Cottingham v. Citizens Bank
Decision Date | 17 January 2003 |
Citation | 859 So.2d 414 |
Parties | Carolyn COTTINGHAM v. The CITIZENS BANK and Wayne Gentry. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charlie Andrew Bottoms, Jr., Florence, for appellant.
Robert V. Wood, Jr., and Ruth O. Priest of Spurrier, Rice, Wood & Hall, Huntsville, for appellees.
Carolyn Cottingham ("Carolyn"1) appeals from the February 28, 2002, summary judgment of the trial court in favor of The Citizens Bank ("the Bank") and Wayne Gentry.
On January 30, 2001, Carolyn sued the Bank and Gentry in the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, alleging that the defendants, fraudulently and in bad faith, had foreclosed on a mortgage given by her and her husband to the Bank, had defamed her character, had harassed her, and had damaged her expectation of good credit. On March 8, 2001, the Bank and Gentry filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on May 24, 2001. The Bank and Gentry filed a joint motion for a summary judgment on December 21, 2001. On January 10, 2002, Carolyn filed a "Statement in Opposition" to the motion for a summary judgment and attached evidentiary support, including the affidavit of her ex-husband, Donnie Cottingham ("Donnie"). That same day, the Bank and Gentry filed a "Narrative Summary of Undisputed Facts" with the trial court. On January 28, 2002, they filed a supplement to their motion for a summary judgment.
On February 4, 2002, the Bank and Gentry filed a brief in support of the motion for a summary judgment and also a supplemental exhibit to their brief in support of their motion for a summary judgment. On February 13, 2002, the Bank and Gentry filed an objection and a motion to strike Carolyn's statement in opposition and also to strike Donnie's affidavit. Without ruling on the objection and the motion to strike, the trial court granted the Bank and Gentry's motion for a summary judgment on February 28, 2002. The trial court's order states, in pertinent part:
On March 26, 2002, Carolyn filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, Carolyn argues that the Bank and Gentry's motion for a summary judgment should have been denied because, she says, she presented substantial evidence indicating: 1) that the debt, represented by two 1988 notes to the Bank, was extinguished either in 1992 or some time subsequent; and 2) that "the foreclosure was fraudulent because her mortgage was fraudulently and wrongfully used to secure future advancements of indebtedness leading to the foreclosure of her interest in her home." Because of our disposition of Carolyn's first argument, we need not address her second argument.
Our review of a summary judgment is de novo.
Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 690 So.2d 341, 344 (Ala.1997).
The record reveals the following facts. On March 15, 1988, Carolyn; her then husband, Donnie; Donnie's brother, Jimmy Cottingham ("Jimmy"); and Jimmy's wife, Joyce Cottingham ("Joyce"), signed two promissory notes with the Bank. The first note, numbered 3037876, evidenced a debt of $129,000, and the second note, numbered 3037843, evidenced a line of credit for $100,172. Both notes evidenced an annual interest charge of 11% and listed the borrower as "D and J Mechanical," the business owned and operated by Donnie and Jimmy.
Also, on March 15, 1988, two mortgages were executed as security for the notes. One was executed by Jimmy and Joyce, and the other by Donnie and Carolyn. The mortgage executed by Donnie and Carolyn (hereinafter referred to as "the mortgage") was to secure the amount of $60,000, and it did not contain a future-advance clause.2 The mortgage was handled by Wayne Gentry, a representative of the Bank. Additional security was provided by two financing statements, each listing inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable, that we infer from the record were owned by "D and J Mechanical."
On March 29, 1989, Donnie, Joyce, and Carolyn signed a note for $100,000,3 listing as security the 1988 mortgages and the "inventory and equip[ment] and accounts rec[eivable] as listed on" the Uniform Commercial Code statement sheet. The note lists the borrower as, "D & J Mechanical" and then "Donnie and Jimmy Cottingham." The note indicates that it is a renewal4 of the 1988 note for the line of credit, but charges an annual interest rate of 14%. The "Schedule of Notes Secured by Mortgage Dated March 15, 1988," prepared by counsel for the Bank and Gentry and provided by them to the trial court, purports to show that a note executed in 1990, numbered 3047099, was a renewal of 3037843, the 1988 note for the line of credit. However, the copy contained in the record of note 3047099 is largely unreadable and reveals nothing of significance. On December 21, 1992, Alafabco, Inc.;5 Donnie, acting as president of Alafabco, Inc.; and Jimmy, acting as vice president of Alafabco, Inc., executed a note for $157,614.08 to the Bank. The note indicates that it is a renewal of 3037876 and 3047099, along with other notes. The note charges an annual interest rate of 8%, and lists as security the 1988 mortgages and the "inventory, equipment, accounts receivable filed on" the Uniform Commercial Code statement sheet. The "borrower's name and address" section of this note bears only the entry, "Alafabco, Inc.," and an address. None of the notes contained in the record and asserted by the Bank to be renewals of the 1988 notes bear Carolyn's signature.
The affidavit of Doug Alexander, a vice president of the Bank, states, in relevant part:
In 1999, Carolyn and Donnie were divorced. The divorce...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liberty Bank & Trust Co. v. Danley (In re Stacy L. Danley II Stephanie Danley)
...but they must be expressly provided for in the written mortgage or securityagreement to be enforceable. Cottingham v. Citizens Bank, 859 So. 2d 414, 419 (Ala. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Weatherwax v. Heflin, 12 So. 2d 554, 562 (Ala. 1943). The Court found no cross-co......
-
Parmer v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...("The payment or satisfaction of thereal property mortgage debt divests the title passing by the mortgage."); Cottingham v. Citizens Bank, 859 So. 2d 414, 419 (Ala. 2003) ("Payment of the mortgage debt before foreclosure divests the title of the mortgagee.") (cleaned up). Ms. Parmer insists......
-
Collins v. Overstreet
...they say, payment of the debt automatically divested the Horas of title pursuant to § 35-10-26, Ala.Code 1975,2 and Cottingham v. Citizens Bank, 859 So.2d 414, 419 (Ala.2003)(stating that "under Alabama law, `[p]ayment of the mortgage debt before foreclosure divests the title of the mortgag......
-
La. Highway St. Gabriel v. LVS II SPE I, LLC (In re La. Highway ST. Gabriel)
...Mobile Mortgages, p. 9 of Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Lender Interests' Motion for Summary Judgment, P-98. [37] Cottingham v. Citizens Bank, 859 So.2d 414 (Ala. 2003). [38] Id. at 419. [39] 2014 Credit Agreement, Exhibit 2 to the Lender Interests' Motion for Summary Judgment, P-98. [40] 2016 Cr......