Allen Revival Center of Faith, Inc. v. Wilson Avenue Bapt. Church, Inc.

Citations: 959 So. 2d 127; 2006 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 713; 2006 WL 3457615Docket: 2050521

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 30, 2006; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Allen Revival Center of Faith, Inc. and Frederick Allen appealing a summary judgment in favor of Wilson Avenue Baptist Church, Inc. and a partial summary judgment for Clifton and Dorothy Enlers regarding claims related to a parcel of real property. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction concerning the summary judgments and affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Enlerses for conversion, detinue, trespass, wrongful eviction, and abuse of process.

In 1995, Allen Revival purchased property in Mobile County from Wilson Avenue, which financed part of the purchase and retained a vendor's lien deed securing the promissory note executed by Allen Revival. The deed included a power of sale allowing Wilson Avenue to foreclose if Allen Revival defaulted, requiring a 30-day notice prior to foreclosure. After Allen Revival defaulted, Wilson Avenue provided only 21 days' notice of the foreclosure sale, which occurred on July 25, 2002. Wilson Avenue bought the property at the sale and transferred it to the Enlerses on July 30, 2002, who then took possession in August 2002.

In January 2003, Allen Revival and Frederick Allen filed suit, alleging wrongful foreclosure against Wilson Avenue for failing to provide the requisite notice, seeking damages and to set aside the foreclosure. Against the Enlerses, they claimed the right to redeem the property, conversion of personal property left on the premises, detinue for possession of that property, and wrongful entry and eviction.

The fourth claim against the Enlerses alleges that their forcible entry and removal of Allen Revival and Frederick Allen constituted a trespass, making them liable for damages. The fifth claim asserts that the eviction was wrongful and an abuse of process, seeking damages as relief. Wilson Avenue and the Enlerses responded to Allen Revival and Frederick Allen's complaint, with Wilson Avenue filing a counterclaim to declare the foreclosure valid. Additionally, both Wilson Avenue and the Enlerses made cross-claims against each other; Wilson Avenue sought to reform the warranty in the deed to exclude Allen Revival's right to redeem the property, while the Enlerses sought damages if the property conveyance was invalidated.

On February 11, 2005, Wilson Avenue moved for summary judgment regarding the validity of the foreclosure and Allen Revival's right to redeem. It argued that Alabama Code § 35-10-8 allowed a 21-day notice instead of the 30 days specified in the vendor's lien deed and claimed Allen Revival failed to redeem within a year as required by § 6-5-248(b). After a hearing on May 6, 2005, the trial court issued a July 26, 2005 order that granted summary judgment on the foreclosure's validity but denied it on the redemption issue, certifying the foreclosure ruling as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Allen Revival and Frederick Allen did not appeal or file a post-judgment motion within the designated timeframe.

On July 13, 2005, the Enlerses filed a third-party complaint against Title Assurance Company and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company for failing to disclose Allen Revival and Frederick Allen's redemption rights at the time of their property purchase. Wilson Avenue subsequently moved to dismiss the Enlerses' cross-claim, which was granted by the trial court on July 23, 2005, based on the prior ruling that upheld the foreclosure's validity. On September 12, 2005, Allen Revival and Frederick Allen's attorney withdrew, and new counsel entered the case on October 24, 2005. A hearing on motions filed by the Enlerses was held on October 7, 2005.

A motion was filed to compel Allen Revival and Frederick Allen to respond to the Enlerses' discovery requests, which the trial court granted, setting a deadline for October 12, 2005. Another motion for partial summary judgment by the Enlerses, asserting that Allen Revival and Frederick Allen forfeited their right to redeem the property due to failure to vacate within 10 days of a demand for possession, was also heard. The Enlerses supported their motion with affidavits, while Allen Revival and Frederick Allen did not present evidence in opposition. On October 12, 2005, the trial court granted the Enlerses' motion for partial summary judgment, certifying it as a final judgment under Rule 54(b). Allen Revival and Frederick Allen did not file a postjudgment motion or notice of appeal within the required 42 days.

