Martin v. Hodges Chapel, LLC

• Decision Date: 17 February 2012
• Docket Number: 2100446.
• Citation: 89 So.3d 756
• Parties: Tamarra MARTIN and Lesester Williams v. HODGES CHAPEL, LLC, and Whispering Pines Cemetery, LLC.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

89 So.3d 756

Tamarra MARTIN and Lesester Williams

v.HODGES CHAPEL, LLC, and Whispering Pines Cemetery, LLC.

2100446.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 16, 2011.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 17, 2012.

S. Joshua Briskman of Briskman & Binion, P.C., Mobile, for appellants.

William E. Shreve, Jr., and William J. Gamble, Jr., of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Mobile, for appelleeHodge's Chapel, LLC.

PITTMAN, Judge.

Tamarra Martin and Lesester Williams(hereinafter referred to collectively as “the plaintiffs”) appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint against Hodge's Chapel, LLC(“the funeral home”),¹ and Whispering Pines Cemetery, LLC(“the cemetery”).We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

On June 25, 2010, the plaintiffs sued the funeral home, the cemetery, and several fictitiously named defendants, alleging claims of negligence, wantonness, the tort of outrage, breach of contract, and fraud, based on the following factual allegations.The plaintiffs had arranged with the funeral home to have four of their deceased family members buried in the cemetery: Emma Lee Prince(Martin's mother and Williams's grandmother)(“Ms. Prince”), who had been buried in April 1990; Steven Prince, Sr.(Martin's father and Williams's grandfather)(“Prince, Sr.”), who had been buried in March 1996; Stephen Prince, Jr.(Martin's brother and Williams's uncle)(“Prince, Jr.”), who had been buried in January 2000; and William Mae Mobley(Martin's brother and Williams's father)(“Mobley”), who had been buried in January 2004.The plaintiffs could not afford to place headstones or other markers on the graves at the time of the burials, but the funeral home assured the plaintiffs that it “kept accurate records” of the location of the grave sites so that the graves could be found for visitation and the later placement of headstones.The condition of the cemetery premises deteriorated over time, and the landmarks changed so that it became difficult to locate the grave sites.In May 2009, Martin contacted the funeral home to find the location of her mother's grave so that she could place a headstone there; Martin also requested the location of her father's and brothers' graves.The funeral home provided Martin with the location of her father's and brothers' graves by lot and section number, but the funeral home was unable to tell her the location of her mother's grave.The plaintiffs asserted that they had recently been informed of a pending lawsuit, in which it had been alleged that the same defendants had kept poor records and had misplaced another decedent's remains, and they“suspect[ed] that there [was] a great likelihood” that the location of all four of their family members' graves was also unknown.

Both defendants were served with the complaint.Although the cemetery failed to answer or otherwise defend, the funeral home filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for a summary judgment, first stating that it had been incorrectly named in the complaint as “Hodges Funeral Chapel, LLC,” when its correct name was “Hodge's Chapel, LLC.”Citing Ex parte Liberty National Life Insurance Co.,825 So.2d 758, 763–66(Ala.2002), the funeral home asserted that, because the plaintiffs' claims, it said, arose from the interment of Ms. Prince, who had been buried in April 1990, but were not brought until June 2010, the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the 20–year rule of repose.Second, the funeral home asserted that the plaintiffs' complaint was due to be dismissed based on the two-year limitations period set forth in § 6–2–38,Ala.Code 1975, and the six-year limitations period set forth in § 6–2–34,Ala.Code 1975.Third, the funeral home alleged that the complaint failed to state a claim against it because Hodge's Chapel, LLC, had not been in existence in 1990, but had been formed only in 1997.The funeral home attached its Articles of Organization, dated December 17, 1997, to the motion.

The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the funeral home's motion, asserting that the funeral home had addressed the claims relating to only one of their family members (Ms. Prince), and arguing that the rule of repose was inapplicable to those claims.In addition, the plaintiffs argued that all of their claims had accrued in May 2009, when Martin had inquired as to the location of her family members' grave sites, the funeral home had failed to provide her with the location of Ms. Prince's grave site, the funeral home had given her incorrect information regarding the location of the other three grave sites, and the plaintiffs had suffered emotional distress.The plaintiffs maintained that because they had filed suit 13 months after the date that their claims had accrued, in their view, neither their tort nor their contract claims were barred by any statutes of limitation.The plaintiffs did not respond to the funeral home's assertion that it was not liable on any of the plaintiffs' claims because the funeral home did not exist before 1997.

