r i a l ; neither was granted. D u r i n g t h e j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s on M a r c h 29, 2012, c o u n s e l f o r 2 2120223 Chandler discovered information r e l a t i n g t o be p r e s e n t a basis f o r the t r i a l to Fielder's failure t h a t , he a r g u e d , w o u l d have b e e n for challenging Fielder's veracity. information, C h a n d l e r moved f o r a m i s t r i a l , court granted. B a s e d on that which the t r i a l By t h e t i m e t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d Chandler's motion f o r a m i s t r i a l , t h e j u r y had reached a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f F i e l d e r ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e i t was d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l , t h e trial court d i d not accept Fielder declared motion. prejudicial amendment several a mistrial. record" with that filed the v e r d i c t of the j u r y . He motions first after sought the t r i a l t o "supplement the the j u r y - v e r d i c t form; the t r i a l He a l s o moved information" to the t r i a l to " s t r i k e , from court's the order court court seal, record denying and denied and expunge sought an the motion t o supplement t h e r e c o r d w i t h t h e j u r y - v e r d i c t form. Finally, April j u d g m e n t on the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t or grant under for 27, 2012, F i e l d e r f i l e d a "motion t o enter a judgment as a m a t t e r on of law ... R u l e 5 0 ( b ) , " A l a . R. C i v . P. ( " t h e r e n e w e d m o t i o n a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w " ) , on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r he, 3 2120223 as a l a n d l o r d and p r e m i s e s p r o t e c t Chandler The trial m o t i o n s f o r May owner, had from Cain's dog. court scheduled 18, 2012. any d u t y t o C h a n d l e r 1 a h e a r i n g on F i e l d e r ' s pending A f t e r t h a t h e a r i n g , the t r i a l e n t e r e d an o r d e r c o n t i n u i n g t h e h e a r i n g on F i e l d e r ' s The to court motions. o r d e r f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g w o u l d be r e s e t on the motion of e i t h e r p a r t y or at the c o u r t ' s On May 31, 2012, Chandler on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d o c k e t . discretion. moved t o have t h e t r i a l Chandler reset a l s o requested t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t compel F i e l d e r t o submit t o a d e p o s i t i o n . Fielder sought a protective submitted The arguing that he had already hearing on the pending to a d e p o s i t i o n . trial court m o t i o n s on A u g u s t 31, date, order, the trial held 2012. court another After entered an t h a t h e a r i n g and order denying on that a l l of A s n o t e d above, F i e l d e r had f i l e d R u l e 50 m o t i o n s f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w t w i c e d u r i n g t h e t r i a l : once a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t r i a l and a g a i n a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e evidence. Quoting Rule 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) , F i e l d e r a l s o claimed i n h i s m o t i o n t h a t " t h e r e was 'no l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r a reasonable j u r y to f i n d f o r ' " Chandler. Thus, he met the p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r f i l i n g a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w b a s e d on a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e . U n i t e d S e r v s . A u t o . A s s ' n v. Hobbs, 858 So. 2d 966, 971 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; see a l s o B a i n s v. Jameson, 507 So. 2d 504, 505 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 1 4 2120223 F i e l d e r ' s pending motions. entered a separate order On t h e same d a t e , t h e t r i a l setting the o r d e r i n g F i e l d e r t o submit t o another Fielder filed a petition supreme c o u r t on O c t o b e r 4, case court for a t r i a l deposition. f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i n o u r 2012. In his petition, Fielder s o u g h t r e v i e w o f t h e o r d e r d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l and t h e court's motion denial of h i s other motions, 2 r e h e a r i n g , b u t i t a l s o was On O c t o b e r our other things, m a t t e r of law. to 10, 2012, supreme c o u r t f r o m among this renewed Chandler We w r i t of have r e s 770 So. 2 renewed That p e t i t i o n renewed