Stallworth v. Continental Real Estate Management, Inc.

Citations: 582 So. 2d 534; 1991 Ala. LEXIS 499; 1991 WL 101505Docket: 1900028

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; May 31, 1991; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rosie Stallworth filed a lawsuit against Continental Real Estate Management, Inc. and its owner, William Myers, claiming conversion, trespass, emotional distress, fraud, wrongful lease termination, and outrage. Continental and Myers moved for summary judgment on all claims, presenting pleadings and deposition evidence in support. The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims, which Stallworth appealed, narrowing her argument to the conversion claim. The applicable review standard is the "substantial evidence" rule, which requires evidence that reasonably infers the existence of the fact in question. The trial court must resolve doubts in favor of the nonmoving party, Stallworth, who bears the burden to present substantial evidence of conversion to defeat the summary judgment motion. Stallworth argued that the depositions and exhibits suggested material fact issues regarding the defendants' right to possess her property and the circumstances of demand and refusal. Continental and Myers contended they met their burden, with Stallworth failing to provide substantial evidence. The appellate review focused on whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the alleged wrongful conversion. Evidence indicated that Stallworth entered a lease with Continental on June 30, 1987, for $200 monthly rent, with a late fee provision.

Ms. Stallworth resided in the apartment from September 1987 until August 1988, after which her brother moved in while she continued to pay rent, albeit late for several months. In January 1989, Continental issued a notice of lease termination and a demand for possession due to unpaid December rent, subsequently filing an unlawful detainer action. Ms. Stallworth claims she intended to terminate her lease in January and did not pay January's rent, despite her brother occupying the apartment until January 28. She notified utility companies to discontinue services, which occurred by the end of January. On January 28, her brother and nephew removed some of her belongings, but not all were taken. A few days later, Continental entered the apartment and removed her remaining possessions. Ms. Stallworth demanded their return, initially being informed they were disposed of, but later learned they were with an employee who took them home. She asserts that Continental's actions constituted conversion of her property, claiming they wrongfully took possession without knowing her intentions. Continental argues that Ms. Stallworth abandoned the premises, claiming their actions were lawful as a temporary possession of abandoned property.

Ms. Stallworth was informed that her possessions were in storage and not disposed of, but she refused delivery based on her attorney's advice against acceptance. To establish conversion, there must be wrongful taking or detention of property, which involves exercising dominion contrary to the plaintiff's rights. The legal principle indicates that if a lease is forfeited, a landlord may temporarily reclaim a tenant's property without it constituting conversion. However, if the initial taking was lawful, a demand for return and subsequent refusal are necessary to prove conversion. Ms. Stallworth argued that the retention of her possessions, combined with misleading statements about their disposal, constituted substantial evidence of conversion, creating a factual dispute that precluded summary judgment for Continental and Myers. The court referenced established case law affirming that recovery of property does not negate the right to pursue a conversion claim. Ultimately, the court found Ms. Stallworth had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a genuine issue of material fact regarding conversion and reversed the summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. The status of an unrelated unlawful detainer action against Ms. Stallworth remains unspecified.