Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm
Decision Date | 28 May 2004 |
Parties | Karen BRACKIN v. TRIMMIER LAW FIRM, Alabama Credit Union League, and Jo Lynn Rutledge. Family Security Credit Union v. Karen Brackin. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Order Overruling Rehearing Applications and Statement of Nonrecusal September 10, 2004.
Thomas E. Baddley, Jr., and Jeffrey P. Mauro of Baddley & Mauro, LLC, Birmingham; and Terry L. Butts of Cervera, Ralph & Butts, Troy, for appellant/cross-appellee Karen Brackin.
James N. Nolan and Anu M. Brady of Walston, Wells, Anderson & Bains, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant Family Security Credit Union, and appellees Alabama Credit Union League and Jo Lynn Rutledge.
Ronald G. Davenport and R. Austin Huffaker, Jr., of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for appellee Trimmier Law Firm.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., Nathan A. Forrester, deputy attorney. gen., and Scott L. Rouse, asst. atty. gen., for amicus curiae State of Alabama, in support of the appellant Family Security Credit Union.
Lee H. Copeland and Mitchel H. Boles of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Bankers Association, in support of the appellant Family Security Credit Union.
James N. Nolan, Anu M. Brady, and Kary Bryant Wolfe of Walston, Wells, Anderson & Baines, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant Family Security Credit Union and appellees Alabama Credit Union League and Joy Lynn Rutledge, on applications for rehearing.
Lee H. Copeland and Mitchel H. Boles of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Bankers Association, in opposition to Karen Brackin's recusal motion, on applications for rehearing.
In case no. 1021005, Karen Brackin appeals from judgments entered in favor of the Trimmier Law Firm, Alabama Credit Union League, and Jo Lynn Rutledge. We affirm those judgments.
In case no. 1021593, Family Security Credit Union ("FSCU") appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Brackin, a former FSCU employee. After a jury trial, a Morgan County jury awarded Brackin $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages on her defamation claims based on certain statements made by Brackin's former co-employees to an auditor during an investigation performed at FSCU following a finding of improprieties during an audit. FSCU appeals from the judgment entered on the jury's verdict. We reverse and remand.
In April 1999, an audit of FSCU identified apparent improprieties in the files at FSCU related to a former employee of FSCU, Mitchell Smith.1 As a result of finding these apparent improprieties, Alabama Credit Union Administration ("ACUA")2 issued to FSCU a "Document of Resolution," referred to as a "DOR." This DOR directed FSCU's supervisory committee to "engage an outside firm to confirm the entries listed in the supplemental facts section of this report and any other related activity discovered during the review." The "supplemental facts section" of the DOR referred to potential lending violations and other improprieties by Smith. The DOR also instructed FSCU to "provide your findings to the Alabama Credit Union Administration, ACUA, and National Credit Union Administration, NCUA."
FSCU retained Steve Trimmier, the senior partner with the Trimmer Law Firm, to conduct the investigation. The Trimmier Law Firm was FSCU's legal counsel. In turn, the Trimmier Law Firm retained Jo Lynn Rutledge, a certified public accountant employed with the Alabama Credit Union League ("ACUL")3 as the director of its auditing department, to conduct the investigation of Smith's activities at FSCU. Rutledge had previously audited FSCU, performing routine annual audits at FSCU beginning as early as 1994 or 1995. She reported the results of each of those previous audits directly to the supervisory committee of FSCU. Rutledge audited FSCU during those years in which Smith's wrongful activities went undiscovered.
Brackin was the manager of lending, marketing, and human resources at FSCU, second in command only to Ron Fields, the president at FSCU. It was undisputed that, at various times throughout her employment with FSCU, Brackin had advised Fields when certain loan officers were not following the policies, procedures, or recommended lending practices of FSCU. Fields acknowledged that Brackin initially discovered and reported to him the violations and improprieties involving Smith.4
Rutledge spent September 8, 9, and 10, 1999, at FSCU. Fields, Brackin, and several other FSCU employees were attending an out-of-state conference during that time. On September 9, while reviewing computer reports at FSCU, Rutledge noticed that the due dates on several loans originated by Smith had been "advanced."5 The computer reports indicated that John Salter and Ann McMillan were the loans officers who had entered the new due dates into the computer. Rutledge questioned Salter and McMillan; they both explained that Brackin had instructed them to change the due dates and that she did so often. At that point, Salter suggested that Rutledge speak with Rolanda Johnson, another FSCU employee, about Brackin.6
By the end of the day on September 10, Rutledge had spoken to FSCU employees John Salter, Ann McMillan, Rolanda Johnson, Tanya Drain, Bobby Chitwood, Dennis Smith, and Debra McCaghren concerning Brackin. Rutledge claimed that "[a]s I spoke to one, they referred me to another with issues related to Karen Brackin." Rutledge instructed the employees to reduce their statements to writing. Those writings were unsworn.
Rutledge testified that she "felt an urgency" to discuss with someone the statements made to her about Brackin. When she could not reach Steve Trimmier, she contacted Lloyd Moore, the senior examiner with the ACUA, to discuss what she had been told by the FSCU employees.7 She did not attempt to contact any member of the FSCU supervisory committee, although that was her usual reporting procedure.
Rutledge then prepared a written summary of the information she learned about Brackin during her audit of FSCU. In her report, Rutledge wrote:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little v. Strange
...individual justices on the Alabama Supreme Court have commented on the uncertain status of the Alabama Act. See Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So.2d 207, 233–34 (Ala.2004) (Brown, J., denying a motion to recuse) (observing that “whether §§ 12–24–1 and –2 ..., which have not yet obtained ......
-
Ex Parte Walker
...Because no compelling reasons for my recusal exist, as Justice Brown wrote in her statement of nonrecusal in Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So.2d 207, 230 (Ala.2004), "I have determined that I am not disqualified from deciding the appeal ... and that it is my constitutional duty to decid......
-
Southbark, Inc. v. Mobile Cnty. Comm'n
...omitted). Publication requires communication of the defaming statement to only a single third party. See Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So.2d 207, 221 (Ala.2004). The Court notes that the negligence standard is applicable for private figures. Nelson, 534 So.2d at 1092, n. 2. Defendants a......
-
Davis v. Legal Servs. Ala., Inc.
...to an outside political consultant. (Doc. 14 at 24-25.) Citing the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm ("Brackin "), 897 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 2004), the Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that there has been no publication; that is, there is "no evide......
-
Point: Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice-a 10-year Review of the Alabama Supreme Court's Treatment of Jury Verdicts in the Plaintiffs' Favor
...Hunt Petroleum v. State, 901 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2004)($3.4 million compensatory and $20 million punitive); Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 2004)($800,000 compensatory and $200,000 punitive); New Addition Club v. Vaughn, 903 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 2004)($240,000); Tom's Foods v. Carn......
-
A Legal, Political, and Ethical Analysis of Judicial Selection in Ohio: A Proposal for Reform
...scrutiny analysis). 42MISS. CODE JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 3(E)(2). 43 ALA. CODE § 12-24-2 (2009); see also Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So. 2d 207, 230–34 (Ala. 2004) (providing an example of an Alabama Supreme Court Justice’s statement of nonrecusal). Page 832 832 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW......
-
Seeking a Recusal: Calling the Judge a Lizard Won't Help Your Cause
...States Department of Justice had yet to be performed. Finley, supra, at 835. In a more recent decision, Brackin v. Trimmier Law Firm, 897 So. 2d 207 (Ala. 2004), the Alabama Supreme Court again refused to embrace Ala. Code § 12-24-1 and § 12-24-2 as valid and enforceable. There, a motion to......