a n o t i c e of appeal t o 31, 2012, denying, f o r judgment motion order as argues t o A l a . Code 1975, that for a judgment Fielder's as appeal a appeal § 12-2-7(6). a On court's denial c h a l l e n g e s o n l y the t r i a l motion was denied. the August court, pursuant trial F i e l d e r f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r Fielder filed the the Our supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d F i e l d e r ' s appeal, F i e l d e r his including f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . d e n i e d on O c t o b e r 30, 2 0 1 2 . and of matter should be of law. dismissed note t h a t "because of the e x t r a o r d i n a r y nature of a mandamus, t h e d e n i a l o f r e l i e f b y mandamus does n o t j u d i c a t a e f f e c t . " C u t l e r v. O r k i n E x t e r m i n a t i n g Co., 2d 67, 69 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . 5 2120223 b e c a u s e no final judgment t h a t could support b e e n e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . explain, we d i s m i s s the nonfinal appeal We agree, an appeal as we and, has will as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n from a judgment. A l t h o u g h i t a p p e a r s p r o c e d u r a l l y awkward, and a l t h o u g h no Alabama caselaw has specifically under f e d e r a l precedent addressed c o n s t r u i n g Rule the procedure, 5 0 ( b ) , Fed. R. Civ. P., F i e l d e r w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o s e e k a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of l a w p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 50(b) even a f t e r the t r i a l c o u r t had declared a m i s t r i a l . 548, 551 50(b) (D. Md. See 2000) B o s t r o n v. A p f e l , ("It i s w e l l p e r m i t s the f i l i n g by 104 F. established Supp. that 2d Rule a p a r t y of a renewed motion for j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w i n t h e e v e n t t h a t a m i s t r i a l has b e e n d e c l a r e d . " ) ; see a l s o P a t t o n v. Thompson, 958 So. 2d 303 (Ala. the 2006) (setting a p p e l l a n t had f i l e d of a mistrial procedure). construing but out i n the p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y a R u l e 50(b) m o t i o n a f t e r t h e d e c l a r a t i o n not discussing T h i s s t a t e has the that Federal the propriety long turned to federal Rules of Civil of authority Procedure c o n s t r u i n g a c o r r e s p o n d i n g r u l e i n the Alabama R u l e s of Procedure. Image M k t g . , I n c . v. F l o r e n c e T e l e v i s i o n , 6 that when Civil L.L.C., 2120223 884 So. 2d 822, 825 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. City of F a i r f i e l d , that because modeled on 396 So. 2d 692, 696 " ' t h e Alabama the Federal Rules Rules of d e c i s i o n s are h i g h l y persuasive called Fed. upon t o c o n s t r u e R. C i v . P., of ( A l a . 1981)) Civil Civil (noting Procedure Procedure, are federal when [ a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s ] t h e Alabama R u l e s ' " ) . Rule 50(b), r e a d s as f o l l o w s : " I f t h e c o u r t does n o t g r a n t a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w made u n d e r R u l e 5 0 ( a ) , t h e c o u r t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have s u b m i t t e d t h e a c t i o n t o t h e j u r y subject to the court's l a t e r d e c i d i n g the l e g a l q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by t h e m o t i o n . No l a t e r t h a n 28 days a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f judgment o r i f t h e m o t i o n a d d r e s s e s a j u r y i s s u e n o t d e c i d e d by a v e r d i c t , no l a t e r t h a n 28 d a y s a f t e r t h e j u r y was d i s c h a r g e d t h e movant may f i l e a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w and may i n c l u d e an a l t e r n a t i v e o r j o i n t r e q u e s t f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 59. I n r u l i n g on t h e r e n e w e d m o t i o n , t h e c o u r t may: the "(1) a l l o w j u d g m e n t on t h e v e r d i c t , i f jury returned a verdict; "(2) order a new t r i a l ; "(3) d i r e c t t h e e n t r y a matter of law." (Emphasis added.) construed to permit or o f j u d g m e n t as As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e f e d e r a l r u l e has been a party to f i l e , and t o p e r m i t a trial c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r , a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law a f t e r a trial court has 7 declared a mistrial. See 2120223 Bostron, Motley, 104 F. Supp. 2d a t 5 5 1 ; s e e a l s o 439 F.2d 1028, 1030 Grace (2d C i r . 