Antonio Ben Espinoza and Antonio Espinoza d/b/a Jabez Land Co. v. Maxine Rudolph

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 3/19/2010 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080999 Antonio Ben E s p i n o z a and A n t o n i o E s p i n o z a d/b/a Jabez Land Co. v. Maxine R u d o l p h Appeal from Jefferson Circuit C o u r t , Bessemer Division (CV-08-882) COBB, C h i e f Antonio Land Justice. Ben E s p i n o z a and Antonio Espinoza d/b/a Jabez Co. ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " J a b e z " ) On J u l y 2, 2 0 0 8 , E s p i n o z a f i l e d t h i s s u i t a g a i n s t M a x i n e R u d o l p h i n t h e name o f " J a b e z L a n d C o . " a s s o l e p l a i n t i f f . Contrary t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of i t scomplaint and v e r i f i e d 1 1 1080999 appeal from the trial Rudolph i n the $25,000 in punitive court's amount o f $50,000 damages. Facts judgment and We in favor i n compensatory single-family Rudolph, the F o r more t h a n residence fair market value 10 y e a r s , u n t i l and affirm. Procedural ("the Maxine damages History 2 R u d o l p h i s t h e o w n e r o f r e a l p r o p e r t y on w h i c h a of property") of January the . property i s located According is to $59,000. 2007, R u d o l p h r e s i d e d i n amended complaints, "Jabez Land Co." i s not a company q u a l i f i e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . According to E s p i n o z a ' s t e s t i m o n y at the t r i a l i n t h i s case, "Jabez Land Co." i s t h e name o f a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p b y w h i c h Espinoza does b u s i n e s s . On January 15, 2 0 0 9 , R u d o l p h amended h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t J a b e z L a n d Co. t o s u b s t i t u t e E s p i n o z a a s the c o u n t e r c l a i m defendant, a l l e g i n g t h a t E s p i n o z a was the " t r u e d e f e n d a n t " a n d t h a t " J a b e z L a n d Co." was " n o t h i n g m o r e than a name" u n d e r w h i c h Espinoza conducted some o f h i s business. On F e b r u a r y 16, 2 0 0 9 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t " a g a i n s t A n t o n i o B. E s p i n o z a i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d A n t o n i o B. E s p i n o z a d o i n g b u s i n e s s as J a b e z L a n d C o m p a n y . " On A p r i l 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , E s p i n o z a f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on b e h a l f o f " J a b e z L a n d Co. a n d A n t o n i o E s p i n o z a . " We h a v e r e s t y l e d t h e appeal to r e f l e c t the t r u e nature of the p a r t i e s . I n s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we a r e m i n d f u l that, "[u]nder the ore tenus s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , we must a c c e p t as t r u e t h e f a c t s f o u n d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to support the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s . " B e a s l e y v . M e l l o n F i n . S e r v s . C o r p . , 569 So. 2d 3 8 9 , 393 ( A l a . 1990). F u r t h e r , w h e r e t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t as t o t h e trial c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on a d i s p u t e d i s s u e , we a s s u m e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t 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 judgment. T r a n s a m e r i c a C o m m e r c i a l F i n . C o r p . v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 608 So. 2 d 3 7 5 , 378 ( A l a . 1992). 2 2 1080999 the house on the property. 2007, R u d o l p h l e a s e d was terminated From March the property when the to a tenant, tenant failed accordance with the lease agreement. the property and engaged the purpose of s e l l i n g for the property In up April for sale was September but that to pay lease rent in Rudolph subsequently put a real-estate the property. The sales agent f o r price listed $54,000. 2008, P r o v i d e n c e Hooper. 2007 u n t i l Rudolph After made the learning that acquaintance Hooper "knew a of little something about r e a l e s t a t e , " R u d o l p h asked Hooper t o v i e w the property visited this a n d t o l e t h e r know w h a t the property case, condition Hooper together gave of the property the she t h o u g h t a b o u t i t . on May 8, 2 0 0 8 . following a s i t was At the t r i a l description on May 8, of 2008: "The h o u s e was w h a t I c a l l a c o t t a g e . I t h a d two b e d r o o m s , a l i v i n g room and somewhat o f a den and k i t c h e n a n d one b a t h r o o m . I t h a d b e a u t i f u l o l d w o o d floors. I t was t h e k i n d o f h o u s e t h a t a y o u n g c o u p l e w o u l d p u r c h a s e a n d do a l i t t l e w o r k on i t , a n d i t was a s t a r t e r h o u s e , a n d maybe o p e n up some w a l l s , a n d i t w o u l d be a v e r y n i c e h o u s e t h a t y o u c o u l d b u i l d e q u i t y a n d t h e n move on [ I ] t was a '50s h o u s e . T h e r e i s no p e r f e c t h o u s e . I t was a g o o d h o u s e . I t was w h a t p e o p l e i n t h e r e a l estate b u s i n e s s w o u l d say i t has good bones." 3 They of the 1080999 Washington Mutual Bank Historically, on May Espinoza However, i t d i d not 20, and 2008, Edwin R e n e w a l Company On to the as 4 G o n z a l e s and 23, from they the "Notice May 30, Lien the amount o f County taxes s o l d at of property. on i n 2007, a tax sale to Property on May $450 p e r as 23, 2008. Jabez their During collected the rent month. agent f o r TAG-South, Office a of [sic]," which Lien residence Gomez, a n d Probate Statement due TAG-South Gonzales, property, 2008, E s p i n o z a , Jefferson of the 2008, Jabez r e n t e d the M a r k Gomez. occupied them i n t h e On in time on 5 f a m i l i e s moved i n t o t h e r e s i d e n c e entire the was agents ("TAG-South"). May pay property Marks, approximately Josea a mortgage W a s h i n g t o n M u t u a l had p a i d the p r o p e r t y t a x e s the p r o p e r t y . and, held 3 document filed titled stated: " T A G - S o u t h P r o p e r t y R e n e w a l Co. f i l e d t h i s s t a t e m e n t in writing, verified by the oath of A n t o n i o B. E s p i n o z a , w i t h a m a i l i n g a d d r e s s o f 1116 2 0 t h S t r e e t I n l a t e 2007 and e a r l y 2008, W a s h i n g t o n M u t u a l s u f f e r e d severe financial losses. T h e r e a f t e r , d u r i n g a s e r i e s of national financial crises, Washington Mutual became the l a r g e s t bank to f a i l i n the h i s t o r y of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 3 4 At trial, TAG-South business. 