Ex parte Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Carol Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/30/2010 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 , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 1081170 Ex p a r t e Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : C a r o l Mahoney v. Loma A l t a P r o p e r t y Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ) ( B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-06-415; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2080192) SMITH, Justice. 1081170 Loma Alta petitioned decision court's this denial of Owners of Civil Mahoney's See ("Mahoney as appropriate Mahoney a II"). material appellate We consider whether conflicts with Civ. 2003). affirm Court Property under the Alabama the We Court We adopt Appeals and C a r o l of C i v i l (Ala. Civ. review first impression, f o r the denial of Civil Appeals' 885 from Appeals' So. decision applied 2 by that Therefore, we Appeals. both stipulate o p i n i o n i n Mahoney 1130 of a History ("Mahoney") 3d the S o . 2 d 160 ( A l a . Dickerson. of C i v i l to review i n M a h o n e y I I , a n d we c o n c l u d e Mahoney 4 Owners granted c e r t i o r a r i and P r o c e d u r a l Ass'n, Prop. the standard of review i s distinguishable Owners of also Alta certiorari granted the judgment of the Court LAPOA the c i r c u i t So. 3d standard of review Facts the Loma D i c k e r s o n v. D i c k e r s o n , the Court of C i v i l case to review the reversing claim v. question c l a i m made u n d e r t h e A L A A . this Appeals ("LAPOA"), A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 2009) App. Inc. of c e r t i o r a r i [Ms. 2 0 8 0 1 9 2 , M a r c h 2 7 , 200 9] consider, to Association, for a writ Carol ("the A L A A " ) . Ass'n, App. Court o f the Court Litigation 1975 Property v . Loma ( A l a . C i v . App. that Alta 2008 ) 1081170 ("Mahoney history I"), c o r r e c t l y sets i n the underlying out the f a c t s case. That opinion and procedural states: "[LAPOA] sued C a r o l Mahoney i n the Baldwin D i s t r i c t Court, claiming breach of contract, account s t a t e d , and a p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s - a s s o c i a t i o n l i e n on r e a l e s t a t e o c c u p i e d by Mahoney. LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y was t h e o w n e r o f u n i t C-1 i n Loma A l t a Townhomes; t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y w a s , t h e r e f o r e , b o u n d b y an agreement contained within the condominium d e c l a r a t i o n f o r t h e Loma A l t a s u b d i v i s i o n t o p a y property-owners-association f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , and l a t e c h a r g e s ; a n d t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y h a d f a i l e d t o p a y those fees, assessments, and charges. LAPOA a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r f r o m Ms. Mahoney damages, including late fees, interest, c o s t s , a n d a n a t t o r n e y f e e , a n d t o h a v e a l i e n on t h e r e a l e s t a t e o c c u p i e d b y Ms. M a h o n e y . "Ms. M a h o n e y a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , admitted that s h e ' o w e [ d ] some money, but not the t o t a l amount c l a i m e d by [LAPOA],' and a s s e r t e d t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o a s e t o f f b e c a u s e LAPOA h a d f a i l e d t o make n e e d e d r e p a i r s on t h e u n i t . On A p r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the d i s t r i c t court entered a judgment i n favor of LAPOA i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 5 , 390 , p l u s c o s t s a n d a n attorney f e e o f $500. Ms. M a h o n e y a p p e a l e d that j u d g m e n t t o t h e B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t on A p r i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , f o r a t r i a l de n o v o . "On May 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , Ms. M a h o n e y f i l e d a n a m e n d e d answer i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g t h e allegations o f LAPOA's complaint and asserting, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t s h e d i d n o t h a v e a c o n t r a c t w i t h LAPOA. I n a d d i t i o n , Ms. M a h o n e y a s s e r t e d a c l a i m under the Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Act ('ALAA'), § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . On D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , LAPOA a m e n d e d i t s c o m p l a i n t , n a m i n g Ms. M a h o n e y ' s f o r m e r h u s b a n d , J o s e p h M a h o n e y , as a d e f e n d a n t . LAPOA a l l e g e d t h a t M r . M a h o n e y was t h e ' o w n e r ' o f u n i t C-1 i n Loma A l t a Townhomes a n d 3 1081170 t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y was a 'resident' of the unit. LAPOA a l s o a d d e d a