Steven Knoedler and Katherine Knoedler v. Leslie Blinco et al

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:04/23/2010 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 1081124 S t e v e n K n o e d l e r and K a t h e r i n e K n o e d l e r v. Leslie Appeal SHAW, from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t (CV-08-296) Court Justice. Steven below, Blinco et a l . Knoedler appeal defendants judgment from Leslie i n favor and Katherine a summary Blinco Knoedler, judgment e n t e r e d and Kathleen o f defendant the plaintiffs Avalon Blinco i n favor of and a Homeowners summary POA, I n c . 1081124 ("the homeowners association"), alleging nuisance, seeking injunctive violation of subdivision Knoedlers relief restrictive developed also appeal of defendant as R e e h l negligence, Knoedlers the and subdivision of the Avalon During existence of a restrictive applicable Avalon L.L.C. The that vehicle own adjacent i n Daphne. subdivision, initial meeting, as lots a n d one o f located their i n discussed the regarding the storage of i n Avalon. follows: "4.11 No h o u s e t r a i l e r o r m o b i l e home s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d on a n y L o t a t a n y t i m e . No m o r e t h a n o n e camper, motor van o r s i m i l a r r e c r e a t i o n a l v e h i c l e , n o r more t h a n one b o a t and boat t r a i l e r may b e s t o r e d on t h e L o t a t a n y t i m e , n o r s h a l l a n y s u c h camper, motor v a n o r o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l v e h i c l e o r 2 i n 2005, regarding Reehl ("RV") on p r o p e r t y covenant provides claim. I n June on t h e p r o p e r t y covenant business History a real-estate developer to construct a residence recreational and alleged i n the Development, the Blincos Avalon. a Avalon imposed and Procedural met w i t h R e e h l , developers desire to the Blincos' I n c . ) on t h e K n o e d l e r s ' f r a u d a residential the B l i n c o s related claims misconduct, Rance R e e h l ( b o t h i n d i v i d u a l l y and d o i n g Facts Avalon, and wanton covenants by the Knoedlers' f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r Properties, The on The 1081124 b o a t a n d b o a t t r a i l e r be p e r m i t t e d t o be p a r k e d o r s t o r e d on t h e f r o n t o r s i d e l a w n o f t h e L o t b u t shall be stored to the rear of the Lot as i n c o n s p i c u o u s l y f r o m t h e s t r e e t as p r a c t i c a b l e . I n a d d i t i o n , notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any camper, motor van or similar r e c r e a t i o n a l v e h i c l e o r b o a t and b o a t t r a i l e r t o be stored on any Lot must be approved by the [ a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w ] committee. Automobiles may n o t b e p a r k e d on t h e f r o n t o r s i d e l a w n o f a n y L o t . " B a s e d upon R e e h l ' s a s s u r a n c e s t h a t t h e c o v e n a n t a s i n g l e RV into t o be a purchase Blincos' house s t o r e d on t h e p r o p e r t y , agreement plans, electrical hook-ups developers, and the approved September walk-through that 2006, abuts The and 25, 2006, the water approved the with on their S e p t e m b e r 20, house Knoedlers participated in their of with 1 Inc., F o w l e r i s employed by C o l d w e l l Banker. 1 and the occasion, Blincos' agency, Reehl a house the driveway. t h e b u i l d e r , James Ray, Reehl's 3 in that a t o t h e K n o e d l e r s , when t h e y q u e s t i o n e d t h e i r Fowler, parked On purchase According John on 2006. observed agent, and by Knoedlers estate the i n accordance closed property. RV were entered Thereafter, dedicated constructed moved i n on Blinco an RV, Blincos i n conjunction the included their t h e h o u s e was plans. September 19, On for the B l i n c o s f o r the property. which permitted realboth Properties, 1081124 o f whom w e r e p r e s e n t , a b o u t t h e RV, F o w l e r was t h e RV unfamiliar additional Ray information. informed long and trip that with However, them t h a t t h e B l i n c o s h a d j u s t i t would be gone within there 10 to t h a t he obtain assert returned that from a only temporarily days. The Knoedlers c l o s e d on t h e p r o p e r t y ; t h e y a d m i t