Buchanan v. Collier
| Decision Date | 02 November 1990 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 1068 |
| Parties | John BUCHANAN v. Ron Vincent COLLIER. 89-570. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joe W. Morgan, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Barry D. Vaughn and Wanda J. Batson of Proctor and Vaughn, Sylacauga, for appellee.
Ron Vincent Collier sued John Buchanan and Jack Newsome, alleging fraud arising out of the sale of an automobile. The jury returned a $100,000 verdict in favor of Collier, but the trial court remitted it to $50,000. Buchanan appealed from the judgment based on the jury verdict, and Collier attacked the remittitur. This Court, in Buchanan v. Collier, 555 So.2d 134 (Ala.1989), affirmed the judgment of liability, but reversed with regard to the remittitur because the reasons for reducing the verdict were not specified. We remanded the case for a hearing in accordance with our opinion in Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1986).
While that appeal was pending, Buchanan obtained leave from this Court and filed a "motion for new trial" pursuant to Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., on the ground that the judgment was obtained through false representations by Collier. Following an ore tenus hearing, the trial court denied Buchanan's motion. Buchanan appeals.
The underlying judgment in this case was based on the finding that Collier could not acquire a certificate of title to a rebuilt automobile that he had purchased from Buchanan. See our earlier opinion, cited above. After that judgment was rendered, a certificate of title to the automobile was issued to Collier. Collier has subsequently obtained a license plate for, and has driven, the automobile.
Buchanan contends that the underlying judgment was obtained by "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" by Collier and, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for "new trial." Specifically, Buchanan argues that Collier misrepresented his loss or injury by testifying that he could not acquire a certificate of title to, or a license plate for, the automobile and that the automobile could not be driven, when, in fact, a certificate of title to the automobile has been issued and Collier has obtained a license plate for, and has driven, the automobile.
The decision of whether to grant or deny relief under a Rule 60(b) motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a strong presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion. Ex parte Dowling, 477 So.2d 400 (Ala.1985). In reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, this Court cannot consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte W.J.
...motion is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and it will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Buchanan v. Collier, 571 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990); Ex parte Dowling, 477 So.2d 400, 402 (Ala.1985). Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy permitted only in exceptiona......
-
Hitt v. STATE OF ALABAMA PERSONNEL BD.
...but is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.'" (quoting Buchanan v. Collier, 571 So.2d 1068, 1069 (Ala.1990))). In 1977, the Alabama Legislature enacted a statute codified at Ala.Code 1975, § 40-2-24,5 which provided: "The persons holdin......
-
State ex rel. G.J. v. W.J.
...of the trial court, and a strong presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's grant of a Rule 60(b) motion. Buchanan v. Collier, 571 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990). Our review is limited to whether the trial court abused that discretion in granting the motion. Buchanan. I would find no s......
-
Elliott v. Elliott
...is presumed correct, and this court may determine only whether the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. Buchanan v. Collier, 571 So.2d 1068 (Ala.1990). After hearing the testimony and evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court determined that the wife was not e......