5 Espinoza testified i s another t h a t Marks is his name u n d e r w h i c h E s p i n o z a 4 cousin. conducts 1080999 South, #323, Birmingham, Alabama and who has p e r s o n a l knowledge of the f a c t s h e r e i n set f o r t h : " T h a t s a i d T A G - S o u t h P r o p e r t y R e n e w a l Co. who i s t h e e n t i t y t h a t p u r c h a s e d a t a x c e r t i f i c a t e on t h e b e l o w d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y i n a tax s a l e at the J e f f e r s o n County Courthouse, claims a lien upon [the property]. "The l i e n i s c l a i m e d , s e p a r a t e l y and s e v e r a l l y , as to b o t h t h e b u i l d i n g s and i m p r o v e m e n t s t h e r e o n , and the s a i d l a n d . That s a i d l i e n i s c l a i m e d to secure an i n d e b t e d n e s s o f $ 9 , 9 8 7 . 4 5 ... w i t h i n t e r e s t , f r o m t h e 2 2 n d d a y o f May 2 0 0 8 , f o r work, r e p a i r s , and improvements. The name o f t h e o w n e r a n d p r o p r i e t o r o f t h e s a i d p r o p e r t y i s M a x i n e H. R u d o l p h a n d the name u n d e r w h i c h t h e p r o p e r t y i s a s s e s s e d i s M a x i n e H. R u d o l p h . " [6] Around asked her May 27, 2008, i f she had l e a s e d the p r o p e r t y r e s p o n d e d t h a t she that had not. some v e h i c l e s w e r e realtor's "for sale" Rudolph's The parked s i g n was living on the and telephoned to tenants. then Rudolph and that yard. On June that people were from the confirmed Rudolph informed property and the there. After Jefferson some County investigation, tax ^Although 22, 2008, collector Rudolph June E s p i n o z a ' s statement of l i e n c l a i m s a l i e n t h e t a x s a l e t o o k p l a c e on May 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 . from 5 amount o f property the On i n the s o l d the that TAG- taxes had learned to South f o r d e l i n q u e n t May realtor missing 1, R u d o l p h w e n t t o t h e p r o p e r t y realtor $234.41. 1080999 18, 2008, the Rudolph obtained probate Meanwhile, according transferred claim making to Espinoza, a of redemption payment of o n J u n e 5, 2 0 0 8 , i n the property from $251.59. TAG-South t o Jabez by quit¬ deed. TAG-South, 10, 2008, Marks, redeemed vacated, was after i t s interest On J u n e had office a certificate counsel and E s p i n o z a , the property, informing demanding and t h r e a t e n i n g l i t i g a t i o n not surrendered. A r e d e m p t i o n was e n c l o s e d On f o r Rudolph sent June 13, 2008, copy with that of Rudolph's sent that Rudolph the property certificate 10, 2008, be of letter. the following letter Rudolph v i aher counsel: " T h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i s i n f o l l o w up t o y o u r l e t t e r d a t e d June 10, 2008. A l l p r o p e r t y r i g h t s f o r [the p r o p e r t y ] t h a t were o b t a i n e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e valid May 2 0 0 8 tax sale that occurred at the c o u r t h o u s e i n J e f f e r s o n County Alabama have been a s s i g n e d t o J a b e z L a n d Co. "You h a v e made s e v e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n y o u r l e t t e r d a t e d June 10, 2008. Those r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s are l i b e l o u s , r e p r e h e n s i b l y f a l s e and evidence o f a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e peace and q u i e t enjoyment of t h e tenants r e s i d i n g a t [the p r o p e r t y ] . "Restated, J a b e z L a n d Co. h a s o w n e r s h i p a n d equitable rights i n the property This property h a s b e e n l e a s e d t o t e n a n t s a n d d e m a n d i s h e r e b y made 6 to i n the event the property t h e June Jabez them a letter to 1080999 t h a t you breach of On to immediately cease and desist t h e p e a c e and t r e s p a s s i n g . " J u n e 20, 2008, c o u n s e l Marks, Espinoza, and with your f o r Rudolph again sent a letter TAG-South demanding p o s s e s s i o n of the property. On June 23, Espinoza's 2008, a c c o m p a n i e d by business explained to him and she that Espinoza address i n person wanted invited papers, drove went away. know to be who Rudolph the him had living and telephoned the in then got police her gathered into a property house. that up asked he some vehicle, and to Rudolph her informed Espinoza business, there. redeemed the was seated shortly. outside found t h a t she to her would speak w i t h her and Hooper, R u d o l p h went and to file a report. Shortly take the he thereafter, Rudolph's officer wanted wanted to to report, Espinoza file obtain a a Espinoza were arrested. as before Rudolph d i d . property. Hooper just The "drama police officer returned. He on order he to her off the Rudolph and queens," and he 7 that that officer arrest officer to and the d i d not the spoke to Rudolph told officer arrived Espinoza informed report restraining also a police keep that asked them. to have them 1080999 On J u n e Jabez, again requesting property On 24, 2008, stating counsel that f o r Rudolph the property t h e names o f t h e o c c u p a n t s , be v a c a t e d June 30, and p o s s e s s i o n 2008, Jabez a letter had been to redeemed, and demanding t h a t t h e returned sent sent a t o Rudolph. letter to Rudolph, stating: "You h a v e f a l s e l y c o m m u n i c a t e d t o my tenants t h e y h a v e no r i g h t t o b e t h e r e . You have a l s o c o n t i n u e d t o h a r a s s me a n d my t e n a n t s . I have f i l e d a p o l i c e r e p o r t a n d i n f o l l o w up t o my p r e v i o u s correspondence, t h i s l e t t e r serves to again n o t i f y you t h a t J a b e z L a n d Co. h a s o w n e r s h i p a n d e q u i t a b l e rights i n [the property]." On J u l y 2, 2 0 0 8 , Jabez filed a three-count complaint i n t h e name o f " J a b e z L a n d C o . " a g a i n s t R u d o l p h i n t h e J e f f e r s o n 7 Circuit Court, Bessemer complaint, Jabez redemption of complaint, Jabez or, sought sought the l i e n filed In the f i r s t a judgment the property. i n the alternative, enforce Division. declaring void In the second to quiet count title a judicial by TAG-South. sale Rudolph's count to the real of the of the property of the property In the t h i r d to count of U n t i l O c t o b e r 23, 2008, E s p i n o z a p e r s o n a l l y s i g n e d a l l p l e a d i n g s a n d f i l i n g s on b e h a l f o f t h e s o l e p l a i n t i f f , J a b e z L a n d C o . E s p i n o z a i s n o t a member o f t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e B a r , and, on O c t o b e r 23, 2008, Andrew LaPlante entered an a p p e a r a n c e as c o u n s e l f o r J a b e z L a n d Co. 7 8 1080999 the c o m p l a i n t , Jabez sought a judgment awarding c i v i l damages against Rudolph f o r a l l e g e d t o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h Jabez's business On of relations July 7, Rudolph's with tenants. 