Ex Parte Chris Langley Timber & Management

• Decision Date: 22 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. 1031478.,1031478.
• Citation: 923 So.2d 1100
• Parties: Ex parte CHRIS LANGLEY TIMBER & MANAGEMENT, INC. In re Chris Langley Timber & Management, Inc. v. Jamie Reynolds Caldwell, special administrator for the estate of Clayton M. Reynolds, deceased).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

923 So.2d 1100

Ex parte CHRIS LANGLEY TIMBER & MANAGEMENT, INC.

In re Chris Langley Timber & Management, Inc.

v.

Jamie Reynolds Caldwell, special administrator for the estate of Clayton M. Reynolds, deceased).

No. 1031478.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 22, 2005.

G. Shane Cooper, Atmore, for petitioner.

Deborah Alley Smith and Jennifer M. Thompson of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham; and Joe Scarborough of Scarborough & Weldon, LLC, Tallassee, for respondent.

SEE, Justice.

Jamie Reynolds Caldwell, as special administrator for the estate of her deceased father, Clayton M. Reynolds, brought a declaratory-judgment action against Chris Langley Timber & Management, Inc. ("Langley Timber"), seeking to set aside timber deeds executed by Reynolds in favor of Langley Timber. The trial court, finding that Reynolds lacked the mental capacity to execute the timber deeds, entered a summary judgment setting aside the deeds. Langley Timber appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. Chris Langley Timber & Management, Inc. v. Reynolds, 923 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Civ.App.2004). We granted Langley Timber's petition for certiorari review to consider whether in affirming the trial court's summary judgment the Court of Civil Appeals erred by shifting the burden to Langley Timber to prove that Reynolds had capacity to execute the timber deeds, contrary to the accepted standard for proving insanity as the ground for voiding a deed.¹ We reverse and remand.

On July 30, 2001, two days after being released from a long-term-care hospital to recover from heart surgery, Clayton M. Reynolds was evaluated by a clinical psychologist, Dr. Warren T. Jackson III. Reynolds took a day-long battery of memory tests, which consisted of Dr. Jackson's reading new material to Reynolds and presenting Reynolds with lists of information, and then testing Reynolds's ability to recall the new information. At the time of the evaluation, Reynolds was taking at least two medications that, according to Dr. Jackson's deposition testimony, can affect memory. Reynolds did not perform well on the tests. Based on an interview and the results of the tests, Dr. Jackson concluded that Reynolds was suffering from Alzheimer's type dementia.

In November 2001, Reynolds initiated contact with Chris Langley by telephone. Chris Langley owned Langley Timber, a logging business. During their telephone conversation, Reynolds told Langley that he owned two tracts of land totaling over 400 acres, one in Macon County and one in Tallapoosa County, and that he wanted to harvest the timber on the land. Reynolds and Langley agreed to meet, and Reynolds provided Langley with directions to Reynolds's house.

In late November or early December 2001, Langley and Josh Phillips, an employee of Langley Timber, met with Reynolds for the first time at Reynolds's house. After having breakfast at Reynolds's house, the three men got into Langley's truck and Reynolds directed Langley to the land in Macon County and Tallapoosa County from which he wanted to harvest timber. At both locations, Reynolds got out of the truck, unlocked and opened gates when necessary, and showed Langley the landmarks by which Langley's crew could locate the boundary lines of each parcel. Reynolds showed Langley the boundary lines of a parcel of the Macon County land that had been cut out of the larger parcel and given to one of his daughters.

Reynolds told Langley during this first meeting that one of his daughters held his power of attorney and that he had seen a psychologist after he had had heart surgery the previous summer. Reynolds provided Langley with a copy of the power of attorney and a copy of Dr. Jackson's July 2001 psychological evaluation. Nonetheless, Reynolds assured Langley that Langley should not worry about his daughter or the doctor because Reynolds was "in good shape." Reynolds also assured Langley that the timber belonged to Reynolds and that he wanted to sell it.

The following week, when Phillips was running errands in Notasulga, he stopped by Reynolds's house to let Reynolds know that Langley was working on a price sheet for the timber. Reynolds responded that that was good, and he told Phillips to get the price sheet to him as soon as possible. Phillips "chatted" with Reynolds for about 15 minutes. During this time, Reynolds took Phillips to the barn and showed him an ultralight plane he owned.