1971) L i n e s v. ("Rule 5 0 ( b ) p r o v i d e s t h a t , whenever a m o t i o n f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t has been made d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l a n d a v e r d i c t h a s n o t b e e n r e t u r n e d , a p a r t y may move f o r j u d g m e n t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h h i s motion f o r a directed verdict a t any t i m e within t e n days a f t e r t h e j u r y h a s b e e n d i s c h a r g e d . " ) ; a n d G o n z a l e z P e r e z v. Gomez A g u i l a , 312 F. Supp. 2d 1 6 1 , 164 (D.P.R. 2004) ("In a d d i t i o n , i t must be n o t e d t h a t a r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l may be f i l e d Procedure 50(b) even i f a m i s t r i a l h a s b e e n d e c l a r e d . R u l e 5 0 ( b ) p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o v i d e s t h a t s u c h m o t i o n may be b r o u g h t even i f no v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d . " ( f o o t n o t e a n d c i t a t i o n omitted)). R u l e 5 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., r e a d s as f o l l o w s : "Whenever a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w made a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s d e n i e d o r f o r any r e a s o n i s n o t g r a n t e d , t h e c o u r t i s deemed t o have s u b m i t t e d t h e a c t i o n t o t h e j u r y s u b j e c t t o a l a t e r determination of the l e g a l questions raised by t h e m o t i o n . Such a m o t i o n may be renewed b y s e r v i c e a n d f i l i n g n o t l a t e r t h a n t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t . A m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 59 may be j o i n e d w i t h a r e n e w a l o f t h e m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , o r a new t r i a l may be r e q u e s t e d i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e . I f a v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d , t h e c o u r t may, i n d i s p o s i n g o f the renewed m o t i o n , a l l o w t h e judgment t o s t a n d o r may r e o p e n t h e j u d g m e n t and e i t h e r o r d e r a new t r i a l 8 2120223 o r d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . If no v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d t h e c o u r t may, i n d i s p o s i n g o f t h e renewed m o t i o n , d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w o r may o r d e r a new trial." (Emphasis added.) "A m i s t r i a l r e s u l t s i n no v e r d i c t . " v. L u c a s , 604 So. 2d 389, 391 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . Owens Thus, b e c a u s e no v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was p e r m i t t e d , u n d e r R u l e 5 0 ( b ) , t o o r d e r a new t r i a l o r t o d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on F i e l d e r ' s motion. of F i e l d e r ' s renewed motion renewed f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r l a w was t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r l y f i l e d u n d e r t o R u l e 5 0 ( b ) . However, as a r g u e d b y C h a n d l e r , t h e d e n i a l o f t h a t did not produce appeal. judgment. a final judgment capable o f s u p p o r t i n g an G e n e r a l l y , an a p p e a l may be t a k e n o n l y f r o m a A l a . Code 1975, § 12-22-2. motion final A f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one " t h a t c o n c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e s t h e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s Bean v. C r a i g , 557 So. 2d 1249, 1253 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . involved." 3 The m a i n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t an a p p e a l be taken from a f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s when a t r i a l c o u r t has c e r t i f i e d a judgment d e c i d i n g fewer than a l l t h e p e n d i n g c l a i m s o r r e s o l v i n g t h e i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g fewer than a l l t h e p a r t i e s as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See Bean, 557 So. 2d a t 1253. I n a d d i t i o n , c e r t a i n i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y made a p p e a l a b l e . See, 3 9 2120223 Because an "conclusively order declaring determine[] the a mistrial issues before does court the a s c e r t a i n [ ] and d e c l a r e [ ] t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s