Citizens Bank v. Mauldin
| Decision Date | 13 September 1985 |
| Citation | 476 So.2d 103 |
| Parties | The CITIZENS BANK, a Banking Corporation, v. Edward F. MAULDIN, individually, and as administrator of the Estate of Leonard Preuit, et al. 83-958. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J.G. Speake of Speake, Speake & Reich, Moulton, for appellant.
Fred McCallum, Jr. of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, for appellees.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Citizens Bank (hereinafter Bank), from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Leonard Preuit Estate and E.F. Mauldin, doing business as a partnership (hereinafter Partnership), in a suit for conversion and wrongful attachment. We affirm.
On February 16, 1982, the Partnership brought an action pursuant to Code 1975, § 35-11-111, to enforce a mechanic's lien against Samuel Jones, Jr., for work done on an International Harvester 416 cotton picker owned by Jones. Upon investigation, the Partnership discovered that the Bank had filed a financing statement evidencing a prior security interest in the machine; so the Partnership joined the Bank as involuntary plaintiff in the action. A default judgment was entered against Jones for failure to answer, and a hearing was conducted to determine the respective interests of the Bank and the Partnership.
Following a brief hearing, the court announced from the bench that the Bank's security interest was defective and so the Partnership's mechanic's lien was entitled to priority in the collateral. Accordingly, the court directed the clerk to sell the cotton picker to satisfy the judgment entered against Jones. On July 30, 1982, the Bank filed notice of appeal.
On August 4, 1982, the Bank filed a motion for stay of judgment pending disposition of the appeal. However, the Bank failed to file a supersedeas bond in support of its motion. The court entered an order on the case action summary sheet that provided: "Must file Supersedeas Bond; otherwise stay will not be granted. / s/ Billy C. Burney." Still no bond was filed. Soon after, the clerk of the Lawrence County Circuit Court was directed to advertise and sell the collateral. On August 30, 1982, the cotton picker was sold at a public sale for cash to the highest bidder. The proceeds of the sale were deposited into the registry of the circuit court. On September 13, 1982, the sale was confirmed by the court.
Two months later, on November 24, 1982, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals rendered a judgment reversing the determination of priority made by the lower court. The court held that the Bank was entitled to priority over the Partnership, as it had a valid prior perfected security interest in the cotton picker. Citizens Bank v. Preuit Estate, 425 So.2d 470 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). In light of that decision, the Bank instituted this action against the Partnership, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful attachment and conversion.
We believe the resolution of this case is controlled by the recent case of St. Regis Paper Co. v. Kerlin, 476 So.2d 64 (Ala.1985). The facts of this case are very similar to the ones found in Kerlin. In that case, Mr. Kerlin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
...the cotton pickers could not be the basis of a damage action by the bank because of its failure to stay the sale. See Citizens Bank v. Mauldin, 476 So.2d 103 (Ala.1985).6 Jones' state court proceedings concluded with no evidence on the record which would call into doubt his indebtedness to ......
-
Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, Civ. A. No. 84-AR-5131-NW.
...Preuit & Mauldin as a result of the interim sale of the picker to satisfy Preuit & Mauldin's lien and judgment. Citizens Bank v. Mauldin, 476 So.2d 103, 105 (Ala.1985). Jones, in his Rule 65.1 motion, made no express attack on the constitutionality of any of Alabama's attachment procedures,......
-
Cole v. First Nat. Bank of Tuskaloosa
...the bank obtained the property by virtue of a court order. See, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Kerlin, 476 So.2d 64 (Ala.1985); Citizens Bank v. Mauldin, 476 So.2d 103 (Ala.1985). However, because it has not been presented by the parties in this appeal, that issue is not ripe for ...