c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h a t , b y v i r t u e o f the f o r e c l o s u r e of i t s property-owners-association l i e n , i t was e n t i t l e d t o h a v e Ms. M a h o n e y ' e v i c t e d ' from u n i t C-1. "The c i r c u i t court conducted a bench t r i a l on J a n u a r y 26, 2 0 0 7 , a t w h i c h o n l y one witness--Mary Garey, the secretary/treasurer of LAPOA -¬ testified. Garey explained that the propertyowners-association fees and assessments represent the u n i t owners' p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of the c o s t of maintaining a n d p r e s e r v i n g t h e common a r e a s o f t h e condominium. G a r e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y h a d r e s i d e d i n u n i t C-1 of the condominium s i n c e March 2000 and t h a t she had p a i d some o f t h e f e e s and assessments but that she had stopped paying, c o n t e n d i n g t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o s e t o f f a g a i n s t t h e b a l a n c e t h e c o s t o f n e e d e d r e p a i r s t h a t LAPOA had failed t o make on the u n i t Ms. Mahoney was occupying. Garey s t a t e d t h a t , according to the condominium d e c l a r a t i o n , r e p a i r s to a u n i t are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l u n i t owner, not LAPOA. Garey i d e n t i f i e d a document showing the p a s t - d u e f e e s a n d a s s e s s m e n t s t h a t , LAPOA claimed, w e r e owed b y Ms. M a h o n e y . Garey t e s t i f i e d that Ms. Mahoney had n e v e r r e t u r n e d the i n v o i c e s f o r f e e s and assessments to Garey with a request that the invoices be forwarded to someone else. Nor, according t o G a r e y , h a d Ms. Mahoney e v e r i n f o r m e d LAPOA t h a t s h e was not the owner of the u n i t i n w h i c h she r e s i d e d . G a r e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t LAPOA, b y v i r t u e of i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h the owner of e a c h u n i t , h a s a l i e n on a n y u n i t f o r w h i c h t h e r e a r e u n p a i d f e e s and assessments. G a r e y s a i d t h a t LAPOA had f o r e c l o s e d i t s l i e n on u n i t C-1. 1 "On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , Garey acknowledged that the owner of e a c h u n i t i s s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for payment of the p r o p e r t y - o w n e r s - a s s o c i a t i o n fees and assessments. G a r e y a d m i t t e d t h a t LAPOA h a d no d e e d s h o w i n g t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y was the owner of the u n i t 4 1081170 i n w h i c h s h e r e s i d e d , t h a t L A P O A h a d no contract w i t h Ms. Mahoney, and t h a t LAPOA h a d no document s t a t i n g t h a t someone o t h e r t h a n t h e owner o f the u n i t was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r payment of the f e e s and a s s e s s m e n t s on t h e u n i t t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y occupied. On r e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , G a r e y a f f i r m e d t h e t r u t h o f the f o l l o w i n g i n q u i r y by LAPOA's c o u n s e l : 'We're simply asking [the c i r c u i t c o u r t ] to c o n f i r m that we've g o t a j u d g m e n t on t h i s u n i t , w h e t h e r i t ' s o w n e d [ b y ] Ms. Mahoney or whoever i t i s , b e c a u s e t h a t u n i t has n o t p a i d any dues and a s s e s s m e n t s , i s that right?' "The circuit court admitted the following documentary evidence offered by LAPOA: (1) the condominium declaration for the Loma Alta subdivision; (2) a s t a t e m e n t o f f e e s , a s s e s s m e n t s , and l a t e c h a r g e s s e n t b y LAPOA t o Ms. M a h o n e y on January 24, 2007, i n d i c a t i n g a balance due of $6,150; and (3) a ' S t a t e m e n t o f L i e n ' f i l e d i n t h e B a l d w i n P r o b a t e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 4, 2004, naming C a r o l M a h o n e y as t h e o w n e r o f ' L o t C-1, Loma A l t a , as r e c o r d e d i n Map B o o k 1 1 , P a g e 1 7 6 , i n t h e O f f i c e of the Judge of P r o b a t e , B a l d w i n County, Alabama.' "At the c o n c l u s i o n of G a r e y ' s t e s t i m o n y , LAPOA rested and Ms. Mahoney's counsel moved for a 'directed verdict,' arguing: 2 " ' [ T ] h e r e ' s b e e n no p r o o f o f o w n e r s h i p [ b y ] my c l i e n t , C a r o l M a h o n e y , ... o r t h a t s h e ' s b o u n d by any c o n t r a c t t h a t t h e y have f a i l e d to present in court showing that she's responsible for anything "'[LAPOA has] gone against the wrong person, and that's why we move for a directed v e r d i c t and ask f o r award of reasonable attorney's fees f o r having to fight this.' 5 1081170 "The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n . On A p r i l 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA a n d a g a i n s t Ms. M a h o n e y i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 6 , 2 7 9 . 