Bean, 557 So. 2d a t 1253, and b e c a u s e , a Rule are 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. contemplated So. 2d 423, 424 C i v . P., by t h e t r i a l not and involved," much l i k e t h e g r a n t o f motion, "further proceedings c o u r t , " Ex p a r t e O v e r t o n , 985 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , s u c h an o r d e r i s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r and i s n o t a p p e a l a b l e . F i e l d e r ' s renewed motion for a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , a l t h o u g h p e r m i t t e d by R u l e 5 0 ( b ) , was t h e r e f o r e not d i r e c t e d t o a f i n a l could appeal. Furthermore, judgment from which the d e n i a l of F i e l d e r ' s he renewed motion f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w d i d n o t r e s o l v e t h e issues before motion is the t r i a l also an s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l . 444, 444 denying court; the order denying interlocutory order not capable B o r g - W a r n e r C o r p . v. W h i t n e y , ( 6 t h C i r . 1941) a renewed motion Fielder's of 121 F.2d ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e r f o r a judgment as a m a t t e r of law e.g., R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , ( B ) , and ( C ) , A l a . R. App. P. (making i n t e r l o c u t o r y orders i n v o l v i n g i n j u n c t i o n s , r e c e i v e r s h i p s , or d e t e r m i n i n g a r i g h t t o p u b l i c o f f i c e a p p e a l a b l e ) . An o r d e r g r a n t i n g a m i s t r i a l does n o t f a l l w i t h i n any o f t h e s e e x c e p t i o n s and, as e x p l a i n e d i n t h e t e x t , i n f r a , i s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order. 10 2120223 after a m i s t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e o r d e r was not a final decision d i s p o s i n g of the case or t e r m i n a t i n g the l i t i g a t i o n ) ; Gore v. Hansen, 59 So. 2d 538, t h e n , an o r d e r d e n y i n g a m o t i o n case has gone t o t h e j u r y , 539 ( F l a . 1952) accord ("Clearly, for directed verdict after resulting in a mistrial, has the not ' d i s p o s e d o f t h e p e n d i n g a c t i o n , l e a v i n g n o t h i n g f u r t h e r t o be done but the execution a p p e a l a b l e as a ' f i n a l The of i s Patton, 958 whose r e n e w e d m o t i o n judgment,' and i s thus not our research has i n which the judgment.'"). o n l y Alabama case revealed the in this So. 2d posture at 306, f o r a j u d g m e n t as a matter party of law was d e n i e d a f t e r a m i s t r i a l had b e e n d e c l a r e d s o u g h t a p e r m i s s i v e appeal pursuant court. Rule to Rule 5(a) 5, A l a . R. provides, App. in part, that request permission to appeal from civil i n our "[a] circumstances." a c t i o n s under implicitly supports limited the F i e l d e r ' s renewed motion an P., party interlocutory conclusion that the order Thus, order may in Patton denying f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w i s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i n c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g t h i s A c c o r d i n g l y , because the order denying F i e l d e r ' s motion supreme f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r 11 o f l a w i s an appeal. renewed interlocutory 2120223 o r d e r i n c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l , we d i s m i s s F i e l d e r ' s appeal. 4 APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , JJ., concur. We a l s o n o t e t h a t , e v e n i f t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g F i e l d e r ' s r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w c o u l d have been c o n s t r u e d as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l , the fact that the trial court has entered only an i n t e r l o c u t o r y d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t C a i n w o u l d p r e v e n t f i n a l i t y i n the p r e s e n t case because the c l a i m s a g a i n s t Cain have n o t b e e n f u l l y a d j u d i c a t e d . See Ex p a r t e F a m i l y D o l l a r S t o r e s o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 906 So. 2d 892, 897 ( A l a . 2005) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t on l i a b i l i t y w i t h l e a v e t o p r o v e damages i s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t and i s n o t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g an a p p e a l ) . 4 12

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.