Bon Harbor, LLC and Michael F. Hinds v. United Bank et al.

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 , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1090302 Bon Harbor, L L C , and M i c h a e l F. H i n d s v. U n i t e d Bank e t a l . Appeal LYONS, from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t (CV-07-240) Court Justice. Bon Harbor, LLC ("Bon H a r b o r " ) , from United B a n k a n d i t s e m p l o y e e s R u s s e l l K. B a n k s , F r a n k Jamie Lipham. We affirm. against them F. appeal and a judgment entered and Michael Hinds and i n favor o f Meigs, 1090302 Procedural On David April P. The 2007, United of more than a promissory notes were s e c u r e d agreement, and were note by and that the notes notes "the equitable the by valid; a or resulting H a r b o r by (collectively 2 0 0 7 , Bon Bank "the Bon note. a mortgage June 15, on 2007, the promissory mortgage i n the on the funds or, mortgage, real of the the a declaration the proceeds and property loan; and loaned to Bank. against United the trust Bon against by a purchase-money i m p o s i t i o n of a c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t counterclaims On of the United with Bank by Herrick, Katz, judgment foreclosure purchased 13, United Hinds, Harbor July seeking amended p r o m i s s o r y Bon On Vance to seek a r e f o r m a t i o n of i m p o s i t i o n of mortgage, had to guarantors"). guaranties; alternatively, Hinds, and m o r t g a g e o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , documents were and Harbor, a mortgage, evidenced U n i t e d Bank amended i t s c o m p l a i n t promissory Bon C. G i b s o n owed an guaranteed (collectively sued and $7,500,000 on Vance Bank H e r r i c k , B r a d l e y P. K a t z , recovery Harbor 5, History Harbor United and Bank employees third-party 2 the guarantors and third-party claims Meigs, Lipham Banks, defendants"). and The asserted complaint 1090302 stated claim the claims of "breach of duty," f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment parties" with respect fraud, "setting to the suppression, forth and a the rights of promissory notes and guaranties. United its Bank s u b s e q u e n t l y claims against expressly requested the amended Harbor on Bon Harbor and the guarantors. I t a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l and promissory and t h a t m o v e d f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on notes were the mortgage B o n H a r b o r ; an o r d e r valid and b i n d i n g a g r e e m e n t was v a l i d foreclosing on Bon and b i n d i n g t h a t mortgage or imposing an e q u i t a b l e m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y B o n H a r b o r h a d p u r c h a s e d with the loan proceeds; and a g a i n s t Bon H a r b o r a n d t h e g u a r a n t o r s . guarantors entered an o r d e r Bon days t h i s Court, that the motion Court and t h e g u a r a n t o r s on t h e same summary j u d g m e n t . Five simply court f o r a summary granted. Harbor this stating Bank Bon H a r b o r a n d t h e r e s p o n d e d , a n d , on M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e t r i a l j u d g m e n t was with and a judgment i n f a v o r o f U n i t e d later, the t r i a l case a notice day t h e t r i a l That appeal while filed was a s s i g n e d no. court entered 3 court appeal entered i t s case no. 1070902. 1 0 7 0 9 0 2 was an o r d e r of pending before assessing damages 1090302 against Bon judgment. appeal this That In and the guarantors Harbor Bon to order. Harbor and the from the Court appeal was LLC Court this Harbor, decided both t h e M a r c h 20, dispose So. 3d 852 of So. lacked 1265-66 2d trial 704, case 1070902 the lacked time 2 0 0 8 , o r d e r was 3d a t 1266 991 So. 2d dismissed pending subject-matter i t entered void not the 3d Court to the 701 appeals (Ala. 2008)). i n both case 1070994. 4 that i t did not action. 20 State Univ., this Court case entered Court, no. while the trial over the action result, the March support an appeal. I n c . v. Accordingly, no. 2009), consider ( c i t i n g Gallagher Bassett Servs., 697, 2008, result, this a 25, the a jurisdiction of (Ala. Alabama before and w o u l d not notice because v. to 2008, determined As As a 1263 2 0 0 8 , o r d e r was order. 20, 1070994. final jurisdiction B e c a u s e t h e M a r c h 25, court This Dickerson 1070902. was no. So. (Ala. 2002)). subject-matter no. filed against a l l parties (citing 705 20 appeals. March c o u r t ' s March case Hinds, 2 0 0 8 , j u d g m e n t was a l l claims at v. the guarantors assigned Bon on 1070902 at 25, 20 So. Phillips, this and case Court no. 1090302 After and the t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h i s time on the dismissal counterclaims t h e m b y Bon ruled the of on and H a r b o r and this motion, the those and the trial parties. the g u a r a n t o r s . Herrick, Katz, before against Bon Harbor counterclaims against On court the dismissed court their the and were Hinds, and third-party 31, vacate against the t r i a l United claims court Bank, against each claims United Bon that Bank's Harbor in their claims and Hind's their t h i r d - p a r t y claims defendants. 2 0 0 9 , Bon Harbor i t s March 20, different with Hinds a l s o f i l e d favor on grounds affidavits United two and 2008, H i n d s moved t h e summary trial judgment claims motion Hinds. for Bon m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t Bank's i n each from to remained U n i t e d B a n k b a s e d on a l l e g e d l y n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . H a r b o r and and c l a i m s p e n d i n g as only court trial the a g a i n s t U n i t e d Bank and August to the Vance, Bank asserted Before settled Accordingly, pending United t h i r d - p a r t y claims t h i r d - p a r t y defendants other, appeals, and United 1 against them, supporting Bank each responded stating motion to Bon Bon H a r b o r and H i n d s a l s o amended t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m and t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r a r e s c i s s i o n and t o assert a d d i t i o n a l fraud-based claims. U n i t e d Bank and the third-party defendants moved t o strike the amendment as 1 5 1090302 Harbor and affidavits On for Hinds's motions and moved to strike Hinds's on s e v e r a l g r o u n d s . October 8, 2009, the t r i a l court entered a judgment U n i t e d Bank and t h e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s and a g a i n s t Harbor part, and Hinds. The 2 trial court's judgment, Bon i n relevant s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : "The C o u r t h a v i n g g r a n t e d U n i t e d B a n k ' s M o t i o n f o r Summary J u d g m e n t on M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , e n t e r s f i n a l judgment i n f a v o r o f U n i t e d Bank and a g a i n s t [ B o n Harbor and H i n d s ] j o i n t l y and s e v e r a l l y , i n the amount o f $ 8 , 3 5 0 , 0 5 0 , 0 2 , c o n s i s t i n g o f p r i n c i p a l , accrued interest and l a t e f e e s c a l c u l a t e d as o f March 20,2008, w i t h i n t e r e s t t h e r e a f t e r a c c u m u l a t i n g at a d a i l y r a t e o f $1626.00. I t i s f u r t h e r " O r d e r e d , a d j u d g e d and d e c r e e d t h a t U n i t e d Bank i s e n t i t l e d t o f o r e c l o s e on t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d i n t h e m o r t g a g e d a t e d J u l y 8, 2 0 0 5 , a n d r e c o r d e d a s Instrument No. 914161 of the Baldwin County, Alabama, P r o b a t e r e c o r d s and t o a p p l y t h e p r o c e e d s of the f o r e c l o s u r e sale to the indebtedness o f [Bon Harbor and H i n d s ] t o U n i t e d Bank." The trial party court defendants' then 1) motion granted United for a summary Bank and judgment the as thirdto Bon untimely. The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n . Bon H a r b o r a n d H i n d s h a v e n o t r a i s e d a n y a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g t h e trial c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l o f t h e i r amended c o u n t e r c l a i m and third-party complaint. T h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a l s o named H e r r i c k , K a t z , a n d Vance as d e f e n d a n t s . However, the claims against those d e f e n d a n t s had p r e v i o u s l y been d i s m i s s e d . 2 6 1090302 Harbor and Hinds's denied Bon H a r b o r 2008, j u d g m e n t ; 3) and Hinds's United c o u n t e r c l a i m s and t h i r d - p a r t y and H i n d s ' s denied motions for a Harbor and Hinds to amend i t s O c t o b e r R. C i v . P., that evidence summary entered granted to strike the t r i a l court considered the a l l e g e d l y m o t i o n ; Bon H a r b o r evidence i t s March facts. owned Decatur, by presented 20, LLC ("Gulf Stream"), H i n d s ; G u l f Stream by articles Herrick, and Hinds. and Hinds 59(e),A l a . i t s judgment t o newly discovered The t r i a l court appealed. Background to 2008, Bon H a r b o r Rule court to reword s u b m i t t e d b y Bon H a r b o r following owned 20, Harbor's 4) defendants' motion 8, 2 0 0 9 , j u d g m e n t u n d e r asking the t r i a l i t had that The by Bon j u d g m e n t ; and s u b s e q u e n t l y moved Factual Inc. the March 2) affidavits. Bon denied to vacate a s u n t i m e l y a n d moot Bank and t h e t h i r d - p a r t y Hinds's show motion claims; the trial summary court judgment i s a limited ("Decatur"), a n d DGB, LLC Gulf before i t shows liability Stream ("DGB"). the company Properties, Decatur i s owned i s o w n e d b y P a u l K i r k l a n d ; a n d DGB i s Katz, of organization and Vance. name H i n d s 7 Bon Harbor's and K i r k l a n d amended as m a n a g e r s 1090302 and s t a t e : "Both [ H i n d s ] and [ K i r k l a n d ] a c t i n g i n u n i s o n have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o b i n d [ B o n H a r b o r ] . or entities without shall the managers." and have written any No o t h e r authority to bind approval of shall individuals [Bon Harbor] and general a l l members B o n H a r b o r ' s o p e r a t i n g a g r e e m e n t a l s o names Kirkland as general managers. Paragraph Hinds 9(a) o f the o p e r a t i n g agreement p r o v i d e s : " I t s h a l l r e q u i r e t h e s i g n a t u r e s of both any into g e n e r a l managers a c t i o n taken by [ B o n H a r b o r ] o r any t r a n s a c t i o n by [ B o n H a r b o r ] . " managers alone Harbor's] conferred In County fund t o b i n d [ B o n H a r b o r ] as i t r e l a t e s t o signed business, with a l lrights Bon H a r b o r ("the p r o p e r t y " ) purchased and real powers of the purchase p r i c e , from U n i t e d Bank. promissory On J u l y note generally evidencing borrower. I t provided f o ra variable the loan To negotiated loan. a n d Bon interest advanced 8 Baldwin $10,000,000. Bon H a r b o r the as t h e l e n d e r was in 8, 2 0 0 5 , H i n d s a n d K i r k l a n d United that Bank property f o r approximately identified stated general by law 2005, a 9 ( d ) s t a t e s : "The s h a l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e management o f [ B o n $7,500,000 a loan Paragraph entered for The Harbor rate. the note as t h e The purpose note of 1090302 purchasing commercial property by a mortgage of Hinds, 2005, LLC "Bon Herrick, Katz, by D e c a t u r , secured was paid as and by t h e p e r s o n a l and Vance. Hinds signed the f o l l o w i n g signature LLC by M i c h a e l signed Harbor single on t h e p r o p e r t y note under Kirkland a The n o t e s t a t e d t h a t i t was a d v a n c e on J u l y 8, 2 0 0 5 . and F. line: guaranties t h e J u l y 8, "Bon H a r b o r , H i n d s : Managing Member." the note under the f o l l o w i n g s i g n a t u r e LLC by Gulf Stream Properties, line: I n c . by Paul Kirkland: President." On July mortgage 8, 2005, agreement Hinds and the securing Bon mortgagee. for Bon H a r b o r u n d e r LLC by M i c h a e l the mortgage signature mortgagor Hinds signed agreement "Gulf f o r Bon Stream Kirkland, President." The notarized certification that Harbor United Properties, Hinds 9 Bank interest as i nthe agreement line: "Decatur Kirkland under a agreement the mortgage Member." mortgage signed That the f o l l o w i n g signature F. H i n d s : M a n a g i n g line: and also I t p r o v i d e d U n i t e d Bank a s e c u r i t y o f $7,500,000. as loan. identified property Harbor Kirkland signed the f o l l o w i n g Inc. agreement and K i r k l a n d by Paul included signed a the 1090302 mortgage agreement as managing m o r t g a g e was r e c o r d e d On and Kirkland Decatur The t h e same day, u s i n g signed and G u l f certificate on A u g u s t a members The 11, 2005. t h e same certificate Stream o f Bon H a r b o r . signature of authority as managing of authority provided members lines, Hinds identifying o f Bon Harbor. in part: " [ T ] h e u n d e r s i g n e d members a n d m a n a g e r s , as p r o v i d e d i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l documents, as a u t h o r i z e d by law, and as h e r e b y further authorized (and i n r e l a t i o n t o a c t i o n s t h a t may h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y