1 0 a n d a w a r d e d LAPOA a n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e o f $ 5 , 0 0 0 . The court did not rule on Ms. Mahoney's ALAA c o u n t e r c l a i m , b u t we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was i m p l i c i t l y denied. S e e H a r r i s v . C o o k , 944 S o . 2 d 977 , 981 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . On t h e same d a y , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t f o r t h e same a m o u n t i n f a v o r o f LAPOA a n d a g a i n s t J o s e p h M a h o n e y . Ms. Mahoney f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal to this c o u r t on May 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 . " S e c t i o n 3 5 - 8 - 1 7 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a p a r t o f a c h a p t e r e n t i t l e d 'Condominium Ownership,' p r o v i d e s that '[l]iens f o r unpaid assessments may be f o r e c l o s e d b y a n a c t i o n b r o u g h t i n t h e name o f t h e [ p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' ] a s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e same m a n n e r a s a f o r e c l o s u r e o f a m o r t g a g e on r e a l property.' 1 " In actions t r i e d without a j u r y , the proper m o t i o n i s o n e f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P." 2 Mahoney I , 4 So. 3d a t 1 1 3 1 - 3 3 . In Mahoney judgment failed express of I the Court the c i r c u i t to present any of court Civil because, evidence of compensation from contract." 4 So. 3d a t 1 1 3 5 - 3 6 . remanded t h e a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t court to vacate Ms. that LAPOA " i t had i t had a Mahoney The C o u r t on the had an reasonable an implied of C i v i l Appeals court with i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r i t s judgment i n f a v o r 6 reversed i t held, indicating c o n t r a c t w i t h Ms. M a h o n e y o r t h a t expectation that Appeals o f LAPOA, to enter 1081170 a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f M a h o n e y on L A P O A ' s adjudicate So. Mahoney's c l a i m claims, under t h e ALAA. court summarily and t o then See Mahoney I, 4 3d a t 1136. On remand ALAA c l a i m . 59(e), no Mahoney t h e n moved A l a . R. denying motion. then to the Court circuit amend, The c i r c u i t i n the appealed of C i v i l of C i v i l were g r o u n d l e s s denied court, Mahoney's under or vacate Rule i t s order court denied the motion; record for a the judgment hearing denying on the h e r ALAA Appeals. Appeals court, holding that Mahoney the c i r c u i t to alter, appears Mahoney The C o u r t Ms. C i v . P., h e r ALAA c l a i m . transcript claim the c i r c u i t r e v e r s e d the judgment " [ b ] e c a u s e LAPOA's i n law, the t r i a l of the claims against court's order d e n y i n g Ms. M a h o n e y ' s A L A A c l a i m i s r e v e r s e d , a n d t h e c a u s e i s remanded award." this We also court decision. We to So. 3d a t for certiorari a material appellate trial Mahoney I I , Court Appeals' as f o r the determine . review of the certiorari of Civil impression, the appropriate review 7 Court petitioned review to consider, standard of review f o r the d e n i a l granted appropriate LAPOA t h e n granted c e r t i o r a r i question of f i r s t an to o f an ALAA consider claim. whether the 1081170 Court of C i v i l Appeals' decision conflicts with Dickerson, supra. Analysis We review first consider the appropriate appellate standard f o r t h e d e n i a l o f a c l a i m b r o u g h t u n d e r t h e ALAA. legislature action. Corp., enacted t h e A L A A i n 1987 t o d e t e r See P a c i f i c E n t e r s . 614 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 417 purpose, t h e ALAA p r o v i d e s , O i l Co. (Ala. baseless (USA) v . H o w e l l 1993). The legal Petroleum To e f f e c t u a t e i n pertinent of this part: " [ I ] n any c i v i l a c t i o n commenced o r a p p e a l e d i n any court of record i n this state, the court shall award, as p a r t o f i t s judgment and i n a d d i t i o n t o any other costs otherwise assessed, reasonable a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s and c o s t s a g a i n s t any a t t o r n e y o r p a r t y , o r b o t h , who h a s b r o u g h t a c i v i l a c t i o n , o r asserted a claim t h e r e i n , or interposed a defense, t h a t a c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t o be w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n , e i t h e r i n whole or p a r t " § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . that f o r an a c t i o n , c l a i m , substantial in fact improper or litigation, defense, or appeal t o be j u s t i f i c a t i o n , " i t must be " f r i v o l o u s , in law, purpose, unnecessary S e c t i o n 12-19-271(1) delay or vexatious, including or without needless or limitation, increase