Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Turquoise Properties Gulf, Inc. (Turquoise) appealed a circuit court judgment that denied its motion to alter, amend or vacate an arbitration award in an action filed by Clark A. Cooper, David L. Faulkner, Jr., and Hugh and Adrienne Overmyer (collectively, Claimants). Claimants signed purchase and escrow agreements to purchase condominiums to be built as part of "phase I" of a complex Turquoise was developing in Orange Beach. In conjunction with the purchase, they each posted a letter of credit for 20% of the purchase price. When construction neared substantial completion, the Claimants declined to "close" on the purchases on their respective units, allegedly because Turquoise had failed to build an outdoor pool and sundeck area or to provide individual storage units and private cabanas which it had agreed to build and to provide. The purchase and escrow agreements contained an arbitration provision. Claimants' initial demands contained claims of breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. The arbitrator entered a lengthy arbitration award containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, ultimately in favor of the Claimants. Turquoise filed a motion to modify the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had made a computational error in his calculation of damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitrator did mistakenly calculate damages owed to the claimants. The Court vacated the arbitrator's award and remanded the case for recalculation of damages.

Capmark Bank appealed a preliminary injunction entered in favor of RGR, LLC; MB Park, LLC; TTM MB Park, LLC; Robert G. Randall; and T. Todd Martin III (referred to collectively as "RGR") which enjoined Capmark from foreclosing on certain real property that served as the primary collateral for a loan from Capmark to RGR, LCC, MB Park, LLC, and TTM MB Park, LLC. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded RGR failed to establish the requisite elements entitling it to a preliminary injunction. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment issuing the injunction.

Timothy C. Allsopp appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for relief from a judgment entered in favor of James and Kisha Bolding. The Boldings sued Naysa Realty and Investments, LLC, Deleana Davis, Keller-Williams Realty Co., and Allsopp. The Boldings alleged breach of fiduciary duty, and three counts of fraud arising out of real-estate transactions in Madison County. Davis was a principal in Naysa Realty and was employed by Keller-Williams as a real-estate agent. Davis advised the Boldings, who were purchasing property, to give Allsopp power of attorney to sign certain closing documents on their behalf. A default judgment was entered against Allsopp, with leave for the Boldings to prove damages against him later. Allsopp argued on appeal that the evidence against him was insufficient to support the judgment against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's decision and affirmed the judgment in the Boldings' favor.

Alabama Psychiatric Services, P.C. (APS) appealed a grant of summary judgment by the circuit court in favor of 412 South Court Street, LLC (Court Street). SRS Group, LLC, owned by Eugene Sak, began substantial renovations to the Court Street building, including gutting and rebuilding the interior of the structure. Sak entered into negotiations with Make Believe, LLC, to lease space in the building for use as a gym and exercise facility. While he was negotiating with Make Believe, Sak entered into discussions with APS about leasing office space. During the negotiations, APS voiced concerns about having a discreet entrance for APS's clients and about potential noise from a gym facility in the building and that there would not be sufficient parking for APS patients and staff because of the use of the parking lot by members of the gym. Sak assured APS that the noise problem would be solved, that parking would be sufficient for both the gym members and APS, and that when construction of the addition was complete, the gym would have its own separate entrance. Sak sold the building before construction was complete. The new ownership assumed AFS' lease but the discreet entrance was not built. On appeal, APS argued that it was fraudulently induced to sign a lease agreement for space in the building. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court record contained substantial evidence to support APS's claim that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, through misrepresentation and the suppression of material facts, Sak fraudulently induced APS to enter into the lease agreement. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Robert S. Grant Construction, Inc. (the corporation), Robert S. Grant (RSG), and Pam E. Grant (PEG) (collectively referred to as "the Grants") appealed an order striking their jury demands in an action commenced by Frontier Bank (the bank) against the Grants and others alleging breach of contract, fraud, and the fraudulent conveyance of real estate. This case arose out of a loan from the bank to the corporation. The loan ultimately involved a number of related agreements, including a construction-loan agreement between the corporation and the bank and a series of "continuing guaranties," whereby RSG personally guaranteed repayment of the loan. The Supreme Court was unable to reach the merits of the Grants' contentions, and dismissed the appeal because, despite the invocation of Rule 54(b), the trial court's order was not final and appealable.

The Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery (IDB) appealed a circuit court's interlocutory order that denied its motion for summary judgment as to a breach-of-contract claim asserted against it by George and Thomas Russell as co-executors and co-trustees of the wills and testamentary trusts of Earnest and Myrtis Russell, Price and Mary McLemore and several others. In 2001, various officials of the State of Alabama, the City of Montgomery, the Montgomery County Commission, Montgomery Chamber of Commerce and the local water works board began making preparations to secure options to purchase property in the Montgomery area in an attempt to persuade Hyundai Motor Company to build an automobile plant in the area. All the trusts owned acres of land in the targeted area. The IDB signed separate options with the Russells, the McLemores and other trusts to purchase the respective properties. Hyundai's plans for its manufacturing plant changed, and subsequently, not all of the options were exercised. The Russells and the McLemores each filed breach-of-contract actions against the IDB and Hyundai alleging that neither adhered to the terms of their respective options. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in denying the IDB's motion for summary judgment. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Two appeals between MPQ, Inc. (d/b/a Freedom Enterprises) and Birmingham Realty Company were consolidated by the Supreme Court for the purposes of this opinion. The parties entered into a commercial lease agreement. Birmingham Realty filed suit against MPQ for unpaid rent in circuit court. MPQ filed a counterclaim. Birmingham Realty filed a separate unlawful-detainer action against MPQ in district court. The district court dismissed the detainer action, reasoning that the simultaneous actions in the district and circuit courts violated Alabama's abatement statute. Birmingham Realty appealed the district court's dismissal to the circuit court and filed a motion to dismiss MPQ's counterclaim. The circuit court conducted a hearing on all pending motions. It then entered an order affirming the district court's dismissal of the unlawful-detainer action and dismissed MPQ's counterclaims in the rent action. The court suggested that Birmingham Realty move to dismiss the rent action without prejudice so it could refile its unlawful-detainer action in the district court and then later refile an action in circuit court to seek the unpaid rent. Birmingham Realty took the court's advice and filed the suggested motions. MPQ filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the court's decision in its counterclaim. The circuit court did not rule on either motion. The parties appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found Birmingham Realty's appeal from the district court to the circuit court was not timely, and as such, the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal with regard to the unlawful-detainer action and remanded the remaining issues for further proceedings.

RCH IV-WB, LLC (RCH) appealed a circuit court's order that set aside its mortgage foreclosure sale. At a bench trial, RCH offered as evidence a copy of a document allegedly assigning the mortgage at issue from Wachovia Bank to RCH. Defendant Wolf Bay Partners, LLC objected to the admission of the assignment documents, arguing that RCH failed to show that the individual who signed the assignment had authority to act, and that the form of the assignment failed to conform to Alabama law. The trial court sustained the objection and eventually set aside the foreclosure sale of the subject property. RCH unsuccessfully filed a motion for new trial and appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review of the trial court record, the evidence submitted and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that the mortgage assignment was not admissible. The Court reversed the lower court's judgement and remanded the case for further proceedings.

EB Investments, LLC and Pavilion Development, LLC filed separate appeals to challenge elements of a circuit court order holding that Pavilion was entitled to redeem certain property in Madison County in which EB Investments and other parties held legal interests. In 1997, Pavilion initiated an action to redeem 19 acres of land purchased at a foreclosure sale. In the years since, the Supreme Court has issued three opinions deciding various issues stemming from Pavilion's attempted redemption of that property. The property was subject to bankruptcy protection. In connection with a settlement agreement, three mortgages were executed on the property. Pavilion, as one of the mortgagees, sought to enforce its right of redemption to the property. In 2010, a trial court entered judgment outlining the steps Pavilion needed to take to perfect and complete its redemption. EB Investments and Pavilion took opposing sides on most legal issues in this case; however, they both argued that the trial court's judgment is not an appealable judgment because it does not address all the pending issues and resolve all the pending claims in this case. Other interested parties who filed responses in this case argued that the trial court's order was sufficient and urged the Supreme Court to end this long-running dispute. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and offered guidance to the trial court to help expedite a resolution.

Matador Holdings, Inc. and HoPo Realty Investments, LLC filed separate appeals to challenge elements of a circuit court's order involving commercial property owned by Matador. Matador sued HoPo for payment for materials and services Matador provided to HoPo's lessee Stratford Plastic Components of Alabama. The lease agreement contained provisions allowing for HoPo or its agents to enter the property during the lease-term to make inspections or repairs. Stratford had applied for and received a line of credit with Matador. After taking possession of the leased property, Stratford ordered materials from Matador to convert the property into one suitable for Stratford's production needs. Stratford vacated the property before the lease term expired without paying Matador for the materials. HoPo's agents testified that Stratford did not request any changes be made to the leased property and had no knowledge that Matador would supply materials to the lessee. To resolve the dispute, the trial court denied Matador's claim that HoPo was unjustly enriched by the services provided to Stratford that were unpaid, but the court placed a lien on HoPo's property for the unexpired portion of the Stratford lease. Upon review of the trial court record and its order, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of Matador's unjust enrichment claim. Furthermore, the Court reversed the lower court's order insofar as it enforced any portion of a lien against HoPo's property or the improvements made to the property. The Court ruled the lien void.