taken as h e r e b y ratified) do h e r e b y affirm the a u t h o r i t y o f , a n d do h e r e b y f u r t h e r a u t h o r i z e , t h e persons designated above as t h e manger(s) o f [ B o n Harbor]. " ( C o m p r e h e n s i v e A u t h o r i t y ) To a c t f o r a n d o n behalf of [Bon Harbor] i n r e l a t i o n to a l l business a c t i v i t i e s conducted by [ B o n H a r b o r ] w i t h [ U n i t e d Bank], i n c l u d i n g without limitation entering into any a n d a l l f i n a n c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s a n d a c t i v i t i e s ; trust depository and b o r r o w i n g t r a n s a c t i o n s and activities; and a l l other transactions and activities c o n d u c t e d f o r o r i n t h e name o f [ B o n H a r b o r ] w i t h [ U n i t e d B a n k ] and i n t h e i r s o l e and e x c l u s i v e judgment and d i s c r e t i o n t o take any and all a c t i o n s on b e h a l f o f [ B o n H a r b o r ] t h e y deem appropriate "And f u r t h e r , t h e u n d e r s i g n e d do h e r e b y f u r t h e r c e r t i f y and a f f i r m t o [ U n i t e d Bank] t h a t . . . t h e authority hereby c e r t i f i e d and a u t h o r i z e d is in c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n documents o f [Bon H a r b o r ] , a n d t o t h e e x t e n t t h e r e s h a l l be a c o n f l i c t between this certificate and s a i d organization 10 1090302 documents, authority govern." Using signed the c o n f l i c t granted and t h e same an "errors i s hereby waived and t h e certified herein shall signature lines, and o m i s s i o n s s t a t e d t h a t Bon H a r b o r a g r e e d , or i t s agent, necessary any and a l l loan Bank] " from Hinds lines on in discretion documents Bon H a r b o r a l s o a g r e e d the date [United " i f requested the loan between requests by [United Bank] correction, i f [United that Bank,] of a l l documents " t o comply w i t h of the c o r r e c t i o n [United a l l above (30) requests Bank]." testified at the 8, July h i s deposition 2005, Stream promissory articles the signature note, mortgage of a u t h o r i t y , and e r r o r s and a s m a n a g i n g members and K i r k l a n d , that acting identified individually, of o r g a n i z a t i o n before 11 omissions D e c a t u r and o f Bon H a r b o r when, i n f a c t , were H i n d s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Bon H a r b o r h a d p r o v i d e d its also document [Bon H a r b o r ] a n d s t a t e m e n t were n o t c o r r e c t because t h e y Hinds by the of so That [ U n i t e d Bank] w i t h i n t h i r t y of the m a i l i n g agreement, c e r t i f i c a t e Gulf and K i r k l a n d statement." cooperate closing describe noted reasonable by fully i n the reasonable accurately days to Hinds United t h e managers. United Bank with Bank p r e p a r e d the 1090302 July 8, 2005, Kirkland respect Meigs, documents. advised to the Hinds Hinds Meigs--United July 8, testified, w a n t e d us to sign," and the 8, 2005, documents July Kirkland did Hinds, so with securing the July included the following guarantors chose despite 8, the 2005, of the and identical option the error. Bank] Kirkland error. to Hinds executed Each of language indicated with and by the guaranties the and guaranties each of "X": "Guarantor hereby u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y guarantees the p r o m p t and f u l l payment and p e r f o r m a n c e and p r o m i s e s t o pay a l l of [Bon H a r b o r ' s ] p r e s e n t and future, j o i n t a n d / o r s e v e r a l , d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t , a b s o l u t e and c o n t i n g e n t , e x p r e s s and i m p l i e d , indebtedness, l i a b i l i t i e s , o b l i g a t i o n s and c o v e n a n t s ( c u m u l a t i v e l y ' i n d e b t e d n e s s ' ) t o [ U n i t e d B a n k ] as f o l l o w s : "X UNLIMITED: Guarantor's liabilities and obligations under this guaranty ('obligations') s h a l l be u n l i m i t e d a n d shall include, a l l present a n d f u t u r e w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n [Bon Harbor] and [ U n i t e d B a n k ] ( w h e t h e r e x e c u t e d f o r t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s ) i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , t h e [ J u l y 8, 2 0 0 5 , ] p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s a n d a g r e e m e n t s ... e v i d e n c i n g t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l i n t e r e s t and a l l of [United Bank's] expenses and costs 12 sign error. Vance loan. and [United way the the he representative i n s t r u c t e d H i n d s and Katz, that transaction--of "that's knowledge Herrick, testified Bank's 2005, said also the 1090302 "___ LIMITED TO AN AMOUNT: Guarantor's liabilities and o b l i g a t i o n s under this guaranty ( ' o b l i g a t i o n s ' ) s h a l l i n c l u d e a l l p r e s e n t and f u t u r e w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n [ B o n H a r b o r ] and [ U n i t e d B a n k ] ( w h e t h e r e x e c u t e d f o r t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s ) ... b u t s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o t h e p r i n c i p a l amount of D o l l a r s ($ ), together with a l l i n t e r e s t and a l l of [United Bank's] e x p e n s e s and c o s t s " LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED NOTES/AGREEMENTS: Guarantor's liabilities and obligations under this guaranty ('obligations') s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d notes and agreements between [Bon H a r b o r ] and [United B a n k ] e v i d e n c i n g the indebtedness, together with a l l i n t e r e s t and a l l of [ U n i t e d B a n k ' s ] expenses and costs " Despite $7 , 50 0 , 0 0 0 United the was submitted 2008, judgment, $7,500,000 that to Bon transfer the Harbor $2,200,000. to repay property to promissory Bon t r a n s f e r the to the i t appears before when t h e the transferred Bank d i d not materials when language of Harbor court $ 7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 was $ 7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 was On before $2,200,000 the remaining loan and July amount 13 to owed B a s e d on at unclear precisely 2005, apparently 13, his pay on the the the t r a n s f e r r e d t o Bon the 2005, 20, i t is testified 8, March transferred, United Hinds July Bank d i d t r a n s f e r United H a r b o r ; however, occurred. on s t a t i n g that f u n d s t h a t day. trial that note Bank loaned deposition that, H a r b o r , i t was the the seller property. Bon