Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute over a property deed. Earnest Coprich and Bessie Elizabeth Jones, who have known each other for about 50 years, disagreed over the terms of a property sale. Coprich claimed that he sold his residence to Jones for $15,000, while Jones contended that the sale price was $10,000. After Jones moved into the property and made several improvements, Coprich filed a complaint seeking to set aside the deed. He alleged that he was mentally incompetent at the time of signing the deed and that he was coerced and defrauded by Jones. Jones denied these allegations and asserted that she had purchased the property and occupied it since the transaction.The Montgomery Circuit Court, after a bench trial, ruled in favor of Jones. The court found that Coprich failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his incompetence or that Jones had committed fraud or misrepresentation. Coprich's postjudgment motion to vacate the order was summarily denied by the court. Coprich then appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Alabama, however, determined that the Court of Civil Appeals should have jurisdiction over the case. The court noted that the case is a "civil case" as defined by § 12-3-10 and that the "amount involved" does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $50,000. Therefore, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal back to the Court of Civil Appeals. View "Coprich v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves Stacy G. Coats and Kendall Coats (the plaintiffs) who filed a private right-of-way condemnation case against Sandra F. Ayers, Tommy J. Ayers, and J. Jason Ayers (the defendants). The plaintiffs sought a right-of-way across the defendants' property to access their own landlocked properties. The properties in question include several parcels of land, some of which are low-lying wetlands often flooded and used for hunting and fishing. A private dirt road, referred to as the "farm road," crosses the defendants' property and has been historically used by the plaintiffs and their predecessors to access their properties.The Tuscaloosa Probate Court initially granted the plaintiffs a right-of-way across the defendants' property, concluding that the plaintiffs' property was landlocked. The defendants appealed this decision to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' property was no longer landlocked due to inheritance of additional land that touched a public road. The Circuit Court agreed with the defendants, granting a summary judgment in their favor on the grounds that the plaintiffs' property was no longer landlocked and they had reasonable access to their property from a public road.The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the decision of the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. The Supreme Court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiffs have an existing, reasonable means to access their landlocked property. The court noted that the plaintiffs had presented substantial evidence indicating that they could not travel from the public road across their property to access their landlocked property. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had permission to cross an intervening property, and thus there was no requirement for them to seek a right-of-way over it. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Coats v. Ayers" on Justia Law

In 2010, Crystal Kaye Coan purchased a property in Lauderdale County, which was subject to a mortgage. Coan defaulted on the mortgage, leading to a foreclosure by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, the mortgage assignee. Carrington sold the property to Championship Property, LLC in an online auction in May 2018. Championship then filed an ejectment action against Coan, claiming it was the title owner and seeking possession of the property. Coan countered that the foreclosure sale was void, and therefore, Championship had not acquired the title. In January 2023, Championship requested the trial court to require Coan to deposit $2,000 per month with the court clerk pending a final ruling in the ejectment action. The trial court, over Coan's objection, ordered her to deposit $800 per month.Coan failed to deposit the court-ordered payments for March, April, and May 2023, leading Championship to move the trial court to hold her in contempt. The trial court found Coan in contempt and, as a sanction, ruled in favor of Championship on its ejectment claim, awarding it possession of the property. Coan appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's decision to require Coan to deposit $800 per month with the court clerk, stating that the trial court had the authority to enter the escrow order. The court also affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt against Coan for failing to comply with the escrow order. However, the court reversed the trial court's sanction awarding Championship possession of the property, stating that the sanction was not appropriate given the current posture of the litigation. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Coan v. Championship Property, LLC" on Justia Law

