George Patrick Stacey & Innovative Treasury Sys., Inc. v. Peed
Decision Date | 04 October 2013 |
Docket Number | 1120661. |
Citation | 142 So.3d 529 |
Parties | George Patrick STACEY and Innovative Treasury Systems, Inc. v. Anthony Lee PEED. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark David Pratt, Birmingham, for appellants.
Richard E. Davis of Davis & Fields, P.C., Daphne, for appellee.
On August 8, 2010, George Patrick Stacey and Innovative Treasury Systems, Inc. (“I.T.S.”), filed a complaint in the Baldwin Circuit Court against Anthony Lee Peed.1 Stacey and I.T.S. alleged that Peed owed them $161,365.78 plus interest based upon three claims asserted in the complaint—breach of contract, account stated, and money lent. Peed answered the complaint, denying that he was indebted to Stacey and I.T.S., claiming that Stacey and I.T.S. had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and asserting various affirmative defenses. On July 3, 2012, after multiple continuances and extensions, Peed filed a motion for a summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P., claiming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Stacey and I.T.S. filed a response to Peed's motion. After a hearing on the motion, the circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of Peed on October 1, 2012. Stacey and I.T.S. filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate that judgment on October 25, 2012, which was denied by operation of law.
Stacey and I.T.S. filed a timely appeal on March 7, 2013, contending that the circuit court had erred by entering a summary judgment because, they say, the circuit court had received substantial evidence of the formation of a contract and of “open account [stated]” and because Peed had failed to present a counterargument regarding their claim for money lent. Finally, Stacey and I.T.S. claim that the circuit court erred by concluding that the money was a gift in the absence of evidence demonstrating the elements of a gift. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
According to Stacey and I.T.S.'s pleadings, they lent Peed $161,365.78 on May 5, 2003, with the agreement that Peed would repay the loan with interest at the rate of 8%. In an affidavit in support of Stacey and I.T.S.'s response in opposition to Peed's summary-judgment motion, Stacey stated that “a promissory note was executed by [Peed] in favor of [Stacey and I.T.S.] wherein [Peed] agreed to repay [the $161,365.78] with interest at a rate of 8% per annum.” Stacey explained in his affidavit that he could not produce a copy of the promissory note, stating: “Sometime during the first quarter of 2007, [Peed] entered the office of [I.T.S.] and removed therefrom a folder that contained the original of the promissory note.” In further support of the agreement, Stacey and I.T.S. produced copies of bank documents confirming that on May 5, 2003, Peed deposited a certified check in the amount of $161,365.78 into his newly opened account, which listed Stacey as the beneficiary on his death. Stacey and I.T.S. also offered to the circuit court copies of two checks and one stock-transfer document. The checks and the stock-transfer document are included in the record; however, the stock-transfer document is largely illegible. One of those checks was Peed's August 7, 2006, check to Stacey in the amount of $13,000; the other was Peed's August 14, 2007, check to Stacey in the amount of $20,000. Each check included the handwritten word “loan” on the “memo” line of the check. Stacey and I.T.S. contend that the stock-transfer document indicates that Peed transferred to Stacey and I.T.S. $11,157.80 in proceeds from stocks on August 24, 2009, as a payment on the purported loan.
