Braswell Wood Co., Inc. v. Fussell, 83-1361
Decision Date | 21 June 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 83-1361,83-1361 |
Parties | BRASWELL WOOD COMPANY, INC. v. Paul FUSSELL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William M. Russell, Jr., Tuskegee, for appellant.
Carl O. Pilgrim of Pilgrim & Gooden, Montgomery, for appellee.
Appeal by Braswell Wood Company, Inc. (Braswell Wood) from a summary judgment entered against it in the amount of $15,000, together with interest and costs, in favor of plaintiff, Paul B. Fussell, Sr. We reverse and remand.
The action grows out of a mortgage and promissory note on 240 acres of land lying in Macon and Bullock Counties. The land was owned by Ronald K. and Sandra K. Pirnie, who had purchased it from Fussell, giving him a purchase money mortgage and note in exchange. Fussell, as mortgagee, filed a complaint seeking to foreclose, and also seeking damages from Braswell Wood for alleged conversion of timber on the mortgaged land. 1
The mortgage was foreclosed, and a deficiency judgment was awarded to Fussell. The propriety of those proceedings is not in issue here.
Fussell, the mortgagee, moved for summary judgment against Braswell Wood. The gist of his claim against Braswell Wood was that, after the sale of the land to the Pirnies and while their mortgage to Fussell was extant, the Pirnies executed a timber deed to Braswell Wood, which proceeded to cut $15,000 worth of timber from the mortgaged lands, paying that amount into a bank on the directions of Ronald K. Pirnie instead of to the mortgagee Fussell. In support of this motion, Fussell attached part of the deposition of John Braswell, owner of Braswell Wood, the bank check evidencing payment for the timber drawn by Braswell Wood, the mortgage from the Pirnies to Fussell, the timber deed from the Pirnies to Braswell Wood, and the two affidavits of Fussell himself. Braswell Wood did not respond to this motion by affidavit or otherwise, nor did Braswell Wood file any post-judgment motions. Braswell Wood did appeal from the summary judgment.
The controlling question on appeal is whether or not summary judgment was appropriate in this case. Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., provides in pertinent part:
Fussell contends that summary judgment was proper in this case because Braswell Wood never, by affidavit or otherwise, responded to Fussell's motion, and thus Braswell Wood failed to meet the requirement of showing that there was a genuine issue for trial. We disagree.
When Braswell Wood answered Fussell's complaint, it raised certain defenses, set forth below, based on an agreement between Fussell and the Pirnies to reinstate the mortgage:
Here, as in Imperial Group, Ltd. v. Lamar Corp., 347 So.2d 988, 989 (Ala.1977), the "plaintiff-movant [here, Fussell] offered no allegations to negative" the defenses raised by Braswell Wood in its answer. In Imperial Group this Court reiterated the well established rule that:
Fountain v. Phillips, 404 So.2d 614, 618 (Ala.1981). Accord Speigle v. Lott, 423 So.2d 163 (Ala.1982).
In addition, the following quotation taken from C. Wright, Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts, § 99 at 664 (4th ed. 1983), is apropos:
(Emphasis added.)
Because Fussell offered nothing to contradict the defenses raised by Braswell Wood in its answer, summary judgment was improper if granted merely because Braswell Wood rested on its pleadings. Nevertheless, we find the following caution given in Imperial Group, Ltd. v. Lamar Corp., supra, at 989-900, instructive, and it bears repeating in this case:
(Emphasis added.)
Notwithstanding all of the above, Fussell contends, in essence, that all of the defenses raised by Braswell Wood must fail as a matter of law, and therefore, that summary judgment was proper. We do not agree as to the first four defenses.
Because our analysis depends, in part, on the construction of the agreement to reinstate the mortgage entered into by Fussell and the Pirnies after the timber was cut, it is set forth in its entirety below:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheffield v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.
...1214, 1215-16 (Ala.1983). All reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence must be viewed in favor of the nonmovant. Braswell Wood Co. v. Fussell, 474 So.2d 67 (Ala.1985). When viewed in this light, Shaw's testimony affords a reasonable inference of exposure to Kaylo. That a jury might dec......
-
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham
...establish the existence of that defense as a matter of law. Waiver is normally an issue for the jury, Putman, supra; Braswell Wood Co. v. Fussell, 474 So.2d 67 (Ala.1985); and the jury was instructed on that New Trial Issues (Issues 4, 5, and 6) Citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. McKinney, 456......
-
In re Cummings
...will preclude a finding of non-dischargeability even if the conversion was willful and malicious. See, e.g., Braswell Wood Co. v. Fussell, 474 So.2d 67, 73-75 (Ala.1985) (discussing defenses of waiver and estoppel to conversion 16 Should the Gilleys amend the pleading filed by them in this ......
-
Ex parte General Motors Corp.
...there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Braswell Wood Co. v. Fussell, 474 So.2d 67,71 (Ala.1985): "`[H]ad the movant here presented evidence to negative defendant's defense of estoppel, defendant could not merely rest......