Childersburg Bancorp. v. Peoples State Bank
Decision Date | 02 June 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2040899.,2040899. |
Citation | 962 So.2d 248 |
Parties | CHILDERSBURG BANCORPORATION, INC. v. PEOPLES STATE BANK OF COMMERCE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Thomas R. Elliott, Jr., Paige Elliott-Pinson, and J. Michael Keel of London Yancey & Elliott, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Richard F. Ogle of Ogle, Liles & Upshaw, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. ("CBI"), appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Peoples State Bank of Commerce ("Peoples") on CBI's counterclaim alleging the breach of a settlement agreement. We reverse the judgment in favor of Peoples and render a judgment in favor of CBI.
In the companion case of Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 893 So.2d 1142 (Ala.2004), Peoples filed a complaint for interpleader, naming CBI and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM") as parties. Peoples deposited with the court $140,000, the amount in an escrow account established pursuant to a settlement agreement between CBI and Peoples. CBI answered the complaint for interpleader and asserted a counterclaim against Peoples, alleging a breach of the settlement agreement. The trial court ultimately entered a judgment awarding the interpleaded funds to ADEM and made that judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. CBI's counterclaim against Peoples was left pending in the trial court. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Peoples on the counterclaim, and CBI appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The supreme court transferred the case to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.
Because the procedural history and many of the facts relevant to this appeal are outlined in Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, supra, we quote at length from the opinion of the supreme court in that case:
Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 893 So.2d at 1143-45. On June 18, 2004, the supreme court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of ADEM in the interpleader proceeding.
On the counterclaim that remained pending in the trial court, the parties filed cross-motions for a summary judgment. On May 10, 2005, the trial court granted Peoples's motion and denied CBI's motion. CBI appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying its motion and by granting Peoples's motion because, CBI says Peoples breached the settlement agreement.
Appellate review of a summary judgment is de novo. Ex parte Ballew, 771 So.2d 1040 (Ala.2000). A motion for a summary judgment is to be granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. A party moving for a summary judgment must make a prima facie showing "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c)(3); see Lee v. City of Gadsden, 592 So.2d 1036, 1038 (Ala.1992). If the movant meets this burden, "the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to rebut the movant's prima facie showing by `substantial evidence.'" Lee, 592 So.2d at 1038 (footnote omitted). "[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989); see § 12-21-12(d), Ala.Code 1975.
In order to be entitled to a summary judgment on a breach-of-contract claim, the movant must present evidence in support of the following elements of his claim: "(1) the existence of a valid contract binding the parties in the action, (2) his own performance under that contract, (3) the defendant's nonperformance, and (4) damages." Southern Med. Health Sys., Inc. v. Vaughn, 669 So.2d 98, 99 (Ala.1995); see also Shelton v. Clements, 834 So.2d 775, 782 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).
In the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the first two elements of a breach-of-contract claim. The parties agree that the settlement agreement is valid and that CBI performed its obligations under the agreement. The parties' dispute centers upon whether CBI established the third and fourth elements, i.e., that Peoples...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Ernst & Young, LLP
...even mentioned) Alabama law forbidding arguments that render contracts illusory (e.g., Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. People State Bank of Commerce, 962 So.2d 248, 260 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) )—instead rendering E & Y's audit contracts meaningless.“c. The Arbitrators ignored Alabama law ho......
-
Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG
...and would not constitute consideration for [the other party's] counter-promise." Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. Peoples State Bank of Commerce , 962 So. 2d 248, 260 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). Notably, the Offering Documents state that the Defendants, as "Calculation Agents," "will, in the......
-
Payne v. Shelby County Com'n
... ... State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 952 So.2d 342, 346 (Ala.2006)) ... 's nonperformance, and (4) damages."' Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. Peoples State Bank of Commerce, ... ...
-
Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Ass'n
...own performance under that contract, (3) the defendant's nonperformance, and (4) damages."' Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. v. Peoples State Bank of Commerce, 962 So.2d 248, 253 (Ala.Civ.App.2006) (quoting Southern Med. Health Sys., Inc. v. Vaughn, 669 So.2d 98, 99 (Ala.1995)). LAPOA pres......