Davis v. Hester

• Decision Date: 31 May 1991
• Citation: 582 So.2d 538
• Parties: Jewel D. DAVIS and Ridgeview Health Care Center, Inc. v. Shirley HESTER and Guy Hester. 1900188.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 538

582 So.2d 538

Jewel D. DAVIS and Ridgeview Health Care Center, Inc. v. Shirley HESTER and Guy Hester.

1900188.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 31, 1991.

Harvey Jackson, Jr. and Richard E. Fikes of Tweedy, Jackson and Beech, Jasper, for appellants.

James C. King and Garve Ivey, Jr., Jasper, for appellees.

HOUSTON, Justice.

Ridgeview Health Care Center, Inc. ("Ridgeview"), operates a health care facility at which Rosella Dorrough has been a patient. Jewel Davis is the daughter of Ms. Dorrough and is her "sponsor." A sponsor is the family member who is responsible for the patient and takes care of the needs of the patient. Jewel Davis and Ridgeview sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a permanent injunction against Shirley Hester and Guy Hester, to prevent the Hesters from coming onto the premises of Ridgeview, where Ms. Dorrough was a patient. Shirley Hester is also the daughter of Ms. Dorrough; Guy Hester is Shirley Hester's husband and allegedly serves as Ms. Dorrough's spiritual and religious counselor and advisor. Ms. Davis and Ridgeview alleged that the Hesters' conduct while visiting Ms. Dorrough at Ridgeview was detrimental to Ridgeview and to Ms. Dorrough. Upon Ridgeview and Ms. Davis's posting a bond and filing a verified complaint, the trial court, without notice to the Hesters, entered the TRO, restraining the Hesters from visiting Ms. Dorrough at Ridgeview. The TRO remained effective for a 10-day period, and the trial court set a hearing on Ms. Davis and Ridgeview's request for a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the Hesters filed an answer and a counterclaim, seeking, among other things, to have the trial court dissolve the TRO previously issued. Thereafter, the Hesters filed an amended counterclaim, alleging that Ms. Davis and Ridgeview's conduct in suing for the TRO without giving notice to the Hesters, particularly the manner in which they sued for it, was "so outrageous as to shock the moral conscience and values of the citizens of Walker County, Alabama." In the amended counterclaim, the Hesters claimed to have suffered injury as a result of the plaintiffs' conduct and sought damages based on that alleged injury. At the hearing on Ms. Davis and Ridgeview's motions, the trial court made findings of fact and determined that the TRO had been inappropriately issued and that it was not supported by the evidence, and declared it null and void. It further determined, from its findings of fact, that no preliminary injunction was warranted in this case. Ms. Davis and Ridgeview appeal. We affirm.

The trial court's order reads as follows:

"This cause coming to be heard on [Ms. Davis and Ridgeview's] petition for preliminary injunction, and further on [the Hesters'] motion to dissolve any outstanding temporary restraining order, and [the Hesters'] further request that no preliminary injunction be issued, and the parties being present in court, and the parties having stipulated to the court that the issues being tried at this hearing were whether or not the temporary restraining order should have been issued and the appropriateness of its issuance, and further whether a preliminary injunction should be issued in this cause, the court proceeding to take testimony of various witnesses and the court further proceeding to receive into evidence various pieces of evidence;

"After having received the testimony of the witnesses and reviewed all the evidence presented in this case, with the court having the opportunity to hear the testimony in court, weigh the credibility of the witnesses, and observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they have testified, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ¹

"(1) That the temporary restraining order entered herein without notice to [the Hesters] ... was inappropriate and should not have been issued.

"(2) That insufficient justification was presented by the facts and circumstances in this cause for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

"(3) That [the Hesters] should not have been restrained and enjoined by a temporary restraining order issued without notice to them under the totality of the circumstances presented in this case.

"(4) That insufficient evidence exists for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. This finding is based upon the totality of evidence in this case and the facts and circumstances as presented to the court by the parties hereto.

"IT IS THEREFORE, THE ORDER, JUDGMENT AND DECREE of this court as follows:

"(1) That the previous temporary restraining order issued herein is null and void, was inappropriately issued, and was not supported by sufficient legal evidence and should not have been issued on behalf of [Ms. Davis and Ridgeview] against [the Hesters.]

"(2) That no preliminary injunction is warranted in this case, and [that] the petition by [Ms. Davis and Ridgeview] for a preliminary injunction be, and the same is hereby, denied."

It is well established that the...