of used the Bon 1090302 Harbor subsequently United Bank. On earlier note interest 2006, u s i n g A u g u s t 25, paid the documents, refinancing Hinds Bon and Kirkland Harbor's debt note identified United Harbor the borrower. It approximately rate. The 2005, as note stated mortgage. Kirkland and $7,553,000 and also omissions Using signed that the testified t h a t he signature lines instructed him Once again, of and Hinds provided the and of Kirkland the the Bank. lender loan That and Bon amount by the lines, July Hinds an as identical Meigs of the but that the so with 8, and errors language 2005, documents. sign did as promissory a u t h o r i t y and nearly J u l y 8, to the signature documents Kirkland a United secured advised lines to for a variable interest i t was containing once a g a i n with stated same t h a t q u o t e d above from the indebtedness executed B a n k as a certificate statement its same s i g n a t u r e promissory as on Hinds error in Meigs documents the again anyway. knowledge of the error. On executed August 25, guaranties guaranties included 2006, Hinds, Herrick, securing the language identical 14 August 25, to Katz, and 2006, loan. that quoted Vance The above 1090302 from the July amended August 2005, complaint, 25, 2006, submitted who 8, United loan that, Bank and enforcement f r o m i t s e m p l o y e e , H. as o f J a n u a r y $8,226,474, i t s complaint and g u a r a n t i e s . that and of the United Bank Bruce Trammell, 4, 2 0 0 8 , t h e a m o u n t due on t h e A u g u s t 25, 2006, p r o m i s s o r y n o t e , was In sought documents an a f f i d a v i t stated guaranties. including interest accrued accrued at interest, t h e amount of $1,626 p e r day. The trial judgment court entered for United earlier appeals dismissed by Bank from this i t s March based the Court's on March 20, these 20, decision 2008, facts. 2008, i n Bon summary After the judgment Harbor, were LLC v. Hinds, the p a r t i e s presented the f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l facts to the trial summary court i n support judgment and on of t h e i r Bon respective Harbor and motions f o r a Hinds's motion to that the vacate. Kirkland testified signature lines 25, 2006, documents the error testified on t h e J u l y before that at d e p o s i t i o n he were that he knew 8, 2 0 0 5 , J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d A u g u s t wrong and signing any of signed the July 15 that the 8, he advised documents. 2005, Meigs of Kirkland documents even 1090302 t h o u g h he knew t h e y in a b i g hurry were wrong because Meigs t o g e t i t done." Hinds and Hinds also t e s t i f i e d "were t h a t he a d v i s e d U n i t e d B a n k r e p e a t e d l y t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e l i n e s on t h e documents were wrong Kirkland early to sign 2007, the August advised Bon anyway. of United disagreements with he DGB--declined Bank that i n worked with t o move to forward that with and Vance--and do a a c o r r e c t i o n of Kirkland testified Herrick, Katz, United testified to f a c i l i t a t e o f Bon H a r b o r but Hinds, and behalf, documents. t h e members Decatur Bank Bank i n s t r u c t e d h i m and Kirkland Harbor's 25, 2006, correction, them them on representative and t h a t U n i t e d so because had a r i s e n . This he the through other litigation followed. Hinds t e s t i f i e d delay i n transferring 2005, p r o m i s s o r y from at h i s deposition regarding United Ray t h e $7,500,000 p r o m i s e d note. Jacobsen. Bank's i n the July 8, Bon H a r b o r h a d p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y Jacobsen had acquired the property in several d i f f e r e n t parcels immediately b e f o r e he s o l d i t t o B o n Harbor. had p l a c e d $2,800,000 i n escrow Bon H a r b o r , H i n d s t e s t i f i e d , t o pay purchase price closing not costs funded and t o fund by 16 the $2,500,000 $7,500,000 loan. of the Hinds 1090302 explained that, $7,500,000 directed based would be on United Bank's transferred i t s c l o s i n g agent assurances on day that July 8, t o use 2005, the that Bon real estate that made up the property he Harbor $2,800,000 i n e s c r o w t o f u n d J a c o b s e n ' s p u r c h a s e some o f t h e s e v e r a l of the later parcels s o l d to Bon Harbor. The $7 , 500 , 0 00 installments--one 2005. on was July In the i n t e r i m , a smaller loan facilitate from United Jacobsen's pay that he closing to pay the days He testified one also On original 2005, these a second Bon Bon from Jacobsen. $2,200,000 Bon owed on in two July 25, Harbor obtained as that Bon landowner an one Bon July had that Harbor c l o s e d i t s Harbor used the 2005, loan and 13, Jacobsen. Harbor various of Harbor of the r e m a i n i n g p a r c e l s J u l y 25, 2005, o f f the instead 13, purchase understood that several and Bon Bank i n t h e amount o f $2,200,000 t o remaining funds because to 2005, July of the p r o p e r t y $7,500,000 to 22, on made up t h e p r o p e r t y . purchase transferred Hinds t o pay transactions transaction on testified more for occurred July over 8, 2005. H a r b o r , on J a c o b s e n ' s b e h a l f , a d d i t i o n a l $100,000 b e c a u s e delay. 17 the of paid the 1090302 At his whether Bon known t h a t 2005. he deposition, In Harbor the Hinds would testified have purchased c l o s i n g would not a subsequent testified that be affidavit Bon that the Harbor would he have that the $7,500,000 w o u l d not The $7 , 500 , 0 00 guaranteed was Hinds not July know u n t i l going to fund the Hinds t e s t i f i e d or 12, and Bank was that 9 or that the Bank. dated July 6, he 2005, Bank and his 2005, learned $4,000,000 that Bank Harbor. loan, by had 2005, they that Harbor from that he did B a n k was not affidavits, t i m e on eventually provided presented H i n d s and That l e t t e r stating, in 18 been a by K i r k l a n d as 11 entire Hancock commitment "Loan July provided o u t l i n e d the part: day. $4,000,000 In h i s have known two g o i n g to fund the to and in United first 25, not supposed United July allowed deposition f o r the B a n k was 2005, s i g n e d m e m b e r s " o f Bon 8, 10, at Bon e n t i r e $7,500,000 l o a n . originally Trustmark July testified 2005, t h a t U n i t e d loan from United to i t motions, J u l y 8, loan, had his t r a n s f e r r e d on transferred installments--$3,500,000 Hancock Bank. the know have not that be not property submitted with $ 2 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 f r o m e s c r o w on not did completed u n t i l e x p e n d i t u r e of the