Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc.
Citation | 852 So.2d 691 |
Parties | Danita Kim HOLMAN and D. Mark Holman v. CHILDERSBURG BANCORPORATION, INC., et al. |
Decision Date | 06 December 2002 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Phillip A. Gibson, Huntsville, for appellants.
Bruce F. Rogers and James W. Davis of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellee Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc.
Richard F. Ogle and Robert B. Stewart of Ogle, Liles & Upshaw, L.L.P., Birmingham; and B. Clark Carpenter, Jr, of Wooten, Thornton, Carpenter, O'Brien, Lazenby & Lawrence, Talladega, for appellee First Bank of Childersburg.
Gerald L. Miller of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for appellee Byron Louie Henry.
Danita Kim Holman and her husband, D. Mark Holman, appeal from a summary judgment in favor of First Bank of Childersburg ("the Bank"), Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. ("the Corporation"), and Byron Louie Henry, an officer of the Bank at the time of the underlying transaction, in the Holmans' action alleging breach of an agreement to release a tract of land from a mortgage lien. We affirm.
Events material to this dispute began in 1995, when the Holmans borrowed $275,000 from the Bank in connection with the purchase of approximately 16 acres of real property. The loan was secured by a mortgage on that property. Subsequently, the original 16-acre tract was subdivided into three tracts—tract I, tract II, and tract III. The Holmans allege in their complaint that in 1997 they and Henry reached an oral agreement regarding the disposition of some of the property. Under the alleged agreement, the Holmans would sell tract I. The parties agree that a portion of the sale proceeds were to be paid to the Bank to satisfy the mortgage on tract I. The Holmans allege that the Bank also agreed—in exchange for $175,000 of the purchase price of tract I—to execute an instrument releasing tract II from the mortgage lien, to enable the Holmans to obtain a construction loan to build a residence on tract II "when the time came that [the Holmans] wanted to build the house."
In May 1997, tract I was sold, and the Holmans paid the Bank $175,000. On May 7, 1997, the Bank executed a "Partial Release," releasing tract I from the mortgage lien. Subsequently, the Holmans began constructing a house on tract II. However, title searches conducted on or about July 2, 1998, December 11, 1998, and July 25, 2000, revealed to the Holmans that, as of the last date, no mortgage release had been recorded as to tract II. The Holmans allege that, as of December 11, 2000, the date the Holmans filed this action, the defendants were disclaiming any knowledge of an oral agreement to release tract II from the mortgage lien.
On December 11, 2000, the Holmans sued Henry and the Corporation. Their complaint, as eventually amended to include the Bank (the Corporation, the Bank, and Henry are hereinafter referred to collectively as "the defendants"), contained counts alleging (1) breach of a contract to release tract II from the mortgage lien, (2) negligence/wantonness, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent suppression, (5) slander of title, and (6) civil conspiracy. A seventh count, added by amendment, was against the Corporation and the Bank for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of Henry. The complaint alleged that the property had been devalued and depreciated by the acts of the defendants. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The defendants answered the last amended complaint, asserting affirmative defenses, including the Statute of Frauds. The Bank counterclaimed against the Holmans for amounts allegedly due on their notes with the Bank. Subsequently, the defendants moved for a summary judgment. On November 2, 2001, the trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants on various grounds. More specifically, it concluded that the breach-of-contract claims were barred by the Statute of Frauds and that the tort claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. On May 7, 2002, the trial court, on the Bank's motion, dismissed the Bank's counterclaims against the Holmans.
From that judgment, which constituted the final disposition of all the claims asserted in this action, the Holmans appealed. On appeal, the Holmans argue, among other things, that the trial court erred in holding (1) that the Statute of Frauds barred the breach-of-contract claims, and (2) that the statutes of limitations barred the tort claims.
The Holmans set forth their breach-of-contract claims in the following terms:
(Emphasis added.) The defendants contend that the Statute of Frauds bars these claims. Alabama's Statute of Frauds provides, in pertinent part:
Ala.Code 1975, § 8-9-2(5). This section Pickard v. Turner, 592 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Ala.1992). "[I]t is clear that an agreement to release lands from the effect of a mortgage is an agreement for the transfer of real property and thus falls within the Statute of Frauds." Casey v. Travelers Ins. Co., 585 So.2d 1361, 1363 (Ala.1991).
The Holmans do not dispute that the alleged agreement is subject to the Statute of Frauds. They contend, however, that they have sufficiently established that a release, or a commemorative writing, exists.
In this connection, the Holmans submitted the affidavit of Dennis Abbott, their former legal counsel. Abbott stated, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southland Bank v. A & a Drywall Supply
...Federal, this approval was accurately communicated to the plaintiffs. We find our previous discussion in Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc., 852 So.2d 691 (Ala.2002), which is relied upon by the defendants, more In Holman, the Holmans borrowed $275,000 from a bank in connection wit......
-
Norman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...claim, the Statute of Frauds also bars proof of that agreement to support the tort claim." Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc. , 852 So. 2d 691, 701 (Ala. 2002) ; see also Cox Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc. v. CTI, Inc. , 478 F.3d 1303, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (under Alabama law, a tort claim......
-
Glenn Constr. Co. Llc v. Bell Aerospace Serv. Inc.
...by seeking the same damages in tort. (Doc. # 66, at 20 (citing Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 58 (Ala.2003)); Holman v. Childersburg Bancorp., Inc., 852 So.2d 691, 699–702 (Ala.2002); Ex parte Bad Toys Holdings, Inc., 958 So.2d 852, 859 (Ala.2006); Smith v. Smith, 466 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala.1985......
-
Sarris v. Underwood (In re Underwood)
...must be clear and definite, and referable exclusively to the contract, and by authority of the vendor." Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc., 852 So.2d 691, 697 (Ala. 2002)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "The exception applies only where the acts of part performance......