2008, R u d o l p h answer counterclaim, the was filed not an answer. separately Paragraph designated as 16 a but s t a t e d : " [ J a b e z ] i s i n d e b t e d t o [ R u d o l p h ] i n t h e amount o f F i v e T h o u s a n d ... D o l l a r s ... f o r u s e a n d o c c u p a n c y of [Rudolph's] p r o p e r t y . " When filing filed her A l a . Code July 7, plaintiff, is qualified to addition, not also "emergency p r o p e r t y and a July motion" an o r d e r names o f t h e t e n a n t s "First July 22, 7, also entity in and the 2008, seeking submit See the § 12-19- to a motion residing is State Co.," not of Rudolph immediate directing 2008, Jabez filed t h a t "Jabez Land legal business on d i d not a counterclaim. Rudolph on g r o u n d s do Rudolph strike 1975. 2008, Jabez's complaint On answer, fee r e q u i r e d f o r f i l i n g 71(a)(8), On she t h e named licensed Alabama. filed a filed separate possession the of the the property. a verified document Amended C o m p l a i n t and A n s w e r t o C o u n t e r c l a i m . " 9 In Jabez to p r o v i d e her w i t h on or styled In i t , 1080999 Jabez r e a s s e r t e d the a claims d e c l a r a t o r y judgment, business relations, alternative, against a contractual complaint seeking alleging tortious interference seeking to title and judicial Rudolph in i t s original sale. alleging quiet Further, tortious relationship, Jabez or, slander, in added interference defamation, with the claims with and a libel. T h e s e a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s w e r e b a s e d on a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t R u d o l p h had contacted rightful vacate to Jabez's tenants, owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y , the property. Counter-Claim In of asserted and of asserted $ 5 , 000 25 Rudolph's On for a d d i t i o n , Jabez [Rudolph]," separately use of was in indebted the numbered tenants i n c l u d e d an which the "Answer Jabez denied to Rudolph i n property. affirmative Jabez the also defenses to counterclaim. August 14, denying Rudolph's August 15, Hearing" the she demanded t h a t t h e R u d o l p h ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t J a b e z was amount that 2008, 2008, the to motion trial strike Rudolph regarding immediate possession her of filed earlier the court a 10 Jabez's "Motion "emergency property. entered an order complaint. for motion" On Emergency seeking 1080999 On September adding trespass, slander of defenses the making occupying i t . compensatory filing fee 19-71(a)(8), On sought on the to her the in "Amended recover theory Complaint," September 12, granting Rudolph's property and damages her and counterclaims. Rudolph did not See pay § 12- 1975. 2008, motion directing she were required for f i l i n g a counterclaim. A l a . Code unjust tenants punitive with of and payments Jabez's as ejectment, ejectment, mortgage while conjunction of a Answer" asserting action: nature sought "Amended of under property Rudolph damages filed in an expressly causes Further, Rudolph filed and following title. been When s h e Rudolph statutory action enrichment, the 2008, additional counterclaims had 2, the t r i a l court for immediate Jabez and the 2008, Jabez entered an possession occupants order of the to vacate the property. On September "Notice Claims," dismisses of 23, Dismissal which Without stated: without Prejudice "Plaintiff prejudice filed and above a c t i o n . " 11 a document and Release Jabez releases Land Co. a l l claims styled of A l l hereby in the 1080999 On September stating a 25, 2008, the t r i a l court to dismiss." motion but dismissed Further, the t r i a l the trial the action. court t o amend o r t o s e t a s i d e Rudolph dismissed u n t i l argued such time issues presented On October residence on by 3, 2 0 0 8 , Espinoza, murder, inside into over the carpet," murder, from t h e house [Rudolph] Josea the a motion requesting i t s order dismissing i s n o t due t o be i n her counterclaim." Gonzales That same family vacated f o r them. were was murdered day, Mark the property According on t h e d a y o f at the property According i n the Gomez, h i s the property. to Espinoza, on t h e d a y o f t h e m u r d e r , "blood and went when he was a l l " i t was p r e t t y b a d , " a n d " t h e h o u s e was i n condition." the police granted as t h e r e h a s b e e n an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f he saw t h a t p o l i c e went court "the case a s he was d r i v i n g p a s t to interpret horrible that the property. f a m i l y , and Gonzales's the order the action "with prejudice." On S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , R u d o l p h f i l e d to an t h a t J a b e z ' s n o t i c e o f d i s m i s s a l " s h a l l be t r e a t e d as motion the entered As p a r t of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n c u t out and removed p o r t i o n s the house. 12 into the of carpeting 1080999 On the night finished she gathering saw t h a t Rudolph, evidence, holes after the police the house, cut i n the carpet. o f t h e house had where According was " f i l t h y . " The b a c k b e n e a t h i t were to door "torn t h e doors had been removed from t h e k i t c h e n c a b i n e t s , t h e burned, was "messed up," t h e eyes the i n t e r i o r walls roaches everywhere." house, painted roller the action. had not 23, t o amend the sides had had been and " t h e r e were of the outside been almost with yellow across still Jabez streaks left the o r i g i n a l the o r i g i n a l filed or set aside a fee blue blue the order for paint. color. response required only by a p a i n t opposing dismissing o f J a b e z ' s o p p o s i t i o n was t h a t filing of entirely o f o n e o f t h e s e t w o w a l l s was were 2008, The b a s i s paid blue, drawn o f t h e house motion been yellow, had been October Rudolph's Two o f t h e f o u r had on t h e s t o v e required painting, One c o r n e r painted that sides On which