would he by letter "managing terms of Amount: up the to 1090302 $7,500,000 United $3,500,000 expected of this Bank is amount. Hancock to fund the remaining committing to fund or only committing Bank, $4,000,000. c a r r y on i t s books to Gulfport, lend MS is U n i t e d Bank i s not a loan i n excess of the March 20, f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , Bon $3,500,000." Finally, 2008, Harbor to support judgment and Hinds from Banks, an of the v a r i o u s Banks, on and their motion their motions presented a employee of letter United of U n i t e d Bank, dated Bank, t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h Bon behalf to vacate January to Harbor. the 24, 2007, closing agent In t h a t letter, stated: "Per our t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n d a t e d 01/23/07 t h i s l e t t e r i s t o f o r m a l l y n o t i f y you o f a p r o b l e m w i t h o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n on t h e a b o v e r e f e r e n c e d l o a n . An insured closing was held i n your office on 0 7 / 0 8 / 2 0 0 5 a n d p o l i c y was issued. "The M o r t g a g e ... was signed i n c o r r e c t l y . It was signed by: Decatur, LLC and Gulf Stream Properties, Inc. These two entities are not authorized signers for Bon Harbor, LLC. The authorized signers should have been Michael F. H i n d s , M a n a g i n g Member a n d P a u l K i r k l a n d , M a n a g i n g Member. This information can be found in the articles o f o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h was stipulated in your c l o s i n g commitment b i n d e r . "Your immediate a t t e n t i o n requested and notification of w r i t i n g w i l l be a p p r e c i a t e d . " 19 to t h i s matter the correction is in 1090302 Bon H a r b o r a n d H i n d s p r e s e n t e d stating trial an a f f i d a v i t from t h e i r that Hinds d i d not r e c e i v e the l e t t e r court United entered Bank. i t s March United p a r a l e g a l employed Bank letter before the March 20, Harbor and an after the judgment f o r affidavit from 2008, a s t a t i n g t h a t he h a d p r o d u c e d t o Bon H a r b o r and H i n d s ' s responded Hinds summary presented by i t s c o u n s e l the J a n u a r y 24, 2007, summary 20, 2008, until counsel judgment, and to Bank's United even counsel before motion Bon for a judgment. Analysis In argue their that judgment August trial letter a principal the against 25, 2006. trial on a p p e a l , court Hinds erred based on Bon H a r b o r court erred i n f a i l i n g Bon H a r b o r in entering the guaranty and Hinds summary judgment; summary defendants asserted that the t r i a l court and t h a t t h e t r i a l f o r United on counterclaims against a he summary signed t o c o n s i d e r t h e J a n u a r y 24, judgment the and Hinds them. 20 on also contend that the from Banks i n d e c i d i n g t h e i r motions Hinds's a f f i d a v i t s ; a brief to vacate erred in 2007, and f o r striking court erred i n entering Bank and and the third-party third-party claims 1090302 I. Hinds's Hinds summary liable argues judgment on guaranty"). extends Bon Liability Hinds Guarantor the t r i a l against the August Hinds's Harbor that as a 25, him because, 2006, reasons liability court that only and U n i t e d Bank erred he guaranty argues, and that, he a i s not (hereinafter the language to written i n entering "the of the guaranty agreements because Bon between Harbor's s i g n a t u r e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o m i s s o r y n o t e was d e f e c t i v e , t h e guaranty does n o t s e c u r e any v a l i d written agreements. "Our r e v i e w o f a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . 'A m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d o n l y when t h e evidence demonstrates that " t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.' R e i c h e r t v . C i t y o f M o b i l e , 776 S o . 2 d 7 6 1 , 764 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . We a p p l y 'the same s t a n d a r d a s t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence b e f o r e the court made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . ' Bussey v . J o h n D e e r e C o . , 531 S o . 2 d 8 6 0 , 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; S y s t e m D y n a m i c s I n t ' l , I n c . v . B o y k i n , 683 S o . 2 d 4 1 9 , 420 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . I n o r d e r t o d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y supported motion for a summary judgment, the nonmoving p a r t y must p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e that creates a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact. ' S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' i s 'evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of impartial judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v . F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e C o . o f F l o r i d a , 547 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " 21 1090302 B o r d e r s v. C i t y 2003). of H u n t s v i l l e , 875 So. a summary summary j u d g m e n t , plaintiff claim.'" must On t h a t i s , one motion prove 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Ramsay v. Grove Hill 142, 144-45 we r e v i e w e d de n o v o . ' " 629 Henderson (Ala. 2009)(quoting C o n s t r . Co., 950 contractual terms their effect legal Murphy, Credit In state 811 So. Corp. v. their the United note So. 2d 280, are 2d are 521, principal following for an element 2d 146, of 153 (Ala. Alabama E l e c . of unambiguous, law." 2d 890 law are Bon Bailey's l o n g as the questions of Winkleblack v. Commercial Harbor's Harbor and Hinds indebtedness Bank: "Bon H a r b o r r e c o g n i z e s t h a t i t may n o t a c c e p t the p r o c e e d s f r o m U n i t e d [Bank] and t h e n c l a i m t h a t i t b e a r s no l i a b i l i t y t o r e p a y i t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t d i d not execute the loan documents. The c o m p a n y 22 3d (Ala. 1999)). on a p p e a l , B o n regarding "As (Ala. 2001)(citing So. brief Coop. v. ( A l a . 