Garrigan v. Hinton Beef and Provision Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 21 January 1983 |
Citation | 425 So.2d 1091 |
Parties | Tommy GARRIGAN, et al. v. HINTON BEEF AND PROVISION COMPANY, INC. 81-738. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles R. Johanson, III of Engel, Hairston, Moses & Johanson, Birmingham, for appellants.
Pat Nelson of O'Rear, Robinson & Nelson, Jasper, for appellees.
Defendants appeal a grant of summary judgment in favor of Hinton Beef and Provision Company, Inc. (Hinton). We affirm.
In consideration of the forebearance of a lawsuit on a debt owed by them to plaintiff, the defendants signed a promissory note with the plaintiff on May 5, 1981. Later, on December 23, 1981, Hinton filed a complaint against the defendants, Tommy Garrigan, Diane Garrigan and Jasper Steaks, Inc., for $10,549.96 due with interest on that note. The action was brought in the Circuit Court of Walker County. Following a denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP). This motion was unopposed by the defendants, and the trial court, based on the pleadings of record and supporting affidavit, granted the motion on March 18, 1982.
Defendants moved to set aside the judgment on April 22, 1982. In a hearing on that motion it was for the first time brought to the trial court's and plaintiff's attention that earlier, on February 3, 1982, the defendant, Jasper Steaks, Inc., had filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The plaintiff conceded that, because the Bankruptcy Code restrains all creditors from the enforcement of an obligation while a case is pending and voids any judgments entered during the period, Jasper Steaks could not be reached by the March 18 judgment. Notwithstanding this result plaintiff contended the judgment against Diane and Tommy Garrigan was in no way affected. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the judgment and this appeal ensued.
The sole issue presented for review is whether summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the plaintiff.
When a movant makes a motion for summary judgment, he has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact left in the case. Mims v. Louisville Title Ins. Co., 358 So.2d 1028 (Ala.1978). Here the plaintiff-movant, by attaching the affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney, met the burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of fact. The affidavit reads in relevant part:
The defendants made no response to the motion.
It is well settled in Alabama that, when a motion for summary judgment is made and the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings. The opposing party must instead set forth sufficient facts showing a genuine issue for trial. E.g. Eason v. Middleton, 398 So.2d 245 (Ala.1981); Powell v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 361 So.2d 103...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gaddy v. Se Prop. Holdings, LLC
...of all defendants for purposes of finality of appeal. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P." 491 So.2d at 902 n. 2.In Garrigan v. Hinton Beef & Provision Co., 425 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1983), Hinton Beef sued Tommy Garrigan, Diane Garrigan, and Jasper Steaks, Inc., seeking to recover on a promissory no......
-
Craig v. Borcicky
...or on the allegations in his pleadings. Crowder v. Correctional Medical Systems, 497 So.2d 486 (Ala.1986); Garrigan v. Hinton Beef & Provision Co., 425 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1983). However, in this case, Craig goes further than a general denial. Craig stated in her affidavit that she told Borcick......
-
Gaddy v. Se Prop. Holdings, LLC
...all defendants for purposes of finality of appeal. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P." 491 So. 2d at 902 n. 2. In Garrigan v. Hinton Beef & Provision Co., 425 So. 2d 1091 (Ala. 1983), Hinton Beef sued Tommy Garrigan, Diane Garrigan, and Jasper Steaks, Inc., seeking to recover on a promissory n......
-
Tittle v. Steel City Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc.
...before the court made out a genuine issue of material fact. Chiniche v. Smith, 374 So.2d 872 (Ala.1979). Garrigan v. Hinton Beef & Provision Co., 425 So.2d 1091, 1093 (Ala.1983). The principles set forth in City of Birmingham, when applied to the present facts, raise a genuine issue of mate......