yellow. partially Two 2008, t h e k i t c h e n s i n k and t h e p i p e s refrigerator the 3, Rudolph entered had been the inside was o p e n , up," of October Rudolph filing a a hearing on counterclaim. On October Rudolph's motion 31, 2008, t o amend the t r i a l court or set aside 13 held the order dismissing 1080999 the action. Following the the hearing, the trial court entered f o l l o w i n g order: "1. The O r d e r o f D i s m i s s a l ... i s c o r r e c t e d to r e f l e c t t h a t [Jabez's] c l a i m s are d i s m i s s e d without prejudice. "2. the [Rudolph] requisite s h a l l h a v e f o u r t e e n (14) d a y s fee f o r her c o u n t e r c l a i m . to pay "3. Upon the [payment] of the filing fee by [ R u d o l p h ] w i t h i n s a i d 14 d a y s t h e C i r c u i t C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o c h a n g e t h e s t a t u s o f t h i s c a s e on the A l a c o u r t system from 'disposed' to ' a c t i v e . ' " Rudolph the case testified time she t h a t the paid the was tried that the filing fee, without a fair l i s t e d i t with fair market the rental value and, on jury. value February At the of trial, property r e a l - e s t a t e a g e n t was o f t h e p r o p e r t y was $25,000 a f t e r vacated i t . She Rudolph at the $59,000 and month. worth "maybe" t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was tenants 2008 , $600 p e r Rudolph f u r t h e r estimated the 5, estimated that the c o s t o f r e p a i r i n g t h e damage t o t h e h o u s e , i n c l u d i n g r e p l a c i n g the carpet, plumbing, repairing and approximately Providence property with the kitchen r e p a i n t i n g the cabinets, interior and repairing exterior, would the be $75,000. Hooper Rudolph testified in May that, 2008, 14 she when she noticed visited no the obvious 1080999 problems w i t h the plumbing, the three years old and "clean," like i t had been looked [within] a year or two." water damage or good shape, and cabinets." a p p l i a n c e s were and painted leakage from the the kitchen on She the kitchen," paint Espinoza, purchasing property According w a l l s , and on May that a b a n d o n e d , d r u g p a r a p h e r n a l i a was exterior wax property at d o o r s were standing gutters were were "nice the the that, 20, interior not time, strewn open, he suitable the ready before viewed the to l i v e i n . appeared about the house, backed up into had b e e n damaged by w a t e r f r o m a r o o f l e a k , p a r t o f a f e n c e the y a r d had the windows were broken, w a l l s and the house, the been damaged, t h e interior up floors. property sewage had damaged, t h e paint "open shortly 2008, in white the house wood with the of r o o f was problems w o u l d remove a w a l l t o testified Espinoza, the were t o get f o u n d t h a t t h e h o u s e was to maybe "maybe n e e d e d a l i t t l e however, the and the she house that, although s t a t e d t h a t , i f she for herself, of obvious cabinets " i n good shape," they the recently, "fairly roof, However, Hooper noted t o move i n t o exterior T h e r e w e r e no w a l l s were them." the approximately floor in g u t t e r s n e e d e d r e p l a c i n g , some and 15 the stove and refrigerator 1080999 were b r o k e n . Espinoza house faulty was so something, a Espinoza, "paid that testified "every shot that time out." In the wiring you went to plug in according addition, and needed replacing. a g u y " t o make r e p a i r s . Espinoza to were testified However, t h e m a j o r i t y t e s t i m o n y was e i t h e r v a g u e o r c o n t r a d i c t o r y w i t h extent i n the b o a r d s a n d b r i c k s on t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e h o u s e deteriorating he spark also regard that ofh i s to the o f t h e r e p a i r s , whom he h a d h i r e d t o make t h e r e p a i r s , how much t h e r e p a i r s w h e t h e r he p a i d cost, when he p a i d f o r the repairs with f o r t h e r e p a i r s , and cash, check, or a c r e d i t card. Espinoza testified that T A G - S o u t h o n May 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , from of the l i e n number and improvements of substantiate dates before others bore relinquished receipts this May dates filed f o r "$9,987.95 t h e 2 2 n d d a y o f May 2 0 0 8 , " repairs he ... w i t h represented interest, some o f t h e c o s t to the property. He p r o d u c e d a l l e g a t i o n , some o f w h i c h w e r e m a r k e d with subsequent possession (some hardware a to 2008 various of stores 20, from on b e h a l f from to October of the property. 2007 and 3, 2 0 0 8 , 8 When 2006), and the date asked he about Espinoza produced i n court, and t e s t i f i e d at length a b o u t , a number o f r e c e i p t s m a r k e d w i t h d a t e s t h a t d i d n o t 8 16 1080999 the discrepancy explained that he that could represented i n the dates on h i s "bookkeeping not t e l l expenses whether related personal or purchased receipts, [was] s l o p p y " the receipts t o Rudolph's questioned Espinoza Espinoza, property, or left stand, and admitted he produced property, the resulting other Espinoza houses h i s own at tax sales. Before business the the he trial had court i n the f o l l o w i n g exchange: "The C o u r t : I h a v e a q u e s t i o n I'm g o i n g t o a s k y o u , sir, t h e same question I asked you back i n S e p t e m b e r , b a c k i n my o f f i c e , a n d y o u d i d n ' t a n s w e r it. ... What made y o u t h i n k y o u h a d a n y c l a i m t o t h i s p r o p e r t y once you were n o t i f i e d t h a t i t h a d been redeemed? "[Espinoza]: Okay. I f I can c o r r e c t the mistake I made t h e n , my o n l y c l a i m t o t h e p r o p e r t y i s t h a t t h e y h a d owed me f o r t h e w o r k t h a t I h a d p u t i n t o the p r o p e r t y . I d i d n ' t have a p r o b l e m w i t h s a y i n g , okay, t h i s i s y o u r p r o p e r t y , i f you d o n ' t want t o s e l l i t , i fyou want t o keep i t , i t ' s y o u r p r o p e r t y , you c a n t a k e i t b a c k . H o w e v e r , I h a v e made y o u r p r o p e r t y b e t t e r t h a n i t was b e f o r e I t o o k o v e r . So i t ' s o n l y f a i r t h a t y o u g u y s p a y me f o r t h e w o r k I have done. I don't work f o r f r e e . And I a p o l o g i z e t h a t I d i d n o t c o r r e c t t h a t . ... A t t h a t t i m e , I think I probably s h o u l d n o t have assumed t h a t I c o r r e s p o n d w i t h t h e p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h he possessed the property. However, w i t h one r e c e i p t s from the p e r i o d of Jabez's p o s s e s s i o n were e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . The t o t a l v a l u e entered into evidence f o r that period f a l l $9,987.95. 