2006). q u e s t i o n s of 525-26 829 2000)). "'[q]uestions and the his v . M e a d W e s t v a c o C o r p . , 23 So. 283 was offensive Mem'l H o s p . A u x i l i a r y , that clear L e g g e t t , 744 a s k e d f o r and every So. ( A l a . C i v . App. Additionally, 1776-77 ( A l a . on b e h a l f o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , conclusively parte a 829 2d Ex judgment. Ramsay, 625, 1168, "'In the present case, the p l a i n t i f f granted So. 2d to 1090302 acknowledges t h a t t h e money r e c e i v e d f r o m U n i t e d [Bank] was not a gift, and expected t o pay a reasonable rate of i n t e r e s t f o r the use of the money. Bon H a r b o r d o e s n o t c l a i m t h a t t h e r a t e o f i n t e r e s t p r o v i d e d f o r i n the l o a n documents was unreasonable. However, i t d i d not e n t e r i n t o the l o a n documents p r e s e n t e d by U n i t e d [ B a n k ] , o r any o t h e r w r i t t e n agreements, and i s t h e r e f o r e not bound a c c o r d i n g to the terms of those documents." (Bon Harbor The and Hinds's guaranty brief, at 44.) stated: "Guarantor hereby unconditionally guarantees the prompt and f u l l payment and p e r f o r m a n c e and p r o m i s e s to p a y a l l o f [Bon H a r b o r ' s ] p r e s e n t a n d future, j o i n t and/or s e v e r a l , d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t , a b s o l u t e and c o n t i n g e n t , e x p r e s s and i m p l i e d , i n d e b t e d n e s s , l i a b i l i t i e s , o b l i g a t i o n s and c o v e n a n t s ( c u m u l a t i v e l y ' i n d e b t e d n e s s ' ) t o [ U n i t e d B a n k ] as f o l l o w s : "X UNLIMITED: Guarantor's liabilities and obligations under this guaranty ('obligations') s h a l l be u n l i m i t e d a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e , a l l p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n [Bon H a r b o r ] a n d [ U n i t e d B a n k ] ( w h e t h e r e x e c u t e d f o r t h e same o r d i f f e r e n t purposes) i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the [ J u l y 8, 2 0 0 5 , ] p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s a n d a g r e e m e n t s ... e v i d e n c i n g t h e i n d e b t e d n e s s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l i n t e r e s t and a l l of [ U n i t e d Bank's] expenses and costs " (Emphasis added.) liability language 1975, under of which default or the the Hinds guaranty guaranty. requires argues that m i s c a r r i a g e of that cannot He the of his the be extended beyond § 8-9-2(3), Ala. cites promises " t o answer another" be 23 scope f o r the in writing. He Code debt, also 1090302 relies be on s e v e r a l strictly cases s t a t i n g that construed. "shall include, limits his liability 3 Hinds a l l present under then guaranty agreements reasons and f u t u r e the that written guaranty to must the phrase agreements" "express and Hinds cites Miller v. S t e w a r t , 22 U.S. 6 8 0 , 7 0 2 - 0 3 (1824)("Nothing c a n be c l e a r e r , b o t h upon p r i n c i p l e and a u t h o r i t y , than the d o c t r i n e , that the l i a b i l i t y of a surety i s n o t t o be e x t e n d e d , b y i m p l i c a t i o n , b e y o n d t h e t e r m s o f h i s c o n t r a c t . To t h e e x t e n t , and i n t h e manner, and under t h e circumstances, p o i n t e d o u t i n h i s o b l i g a t i o n , he i s b o u n d , a n d no f a r t h e r . I t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t h a t he may s u s t a i n no i n j u r y b y a c h a n g e i n t h e c o n t r a c t , o r t h a t i t may e v e n b e f o r h i s b e n e f i t . He h a s a r i g h t t o s t a n d u p o n t h e v e r y t e r m s o f h i s c o n t r a c t ; a n d i f he d o e s n o t a s s e n t t o a n y v a r i a t i o n o f i t , a n d a v a r i a t i o n i s made, i t i s f a t a l . " ) ; M e d l e y v . S o u t h T r u s t B a n k , 500 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 8 1 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ( " I t i s fundamental t h a t t h e l i a b i l i t y o f a g u a r a n t o r w i l l n o t be e x t e n d e d b y i m p l i c a t i o n beyond the terms of h i s c o n t r a c t . I t matters not t h a t he o r s h e s u s t a i n s no i n j u r y o r e v e n t h a t i t may b e f o r his or h e r b e n e f i t . This Court has s a i d t h a t t h e g u a r a n t o r 'has a r i g h t t o s t a n d u p o n t h e v e r y t e r m s o f h i s c o n t r a c t , a n d i f he d o e s n o t a s s e n t t o a n y v a r i a t i o n o f i t , a n d a v a r i a t i o n i s made, i t i s f a t a l . ' R u s s e l l v . G a r r e t t , 208 A l a . 9 2 , 9 6 - 9 7 , 93 S o . 711 ( 1 9 2 2 ) , q u o t i n g Manatee County S t a t e Bank v. W e a t h e r l y , 144 A l a . 6 5 5 , 39 S o . 988 ( 1 9 0 5 ) . " ) ; McGeever v. T e r r e H a u t e B r e w i n g C o . , 2 0 1 A l a . 2 90 , 2 92 , 78 S o . 6 6 , 68 (1918)("It i s s e t t l e d i n this j u r i s d i c t i o n that the contract o f a g u a r a n t o r must be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d , according to the l e t t e r of the undertaking."); Manatee C o u n t y S t a t e Bank v. W e a t h e r l y , 144 A l a . 6 5 5 , 658 39 S o . 9 8 8 , 9 8 8 - 8 9 (1 905) ("The r u l e seems t o be w e l l s e t t l e d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t o f a s u r e t y o r g u a r a n t o r must be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d according to the l e t t e r of the undertaking. The s u r e t y h a s a r i g h t t o s t a n d upon t h e terms o f h i s c o n t r a c t , and i t c a n n o t w i t h o u t h i s a s s e n t b e c h a n g e d i n a n y r e s p e c t . To t h e e x t e n t a n d i n t h e m a n n e r s t a t e d i n h i s c o n t r a c t he i s b o u n d , a n d no f u r t h e r . " ) . 3 24 1090302 implied[] indebtedness, covenants," arising United and nature. United provides that future indebtedness, Harbor written Bank Hinds and but the are 2d 90 9 guaranty (Ala. describing the amount, and the parties agreements, expressly Bon Harbor the Bank. the 2004 ) . Inc. United contained scope of the of v. the had they limited and first wanted could the United and added.) are then have possible Bank. United the selected guaranty to the the in citing that 8 95 the paragraphs l i m i t e d to an H i n d s and United Bank a r g u e s that, guaranty written Instead, 25 Bank limiting notes guaranty: unlimited, limit between C i t y of Birmingham, three to implied, United not in paragraph enlargement, Bank paragraph. limiting covenants" include" words not "express (Emphasis Pelham, and include, a l l preceding l i m i t e d to s p e c i f i e d agreements. Bank s e l e c t e d if that is o b l i g a t i o n s and rather agreement "shall agreements" words " s h a l l S o u t h e a s t e r n Meats of So. phrase guarantees United obligations agreements. the notes liabilities, then argues that nature, from w r i t t e n Bank c o n t e n d s t h a t present Bon liabilities, third to option agreements parties written and between chose the 1090302 first option which stated instead that the guaranty "shall be unlimited." We In agree with United Southeastern Meats, Bank's c o n s t r u c t i o n this Court of the guaranty. stated: "In another context, t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d that the word ' " i n c l u d i n g " i s not t o be regarded as limitational or restrictive, but merely as a p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g t o be i n c l u d e d o r t o c o n s t i t u t e a p a r t o f some o t h e r t h i n g . ' S i m s v . M o o r e , 288 A l a . 