Harold Wallace, a tenant of the Housing Authority of the City of Talladega, fell while descending the back-porch stairs of his apartment due to missing handrails. Wallace sued the Housing Authority for negligence and wantonness. The Housing Authority moved for a summary judgment, arguing that the lack of handrails was an "open and obvious" danger and that Wallace had conceded in his deposition that he was aware of this. The trial court granted the Housing Authority's motion for a summary judgment. Wallace appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for certiorari review, arguing that the Court of Civil Appeals' decision conflicts with a prior decision in Daniels v. Wiley, where the court affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant landlord after concluding that the landlord had no duty to the plaintiff tenant with respect to risks created by the muddy condition of a sidewalk within her apartment complex because the danger was "open and obvious."The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, concluding that the decision does not conflict with Daniels. The court clarified that while the Daniels decision is sound, it should not be interpreted as rejecting a landlord's duties under the circumstances described in §§ 360 and 361 of the First Restatement and the Second Restatement. The court found that the Housing Authority failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the principles set forth in §§ 360 and 361 apply to the circumstances in this case, and therefore, the Housing Authority was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. View "Ex parte The Housing Authority of the City of Talladega" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed a case involving a dispute over an undeveloped island ("the island") located within a canal system on Ono Island, a residential subdivision. The island was created during the development of the canal system and was later sold in a tax sale. F Family South, LLC ("FFS") acquired the island and sought to construct a boat shelter on it. The Property Owners Association of Ono Island, Inc. ("the POA") objected, arguing that the island was subject to certain covenants restricting its use.The Baldwin Circuit Court ruled in favor of the POA, finding that the island was subject to both express and implied covenants restricting its use. The court also invalidated the 1995 tax sale through which FFS had obtained ownership of the island, and declared the POA as the island's owner.FFS appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in voiding the 1995 tax sale and in concluding that the island was subject to the covenants. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's decision to void the tax sale, but affirmed the finding that the island was subject to implied restrictive covenants governing its use. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "F Family South, LLC v. Property Owners Association of Ono Island, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves siblings Kim J. Washington and Katrina J. Williams who filed a lawsuit against their brother Elrick Earl Johnson seeking to partition a jointly owned real property. The property in question is "heirs property" under the Alabama Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act ("the Heirs Act"). The plaintiffs proposed to sell the property, a plan Johnson disagreed with, arguing that the property could be partitioned in kind.The Baldwin Circuit Court conducted a bench trial on the matter. The plaintiffs argued that the property was incapable of being equally and equitably partitioned in kind, hence their request for the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the parties according to their respective ownership interests. Johnson, on the other hand, disputed this claim, suggesting that the property could be partitioned in kind.The trial court granted Johnson's motion for a judgment as a matter of law, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof that the property could not be equitably divided. The court did not order that the property be partitioned in kind or otherwise equitably divided.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the trial court's finding that the property could be partitioned in kind. However, it reversed the trial court's judgment to the extent that it failed to order that the property be partitioned in kind, as required by the Heirs Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Washington v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute among Players Recreation Group, LLC, an Alabama limited-liability company, three of its members, Jason L. McCarty, Felix McCarty, and Doyle Sadler, and S&M Associates, Inc., a company owned by Sadler. The LLC, established in 1999, owns and operates a bowling alley known as 'the Super Bowl.' In 2003, S&M, a company owned by Sadler, loaned the LLC $150,000, which is evidenced by a promissory note. In 2006, the Super Bowl began incurring substantial losses, and the LLC ultimately defaulted on the promissory note payable to S&M. In July 2015, S&M and Sadler sued the LLC and the other members of the LLC, asserting a breach-of-contract claim and a claim seeking an accounting. In August 2015, the LLC, Jason, and Felix filed an answer and a counterclaim, alleging that Sadler had breached his duty of loyalty and his duty of care to the LLC.The case proceeded to a bench trial. The parties initially stipulated that the LLC owed S&M a total of $310,139.66 on the promissory note; the trial court ultimately entered a judgment against the LLC for that amount based on the parties' stipulation. The case was then tried solely on the counterclaims asserted against Sadler by the LLC, Jason, and Felix. The trial court entered a judgment against Sadler on the counterclaims, based on its findings that Sadler had breached not only a duty of loyalty and a duty of care to the LLC, but also the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to the LLC. The trial court assessed damages against Sadler in the amount of $368,167.92.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama, Sadler argued that the trial court erred insofar as it entered a judgment against him on the counterclaims asserted against him by the LLC, Jason, and Felix. The Supreme Court of Alabama agreed and reversed the judgment entered against Sadler on the counterclaims asserted against him because there was no evidence to support findings that Sadler had breached the duty of loyalty and the duty of care owed to the LLC or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and remanded the case to the trial court for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.On remand, S&M and Sadler filed a motion for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The trial court denied the motions for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The trial court also found that the LLC had incurred $2,713,230.33 in expenses without contribution by Sadler or Scott Montgomery. That finding was not disturbed on appeal and has become the law of the case. The trial court took judicial notice that Jason and Felix McCarty have perfected, as the remaining members of the LLC, that claim or debt by filing a second mortgage with the Probate Court of Jefferson County, which second mortgage is inferior to the mortgage held by the late Ferris Ritchey’s real estate company, and the perfection of this claim makes it a priority over and superior to the claims of other creditors, including S&M.S&M and Sadler appealed the trial court's order on remand. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's order on remand insofar as it denied S&M's and Sadler's requests for attorney's fees and costs, reversed the order insofar as it addressed the LLC's mortgage executed in favor of Jason and Felix and its purported priority, and remanded this case with instructions for the trial court to set aside that portion of its order that addressed the LLC's mortgage and its purported priority. View "S&M Associates, Inc. v. Players Recreation Group, LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over church property between Harvest Church-Dothan ("Harvest") and the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc. ("the AWFC") and the General Council on Finance and Administration of the United Methodist Church ("the GCFA"). Harvest sought a judgment declaring that the AWFC and the GCFA lack any legally cognizable interest in real or personal property held by Harvest, as well as injunctive relief preventing the AWFC and the GCFA from interfering with Harvest's use, ownership, or control of the local church property.The AWFC and the GCFA moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, which prohibits civil courts from adjudicating disputes concerning spiritual or ecclesiastical matters. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The AWFC and the GCFA then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss the underlying action.The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition, concluding that the AWFC and the GCFA have not met their burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to have the complaint against them dismissed. The court found that the dispute pertains solely to the ownership and control of the local church property, an issue that civil courts generally can resolve by applying "neutral principles of law." The court also found that the AWFC and the GCFA failed to demonstrate that the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the GCFA was improper. The action will continue in the trial court for further proceedings. View "Ex parte The Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a property dispute between two neighboring condominium associations, Phoenix East Association, Inc. ("Phoenix East") and Perdido Dunes Tower Condominium Association, Inc., a Master Association ("Perdido Dunes"). The dispute centers on a two-and-a-half-foot-wide strip of land between their properties. Perdido Dunes claimed it had acquired title to the disputed property through adverse possession. Phoenix East disagreed, asserting that Perdido Dunes had only used the property with Phoenix East's permission.The Baldwin Circuit Court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Perdido Dunes, granting it a prescriptive easement over the disputed property. Phoenix East appealed this decision, arguing that the Alabama Uniform Condominium Act prohibited the trial court from awarding Perdido Dunes a prescriptive easement on Phoenix East's property. Phoenix East also contended that Perdido Dunes did not adequately prove adverse use or claim of right, which are two elements of a prescriptive easement.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the Condominium Act did not categorically bar judicially imposed prescriptive easements. It also found that there was sufficient evidence of a prescriptive easement, as Perdido Dunes had used the premises for a period of twenty years or more, adversely to the owner of the premises, under claim of right, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted, with actual or presumptive knowledge of the owner. Lastly, the court ruled that Perdido Dunes was not required to join every unit owner to the litigation, as the Condominium Act specifically contemplates that condominium associations will represent their individual members in litigation. View "Phoenix East Association, Inc. v. Perdido Dunes Tower Condominium Association, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled in a case concerning a dispute over the amount of ad valorem taxes owed by Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC for the personal property at a petrochemical plant that it owns in Morgan County.The Morgan County Revenue Commissioner assessed Indorama's personal-property value at nearly 1.5 times the amount that Indorama had paid for the plant, which Indorama challenged before the Morgan County Board of Equalization. After the Board affirmed the Commissioner's assessments, Indorama appealed the decisions to the Morgan Circuit Court. The circuit court ruled in favor of Indorama, determining that the fair market value of the property was roughly $150 million less than the Board's appraisal.The Board then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing that the circuit court's valuation was contrary to the evidence and violated Alabama law. However, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, stating that under Alabama law, the circuit court was entitled to consider "all the evidence," and was not restricted to any particular method of valuation.Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Alabama also affirmed the circuit court's application of the corporate rate to the prejudgment interest on Indorama's overpayment, determining that this was correct under Alabama law. View "Morgan County Board of Equalization v. Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC" on Justia Law