t h a t , a t l e a s t one t o two weeks b e f o r e a copy attempt the Knoedlers a n d t h a t t h e RV w a s p a r k e d subsequently read b u t would indicated closing, t h e y were p r o v i d e d w i t h and of the restrictive covenants applicable to the property. When the Knoedlers' residence, The subsequently t h e RV was s t i l l Knoedlers association, made present repeated Reehl, occupied on t h e B l i n c o complaints and Fowler regarding to the their new property. homeowners t h e RV; a dispute ensued, and t h e Knoedlers r e p e a t e d l y made r e q u e s t s o f b o t h t h e B l i n c o s a n d t h e homeowners a s s o c i a t i o n t h a t t h e RV b e r e m o v e d . In response t o those complaints, and a t t h e request of the developers, theB l i n c o s u l t i m a t e l y c o n s t r u c t e d a p r i v a c y fence t o c o n c e a l t h e RV. of Avalon, and According the fence, the front of which t o Reehl, obscured the property, 4 one o f t h e d e v e l o p e r s t h e RV f r o m brought the street the Blincos into 1081124 compliance board of with § 4.11 directors confirmed that of of the the homeowners the B l i n c o s had approval from Reehl presence o f t h e RV to store was, restrictive a letter conclusion, the dated t h e RV therefore, recommended their facility. on the and not a v i o l a t i o n of that the the 2007. Blincos' residence or that of § Despite the extended their the 4.11. RV, either move the the board extend RV to board's regarding nonetheless their an driveway RV-storage In compliance w i t h the Board's request, the subsequently later 2 homeowners i n A v a l o n b y means 7, Blincos The written l o t and and because of the c o n t i n u e d c o m p l a i n t s visibility behind November association received both oral Those f i n d i n g s were conveyed t o of covenants. driveway to the rear Blincos of their T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e members o f t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f t h e homeowners a s s o c i a t i o n were f i r s t e l e c t e d and governance of the Avalon s u b d i v i s i o n turned over to the homeowners association by Avalon Development, LLC, in September 2007, and t h a t t h e b o a r d h e l d i t s f i r s t official meeting o n O c t o b e r 3, 2007. D u r i n g t h a t m e e t i n g , the RV d i s p u t e was f i r s t b r o u g h t t o t h e b o a r d ' s a t t e n t i o n a n d , i n a n effort to discern a l l the f a c t s , the board subsequently s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g s w i t h b o t h t h e B l i n c o s and t h e K n o e d l e r s i n O c t o b e r 2007. Before surrendering the matter to the board, R e e h l i n d i c a t e d t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f t h e B l i n c o s ' e f f o r t s t o c o n c e a l t h e RV, the developers f e l t the m a t t e r had been resolved. 2 5 1081124 property rear i n order that of the property In May 2008, against the Blincos damages and as the RV violated § and subdivision. of the the The "Reehl, m i g h t be Knoedlers s t o r e d as filed a and near Knoedlers his also both and covenants asserted of a servants, on misrepresentation purchasing On J u n e 30, Knoedlers' on of that the Knoedlers the B l i n c o s ' RV Blincos' the v a r i o u s employees, purportedly on mistakenly was property, 2 0 0 8 , t h e B l i n c o s f i l e d b o t h an and distress, filed claim relied only which on in answer to the residence. complaint emotional i t Avalon fraud a counterclaim seeking damages b a s e d a l l e g a t i o n s of i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y , i n t e n t i o n a l defendants on their the that the or the as R e e h l P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . , " Knoedlers present temporarily the seeking that grounds t h a t R e e h l e i t h e r knowingly, r e c k l e s s l y , or to the action association, nuisance agents, i n d i v i d u a l l y and d o i n g b u s i n e s s represented to underlying alleging private restrictive through the homeowners relief constituted 4.11 RV possible. injunctive Blincos' against the separate claims and the motions tort seeking asserted against 6 of outrage. infliction A l l the a summary j u d g m e n t them i n the Knoedlers' 1081124 complaint. On F e b r u a r y defendants' motions separate orders. findings of fact. motion to alter, 17, 2009, t h e t r i a l f o r a summary j u d g m e n t b y means o f t h r e e None 3 court granted the of those On M a r c h vacate, orders 17, 2009, included specific the Knoedlers o r amend t h e t r i a l court's filed summary- j u d g m e n t o r d e r s on g r o u n d s t h a t t h e r e r e m a i n e d g e n u i n e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . 