Austin Apparel, Inc. v. Bank of Prattville
Decision Date | 21 February 2003 |
Citation | 872 So.2d 158 |
Parties | AUSTIN APPAREL, INC. v. BANK OF PRATTVILLE n/k/a Whitney National Bank, and Southern Industries of Clover, Ltd. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Knox Argo, Montgomery, for appellant.
Kimberly G. Kervin of Kervin & Cook, L.L.C., Prattville, for appellee Bank of Prattville n/k/a Whitney National Bank.
J. Robert Faulk of McDowell, Faulk & McDowell, L.L.C., Prattville, for appellee Southern Industries of Clover, Ltd.
This case arose out of an interpleader action filed in the Autauga Circuit Court by the Bank of Prattville n/k/a Whitney National Bank ("the Bank") for the disbursement of what the Bank determined to be excess sales proceeds the Bank received when it foreclosed on a mortgage lien against real property owned by Gurney Industries, Inc. ("Gurney"), and sold the real property (located in Autauga County) that had secured the mortgage.
The record reveals the following facts. It is undisputed that the Bank held the first mortgage on the property and that Southern Industries of Clover, Ltd. ("Southern Industries"), held a mortgage on the property subordinate to the Bank's mortgage. There were a number of judgment lienholders, including Austin Apparel, Inc. ("Austin Apparel").
On June 17, 1999, the Bank conducted a foreclosure sale on the steps of the Autuaga County courthouse; the property was sold at the sale for $190,000. On July 12, 1999, the Bank filed a "complaint for interpleader" and deposited with the court $120,211.701 of the proceeds from the foreclosure sale. The Bank retained the remaining sales proceeds after having determined that, pursuant to the terms of the loan documents (i.e., the mortgage, the loan agreement, and the promissory note), the Bank was owed principal in the amount of $56,939 (which included a payment of $16,939 to Goodwyn, Mills & Cawood Environmental Consultants, Inc. ("GM & C Environmental Consultants"), for an environmental study); interest; attorney fees; and publication expenses.
On August 2, 1999, Southern Industries filed a "motion for a judgment on the pleadings," claiming that it was owed $119,214. Southern Industries arrived at $119,214 as follows: principal in the amount of $115,629; attorney fees in the amount of $3,500; and an abstract cost in the amount of $85. On November 9, 1999, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Southern Industries in the amount of $115,629, and ordered the court clerk to pay Southern Industries $116,629.2 In its judgment, the trial court reserved the issue of attorney fees and costs.
On June 12, 2000, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of whether Southern Industries should be paid attorney fees out of the sales proceeds. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the admission of the loan documents and submitted the following written stipulation to the court:
The record does not include a transcript of the hearing. The court entered a judgment in favor of Southern Industries on June 12, 2000, and awarded it $3,585 as attorney fees.3 The judgment entered on the case action summary sheet stated:
Austin Apparel filed a counterclaim to determine whether the Bank was entitled to charge against the sales proceeds the full amounts the Bank claimed it was owed pursuant to the loan documents. On November 19, 2001, the trial court held a hearing on, among other things, the appropriateness of the Bank's charging against the sales proceeds the sum of $16,939 for an environmental study. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to, among other things, the admission of the loan documents. Two witnesses testified regarding the environmental study: (1) Myron Smith, the attorney who had represented the Bank regarding this matter until just before the hearing when he withdrew as counsel after it was determined that he would be a witness at the hearing; and (2) Galen Thackston of GM & C Environmental Consultants.
The pertinent sections of the loan documents discussed by Smith at the hearing and/or the parties in their briefs on appeal are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ryan's Family Steakhouse, Inc. v. Kilpatric
...Landfill Co. v. Haleyville Solid Waste Disposal Auth., 941 So.2d 312, 316 (Ala.Civ.App. 2006) (quoting Austin Apparel, Inc. v. Bank of Prattville, 872 So.2d 158, 165 (Ala. Civ.App.2003)) (citations omitted). The plain language of the arbitration agreement excludes from arbitration claims fi......
-
SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Bama Bayou, LLC
...free from ambiguity, there is no room for construction and the contract must be enforced as written." Austin Apparel, Inc. v. Bank of Prattville, 872 So. 2d 158, 165 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).Section 2.14 of the mortgages operates to govern the rights and responsibilities of the parties if a wr......
-
In re England
...Perry , 186 Ala. at 518, 65 So. 151 ; Bynum v. Frederick , 81 Ala. 489, 490–91, 8 So. 198 (1886) ; Austin Apparel, Inc. v. Bank of Prattville , 872 So.2d 158, 166 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). The reasonableness of fees is determined on a case-by-case basis by the trial court. Lanier v. Moore–Hand......
-
In re Ochab
...Perry , 186 Ala. at 518, 65 So. 151 ; Bynum v. Frederick , 81 Ala. 489, 490–91, 8 So. 198 (1886) ; Austin Apparel, Inc. v. Bank of Prattville , 872 So.2d 158, 166 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). The reasonableness of fees is determined on a case-by-case basis by the trial court. Lanier v. Moore–Hand......