as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c o u r t . " 8 interposed in the provides "without groundless f o r any to cause cost of 1081170 Only when must t h a t award." claim court § for required a court awards attorney "specifically 12-19-273, attorney Ala. fees set Code fees forth the 1975. under the ALAA reasons for such If a court under the ALAA, for i t s denial. to set forth reasons Enterprises this Court that denies court is In a not Pacific advised: "[W]e w i l l r e q u i r e a t r i a l c o u r t m a k i n g t h e 'without s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n ' d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o make i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the g r o u n d or g r o u n d s upon w h i c h i t r e l i e s , and t h e l e g a l o r e v i d e n t i a r y s u p p o r t f o r i t s determination, a part of the record, either by d r a f t i n g a s e p a r a t e w r i t t e n o r d e r o r by h a v i n g t h e s e f i n d i n g s t r a n s c r i b e d f o r the o f f i c i a l r e c o r d . " 614 So. The attorney trial 756, 2d at 418. standard fees court's 762 determined, under the review ALAA on 2002). an issue In of appeal from "depends upon the determination." (Ala. as of Morrow Pacific first v. an basis Gibson, Enterprises, impression, award for the So. 2d 827 this that " i f a t r i a l court determines that a party's a c t i o n , claim, or defense is 'without substantial j u s t i f i c a t i o n , ' b a s e d on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f any one of these terms or phrases ['frivolous,' 'groundless in fact,' ' v e x a t i o u s , ' or 'interposed f o r any i m p r o p e r p u r p o s e ' ] , t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l 'unless i t i s c l e a r l y erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of the 9 of Court 1081170 evidence.' Cove Creek Development Corp. v. A P A C - A l a b a m a , I n c . , 588 S o . 2 d 4 5 8 , 4 61 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . "However, we conclude that the phrase 'groundless i n law' c l e a r l y calls for a legal determination. Therefore, i f the t r i a l court determines that a party's a c t i o n , claim, or defense i s 'without s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n ' because i t i s ' g r o u n d l e s s i n l a w , ' t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be e n t i t l e d to a presumption of correctness. Rather, the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s of t h i s State w i l l t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the t r i a l court's l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n . " 614 So. 2d a t 418. concluded that In t h i s case "the standard of the Court of C i v i l review appeal denial o f a n A L A A c l a i m i s no d i f f e r e n t review on a p p e a l on from the grant from Appeals from the the standard of o f an A L A A c l a i m , " d e s p i t e t h e fact that a court i s not required to enter f i n d i n g s supporting its d e c i s i o n when the ALAA. Mahoney I I , LAPOA review disagrees, f o r the grant ALAA " c a n n o t the i t denies ALAA a claim f o r attorney So. 3d a t arguing that in the appellate standard of and t h e d e n i a l o f a t t o r n e y f e e s under t h e logically be t h e same when a g r a n t i s accompanied by s p e c i f i c reasons of fees i n support under thus and a d e n i a l o f u n d e r t h e ALAA i s u s u a l l y n o t a c c o m p a n i e d by any r e a s o n s support that, under . g i v i n g the a p p e l l a t e court something to review fees fees " LAPOA's because a court brief, denying a t p. an a t t o r n e y 10 24. LAPOA contends fee i s not r e q u i r e d 1081170 under t h e ALAA t o e n t e r an o r d e r stating why i t declined the award, a p p l i c a t i o n t o a d e n i a l o f a n a t t o r n e y f e e o f t h e same standard f o r the grant of review ALAA i m p r o p e r l y requires the appellate court evidence heard that the t r i a l of whether in ore tenus the action, to contend reviewed under provides that testimony, i n fact. that except agree appellate applies attorney tenus a judge be p r e s u m e d was groundless a t p. 28. standard of i n a nonjury LAPOA fee under category, and p a l p a b l e ( A l a . 2003) 675 S o . 2 d 3 7 7 , 379 with standard to both c o r r e c t and w i l l for a plain 854 S o . 2 d 8 5 , 92 v. S k e l t o n , We determine should review, case be which hears oral a j u d g m e n t b a s e d on f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t on Co. LAPOA's b r i e f , to t h e d e n i a l o f an a t t o r n e y ore "'[w]hen will Muchia, or appeal the i t s opinion f o r i n order the groundless-in-law the testimony appeal judgment" claim, defense, t h e ALAA, i n c l u d i n g to "reweigh ... a n d t o s u b s t i t u t e court's law or groundless appears o f an a t t o r n e y f e e u n d e r t h e the Court of review the grant of n o t be d i s t u r b e d error.'" Smith (quoting A l l s t a t e Ins. (Ala. 1996)). Civil Appeals s e t out i n P a c i f i c that I f a party appealing 11 the Enterprises and the d e n i a l of a c l a i m f e e u n d e r t h e ALAA. v. f o r an the d e n i a l 1081170 o f a c l a i m f o r an a t t o r n e y that an action, groundless purpose, claim, i n fact, evidence, evidence.'" 