Harbison v. Albertville Nat. Bank
Decision Date | 26 September 1986 |
Citation | 495 So.2d 1084 |
Parties | 106 Lab.Cas. P 55,728 Larhue HARBISON v. ALBERTVILLE NATIONAL BANK. 84-1384. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., John C. Falkenberry, and Frances Heidt of Falkenberry, Whatley & Heidt, Birmingham, for appellant.
T.J. Carnes of Carnes & Carnes, Albertville, for appellee.
Larhue Harbison filed suit against Albertville National Bank, alleging breach of a contract based upon a promise of employment "until she [Mrs. Harbison] decided to retire" by terminating Harbison's employment on January 31, 1984, which was before she wanted to retire; alleging promissory estoppel based upon the same "promise"; and alleging fraud for making such a representation.
The Albertville National Bank filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint and subsequently filed two special pleas: (1) Statute of Frauds and (2) lack of actual authority of an officer of the Bank to enter into such an employment agreement and thereby make it a binding contract on the bank.
Albertville National Bank also filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on the pleadings, the depositions of Bill Nolen and Waurine Clemons, employees of that bank, the deposition of Mrs. Harbison, and an affidavit of Bill Nolen. Mrs. Harbison filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
The standard of review applicable to this case is well established. See Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P. In this case, summary judgment for the defendant would be proper if it clearly appears that there is no evidence as to an essential element of plaintiff's cause of action. If there is any evidence tending to establish each element of the cause of action, then summary judgment would be inappropriate. In determining whether there is evidence to support each element--i.e., to raise a genuine question of fact as to whether that element exists--this Court must review the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all reasonable doubts against the defendant. Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc., 409 So.2d 784, 786 (Ala.1981); Autrey v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 481 So.2d 345 (Ala.1985); Burt v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 489 So.2d 547 (Ala.1986).
The following is a summary of the evidence and pleadings, presented in the light most favorable to Mrs. Harbison:
In late 1980, Mrs. Harbison, who had then worked for Central Bank in Albertville for approximately 12 years, was contacted by an employee of the Albertville National Bank (hereinafter "the Bank"). Several years prior to this, Mrs. Harbison had applied for employment at the Bank. Mrs. Harbison met with Bill Nolen, president of the Bank, at the Bank. Mrs. Harbison informed Nolen that she had not planned to leave her employment at Central Bank and that she had been there for 12 years and had only 15 years to work before retirement. Mrs. Harbison was approaching her fiftieth birthday when this conversation took place. Nolen told Mrs. Harbison, "Well, if you come on to our bank, you'll be with us, you'll have more years with us at our bank at retirement than you've already got at Central Bank." Mr. Nolen did not sign anything. She told him, He said,
Still drawing the inferences most favorable to Mrs. Harbison, the evidence suggests it was her understanding when she left the interview that she would have a job at the Bank until she retired because of what Nolen, the bank president, had said "as to the fact that if [she] came to work for the [Bank], that by the time [she] retired, [she] would have worked more years there than [she] had at Central Bank."
At some time after this interview with Nolen, Mrs. Harbison submitted an application for employment. This was attached as Exhibit 1 to Nolen's affidavit. Approximately a half inch below the place where Mrs. Harbison had handwritten the names of her personal references and two inches above Mrs. Harbison's signature, the following appears: "If hired, I...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Travis v. Ziter
...v. Arnold, 643 So.2d 564 (Ala.1994); Southern Guar. Ins. Co. v. First Alabama Bank, 540 So.2d 732 (Ala. 1989); Harbison v. Albertville Nat'l Bank, 495 So.2d 1084 (Ala.1986). "Substantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial ju......
-
Sanders v. Kirkland & Co.
...the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all reasonable doubts against the defendants. Harbison v. Albertville National Bank, 495 So.2d 1084 (Ala.1986). Sanders's claim is simply that he relied upon the representations by "join[ing] with Kirkland & Company as a part......
-
Lawson v. Cagle
...to one of the essential elements of plaintiff's cause of action. Motes v. Matthews, 497 So.2d 1121 (Ala.1986); Harbison v. Albertville National Bank, 495 So.2d 1084 (Ala.1986). The plaintiff had no right to rely upon the defendant's alleged statements that plaintiff testified to at trial. H......
-
Motes v. Matthews
...the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all reasonable doubts against the defendants. Harbison v. Albertville National Bank, 495 So.2d 1084 (Ala.1986). Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that the trial court had the following......