630, 635, 264 So. 2d 484 , 487 (1972) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . ' " I n c l u d i n g " i s not a w o r d of l i m i t a t i o n , r a t h e r i t i s a word of e n l a r g e m e n t , and in ordinary s i g n i f i c a n c e a l s o may imply that s o m e t h i n g e l s e has been g i v e n beyond the general language which precedes i t . ' Id. (emphasis added)." 895 So. 2d at 913. Therefore, w r i t t e n agreements" as limiting true phrase, and the certain otherwise, that the parties "shall include scope of the the the to immediately guaranty alternative specify guaranty. "shall choices that the be that ... read This is preceding unlimited," would g u a r a n t y was have limited agreements. Accordingly, Harbor's the considering states considering allowed to which phrase ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) c a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y be or r e s t r i c t i n g particularly the H i n d s was indebtedness, to United l i a b l e under the express Bank. Based 26 and on guaranty implied, the for Bon written or previously noted 1090302 admission to of l i a b i l i t y U n i t e d Bank 2005 and f o r the material Bon fact entitled regarding to a Harbor's judgment appeal. Harbor's o f Bon implications II. Bon erred 20, based on of the As under afford and the July result, that The absence a defense Hinds as i t is to would of Bon not brief on i t relates to need not f u r t h e r the t r i a l any guaranty and of a l l e g e d proper against a principal guaranty n o t shown t h a t i t in i s s u e as t o law. in their H a r b o r , we a summary j u d g m e n t address signatures. court erred i n him. Discovered Evidence Harbor in failing 2008, has of i s indebted to debt. liability Harbor of the absence therefore, Newly that does not liability implied l i a b i l i t i e s entering on t o U n i t e d Bank Bon scope Hinds, Harbor transferred a matter or the the Given as obviously indebtedness Bon Hinds's indebtedness signatures concede $7,500,000 Bon s h o w n t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e Harbor's proper Harbor, for reasonable interest U n i t e d Bank has for o f Bon and 2007, l e t t e r next to grant t h e i r judgment newly Hinds and their discovered from Banks. argue motion motions evidence, Specifically, 27 that the trial to set aside for a summary i . e . , the the court March judgment January 24, they contend that the 1090302 March the 20, 2008, trial light & M consider on i t was judgment. They the respect trial United before also Bank was ( A l a . 1981), letter as fact at issue i n court's counsel, Bon d e c i s i o n not and Hinds that they of the March without citation "obligated" to argue, d i d not 20, 2008, to authority, consider judgment. i t with (Bon H a r b o r a t 49.) argues United add any m a t e r i a l court 759 Harbor f o r a summary that discretion i n deciding letter. Bon the entry argue, motion Hinds's b r i e f , 2007, 743, the t r i a l of t h e i r court to their that arbitrary. the l e t t e r its 2d in Simmons M a c h i n e r y C o . v . M Bank o f t h e u l t i m a t e the a f f i d a v i t discover and So. that t h e judgment and H i n d s c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e J a n u a r y 24, 2007, case, and t h e y argue that Citing I n c . , 409 a d m i s s i o n by U n i t e d based i n t e r l o c u t o r y and, t h e r e f o r e , had d i s c r e t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r Brokerage, the to court was o f t h e new e v i d e n c e . Harbor an order the t r i a l court not to consider Bank c o n t e n d s that United Bank's motion exceed the January the l e t t e r f a c t s t h a t were n o t a l r e a d y i n considering d i d not before does the a n d t h a t Bon 24, not trial Harbor a n d H i n d s d i d n o t r a i s e a n y new a r g u m e n t s b a s e d on t h e l e t t e r . As liability noted above, Bon H a r b o r has conceded 28 regarding 1090302 its i n d e b t e d n e s s t o U n i t e d Bank, and H i n d s ' s g u a r a n t y to both the express As a result, promissory based U n i t e d Bank liability on t h e on t h e a f f i d a v i t f r o m argues that and b e f o r e t h e t r i a l j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 . Harbor their and Hinds have f a i l u r e t o submit Regency Terrace 1999). The p a r t i e s discretion See Harbor. Bon H a r b o r i t s counsel's and Hinds l e t t e r i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n before they responded Bank's motion Bon o f Bon i s immaterial. Additionally, the indebtedness e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g Bon H a r b o r ' s notes paralegal, and i m p l i e d c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e summary Accordingly, not p r o f f e r e d U n i t e d Bank argues, any e x p l a n a t i o n f o r They c i t e H a i l Ass'n, 1271, correctly 782 So. agree 2d that 409 So. 2d a t 759 v. 1278 ( A l a . the t r i a l to consider the January Machinery, had to United the l e t t e r sooner. Owners whether Simmons applies c o u r t had 24, 2007, letter. ("Credit Alliance correctly a r g u e s t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d b y the c o u r t was s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n trial entry of rights, adjudicating and l i a b i l i t i e s , Although case judgment was i t i s true subject that to under a t any time b e f o r e t h e a l l the Rule 54(b), parties' claims, [ A l a . R. C i v . P.] t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t i n t h i s revision 29 ... , such revision was not 1090302 mandatory upon the t r i a l court .... Whether r e v i s e s a p a r t i a l g r a n t o f summary j u d g m e n t discretion which, Hail, considering in affidavits absent a an a b u s e , trial we w i l l court's a trial ... i s a m a t t e r o f not d i s t u r b . ) . decision submitted i n opposition to a p a r t i a l , interlocutory, summary judgment, this court Court to In strike and t h e r e f o r e stated: "The f a c t o r s a c o u r t i s t o c o n s i d e r on t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t o r e v i s e an i n t e r l o c u t o r y summary j u d g m e n t are analogous t o t h o s e i t i s t o c o n s i d e r when a p a r t y a t t e m p t s t o o f f e r new e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( e ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . Thomas v . S w i n d l e , 676 S o . 