17 and h i s t e n a n t s exception, only of the property of the r e c e i p t s s f a r short of 1080999 w o u l d a u t o m a t i c a l l y be understood. ... At that t i m e , I was e x p e c t i n g Ms. R u d o l p h t o s a y , p u t me i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p e r s o n who d i d i t , a n d I was just g o i n g to e x p l a i n a l l the problems, or say j u s t pay h e r , a n d I was e x p e c t i n g h e r a n d I t o come t o an a g r e e m e n t f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r my expenses, and then I would have s a i d take your p r o p e r t y back i f you d o n ' t want t o s e l l i t . . . . "The Court: ... You know, I w a s n ' t a s k i n g that q u e s t i o n b a c k i n my o f f i c e t o be f u n n y b e c a u s e t h i s is a lawsuit. It's serious. And I a s k e d you what m a k e s y o u t h i n k t h a t t h i s l a d y was n o t e n t i t l e d t o possession of her property. This was back in S e p t e m b e r . ... T h i s a l l h a p p e n e d -- s h e r e d e e m e d i t J u n e 18. ... A n d a l l t h a t t i m e y o u s t i l l h a v e f o l k s in there. Y o u c l a i m a l i e n a n d c a u s e t o be p r o v e n at t r i a l . Okay. B u t y o u make a l o t o f a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h i s l a w s u i t . ... "[Espinoza]: Yes, sir. What I should have e x p l a i n e d , and I a p o l o g i z e f o r j u s t a s s u m i n g t h a t I w o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d or assuming t h a t the process w o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d , I s h o u l d have e x p l a i n e d t h a t I'm i n complete agreement that Ms. Rudolph is e n t i t l e d to p o s s e s s i o n of the house, but not until I'm p a i d w h a t i s owed t o me, and I a p o l o g i z e I d i d n o t make t h a t m o r e c l e a r e r [ s i c ] . " On February following 16, 2009, the trial court entered order: "This matter came before the Court February 5, 2009. ... Sworn t e s t i m o n y evidence was presented and the court o r d e r s as f o l l o w s : for trial and other finds and "1. [Espinoza] obtained a possessory interest in l a n d v i a a t a x s a l e , he b e i n g t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r f o r t h e [ p r o p e r t y ] on May 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 18 the 1080999 "2. [Rudolph] soon t h e r e a f t e r d i s c o v e r e d t h a t h e r m o r t g a g e company h a d n o t p a i d h e r p r o p e r t y t a x e s as was i t s c u s t o m , a n d r e d e e m e d t h e d w e l l i n g on J u n e 18, 2 0 0 [ 8 ] . "3. [Rudolph] n o t i f i e d [Jabez] o f t h e f a c t t h a t she had redeemed t h e p r o p e r t y i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r she redeemed t h e p r o p e r t y . "3 [sic]. Despite this notification [Jabez] c o n t i n u e d t o rent [Rudolph's] dwelling to tenants w i t h o u t s u b m i t t i n g any monies t o [Rudolph] andf o r some r e a s o n s t i l l unbeknownst t o t h e c o u r t f i l e d t h i s f r i v o l o u s l a w s u i t on [ J u l y 2, 2 0 0 8 ] . "4. [Espinoza] t e s t i f i e d during the t r i a l but the [ C ] o u r t c a n n o t s e r i o u s l y a c c e p t a s t r u e a n y t h i n g he t e s t i f i e d t o . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t a s o f t h e d a t e [Rudolph] o b t a i n e d t h e C e r t i f i c a t e o f Tax S a l e t h e d w e l l i n g i n q u e s t i o n was i n g o o d , l i v a b l e c o n d i t i o n and t h a t by t h e t i m e [ J a b e z ] r e l i n q u i s h e d p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e d w e l l i n g o n O c t o b e r 3, 2 0 0 8 ( i . e . , t h e n i g h t one of [Jabez's] tenants was m u r d e r e d i n the dwelling and the police concluded their investigation) t h e d w e l l i n g was i n e s s e n t i a l l y a trashed condition. "WHEREFORE, t h e C o u r t orders as follows: "1. Judgment i s r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r o f M a x i n e R u d o l p h and s h e i s a w a r d e d $50,000.00 c o m p e n s a t o r y damages and $25,000.00 p u n i t i v e damages a g a i n s t defendant Antonio B. E s p i n o z a individually and A n t o n i o B. E s p i n o z a d o i n g b u s i n e s s as J a b e z L a n d Company. "2. C o s t s o f t h i s a c t i o n a r e t a x e d a g a i n s t A n t o n i o B. E s p i n o z a i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d A n t o n i o B. E s p i n o z a d o i n g b u s i n e s s as J a b e z L a n d Company. "3. Any r e q u e s t e d deemed d e n i e d . " relief n o t g r a n t e d h e r e i n s h a l l be 19 1080999 On M a r c h and a motion same 17, 2009, to alter, day, the t r i a l Jabez filed a motion f o r a new amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t . court entered an trial the denying order On the motions. On A p r i l Court from 28, 2009, Jabez the t r i a l filed court's February Standard When e v i d e n c e "'unique[ly] and their 2 d 6 3 1 , 633 correctness to directly demeanor premised to a the t r i a l observe Therefore, court's factual Ex p a r t e J.E., ( A l a . 2008). trial j u d g e m a k e s no e x p r e s s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , the t r i a l judge t h e judgment. AmSouth Bank, Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc., N.A., i s taken made t h o s e support Transamerica findings ore tenus this Commercial Court F i n . Corp. ( A l a . 1992) We w i l l and t h e will necessary to I n c . v. P e r k i n s 578 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . of 1 So. 3d 1 0 0 2 , findings 608 S o . 2 d 3 7 5 , 378 20 parte a presumption 1008 assume t h a t When e v i d e n c e Ex ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e F a n n , 810 trial on o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e . court i s the witnesses and c r e d i b i l i t y . ' " (Ala. 2001)). attaches judgment. o f Review T.V., 971 S o . 2 d 1, 4 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) So. of appeal to this 16, 2009, i s presented ore tenus, position[ed] to assess a notice & v. (citing Assocs., not disturb the 1080999 findings of the t r i a l erroneous, against 514 the great findings are "clearly supporting evidence, without court unless those manifestly unjust, or weight S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 878 of the evidence." ( A l a . 