Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Stockton v. Haynes
Citations: 784 So. 2d 1067; 2000 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 718; 2000 WL 1763412Docket: 2991132
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 30, 2000; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Lawrence Stockton filed a lawsuit against Frank Jefferson Haynes on February 3, 2000, for injuries from a February 11, 1998, automobile accident. Haynes sought dismissal of the case, arguing that Stockton had previously settled a lawsuit regarding the same accident for $7,250 before Haynes was served and that the prior lawsuit had been dismissed. Haynes provided affidavits from the claims manager and defense attorney, along with supporting documents. On June 16, 2000, Stockton responded, claiming he did not authorize the settlement, his signature on the settlement draft was forged, there was no executed release, and the prior lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. He also contended that Haynes’s motion was essentially a summary judgment motion. The trial court treated Haynes’s motion as a motion for summary judgment and granted it on the same day, ruling in favor of Haynes and affirming the settlement's validity, with costs imposed on Stockton. Stockton appealed, citing that he was not given the opportunity to respond to Haynes's affidavit. The appellate court referenced *Knowles v. Beatty*, emphasizing that when outside matters are presented in a motion to dismiss, it must be treated as a summary judgment motion, and parties should be allowed to present relevant material. The court found that Stockton was not afforded this opportunity, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. Judges Robertson, Yates, Crawley, and Thompson concurred with the decision.