Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. v. McGugin

• Decision Date: 23 June 1982
• Citation: Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. v. McGugin, 423 So.2d 1371 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982)
• Parties: BARRETT MOBILE HOME TRANSPORT, INC., a corporation, and H.L. Williams v. John McGUGIN and Lois McGugin; Harry J. Willis and Brenda Kay Willis. Civ. 2416.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 1371

423 So.2d 1371

BARRETT MOBILE HOME TRANSPORT, INC., a corporation, and H.L. Williams v. John McGUGIN and Lois McGugin; Harry J. Willis and Brenda Kay Willis.

Civ. 2416.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 23, 1982.

John W. Cooper, Mentone, for petitioners.

Joseph C. McCorquodale, III, of McCorquodale & McCorquodale, Jackson, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This case has been returned to this court by the Alabama Supreme Court after deciding that proper venue was in Clarke County, Alabama. Consequently we will now address the other issues raised in this appeal. The main facts of this case are set out in our prior opinion and will not be repeated here.

There are three substantive issues raised in this appeal. The first issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict in favor of the McGugins. The second issue is whether the court erred in failing to enter judgment against the Willises on the deficiency sought by Barrett after repossession of the mobile home. The third issue is whether the court erred in admitting evidence that Barrett paid $50.00 to Midland Guardian for an assignment of the security instrument.

In addressing the first issue, we state the general rule that jury verdicts are presumed correct and will not be reversed on appeal unless the preponderance of evidence is against the verdict and is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is unjust. M.C. West, Inc. v. Battaglia, 386 So.2d 443 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 450 (Ala.1980).

Defendants, Barrett and Williams, first contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury verdict in favor of the McGugins because the McGugins are not the proper parties to maintain the action for damages to the mobile home. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot agree.

The names of both the Willises and the McGugins were submitted to the jury for a determination of each party's right to maintain the suit and the extent of injury, if any, to their respective interests in the property. No objection to the submission was raised by defendants at that time. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the McGugins.

From our review of the record, we find that there was ample evidence to support the jury's finding that the McGugins were entitled to maintain the action for damages to the mobile home. Although legal title to the mobile home was taken in the name of the Willises, the evidence is undisputed that the McGugins made all of the payments. The McGugins were the sole residents of the mobile home, and were responsible for its upkeep. Further, the McGugins contracted with Barrett to move the trailer. It is a settled rule that a party to a contract, in the absence of an assignment, has a substantive right to enforce that contract. Gore v. Gore, 250 Ala. 417, 34 So.2d 580 (1948); U-Haul Co. v. Turner, 355 So.2d 384 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). The McGugins brought an action against Barrett for breach of the transportation contract and for negligently damaging the trailer during the attempt to transport it. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the McGugins on the two count complaint. The jury's verdict finding that the McGugins were the proper parties to maintain the action must be upheld.

Defendants also contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in favor of the McGugins and against defendants. Defendants argue that there was no evidence to show that they were negligent in moving the mobile home, and that under the contract defendants were not liable for defects in the frame or undercarriage which may have caused the damage. Again, however, we find sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Sol Stewart, a mobile home dealer, testified that his inspection of the mobile home revealed that the back bedroom contained too much weight. He further testified that this uneven weight distribution could cause the undercarriage of the mobile home to crack and break. Williams, the mover, testified that he did not look in the back bedroom to determine if the mobile home was loaded properly for the move. No evidence of a defect in the frame or undercarriage, existing prior to the attempted...