1987) ( c i t i n g Gaston Cougar M i n i n g v . Ames Co. v . M i n e r a l L a n d & M i n i n g C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c . , 392 S o . 2 d 1177 ( A l a . 1981)). is "'The t r i a l presented reasonable to (quoting 9, 13 45 will the judgment.'" and c i t i n g see a l s o any evidence 608 S o . 2 d a t 378 Home, Inc., Norman v . S c h w a r t z , Ex p a r t e evidence i f , under there i scredible Nursing the ore trial tenus Perkins, standard application to a application of law to the f a c t s ; question of appeal." Ex p a r t e J.E., (Ala. affirmed, where 545 S o . 2 d 594 S o . 2 d 646 S o . 2 d 47 1994). "However, So. [ i n cases Transamerica, C l a r k v. A l b e r t v i l l e 1991)); be of the testimony, ( A l a . 1989), (Ala. (Ala. ore tenus] aspect support c o u r t ' s judgment court's law c a r r i e s no conclusions This conclusions a trial presumption review of court's of v. Hale, Court law or ruling no i t s on a on P e r k i n s , 646 752 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 4 - 4 5 "'review[s] o f law and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n 21 has correctness 1 S o . 3 d a t 1008 ( c i t i n g 2d a t 47, a n d Eubanks 1999)). of the t r i a l court's of law to the facts 1080999 under the de Washington v. novo standard State, 922 of So. 2d review.'" 145, 158 Id. (Ala. (quoting Crim. App. 2005)). Analysis I. Rudolph's A l l e g e d Counterclaims Failure to Move Jabez contends t h a t Rudolph d i d not in her original September 2, 2008, containing new court do to counterclaims not of answer. when to Rudolph filed Jabez assert them original in a did argues were c o m p u l s o r y and a s s e r t i n g them i n her court further she Leave assert Jabez 9 counterclaims, so. for not that Assert counterclaims contends an to that, amended obtain those on answer leave of additional t h a t R u d o l p h w a i v e d them answer subsequent or obtaining pleading. See by leave Rule The r e c o r d , however, speaks f o r i t s e l f . Rudolph d i d not designate as a counterclaim t h a t p o r t i o n of her answer a s s e r t i n g t h a t J a b e z was i n d e b t e d t o h e r " i n t h e amount o f F i v e T h o u s a n d ... D o l l a r s ... f o r u s e a n d o c c u p a n c y o f [ t h e ] property." However, Jabez c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d t h a t a l l e g a t i o n t o b e , a n d t r e a t e d i t a s , a c o u n t e r c l a i m -- as i s e v i d e n t f r o m J a b e z ' s e x t e n s i v e r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g d e s i g n a t e d a s an " A n s w e r to [Rudolph's] C o u n t e r c l a i m . " See R u l e 8 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("All p l e a d i n g s s h a l l be so c o n s t r u e d a s t o do s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . " ) ; c f . R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("When a p a r t y h a s mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim or a c o u n t e r c l a i m as a d e f e n s e , t h e c o u r t on t e r m s , i f j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s , s h a l l t r e a t t h e p l e a d i n g as i f t h e r e h a d b e e n a proper d e s i g n a t i o n . " ) . 9 22 1080999 13(a) and these alleged Jabez contends that Rudolph's c o u n t e r c l a i m s defects, ( f ) , A l a . R. were n o t properly before According t o Jabez, discretion by dismissing The these the t r i a l contains arguments Rule 13(f), before t h e judgment indication that court. of the t r i a l A l a . R. C i v . P. 'we c a n n o t r e v e r s e White (Ala. 2005)."); 439 objection waived" after So. 2d 6 8 3 , 686 for failure because "[n]one counterclaim on t h i s court I n c . v. Utah leave before based time on & C a s . C o . , 928 S o . 2 d Foam (holding Prods., that of the court of the counterdefendants ground" will ( " I t i s w e l l known f o rthe f i r s t ( A l a . 1 983) to obtain we S a n d s G r o u p , L . L . C . v . PRS Farm F i r e Polytec, asserted on t h e b a s i s o f t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l 2 80, Inc., Jabez Therefore, court a n a r g u m e n t n o t made b e l o w a n d u r g e d 2 85 exceeded i t s counterclaims the t r i a l S i n g l e t o n v. S t a t e II. therefore the action. Rudolph's no appeal.' the court L L C , 998 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1057 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) that on c o u r t when i t d i s m i s s e d reinstating record reverse on Based the action. not II, the t r i a l C i v . P. "any [was] objected to the t r i a l court). Rudolph's I n i t i a l F a i l u r e Filing Counterclaim t o Tender t h e Fee R e q u i r e d When Jabez the t r i a l the argues that, when court dismissed a c t i o n upon J a b e z ' s " N o t i c e o f D i s m i s s a l , " t h e t r i a l 23 court had 1080999 not acquired because, by jurisdiction i t argues, she over had not Rudolph's paid § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 8 ) , A l a . Code 1975. v i g i l a n t l y protect against jurisdiction (Ala. The jurisdiction, conferred 999 So. So. 2d by 2d 891, 894 support of the Ex § not parte (Ala. 12 So. waive l a c k of jurisdiction Alabama Dep't (citing Ex 631, 635 subject-matter may of parte that the trial not Human be Res., Davis, court over Rudolph's counterclaims filing 12-19-70, 3d 930 2005)). i t s argument requisite construing Williams, ( A l a . 2008) 499-500 obtain jurisdiction paid no subject-matter consent. 