Subsequently, on November 3, 2005, the trial court granted the Enlerses' motion to dismiss Allen Revival and Frederick Allen's claims of conversion, detinue, trespass, and wrongful eviction due to their noncompliance with discovery requests. On November 21, 2005, the trial court dismissed the Enlerses' third-party claims against Title Assurance and Commonwealth without prejudice. On December 16, 2005, the court dismissed any remaining unadjudicated claims on its own initiative. Allen Revival and Frederick Allen filed a notice of appeal to the supreme court on December 27, 2005. Other parties did not appeal.

The supreme court transferred the appeal to this court, where Wilson Avenue and the Enlerses challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the appeals were untimely since the judgments were final and no appeals were filed within the 42-day period mandated by Rule 4(a)(1). In response, Allen Revival and Frederick Allen contended that the trial court's certifications of the summary judgments as final were invalid. They claimed the court failed to provide reasons for the certifications; however, it was noted that the trial court was not obligated to do so as established in Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Tinney, which clarified the requirements for certifying judgments.

Rule 54(b) does not mandate that a trial court detail the factors considered when determining if there is no just reason for delay in certification. The court overruled the precedent set by Brown v. Whitaker Contracting Corp. concerning this rule. Allen Revival and Frederick Allen contended that the trial court's certifications of summary judgments as final were invalid due to the interconnectedness of adjudicated and unadjudicated claims, posing risks of inconsistent outcomes. However, the court found that the summary judgment regarding the foreclosure's validity did not create such a risk since it resolved all relevant claims against Wilson Avenue. Likewise, the partial summary judgment concerning redemption did not intertwine with other remaining claims. Thus, the certifications of both judgments as final were upheld. Furthermore, Allen Revival and Frederick Allen failed to file notices of appeal within the required 42 days, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction for the court to review these judgments, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

Allen Revival and Frederick Allen contend that the trial court wrongly dismissed their claims of conversion, detinue, trespass, wrongful eviction, and abuse of process against the Enlerses. They argue: 1) they were not served with the Enlerses' motions to compel or dismiss; 2) they did not willfully ignore discovery requests; and 3) the dismissal was an overly harsh sanction. However, the record shows these arguments were not presented to the trial court before or after the dismissal. Even if they were unaware of the motions until after dismissal, they had the opportunity to challenge the dismissal but chose to appeal instead. The appellate court will not reverse a trial court's judgment based on arguments not raised at that level. Rule 52(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure does not exempt them from the requirement to object in the trial court before appealing. Previous cases cited do not support their position since they do not indicate that the appellants had failed to object to dismissals. Consequently, the court affirms the dismissal of their claims against the Enlerses. The appeal is partially dismissed and partially affirmed. There is no opinion on Frederick Allen's standing to sue or the validity of the foreclosure issue.

Allen Revival and Frederick Allen's claim for property redemption was directed solely against the Enlerses, making the determination of Allen Revival's redemption rights non-dispositive to their claims against Wilson Avenue or Wilson Avenue's counterclaim. According to Section 35-10-8, foreclosure sale notices must be provided in accordance with the mortgage or deed of trust, or as specified in the Code, with particular requirements for publication if the mortgagor does not reside in the county where the property is located. A vendor's lien is classified as a mortgage under Alabama law. Although the court denied the summary judgment regarding Allen Revival's redemption rights, it granted summary judgment on the validity of the foreclosure, effectively resolving all claims between Allen Revival, Frederick Allen, and Wilson Avenue. Rule 54(b) allows for partial judgments in multi-claim or multi-party actions, provided there is no just reason for delay. The original counsel for Allen Revival and Frederick Allen withdrew on September 12, 2005, with new counsel appearing on October 24, 2005. The motion to dismiss their claims against the Enlerses was served on the original counsel after his withdrawal and was not served on either Allen Revival or Frederick Allen, nor on their new counsel after he appeared. There is no record of their attendance at the November 3, 2005, hearing regarding that motion. Rule 52(b) allows for raising the sufficiency of evidence issues even if no prior objections or motions were made.