2 d 3 3 3 , 335 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . E v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d i n an e f f o r t t o r e v i s e an i n t e r l o c u t o r y summary j u d g m e n t c a n be c o n s i d e r e d b y the c o u r t i f t h e nonmovant can o f f e r a proper e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i t s f a i l u r e t o submit the evidence earlier, i n response to the motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t . I d . , a t 3 3 5 , c i t i n g M o o r e v . G l o v e r , 501 So. 2 d [ 1 1 8 7 , ] 1 1 8 9 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ] . " 782 So. 2d a t 1278. Based trial on presented for a and Hinds b e f o r e they responded summary judgment and e n t e r e d i t s March 20, 2008, o r d e r . United proper before the available t o U n i t e d Bank's the and Hinds trial d i d not e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i t s f a i l u r e to submit 30 Bank, Therefore, the t r i a l c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t Bon H a r b o r a by c o u r t c o u l d h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e l e t t e r was t o Bon H a r b o r motion the a f f i d a v i t court court "offer the evidence 1090302 earlier, Hail, not in 782 So. exceed Harbor response and 2d at to the 1278. for summary Accordingly, i t s discretion Hinds's motion in motions deciding based on the not the judgment." trial did consider to court Bon January 24, 2007, letter. III. Hinds's Bon striking Affidavits Harbor and Hinds's motion to vacate, to United Bank any a u t h o r i t y to Court has argue t h a t affidavits the submitted trial in court support m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , and and summary j u d g m e n t . Hinds the t h i r d - p a r t y defendants' H o w e v e r , Bon support their Harbor and a r g u m e n t s on Hinds this erred of their response motion do for a not cite issue. This stated: " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f c o n t a i n ' c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on.' Further, ' i t is well settled that a failure to comply with the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) r e q u i r i n g c i t a t i o n of authority i n support of the arguments presented provides t h i s Court with a basis f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . ' S t a t e F a r m M u t . A u t o . I n s . Co. v . Motley, 909 So. 2 d 8 0 6 , 822 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e S h o w e r s , 812 So. 2d 277 , 281 ( A l a . 2001 ) ) . T h i s i s so, because ' " i t i s not the f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make a n d address legal arguments for a party based on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . " ' B u t l e r v . Town 31 in 1090302 o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248 , 251 19 9 4 ) ) . " J i m m y Day (Ala. Plumbing 2007) & Heating, (emphasis have not complied Ala. R. this The Counterclaims Bon Harbor added). Civ. entering party a P., with we and Smith, Because Bon genuine issues their for and four the 964 So. Harbor 1, and of material do not 9 Hinds 28(a)(10), arguments as to erred in Claims the trial United court Bank and the third- of b r e a c h of duty, f r a u d , on fact T h e y do injury to the committed." Boswell 2d (Ala. not 1994). cite actions to Liberty Nat'l 32 to those and citing any to Life the Ins. Spooner been erase fraud Co., v. of except has completely whom argue each authority fraud say, claims. Hinds relating a cannot against Also as H a r b o r and "[o]nce person v. Bon arguments that subsequent existed appeal, specify proposition 584 for Rule their Third-Party argue that of 2d f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment because, they accomplished, 580, consider their claims claims. done not and In t h e i r p r i n c i p a l b r i e f generally requirements judgment d e f e n d a n t s on and will Hinds summary suppression, the v. issue. IV. Inc. Dykes (Ala. 643 State the was So. Farm 1090302 Mut. Auto. I n s . C o . , 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 1157 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Commonwealth Land T i t l e and Old Southern (Ala. are Bank 348 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 7 taken as arguments their Bon regarding claims a undo failure true. it; and t h a t Harbor and on J u l y Hinds the authority of duty, judgment. Nor do they fraud, claims cases; 8, 2 0 0 5 , " a n d t h a t the "facts t o make t h e l o a n how of breach declaratory presented i n these w r o n g o c c u r r e d on J u l y cannot fraudulent for I n s . Co. v . W o o d a l l , to the situations a "substantial United the I n s . C o . , 646 S o . 2 d 1352 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; 1 9 7 7 ) , Bon H a r b o r a n d H i n d s a r g u e o n l y t h a t t h e i r "analogous" that Life S o u t u l l o v. relating 8 t h " must be not cite state any relates to and s u p p r e s s i o n , do they to show how and the a u t h o r i t y r e l a t e s t o a f i n d i n g that genuine issues of m a t e r i a l fact exist above, legal as t o t h e e l e m e n t s "'"it i s not the function research o r t o make of those of t h i s and address claims. As stated C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s legal arguments fora p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s n o t s u p p o r t e d by sufficient authority or argument."'" 964 S o . 2 d a t 9. Bon H a r b o r the requirements of Rule respect to this argument. J i m m y Day P l u m b i n g , and Hinds have n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h 28(a)(10), A l a . R. Accordingly, 33 App. Bon H a r b o r P., with and Hinds 1090302 have not summary shown that judgment defendants on the for their trial United court Bank counterclaims and erred and in the entering a third-party third-party claims. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial judgment i n f a v o r of U n i t e d Bank, B a n k s , M e i g s , and against Bon Harbor and court's Lipham and Hinds. AFFIRMED. Cobb, Murdock, C.J., and and Woodall, Stuart, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 34 Smith, Bolin, Parker,

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.