497, In and required d e c i d i n g c a s e s o v e r w h i c h i t has p a r t i e s may court fee to v. "A filing is obligated Crutcher 2008). the counterclaims Ala. fee, Code Jabez 1975. did not u n t i l Rudolph relies Section on cases 12-19-70(a) provides: " T h e r e s h a l l be a c o n s o l i d a t e d c i v i l f i l i n g fee, known as a d o c k e t f e e , c o l l e c t e d f r o m a p l a i n t i f f a t the time a c o m p l a i n t i s f i l e d i n c i r c u i t c o u r t or i n d i s t r i c t court." (Emphasis In (Ala. required added.) De-Gas, 1985), by § Inc. the v. Midland plaintiffs 12-19-70(a) until 24 Resources, did not nearly pay two 470 the So. 2d docket months a f t e r 1218 fee they 1080999 had filed action and their complaint. had e x p i r e d the time considering between the whether fee, this payment of complaint" the and t h a t paid and complaint. of the fees limitations Rule certain a complaint circuit 1 0 court. Section 1 0 by § "§ 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 0 r e q u i r e s the the time payment C i v . P. with a filing Jabez fees be: for the action 12-19-70 De-Gas, of filing action him" u n t i l is the cannot the fees on the taken " i s a jurisdictional ("A 470 for statute So. 2d a t 1222. civil action of But c f . i s commenced by the c o u r t . " ) . A l a . Code 1975, requires fee f o r a counterclaim argues 12-19-71(a)(8) "The f i l i n g cases s h a l l In t h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e payment 12-19-71(a)(8), to collect fee. of against judicial purposes." Section clerk at the filed commenced t o t h e commencement o f an a c t i o n 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. filing before of the s u i t required prerequisite ... action on t h e was docket " t h e d e f e n d a n t i n an i n i t i a l Accordingly, fees the plaintiffs' Court observed that filing the complaint paid purposes know o f t h e e x i s t e n c e are the time plaintiffs statute-of-limitation docket The s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s which that, like filed the i n the docket provides: shall 25 be collected in the civil fee 1080999 mandated by § 12-19-70, t h e f i l i n g "jurisdictional." suggests does that not required See a counterclaim become part of by § 12-19-70 Although De-Gas, § the added), filing is filed," the filed. the time intent of civil 470 So. filing a complaint fee substantial or a hardship thus filing fee A l a . Code 1975 (emphasis that a counterclaim ("'There s h a l l ... I t was to require court-approved that docket provided expressly a t 1220 the at the time [the] f e e ... c o l l e c t e d f r o m accompany Jabez and that is filed of the l e g i s l a t u r e this requires is 1 1 not 2d 1222. "filed," [the] p l a i n t i f f has at the c o l l e c t e d at the time C f . De-Gas, consolidated at be 2d until § 12-19-70(a), legislature f e e must So. action, expressly f e e must be " c o l l e c t e d f r o m complaint 470 i s not t r u l y i s paid. 12-19-70 fee f o r a counterclaim a be a is a plaintiff the obvious e i t h e r t h e payment verified the complaint statement of at the time of fi " ( 8 ) Two h u n d r e d n i n e t y - s e v e n d o l l a r s ( $ 2 9 7 ) f o r a counterclaim, cross claim, t h i r d party complaint, a t h i r d p a r t y m o t i o n , o r an a c t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment f i l e d in a civil a c t i o n of the c i r c u i t court other than cases filed on the domestic r e l a t i o n s docket of the c i r c u i t court." Jabez limitations 1 1 makes no allegation that the statute ran before Rudolph paid the f i l i n g f e e . 26 of 1080999 filing." when (quoting Rudolph counterclaim which the Civ. P. § 12-19-70, delivered was trial ("The "filed" filing court . . . . " ) ; R u b i n v. 657 be s a i d to be jurisdiction. submitted district the with docket required fee Rudolph's as the submitted 194 So. when 663 (1940))); 1068, 2d docket 1071-72 fee for 470 with with So. 2d the at the 27 filing did M o t o r Co. cf. by a 1222 not condition 2003) claim in required the to be circuit or (distinguishing from the of v. Cunningham (Ala. a c t i o n i n the a complaint court on filing statutorily in a c i v i l trial counterclaims them w i t h t h e required (quoting Covington Bros. De-Gas, the filed s t a t u t o r y fee in conjunction Therefore, filing court R. the complaint court); the Rule 5(e), A l a i t i s d e l i v e r e d to duly So. from with See may 874 court over or o t h e r paper 226, probate action So. Ala. the of the 1985)("'[A] pleading been (distinguishing the D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 469 Robinson, Lavoie, clerk, the officer.'" v. the c l e r k of proper f i l i n g 239 Therefore, became a p a r t made b y ( A l a . C i v . App. have 1975)). to of papers rules shall Code counterclaim and c o u r t had these 2d the Ala. an err filing fee appeal). by that reinstating she pay the 1080999 filing fee. shall n o t be order of the court court deems p r o p e r . defendant See 1 2 R u l e 4 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. dismissed prior at the p l a i n t i f f ' s and to C i v P. upon the instance counterclaim shall save upon terms and c o n d i t i o n s as has been the defendant service upon the p l e a d e d by a of the be d i s m i s s e d but f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n by the p l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e a c t i o n may the action counterclaim If a such ("[A]n remain pending court."). III. Validity Jabez was argues invalid redeem her of Redemption that because, property according in strict which Code land i s s o l d at a tax sale 40-10-122(a) with the judge the lands were governs sold, with to of conformance to a party ... the the interest Rudolph's Jabez, t h e manner requires of probate Property redemption Ala. Section 1975, the of Rudolph with of other payable § did not 40-10-122, redemption than redemptioner amount property the to o f money when State. "deposit for at the r a t e which of 12 We n o t e t h a t , when t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 1 2 - 1 9 - 7 1 h a v e not been s a t i s f i e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may stay the time f o r answering the counterclaim or conducting discovery or l i t i g a t i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m u n t i l t h e f e e i s p a i d o r may make s u c h o t h e r o r d e r s as a r e r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e payment. Consequently, a counterclaim defendant i s not w i t h o u t i n c e n t i v e t o t a k e n o t e o f , and t i m e l y o b j e c t t o , t h e nonpayment of the f i l i n g f e e . 12 28 1080999 percent p e r annum from date of sale " It i s undisputed t h a t Rudolph s a t i s f i e d t h e r e d e m p t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 40-10122(a). Section "property 40-10-122(c) [that] contains of the [tax] sale," the amounts of " [ a ] l l purchaser with preservation property. determined loss Jabez and "the necessary that or that this case interest infer Jabez any such was the t r i a l to support tried judgment the residential value court made determined i n i n [an o r e t e n u s ] no I n c . , 578 Clark a t 12 p r e m i u m s on trial court "preservation h a d no So. 2d this the findings i t s judgment 545 S o . 