Blevins v. HILLWOOD OFFICE CENTER OWNERS'

Citations: 51 So. 3d 317; 2010 Ala. LEXIS 102; 2010 WL 2471028Docket: 1090512

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; June 18, 2010; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jerry M. Blevins and Carol A. Blevins appeal a summary judgment favoring the Hillwood Office Center Owners' Association (HOCOA) and its board members. The Supreme Court of Alabama vacated the judgment, dismissed the appeal, and dismissed the action. Carol purchased a condominium unit in Hillwood Office Center on March 29, 2005, and attempted to transfer her interest to Jerry via a quitclaim deed on May 15, 2005. This deed, witnessed only by Jerry, was not recorded in the Montgomery Probate Court, nor was a copy provided to the HOCOA, contrary to the requirements outlined in the HOCOA’s declaration of condominium.

By April 15, 2005, Jerry started a law practice in the unit and incurred expenses for shrubbery that subsequently died due to an inoperative sprinkler system. He discovered that the HOCOA had not held annual meetings or maintained a board of directors for several years. Jerry organized a meeting to elect a new board, becoming a member and president for three years, during which time the sprinkler system was repaired. However, he faced opposition from other board members regarding the operational costs of the sprinkler system.

After resigning in June 2008, a new board was elected, and Jerry activated the sprinkler system on August 10, 2008. The following day, he found a lock had been placed on the control panel, leading him to email board members, demanding removal of the lock or indicating he would cut it off.

At 1:39 p.m., Chandler informed Jerry via email that he had forwarded Jerry's request about key access to the sprinkler system to the board. Chandler asked Jerry to provide a reference in the by-laws supporting his claim that all association members should have a key, emphasizing that only the president and the lawn maintenance contractor would have access. Chandler warned that if Jerry removed the lock, he would be liable for any resulting damage, asserting that board members were responsible for common property, not individual condo owners.

At 2:55 p.m., Jerry responded, demanding a key or the removal of the lock by the end of the day, threatening to cut the lock off the following morning due to the board's negligence in maintaining the landscaping. He also communicated to the board at 2:44 p.m., stating that Chandler had repeatedly denied him access to the lock and that the grass and bushes he had installed were dying. Jerry claimed the Hillwood Office Center Owners' Association (HOCOA) was no longer a legally recognized entity due to its failure to comply with corporate laws, thus he refused to recognize the board's authority. He demanded action by the close of business the next day, warning of potential liability for interfering with his rights as a property owner.

Jerry subsequently broke multiple locks on the control panel to activate the sprinkler system, leading to Chandler eventually removing the entire control panel. As a result, Jerry resorted to watering the shrubs manually. He also sought access to HOCOA's corporate records, claiming noncompliance with corporate laws. On September 29, 2008, Jerry filed a lawsuit against HOCOA and several individuals, seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging claims of nuisance, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, specific performance, and conversion. His complaint argued that HOCOA was not legally existent due to noncompliance with corporate formalities and demanded immediate access to various records. The nuisance claim asserted that the board breached its duty to prevent harm and inconvenience by locking the sprinkler controller box and removing it, which adversely affected the landscaping around Jerry's office.

Hillwood is accused in the complaint of converting the sprinkler-control panel by locking it and eventually removing it from a common area. Jerry claims that Hillwood breached a fiduciary duty by locking and removing the sprinkler controller box, preventing him from watering the grounds, and refusing his requests for access to the records of the Homeowners’ Association (HOCOA). On October 31, 2008, Hillwood filed a motion to dismiss and a counterclaim alleging that Jerry lacked standing to sue, asserting that Carol was the record owner of the unit. Hillwood's counterclaim also alleged trespass, claiming Jerry had no right to access the control box and caused intentional damage to it. Additionally, Hillwood sought a court order declaring that Jerry had no rights over the sprinkler system and sought an injunction against him from tampering with it.

In December 2008, Jerry amended his complaint to include Carol as a plaintiff, but Hillwood subsequently moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, certifying the judgment as final under Rule 54(b). The Blevinses appealed, with Hillwood again contesting Jerry's standing. The court discussed the principle that a party without standing cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction to the court and that the lack of standing at the beginning cannot be remedied by later amendments. Hillwood argued that the quitclaim deed transferring title from Carol to Jerry was ineffective because it was not properly witnessed or recorded as required by law, asserting that Jerry, therefore, lacked standing to challenge the HOCOA's actions. The Blevinses did not dispute this factual basis and acknowledged that Jerry did not record the deed as required by the governing documents of the HOCOA.

The Blevinses responded to Hillwood's jurisdictional challenge by criticizing Hillwood for initially questioning Jerry's standing, arguing that Hillwood now seeks to ignore its own non-compliance with HOCOA's governing documents regarding the Board's election. The court emphasized its duty to recognize the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction but clarified that it is not required to independently search for facts to establish jurisdiction if the parties fail to provide adequate justification. The burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction rests with the party invoking it, and the Blevinses did not sufficiently dispute Hillwood's claim that Jerry lacks standing. The court concluded that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, rendering its summary judgment void, which led to the dismissal of the appeal and the underlying case. The judgment was vacated, and the appeal dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.