Leeth v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
Decision Date | 17 March 2000 |
Parties | Larry Eugene LEETH and Edna Lee Leeth v. JIM WALTER HOMES, INC., et al. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Larry Eugene Leeth and Edna Lee Leeth, appellants, pro se.
George W. Walker III and J. David Martin of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for appellees Jim Walter Homes, Inc., and Mid-State Homes, Inc.
H. Thomas Heflin, Jr., Tuscumbia, for appellee E.M. Sparkman.
Alabama Supreme Court 1991643.
On November 8, 1995, Larry Eugene Leeth and his wife, Edna Lee Leeth, sued Jim Walter Homes, Inc. ("Jim Walter"); Mid-State Homes, Inc. ("Mid-State"); and E.M. Sparkman, seeking compensatory and punitive damages on claims of fraud, breach of contract, and negligence in the performance of a survey. The Leeths alleged that as a result of a wrongful survey by Sparkman, they obligated themselves to pay for a home constructed by Jim Walter and Mid-State that was located on the wrong land. On June 19, 1996, Jim Walter counterclaimed, alleging that the Leeths had defaulted on their promissory note to finance the construction of the home.
On January 17, 1997, Jim Walter and Mid-State moved for a summary judgment on the Leeths' claims; Jim Walter also sought a summary judgment on its counterclaim. Although the trial court denied the motion as to the Leeths' claims, it entered a summary judgment for Jim Walter on its counterclaim and reserved the issue of the determination of damages for the presentation of evidence. During the ensuing litigation, the Leeths had various disputes with their lawyers. After May 19, 1998, when their second lawyer withdrew from the case, the Leeths proceeded pro se. Although the trial court instructed the Leeths about the importance of obtaining counsel, they elected to try the case pro se. The case was tried before a jury on April 12 and 13, 1999. At the close of the Leeths' case, the defendants moved for a judgment as a matter of law, and the trial court granted their motion. After the trial court dismissed the jury, it received evidence concerning damages on Jim Walter's counterclaim and entered a judgment for Jim Walter in the amount of $59,865.36.
The Leeths' motion to vacate the judgment, or in the alternative, for a new trial, was denied on June 11, 1999. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama; that court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7, Ala.Code 1975.
The record reveals that the Leeths entered into a contract with Jim Walter for the construction of a home on property that the Leeths expected to obtain from Larry Leeth's grandmother, Mary Leeth. The Leeths hired Sparkman to survey a one-acre parcel of Mary Leeth's property to be conveyed to the Leeths and to serve as a home site. A deed was prepared regarding a parcel of land described by use of the legal description taken from Sparkman's survey; the deed conveyed the land to the Leeths, and a home was constructed on the parcel after the Leeths received the deed in 1992. In 1993, the Leeths began a property-line dispute with their neighbor. The Leeths' participation in the property-line dispute ultimately led to their assertion in 1994 that the house constructed for them by Jim Walter was not on the property they had received from Mary Leeth. The record is incomplete, in that it does not contain a transcript of the proceedings at trial.
The Leeths make a number of factual and legal arguments in this appeal. These arguments can be generally divided into two legal contentions: (1) that the trial court erred in granting the defendants a judgment as a matter of law as to the Leeths' breach-of-contract claim and (2) that the trial court erred in granting the defendants a judgment as a matter of law as to the Leeths' fraud claim. It should be noted that the Leeths do not make any argument in this appeal as to the trial court's entry of a judgment for Jim Walter on its counterclaim.
Our standard for a judgment as a matter of law is the same as the standard previously used for reviewing a directed verdict:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J.B. v. Cleburne County Dhr
...deposition testimony support the trial court's decision to continue custody of the child with DHR. See Leeth v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 789 So.2d 243, 247 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) ("`[W]hen a trial court's order is based on evidence that is not before the appellate court, we conclusively presume ......
-
Chatham v. Blount County
... ... C., Birmingham, for amici curiae Friends of the Covered Bridge Trail, Inc.; Rails to Trails Conservancy, Inc.; Calhoun County; City of Piedmont; ... ...
-
Nail v. Jeter
...show error by the trial court.'" Wilcoxen v. Wilcoxen, 907 So. 2d 447, 450 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) (quoting Leeth v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 789 So. 2d 243, 246 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000))."Ex parte Brown, 26 So. 3d 1222, 1225 (Ala. 2009).The Denial of a Change in the Custody of Emma"On appellate ......
-
Nail v. Jeter
...to show error by the trial court.” ’ Wilcoxen v. Wilcoxen, 907 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (quoting Leeth v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 789 So.2d 243, 246 (Ala.Civ.App.2000)).”Ex parte Brown, 26 So.3d 1222, 1225 (Ala.2009).The Denial of a Change in the Custody of Emma “On appellate revie......