2 d 9, 13 the improvements made of a l l on t h e v a l u e that ore tenus, supported by t h e r e c o r d . Home, I n c . , o r owed b y t h e d i d not pay insurance we to pay the purchaser on Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, that must coverage section with respect s t r u c t u r e at the time premiums p a i d interest," either ("Because amply insurance Further, improvements" assume this p e r annum." Fitzner the redemptioner with i m p r o v e m e n t s made on t h e p r o p e r t y accordance with the that, a residential f o r casualty structure[,] percent provides value. a t 1063 Court will that were " ) . Such a f i n d i n g i s v. A l b e r t v i l l e Nursing ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ("The t r i a l court's case 29 will be a f f i r m e d , i f , under 1080999 any reasonable evidence aspect to support of the testimony, the judgment."). there Therefore, Rudolph i s not r e q u i r e d t o pay Jabez a n y t h i n g t o s a t i s f y of § i s credible the requirements 40-10-122(c). Section 40-10-122(d) p r o v i d e s : "The p r o p o s e d r e d e m p t i o n e r s h a l l make w r i t t e n d e m a n d upon t h e p u r c h a s e r o f a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e v a l u e o f all permanent or preservation improvements as a p p l i c a b l e made o n t h e p r o p e r t y s i n c e t h e t a x s a l e . I n r e s p o n s e t o w r i t t e n d e m a n d made p u r s u a n t t o t h i s s u b s e c t i o n , w i t h i n 10 d a y s f r o m t h e r e c e i p t o f s u c h demand, t h e p u r c h a s e r s h a l l f u r n i s h the proposed r e d e m p t i o n e r w i t h t h e amount c l a i m e d as t h e v a l u e o f such permanent or preservation improvements as a p p l i c a b l e ; a n d w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r r e c e i p t o f s u c h response, the proposed redemptioner either shall a c c e p t t h e v a l u e so s t a t e d by t h e p u r c h a s e r o r , disagreeing therewith, shall appoint a referee to ascertain the value of such permanent or preservation improvements as applicable. The proposed redemptioner s h a l l i n w r i t i n g (i) notify the p u r c h a s e r o f h i s o r h e r d i s a g r e e m e n t as t o t h e v a l u e ; a n d ( i i ) i n f o r m t h e p u r c h a s e r o f t h e name o f t h e r e f e r e e a p p o i n t e d b y h i m o r h e r . W i t h i n 10 d a y s after the receipt of such n o t i c e , the purchaser shall appoint a referee to ascertain the value of the permanent or preservation improvements as a p p l i c a b l e and a d v i s e t h e proposed redemptioner o f t h e name o f t h e a p p o i n t e e . W i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r t h e p u r c h a s e r h a s a p p o i n t e d h i s o r h e r r e f e r e e , t h e two r e f e r e e s s h a l l meet a n d c o n f e r upon t h e a w a r d t o be made b y t h e m . I f t h e y c a n n o t a g r e e , t h e r e f e r e e s s h a l l a t once a p p o i n t an u m p i r e , a n d t h e award by a m a j o r i t y o f s u c h b o d y s h a l l b e made w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r the appointment o f t h e u m p i r e a n d s h a l l be f i n a l between t h e p a r t i e s . " 30 1080999 Jabez Rudolph value argues that the d i d n o t make a w r i t t e n of improvements, dispute over according until moneys allegedly to the process redemption because was invalid request f o r an she had requirements of § demand was due because in § did otherwise their improvements 40-10-122(d). argue Not that the had not s u b m i t t e d a of failed 40-10-122(d). for Jabez Rudolph itemization because d i d not resolve Jabez required motion invalid f o r a statement of the and t h e p a r t i e s h i s postjudgment written redemption Jabez's to expenses comply "'[A] t r i a l with court or the has t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o c o n s i d e r a new l e g a l a r g u m e n t i n a p o s t - j u d g m e n t motion, but i s not required to do L . L . C . v . C h a s e Home F i n . , L . L . C . , 2007) 2d ( q u o t i n g Green 1366, 1369 trial Special Assets, 991 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 678 ( A l a . Tree A c c e p t a n c e , I n c . v. B l a l o c k , (Ala. 1988)). There i s no i n d i c a t i o n 525 S o . that the c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e r i t s o f t h e l e g a l argument for the f i r s t not presume 678. Jabez on i tdid. offers See S p e c i a l no the in refusing basis of Assets, justification o f h i s argument. discretion motion raised t i m e i n J a b e z ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a n d we that presentation its so.'" The t r i a l to grant Rudolph's 31 will 991 S o . 2 d a t for the delayed court d i d not exceed Jabez's failure to postjudgment request an 1080999 itemization property. 2d See 1366, Court of ( A l a . 1988) a p p e a l , we g i v e n by Green Tree its post-judgment For IV. on that for failing to improve I n c . v. B l a l o c k , on the 525 record before t h e r e was to r a i s e the no So. this justification the argument p r i o r to motion."). the basis will of not r e v e r s e the t r i a l Jabez's contention court's that i n redeeming Rudolph the p r o p e r t y . Damages argues Rudolph punitive that $50,000 damages. shown that the trial court compensatory Having the see Transamerica, damages a w a r d e d by ("'"[W]here [this the Court] reasonable (quoting 2d Yeager Reed 791, will aspect, v. 795 the v. L u c y , evidence ... has light 998 and the of Trs. ( A l a . 2000), s u p r a , we [presented] judgment quoting in turn 32 the conclude supported by ( A l a . 2008 ) ore tenus ... i f , under any credible f o r Alabama in evidence f a v o r a b l e to 2 d 4 60 , 4 63 by awarding $25,000 court are So. been affirm most trial i t i s supported Board by t h o r o u g h l y c o n s i d e r e d the in the evidence. erred damages record the in in the c o u r t ' s judgment, trial So. conclude t o comply w i t h § 40-10-122 Jabez as incurred ("Based t h e s e r e a s o n s , we judgment failed Jabez Green Tree A c c e p t a n c e , 1370 on expenses evidence."'" State Univ., R a i d t v. 778 Crane, 1080999 342 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 360 trial court's (Ala.1977))). Accordingly, d e c i s i o n as t o t h e amount we a f f i r m t h e o f damages. Conclusion The j u d g m e n t of the t r i a l court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Lyons, and Shaw, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, J J . , concur. 33 Bolin, Parker, Murdock,

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.