The trial court entered a judgment stating: “Motion to dismiss is hereby granted.Case dismissed with prejudice.”The plaintiffs filed a postjudgment motion, arguing that no statute of limitations barred their tort or contract claims because, the plaintiffs asserted, those claims had accrued in May 2009 and they had filed their complaint in 2010; that the allegation that Hodge's Chapel, LLC, was not in existence until 1997 was not a valid legal basis to dismiss the claims against that entity; and that the claims against the cemetery were dismissed erroneously because the cemetery “ha[d] filed no motion whatsoever.”The postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law, after which the plaintiffs timely appealed.The supreme court subsequently transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12–2–7(6).

Standard of Review

Because the funeral home presented, in support of its dispositive motion, matters outside the pleadings that were not excluded by the trial court, we review the trial court's judgment under the principles of law pertaining to summary judgments.

“ ‘[W]here matters outside the pleadings are considered on a motion to dismiss, the motion is converted into a motion for summary judgment as provided in Rule 12(c), [Ala. R. Civ. P.], regardless of its denomination and treatment by the trial court.’Boles v. Blackstock,484 So.2d 1077, 1079(Ala.1986).

“ ‘When the trial court is called upon to consider a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,it must examine the allegations in the complaint, ... and construe it so as to “resolve all doubts concerning [its] sufficiency in favor of the [claimant].”In so doing, the court does not consider whether the claimant will ultimately prevail, only whether he has stated a claim under which hemay possibly prevail.Fontenot v. Bramlett,470 So.2d 669, 671(Ala.1985), citingFirst National Bank v. Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc.,398 So.2d 258(Ala.1981), andKaragan v. City of Mobile,420 So.2d 57(Ala.1982).’

“ ‘If the motion, however, is converted to a Rule 56[ (c), Ala. R. Civ. P.,]motion for summary judgment, the ‘moving party's burden changes and he is obliged to demonstrate that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’Papastefan v. B & L Const[ r ] .Co.,356 So.2d 158(Ala.1978), citing C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil§ 1366(1969).' ”

A.W. v. Wood,57 So.3d 751, 756(Ala.2010)(quotingHightower & Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.,527 So.2d 698, 702–03(Ala.1988)).

The Claims Concerning the Burial Site of Ms. Prince

A.The Rule of Repose

Citing Willis v. Shadow Lawn Memorial Park,709 So.2d 1241(Ala.Civ.App.1998), the plaintiffs contend that the rule of repose does not bar their claims with respect to Ms. Prince's grave site.In Willis, a woman sued the owners of the cemetery in which her grandmother had been buried in 1931, alleging that the owners had failed to maintain the grave site, had sold the grave site to another party, and had interred another body there.The complaint, filed in 1996, stated claims of fraud, conversion, breach of contract, negligence, wantonness, and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress.The owners moved for a judgment on the pleadings, contending that “the incidents giving rise to [the granddaughter's] claims had occurred more than 20 years before the filing of the complaint, and that her claims were therefore barred by the common-law rule of repose.”709 So.2d at 1242.The trial court granted that motion.

On appeal, this court reversed.We decided that because the complaint did not include the time when the defendants had allegedly breached the burial contract or had allegedly engaged in the tortious conduct specified, it was impossible to tell when the actions that gave rise to the granddaughter's claims had occurred and, thus, when the rule of repose had begun to run as to those claims.In Willis,this court held that “there remain[ed] a factual dispute, unresolved by the pleadings themselves, concerning whether [the granddaughter's] claims accrued more than 20 years before she filed her complaint.”709 So.2d at 1243.Accord Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc.,579 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1375(N.D.Ala.2008)(denying without prejudice the defendants' motions to dismiss on the basis of Alabama's common-law rule of repose and recognizing that “some of [the] claims may be barred under ... [that] doctrine [ ], but the court cannot determine which ones without evidence unavailable at this stage of the proceedings”).

In Ex parte Liberty National Life Insurance Co., supra,the supreme court reviewed the history and application of the rule of repose in Alabama.The court stated that the rule of repose is similar to but “ ‘broader in scope than a statute of limitations.’ ”825 So.2d at 764(quotingRector v. Better Houses, Inc.,820 So.2d 75, 77 n. 2(A...