Eagerton v. Vision Bank, 1101045.
Decision Date | 29 June 2012 |
Docket Number | 1101045. |
Citation | 99 So.3d 299 |
Parties | Fred G. EAGERTON and Nancy Eagerton v. VISION BANK. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joshua P. Myrick of Stankoski, L.L.P., Fairhope; and J. Doyle Fuller and Susan G. Copeland of Fuller & Copeland, Montgomery, for appellants.
Jonathan M. Lieb of McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee.
Fred G. Eagerton and Nancy Eagerton appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Vision Bank (“the bank”) in the bank's action seeking enforcement of the Eagertons' obligations under certain guaranty contracts. We reverse and remand.
Dotson 10s, LLC, is an Alabama limited liability company organized to operate the Rock Creek Tennis Club located at 142 Clubhouse Drive in Fairhope. John W. Dotson, Jr., and Elizabeth E. Dotson (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “the Dotsons”) are the sole members of Dotson 10s.
On December 9, 2007, Dotson 10s executed a “Multipurpose Note and Security Agreement” with the bank in the amount of $550,677.53 (hereinafter referred to as “the original loan”); the maturity date of the original loan was December 9, 2010. In conjunction with the original loan, the bank obtained unlimited personal guaranties from both John W. Dotson, Jr., and Elizabeth E. Dotson. The bank also obtained limited personal guaranties from both Fred G. Eagerton and Nancy Eagerton; the Eagertons are Elizabeth Dotson's parents.1 The original loan was secured by a mortgage on the real property located at 142 Clubhouse Drive (hereinafter referred to as “the first mortgage”).2
On December 11, 2008, Dotson 10s executed a subsequent “Multipurpose Note and Security Agreement” with the bank in the amount of $222,513.56 (hereinafter referred to as “the second loan”); this loan is identified by the bank as loan number 302669.3 The second loan was guaranteed solely by the Dotsons; the Eagertons neither were parties to the transaction involving the second loan, nor did they execute personal guaranties for the repayment of the second loan. The second loan was secured by what is titled a “2nd Real Estate Mortgage” on the same real property located at 142 Clubhouse Drive (hereinafter referred to as “the second mortgage”).
In April 2009, the bank declared the original loan and the second loan in default and accelerated the balances due under both loans; Dotson 10s failed to pay the balances. The bank filed a breach-of-contract action in the Baldwin Circuit Court against Dotson 10s, as the primary obligor of the original loan and the second loan; the Dotsons, as personal guarantors of the original loan and the second loan; and the Eagertons, as personal guarantors of the original loan.
On May 28, 2009, Dotson 10s filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama (“the bankruptcy court”). On August 25, 2009, Dotson 10s filed with the bankruptcy court its proposed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, which provided, in part, that the original loan and the second loan would be combined (hereinafter referred to as “the consolidated loan”) and paid in full. The proposed plan states, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
On December 1, 2009, the bankruptcy court conducted a confirmation hearing regarding the proposed reorganization plan; the Dotsons and certain bank representatives were present at that hearing. Before the hearing, the bank representatives negotiated additional terms that were favorable to the bank. On December 10, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming the plan of reorganization, as amended. The order states, in pertinent part:
4
(Emphasis added.) The bank thereafter assigned a new loan number to the consolidated loan.
In March 2010, Dotsons 10s defaulted under the bankruptcy plan, and the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing the bankruptcy action. On May 12, 2010, the bank conducted a foreclosure sale of the real property pursuant to the bankruptcy court's order set out above.5 The bank purchased the real property for $600,000 and applied the proceeds entirely to the consolidated loan.
On July 15, 2010, the Baldwin Circuit Court (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), in response to a motion for a summary judgment filed by the bank, entered a partial summary judgment in favor of the bank against Dotson 10s but denied the motion as to the Eagertons. The bank, thereafter, filed another motion for a “final partial summary judgment” against the Eagertons, arguing that the Eagertons were responsible under their guaranty contracts for the deficiency remaining on the consolidated loan after allocation of the foreclosure proceeds to that loan. Specifically, the bank argued that because the original loan represented 71.07% of the consolidated loan, the Eagertons should be liable for 71.07% of the balance remaining on the consolidated loan after application of the foreclosure proceeds, as well as 100% of the interest, attorney fees, etc. The Eagertons moved for a summary judgment as well, arguing as a defense a material alteration of their guaranty contracts. On May 24, 2011, the trial court, apparently relying on the bank's pro rata theory, entered a partial summary judgment in favor of the bank and against the Eagertons in the amount of $208,906.40. The trial court certified its judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., specifically reserving jurisdiction to determine at a later date the appropriate amount of attorney fees and costs owed to the bank, if any, relating to its collection efforts. 6 The Eagertons appeal.7
“ ”
McKerall v. Kaiser, 60 So.3d 288, 290 (Ala.2010) (quoting Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So.2d 1035, 1038–39 (Ala.2004)).
Government St. Lumber Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 553 So.2d 68, 75 (Ala.1989).
The guaranty contracts executed by the Eagertons are unambiguous, and they expressly provide that the Eagertons agreed to guarantee a very specific “indebtedness.” The pertinent parts of the guaranty contracts state:
8
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zucaro v. Anand Patel, Raman Patel, & Gulf Coast Mgmt. Co.
...contracts are applicable in resolving a question as to the interpretation or construction of a guaranty contract.'" Eagerton v. Vision Bank, 99 So. 3d 299, 304 (Ala. 2012) (quoting Gov't St. Lumber Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 553 So. 2d 68, 75 (Ala. 1989)). The Court finds that the FAC sufficientl......
-
Se Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Sandy Creek Ii, LLC, Civil Action No. 12–00303–KD–M.
...are applicable in resolving a question as to the interpretation or construction of a guaranty contract.’ ” Eagerton v. Vision Bank, 99 So.3d 299, 304 (Ala.2012) (quoting Gov't St. Lumber Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 553 So.2d 68, 75 (Ala.1989)). SEPH argues that it is due summary judgment in its fa......
-
Moultrie v. Charles O. Wall II & Autauga Auto., LLC.
...due an award of attorney fees but had not determined the amount of attorney fees the mother should be awarded). Cf. Eagerton v. Vision Bank, 99 So.3d 299, 303 (Ala.2012) (concluding that a summary-judgment order was final and appealable despite the fact that the trial court reserved jurisdi......
- Johnson v. Yarbrough