Shortly thereafter Langley telephoned Reynolds to arrange another meeting at Reynolds's house. During this meeting, Langley and Reynolds reached an agreement whereby Langley would cut and remove the timber and pay Reynolds for the timber once it was delivered to the lumberyard. Langley provided Reynolds with a list of prices he was willing to pay for the timber and Reynolds accepted the prices. The two men shook hands on their agreement.

Langley contacted an attorney, Shane Cooper,² to determine whether Reynolds could legally execute timber deeds under the circumstances and, if he could, to conduct a title search and to prepare timber deeds for Reynolds to execute. Langley gave Cooper a copy of the power of attorney Reynolds had executed in favor of his daughter and the psychologist's evaluation Reynolds had given him and described to Cooper his dealings with Reynolds. Cooper conducted a title search, which confirmed that Reynolds in fact owned the land he claimed to own and that Reynolds had, as he had told Langley, previously deeded a portion of the Macon County property to his daughter. Cooper also checked with the probate court to determine whether any petition for guardianship or conservatorship over Reynolds had been filed; none was pending at that time. Apparently concluding that Reynolds could legally execute the timber deeds, Cooper prepared them.

On February 11, 2002, Reynolds, accompanied by Diane Hayes,³ drove to Cooper's office in Auburn to execute the timber deeds. Reynolds conversed with Cooper for approximately 30 minutes in the presence of Hayes, Langley, and Melinda Eubanks, Cooper's employee. Reynolds stated that he owned real property in Macon County and Tallapoosa County, that he wanted to sell the timber on the property, that he had contacted a logger who had agreed to pay him for the timber, and that he wanted to sign the timber deeds. Cooper also had a private conversation with Reynolds, in which Cooper confirmed that Reynolds understood what he was doing and that he was not being influenced by anyone. Reynolds told Cooper that his children were not pleased that he was selling the timber but that he wanted to sell it nonetheless. Once again in the presence of Langley, Hayes, and Eubanks, Cooper asked Reynolds if he understood that he was signing timber deeds, which meant the timber on his land in Macon County and Tallapoosa County would be cut. Reynolds responded that he understood and that he wanted to proceed. Reynolds flipped through the pages of the two deeds, looking at each one for a moment, and signed the two deeds, without assistance, in the presence of a notary public.

In May 2002, Reynolds's daughters, Jamie Reynolds Caldwell and Paula Reynolds Baran, filed this declaratory-judgment action in the Tallapoosa Circuit Court seeking to set aside the timber deeds executed by Reynolds on the ground that he lacked capacity to execute them.⁴ While the case was pending, Reynolds died. Caldwell was appointed special administrator over Reynolds's estate and was substituted as the proper party in this case. In the declaratory-judgment proceeding, the estate moved for a summary judgment, arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Reynolds's capacity to execute the deeds. The estate supported its summary-judgment motion with the deposition testimony of Dr. Warren T. Jackson III, the licensed clinical psychologist who had examined Reynolds six months before the execution of the timber deeds, and with Dr. Jackson's July 2001 evaluation.

Langley Timber opposed the summary-judgment motion and supported its opposition with affidavits from Langley, Phillips, and Eubanks. The affidavits essentially set forth the events surrounding the negotiation of the sale of the timber and the execution of the timber deeds. The affidavits also stated the affiants' impressions that Reynolds knew exactly what he was doing during the negotiation of the timber sale and at the closing of the sale when he executed the timber deeds. After a hearing in which no oral testimony was heard, the trial court found that Reynolds had lacked the capacity to execute the deeds because he was mentally incompetent when he executed the deeds. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the estate and set aside the timber deeds.

Langley Timber appealed to this Court. We transferred the case to the Court of Civil Appeals pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.⁵ Chris Langley Timber & Mgmt., Inc. v. Reynolds, 923 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004). Langley Timber petitioned this Court for the writ of certiorari. We granted certiorari review to consider whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's summary judgment by shifting to Langley Timber the burden of proof of Reynolds's capacity to execute the timber deeds, contrary to the requirements of the accepted standard for proving insanity as the ground for voiding a deed.

Our review of a summary judgment is de novo.

"In reviewing the disposition of a motion for summary judgment, `we utilize the same standard as the trial court in determining whether the evidence before [it] made out a genuine issue of material fact,' Bussey v. John Deere Co., 531 So.2d 860, 862 (Ala.1988), and whether the movant was `entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Wright v. Wright, 654 So.2d 542 (Ala.1995); Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. When the movant makes a prima facie showing that there is no genuine...