418 (quoting party ALAA was groundless O i l Co. improper the denial of supporting the great (USA), weight 588 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 1 ) . on a p p e a l or that an a c t i o n , c l a i m , i n law, the a p p e l l a t e court's erred only i n denying (USA), when "will conclusion" the record the claim. under defense test and If a the reverse shows t h a t t h e Pacific Enters. O i l 614 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 8 . asserts legal court of 614 S o . 2 d a t fees LAPOA of frivolous, f o r an not reverse or against Enters. of the claim court shall was appeal the denial of a claim f o r attorney of the t r i a l denial trial Co. argues appeal or interposed Cove C r e e k Dev. C o r p . , the the unjust, Pacific appealing validity court or i ti s c l e a r l y erroneous, without manifestly the defense, vexatious, the appellate the c l a i m "'unless f e e u n d e r t h e A L A A a r g u e s on review that t h e same t o t h e award o f a t t o r n e y denial of attorney courts to "reweigh brief, a t p. 28. attorney applying fees fees We under fees disagree. heard require appellate ore tenus." LAPOA's I f a court t h e ALAA a f t e r 12 standard u n d e r t h e ALAA t o t h e u n d e r t h e ALAA w i l l the evidence appellate holding denies a claim for a hearing on that 1081170 c l a i m , and t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g arguing improper groundless purpose, equivalent the O i l Co. 854 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 . seeking subject that denial attorney fees action, claim, requires the validity of appellate the t r i a l O i l Co. (USA), standard standard denies of of review. review appeals defense, standard courts court's on t h a t that of review of Muchia, this legal was i s de State fees c l a i m , and t h e denial arguing or appeal i s Compare 1 a claim f o r attorney a hearing was o r i n t e r p o s e d f o r an ( U S A ) , 614 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 8 , w i t h holding law, the appellate Enters. appellate I f a court u n d e r t h e ALAA a f t e r in i n fact, vexatious, to the ore tenus Pacific Enters. the fees appeals that the subject a c t i o n , claim, defense, or appeal frivolous, party attorney that groundless novo, to conclusion." which "test the Pacific 614 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 8 . We n o t e t h a t a c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g a c l a i m f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e u n d e r t h e A L A A i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o h o l d a h e a r i n g on t h e c l a i m and, t h e r e f o r e , ore tenus e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o a c l a i m u n d e r t h e A L A A may n o t e x i s t . S e e E x p a r t e C i t i z e n s B a n k , 879 So. 2 d 5 3 5 , 539 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t " ' i t i s w i t h i n t h e court's d i s c r e t i o n to hold a separate hearing on a n A L A A p e t i t i o n a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f f i n a l j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s , provided that the court retained j u r i s d i c t i o n t o do s o ' " ( q u o t i n g B a k e r v . W i l l i a m s B r o s . , I n c . , 601 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 , 112 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) ) . Indeed, i n t h i s case the c i r c u i t court d i d not hold a hearing on M a h o n e y ' s c l a i m f o r a n a t t o r n e y f e e u n d e r t h e ALAA o r t a k e t e s t i m o n y r e l a t e d t o t h e claim. 1 13 1081170 Here, Mahoney "[LAPOA's] claims justification brief argued against to the Court holding LAPOA's action Mahoney II, As of C i v i l without were 'groundless i n law.'" of C i v i l Appeals, a t p. that "the record shows against Ms. Mahoney was So. 3d a t the Court Appeals [ h e r ] were as t h e y agreed, to the Court of C i v i l . We Appeals substantial 8. Mahoney's That court indisputably groundless also that that i n law." agree. noted: " [ T ] h e r e c o r d c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t LAPOA knew, b e f o r e D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , when i t a m e n d e d i t s complaint i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h a t Ms. M a h o n e y ' s f o r m e r h u s b a n d , J o s e p h M a h o n e y , was t h e o w n e r o f t h e property b e c a u s e L A P O A ' s a t t o r n e y h a d , on O c t o b e r 16, 2006, f i l e d i n the Baldwin Probate