Ex parte Thompson
Decision Date | 26 July 1985 |
Citation | 474 So.2d 1091 |
Parties | Ex parte Charles A. THOMPSON. (In re Amos C. Thompson v. Charles A. Thompson). 84-782. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Steven F. Casey of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, for petitioner.
David F. Ovson of Smith, White & Hynds, Birmingham, for respondent.
Petitioner (defendant) seeks a writ of mandamus to the trial court directing it to allow an evidentiary hearing in order to permit defendant to present evidence and cross-examine appraisers appointed by the court pursuant to Code of 1975, § 35-6-101, in an action for a sale of property for division. The writ is denied.
The relevant facts are as follows:
Pursuant to Code of 1975, § 35-6-100, respondent (plaintiff) filed a petition for a sale for division as to property jointly held with the defendant. Section 35-6-100 provides as follows:
In accordance with the last sentence of the statute, the defendant filed a timely notice of his desire to purchase plaintiff's interest in the jointly held property and further requested the court to appoint an appraiser pursuant to § 35-6-101 to determine the value of the property. Section 35-6-101 provides:
Accordingly, the court appointed Charles Pritchett, a Member Appraisal Institute (MAI) appraiser, who submitted a written appraisal report valuing the property at $26,000. The defendant filed written objections to Pritchett's appraisal report, which were overruled by the trial court. In its order, however, the trial court provided that the "Defendant may, within the 30 day period, file additional objections or a motion to reconsider this Order, but such objections or motion shall be supported by an appraisal from a duly qualified MAI appraiser." The defendant did this: Along with his motion to alter, amend, or vacate the prior order and an amendment to his written objections, the defendant filed the written appraisal report of Mr. T.E. Young, an MAI appraiser who valued the subject property at $13,000.
Thereafter, the trial court issued an order granting defendant's motion to vacate its prior order and appointing a third appraiser, Mr. L.T. Reeves, Jr., an MAI appraiser, to appraise the subject property. Reeves submitted an appraisal valuing the property at $27,100. In due course, the trial court entered an order, which stated in part:
Following this order, the defendant filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, the denial of which is the basis of this petition for writ of mandamus.
The defendant contends that the opportunity to submit written objections to the appraisal reports is not sufficient to allow him to exercise his due process rights to contradict the evidence presented in writing, and that he should be allowed an evidentiary hearing for that purpose. The defendant further contends that, even though the statutory scheme allows for this procedure, the trial court's determinations are invalid because they are based solely on the written reports of the appraisers, which are hearsay.
The constitutionality of these statutory provisions has been addressed previously by this Court. In MADISON V. LAMBERT, 399 SO.2D 840, 843 (ALA.1981)1, we stated the due process issues as presented in that case as follows:
This Court went on to hold:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...court acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, thereby abusing its discretion. Ex parte State ex rel. McKinney, supra; Ex parte Thompson, 474 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1985). Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, not a writ of right. Ex parte Adams, 669 So.2d 128, 132 (Ala.1995); Ex par......
-
Ex parte Clayton
...a writ of mandamus will not be issued unless the movant has a clear and indisputable right to a particular result. Ex parte Thompson, 474 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Southway Discount Center, Inc., 445 So.2d 898 (Ala.1984). Since we find no abuse of discretion by Judge Cherner, we deny ......
-
City of Wetumpka v. Central Elmore Water Authority
... ... See Ex parte Alabama Public Service Commission, 376 So.2d 665 (Ala.1979); Hargett v. Franklin County Bd. of Education, 374 So.2d 1352 (Ala.1979) ... ...
-
Ex parte Rudolph
...a writ of mandamus will not be issued unless the movant has a clear and indisputable right to a particular result. Ex parte Thompson, 474 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Southway Discount Center, Inc., 445 So.2d 898 Severance of Parties In joining the defendant Farrow with respondents, Drs.......