23, 2009. The t r i a l The K n o e d l e r s a issues c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n on A p r i l appeal. Discussion Although subject-matter previously the no party jurisdiction s t a t e d , "we parties to the present in our of failure t o a r g u e i t a s an i s s u e . ' " So. 3d 1263, jurisdiction 1265 H u g h e s , 17 S o . 3 d 6 4 3 , 648 that a appeal] trial unless court's Court, questions as order i t disposes cannot ( A l a . 2009) i s not by the LLC v. U n i t e d (quoting Riley v. "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s final of a l l claims have analysis be w a i v e d Bon H a r b o r , (Ala. 2009)). we the t o the arguments o f subject-matter-jurisdiction subject-matter 20 this 'are not c o n f i n e d because Bank, appeal [ f o r purposes of as t o a l l p a r t i e s . " T h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f a n y summary-judgment p r o c e e d i n g s conducted by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 3 7 1081124 Dickerson 2002) v. Alabama (emphasis State Univ., 852 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 705 ( A l a . added). "The one e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t where t h e c o u r t has c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s e d o f one o f a number o f c l a i m s , o r one of m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , a n d h a s made a n express determination that there i s no j u s t reason f o r d e l a y , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t on t h a t c l a i m o r as t o t h a t p a r t y . " Committee Civ. P. Comments (emphasis Despite on 1973 A d o p t i o n summary disposed i n i t s entirety, previously intentional outrage February that the we on J u n e asserting claims infliction of emotional the Knoedlers. 17, order Knoedlers' complaint, the p a r t i a l Blincos as summary that judgment the 8 have As filed a of privacy, and t h e t o r t of the t r i a l Blincos' mentioned court's summary- asserted i n nor awarded n o r d i d i t c e r t i f y as entered claims. not appeal. only the claims neither been do invasion However, granting to the Knoedlers' we has the Blincos distress, damages as t o t h a t p e n d i n g c o u n t e r c l a i m , final matter the Knoedlers' alleging against 2009, hold 30, 2008, judgment motion, which referenced the and t h e underlying j u r i s d i c t i o n over mentioned, counterclaim A l a . R. of appeal i n the notice case-action subject-matter 54(b), added). representations of of Rule In i n favor fact, of the despite a 1081124 review of the record, t h i s reference to Knoedlers' answer. left pending 54(b), final. the Blinco A l a . R. C i v . P., Consequently, Bank, court's defendants' partial 3 7 5 , 376 court's counterclaim, support an APPEAL not support supra and t h e r e that to the orders i s no Rule the judgments are judgment an a p p e a l . (dismissing appeal was, and order, a Harbor, on g r o u n d s which at best, not See B o n left that pending an o r d e r entering a "final, appealable v . H u n t s v i l l e W e s t L t d . P a r t n e r s h i p , 847 S o . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) order subsequent t h e summary-judgment o r d e r s a r e n o n f i n a l counterclaims, summary any f u r t h e r summary-judgment certification summary-judgment judgment"); H i l l 2d court's the B l i n c o s ' counterclaim, v. U n i t e d trial i s unable to f i n d counterclaim The t r i a l judgments, which w i l l LLC Court did that not "order (holding that because dispose of was n o t a f i n a l [the trial defendant's] judgment t h a t would appeal"). DISMISSED. Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Smith, 9 and P a r k e r , JJ., concur.

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.