Mahoney v. Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 May 2009 |
Docket Number | 2080192. |
Citation | 52 So.3d 510 |
Parties | Carol MAHONEY v. LOMA ALTA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Richard L. Watters, Mobile, for appellant.
James B. Pittman, Jr., and Jennifer L. Evans of James B. Pittman, Jr., P.C., Daphne, for appellee.
Carol Mahoney appeals from a judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court denying her request for an attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, § 12-19-270 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 ("ALAA"). We reverse.
For an understanding of the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal, we quote from this court's decision in Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Ass'n, 4 So.3d 1130, 1131-33 (Ala.Civ.App.2008)(" Mahoney "):
This court reversed the judgment in favor of Loma Alta Property Owners Association, Inc. ("LAPOA"), holding that LAPOA had wholly failed to prove that Ms. Mahoney was bound to pay the fees, assessments, and late charges claimed by LAPOA because LAPOA's contract obligated the owner of the condominium unit to pay those charges and the evidence conclusively established that Ms. Mahoney was not the owner of the unit. This court remanded the cause to the circuit court with instructions to adjudicate Ms. Mahoney's ALAA claim.
On remand, the circuit court vacated its judgment in favor of LAPOA, entered a judgment in favor of Ms. Mahoney, and summarily denied Ms. Mahoney's ALAA claim on September 17, 2008. Ms. Mahoney filed a postjudgment motion on October 2, 2008, complaining that the circuit court had, "without evidence or testimony entered a verdict for [LAPOA] as to the ALAA claim." She attached to her motion a foreclosure deed executed by LAPOA's attorney on October 10, 2006, and filed in the Baldwin Probate Court on October 16, 2006, averring that Joseph Mahoney had been the record title owner of the subject property since May 10, 2005.
Ms. Mahoney specifically requested a hearing on her postjudgment motion. The circuit court set the motion for a hearing on October 21, 2008. The record before uscontains no transcript of the hearing. The parties agree, however, that Ms. Mahoney did not appear, that no evidence was presented, and that counsel for both parties presented oral argument to the trial court at the hearing. On October 28, 2008, the circuit court denied Ms. Mahoney's postjudgment motion. Ms. Mahoney timely appealed on November 13, 2008.
Section 12-19-272(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides that a trial court "shall award" an attorney's fee against any party "who has brought a civil action, or asserted a claim therein, or interposed a defense, that a court determines to be without substantial justification, either in whole or part." In Pacific Enterprises Oil Co. (USA) v. Howell Petroleum Corp., 614 So.2d 409, 417 (Ala.1993), our supreme court held that the determination that an action, claim, or defense is without substantial justification "may be either a factual or a legal determination, depending on the grounds upon which the trial court bases its determination." The court further explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Progress Indus., Inc. v. Wilson
-
Mahoney v. Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...on partial findings, pursuant to Rule 52(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.’" Mahoney I, 4 So.3d at 1131–33. In Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Ass'n, 52 So.3d 510 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (‘ Mahoney II ’), this court further set out the facts and procedural history of the case as follows:" ‘[In Mahoney I,......
-
Cam Invs., LLC v. Totty
...], or ‘groundless in law,’ see Sanderson Group [, Inc. v. Smith, 809 So.2d 823 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) ].” Mahoney v. Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass'n, 52 So.3d 510, 517 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that, when Aboveboard filed its breach-of-contract action ag......
-
Mahoney v. Loma Alta Prop. Owners Ass'n Inc.
...on partial findings, pursuant to Rule 52(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.” Mahoney I, 4 So.3d at 1131–33. In Mahoney v. Loma Alta Property Owners Ass'n, 52 So.3d 510 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (“ Mahoney II ”), this court further set out the facts and procedural history of the case as follows: “[In Mahoney I,] ......