Court a f o r e c l o s u r e deed a v e r r i n g t h a t J o s e p h Mahoney had been t h e r e c o r d t i t l e owner o f t h e s u b j e c t property s i n c e May 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 . " Mahoney II, "allege[s] Loma A l t a the unit." Because So. 3d a t that Mr. Mahoney Townhomes a n d t h a t Mahoney "[a]ll four breach of contract, eviction--hinged . Indeed, was the t h e amended 'owner' o f LAPOA's claims owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y , " i t s proving that a n d b e c a u s e LAPOA 14 a Ms. C-1 in 'resident' of (emphasis against account stated, property upon of u n i t Ms. M a h o n e y was I , 4 So. 3d a t 1131-32 complaint Ms. added). Mahoney-¬ owner's l i e n , Mahoney was d i d not a l l e g e and the that 1081170 M a h o n e y was t h e o w n e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y , e a c h o f LAPOA's against 2 M a h o n e y was 3d a t . law"; however, "the i n law. The A L A A d o e s n o t d e f i n e phrase this Court 'groundless determination." that groundless LAPOA's the phrase in Pacific were Here, groundless calls determination that claims recognition legal that element amended husband, property. of ownership each the complaint, and not determination for by a LAPOA the property claim and LAPOA alleged Mahoney legal legal against were g r o u n d l e s s r e s u l t s of that, herself, We a f f i r m t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l at that was that S p e c i f i c a l l y , the asserted Mahoney i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t stated for a the not a f a c t - f i n d i n g e x e r c i s e . So. "groundless i n calls determination, the II, Enterprises i n law' c l e a r l y 614 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 8 . claims Mahoney claims was a the time Mahoney's the owner from required LAPOA former of the Appeals' decision that We n o t e t h a t t h e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us b e c a u s e n e i t h e r p a r t y moved t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e r e c o r d f r o m Mahoney I i n t h e r e c o r d i n Mahoney I I o r i n t h i s Court. Therefore, the facts r e l a t i n g to the contents of t h e amended c o m p l a i n t a r e p i e c e d t o g e t h e r f r o m t h e o p i n i o n s o f the C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i n Mahoney I and Mahoney I I . See G o t l i e b v . C o l l a t , 567 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 2 , 1304 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ( " [ T ] h i s Court i s l i m i t e d to a review o f t h e r e c o r d a l o n e , and t h e r e c o r d c a n n o t b e c h a n g e d , a l t e r e d , o r v a r i e d on a p p e a l b y statements i n b r i e f s of counsel."). 2 15 1081170 the circuit attorney We Court erred under fee the also granted of court's Civil decision Dickerson attorney trial fees court attorney-fee denying Mahoney's certiorari review decision contends that case c o n f l i c t s reversed under f o r the claim for an 3 to c o n s i d e r whether reversing of d e n y i n g Mahoney's ALAA c l a i m LAPOA in this in ALAA. Appeals' judgment Dickerson. says, court the with Court trial court's the ALAA and remanded entry of a judgment of Civil the with Appeals' because, judgment that circuit conflicts Dickerson the the the LAPOA awarding cause d i d not award d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g to the make an action We n o t e t h a t " t h e A L A A s t a t e s t h a t t h e a w a r d o f c o s t s a n d a t t o r n e y fees i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of the trial c o u r t , " S h e a l y v . G o l d e n , 959 So. 2d 1 0 9 8 , 1105 ( A l a . 2006) ( c i t i n g § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 3 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 ) , a n d we r e c o g n i z e that t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may l i m i t the a t t o r n e y fees assessed to those fees that accrued a f t e r LAPOA a m e n d e d t h e complaint. I n d e e d , we a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t Mahoney answered the initial c o m p l a i n t b y " a d m i t t [ i n g ] t h a t s h e ' o w e [ d ] some m o n e y , b u t n o t t h e t o t a l a m o u n t c l a i m e d b y [ L A P O A ] . ' " M a h o n e y I , 4 So. 3d a t 1131. Nonetheless, M a h o n e y t h e n " f i l e d an a m e n d e d a n s w e r i n the circuit court, generally denying the a l l e g a t i o n s of L A P O A ' s c o m p l a i n t a n d a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t s h e d i d n o t h a v e a c o n t r a c t w i t h LAPOA." M a h o n e y I , 4 So. 3d a t 1131. A f t e r LAPOA t h e n f i l e d a f o r e c l o s u r e d e e d a v e r r i n g t h a t M a h o n e y ' s f o r m e r h u s b a n d was the owner of the p r o p e r t y and t h e n i d e n t i f i e d h i m as t h e " o w n e r " o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d M a h o n e y as a " r e s i d e n t " i n t h e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t , LAPOA c o n t i n u e d t o prosecute claims against Mahoney--including proceeding to t r i a l - - t h a t were w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . 3 16 1081170 was g r o u n d l e s s i n law. the present hold law. the to the p o s i t i o n that the Rather, mother's educational can be f i n d Dickerson Dickerson efforts support to award of attorney So. 2d 168. p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. must be susceptible competent a t t o r n e y did." 827 of C i v i l with So. legal a at would 2d 168 consider (emphasis not think i t Indeed, recognized that ' i t is [claims] added). of insufficiency that justify as Because 17 of h i s in 'simply attorney no 885 guidance fees position reasonable contention i n Dickerson that were Dickerson, Court's award conclusion 763-64. her do must h a v e b e e n more t h a n an that postminority ALAA." this in of positions that would have advanced the justification court at 2d The to we conclude o r i m p r o p e r as t o the follows justify Appeals expressly some under attorney] to fail, did groundless we reinstatement vexatious, fees was "although mother a s s e r t e d Dickerson incorrect' LAPOA, D i c k e r s o n there u l t i m a t e l y must the "[the that obtain groundless, Morrow t h a t action held so f r i v o l o u s , at a s s e r t e d by underlying concluded t h a t the legally d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from case. Contrary not We "the a frivolous.'" Dickerson that the mother inconceivable did and he Court argues that the 885 So. not find 1081170 that the underlying action clearly distinguishable above, we find conclusion that in law. no was from error groundless the present in LAPOA's a c t i o n the Court against in case. of law, i t i s As discussed Civil Appeals' M a h o n e y was groundless 4 Conclusion Based Court on of C i v i l the foregoing, we affirm t h e judgment of the Appeals. AFFIRMED. Lyons, Stuart, Bolin, Woodall and Murdock, Parker, JJ., and Shaw, J J . , concur. dissent. B e c a u s e we d i d n o t g r a n t L A P O A ' s p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s a l l e g e d l y c o n f l i c t s w i t h Sam v . B e a i r d , 685 S o . 2 d 742 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , a n d W a r n e r v . B u l l i n g t o n , 624 S o . 2 d 594 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) , we p r e t e r m i t a n y d i s c u s s i o n L A P O A ' s arguments as t o t h i s a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t . 4 18 1081170 WOODALL, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . I respectfully judgment that dissent of the Court court from of C i v i l the d e c i s i o n Appeals and to i s s u e a judgment i n s t r u c t i n g a w a r d some a m o u n t o f a t t o r n e y fees My dissent factors i s based, discussed dissent. by However, in Justice I have thereby allowing the t r i a l court to and c o s t s under t h e Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , § 12-19-270 1975. a f f i r m i n g the e t s e q . , A l a . Code substantial part, Murdock also upon in his well been the reasoned persuaded by other factors. Loma began Alta this Property case Mahoney a d m i t t e d prevailed for that plus Mahoney again court reversed Court, ("LAPOA"), where o b t a i n i n g a judgment a g a i n s t costs and Circuit plus an attorney Court, obtaining an on a p p e a l attorney earlier courts lower 19 fee. a judgment LAPOA Mahoney Mahoney i t sclaims, convince me de against fee. Although by t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l to prove i n the Carol where, a f t e r a t r i a l w h i c h h e l d t h a t LAPOA h a d f a i l e d successes Inc. "some money" t o LAPOA. prevailed, f o r $6,279.10, j u d g m e n t was District s h e owed appealed to the Baldwin LAPOA Association, i n the Baldwin i n that court, $5,390, novo, Owners that Appeals, LAPOA'S that i t s 1081170 action i s not the type of a c t i o n targeted Alabama Litigation Accountability Act. I agree claims [she] against was failed Alta with the to prove Ms. Mahoney owner of that , that such failure groundless i n law. the dealings the deference decision, I determining fact, ... hinged Appeals upon the property[, t h e owner." of 2009). proof Also, given cannot must that] that LAPOA Mahoney However, v. ... Loma rendered be conclude LAPOA's the h i s t o r y of the to that trial or interposed 20 agree action litigation, the l i t i g a t i o n , afforded the So. I cannot the trial court t h a t LAPOA'S a c t i o n was n o t f r i v o l o u s , vexatious, "LAPOA's i t sproving and between the p a r t i e s before that that by t h e [Ms. 2 0 8 0 1 9 2 , M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ] ( A l a . C i v . App. a of C i v i l [ s h e ] was P r o p . Owners A s s ' n , 3d in the Court f o r sanctions f o r any i m p r o p e r and court's erred in groundless purpose. 