“The basic elements of a contract are an offer and an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to the essential terms of the agreement.” Hargrove v. Tree of Life Christian Day Care Ctr., 699 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Ala.1997). Proof of an implied contract requires the same basic elements as an express contract. Steiger v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 653 So.2d 975, 978 (Ala.1995)(“[n]o contract is formed without an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to terms essential to the contract” (citing Strength v. Alabama Dep't of Fin., 622 So.2d 1283, 1289 (Ala.1993))) that . As evidence indicating the existence of a loan agreement, Stacey and I.T.S. highlight the bank documents, Stacey's affidavit attesting to the promissory note and its destruction by Peed, the checks, and the stock-transfer document. Stacey and I.T.S. argue that they presented evidence of an offer and an acceptance to the circuit court by showing that they had obtained $161,365.78, that Stacey and Peed had traveled together to a bank, and that Peed had deposited those funds into a newly opened account on which Stacey was listed as the beneficiary. According to Stacey and I.T.S., the checks bearing the word “loan” from August 2006 and August 2007 and the alleged stock transfer in August 2009 amount to substantial, albeit circumstantial, evidence of a “payment arrangement” and evidence that Peed was “proceeding under the agreement.” A review of the record indicates that Stacey and I.T.S. presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they and Peed entered into a contract. Therefore, the circuit court erred by entering a summary judgment for Peed on Stacey and I.T.S.'s breach-of-contract claim.2
“In Ayers v. Cavalry SVP I, LLC, 876 So.2d 474 (Ala.Civ.App.2003), [the Court of Civil Appeals] discussed the nature and elements of an account-stated claim:
“ ‘ “An account stated is a post-transaction agreement. It is not founded on the original liability, but is a new agreement between parties to an original account that the statement of the account with the balance struck is correct and that the debtor will pay that amount. It is as if a promissory note had been given for the balance due.
“ ‘ ’
Mahoney v. Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 4 So.3d 1130, 1134–35 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). In this case, the circuit court did not receive sufficient evidence of a “new agreement” to an original account. The circuit court did not err by entering a summary judgment for Peed on Stacey and I.T.S.'s account-stated claim.
“An action for money lent is an action at law which lies whenever there has been a payment of money from the plaintiff to the defendant as a loan.
42 C.J.S. Implied Contracts § 2 (2007). A review of Alabama law reveals that what could be stated as a money-lent claim is perhaps more accurately stated as a claim of “money due on an open account,” which contains identical factors.
Livingston v. Tapscott, 585 So.2d 839, 841 (Ala.1991); see also Mantiply, 951 So.2d at 649.
In Livingston, the trial court received ore tenus evidence indicating that a woman gave $17,000 to a man to pay his business debts during the time the parties were involved in an adulterous relationship. 585 So.2d at 840. The woman claimed the money was a loan; the man claimed the money was a gift. Id. The trial court determined that the woman had presented evidence of a claim for money due on an open account: the money was delivered to the man, it was a loan, and it had not been repaid. 585 So.2d at 841. Applying the ore tenus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simple Helix, LLC v. Relus Techs., LLC
...time becomes an account stated, and failure to object will be regarded as an admission of correctness of the account. Stacey v. Peed , 142 So. 3d 529, 532 (Ala. 2013) (citations omitted). An account stated thus properly constitutes "a new agreement between parties to an original account tha......
-
Scarlett v. Air Methods Corp.
...Scully , 418 S.C. 24, 791 S.E.2d 140, 145–46 (2016) ; Furtula v. Univ. of Kentucky , 438 S.W.3d 303, 308–09 (Ky. 2014) ; Stacey v. Peed , 142 So.3d 529, 531 (Ala. 2013) ; City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., Inc. , 282 Neb. 848, 809 N.W.2d 725, 737–38 (2011) ; Zoeller v. E. Chi......
-
NTA Graphics S., Inc. v. Axiom Impressions, LLC
...and elements of a claim for account stated. See Car Center , 519 So. 2d at 1322-23 (quoting Bracy , 466 So. 2d at 150 ); Stacey v. Peed , 142 So. 3d 529, 532 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Ayers v. Cavalry SVP I, LLC , 876 So. 2d 474, 477 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), in turn quoting Bracy , 466 So. 2d at 1......
-
Little v. City of Anniston
...assent to terms essential to the contract" (citing Strength v. Alabama Dep't of Fin., 622 So.2d 1283, 1289 (Ala.1993))).Stacey v. Peed, 142 So. 3d 529, 531 (Ala. 2013). The Defendants argue that there is no evidence of any implied contract. In response, the Plaintiff fails to cite or argue ......