1081170 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . I first note that the u n d e r l y i n g or one o f An the to confuse an i s s u e as a m a t t e r o f l a w w i t h w h e t h e r we c a n d e c i d e we whether issue being should decided a l l e g i n g that condominium and s e e k i n g groundless in law. until i n the c i r c u i t court identifying the against acquired n o t t h e owner conclude This of law the Property as a m a t t e r i s a case from her i n that amendment i s not of the Mahoney m e r e l y as was of the nature Owners A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . information effect) claim t h e owner o f Mahoney. i n d i c a t i n g that of the condominium to that outset, the of the condominium u n i t , t h a t ("LAPOA"), l a t e r was i ttherefore least a c t i o n brought complaint Mahoney legal theory; The f a c t t h a t Loma A l t a was Carol At "resident" the not i s i t s e l f a question condominium fees capacity states a cognizable a care fact. action complaint take raises was in whether, fact. I from cannot i t was. LAPOA pursued Mahoney i n t h e c o n t e x t of the f o l l o w i n g : answer i n t h e d i s t r i c t court admitting 21 (and amended i t s the question groundless of law that i n which unit Mahoney i t s claim against (1) M a h o n e y f i l e d a n t h a t s h e owed a p o r t i o n 1081170 of the condominium the owner the circuit fees at issue, fees of a condominium u n i t ; in the a r e owed o n l y by (2) i n h e r a m e n d e d a n s w e r i n c o u r t , M a h o n e y made o n l y allegations that complaint, a general d e n i a l of the "demand[ing] strict proof t h e r e o f , " b u t d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y deny o w n e r s h i p o f t h e u n i t ; (3) Mahoney c o n t i n u e d to imply that s h e was t h e owner of the condominium u n i t by p r o p o u n d i n g , and moving t h e c i r c u i t to compel "state claim Loma an answer t o , an each and e v e r y that Alta you have interrogatory requiring fact the for property t h a t you r e l y right owner similarly worded Mahoney); (4) M a h o n e y l i v e d the years 9-10 request Mahoney engaged and assumed this owner litigation; of the alone your owners of [etc.]" (a propounded by assessments, was to i n the condominium u n i t f o r the i n a course responsibility condominium owner, fees, LAPOA to support charge property for production preceding (5) to upon court filing of the complaint; o f d e a l i n g i n w h i c h she f o r payment of fees owed by paid the i . e . , the very fees that are the subject of (6) M a h o n e y c l a i m e d s e t o f f s t o w h i c h o n l y t h e condominium unit would be entitled; (7) M a h o n e y a p p a r e n t l y h e l d o u t t o t h e p u b l i c t h a t s h e was 22 and the 1081170 owner of the directed u n i t and to anyone circuit the collection circumstances "vexatious," those court decided of was or asked condominium not f o r an I cannot evidence," "manifestly unjust," evidence." litigation positions I cannot reasonable and a exceeded between that even condominium-unit court particular, extent decision considerations, fees be action against fees under the the the that Mahoney foregoing "groundless in fact," improper purpose." Given that this decision "against given the the parties course circuit of weight h i s t o r y of pre- indeed, this court i t r e j e c t e d the supporting great and, of the litigation, exceeded notion "that its no competent a t t o r n e y w o u l d have" r e t a i n e d Mahoney defendant definitive or Mahoney i n the conclude to the as In by discretion f o r the " c l e a r l y erroneous," "without dealings taken bills conclude c o u r t was the an "frivolous," "interposed circumstances, that the c i r c u i t of that else. The for never after by December court the fees. I certainly 21, to as Moreover, cannot i t s discretion in 23 2006, pending liability for given conclude the that a the foregoing the circuit r e f u s i n g Mahoney's request 1081170 for an full award course Because respectfully of of attorney the fees incurred litigation. I would affirm by her throughout the 5 the circuit court's decision, I dissent. I c a n u n d e r s t a n d why t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f e l t t h a t , g i v e n the course of dealing between the parties before the l i t i g a t i o n and t h e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n by Mahoney t h r o u g h o u t most o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n , s h e s h o u l d n o t be h e a r d t o c l a i m t h a t t h e l i t i g a t i o n was f r i v o l o u s o r i n t e r p o s e d f o r an i m p r o p e r p u r p o s e a n d t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f h e r a t t o r n e y fees. 5 24

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.