McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC
Decision Date | 10 October 2008 |
Docket Number | 1070516.,1070517. |
Parties | Price McLEMORE et al. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery. George E. Russell and Thomas E. Russell, as coexecutors and cotrustees of the will and testamentary trust of Ernest W. Russell; and Myrtis Russell v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Randy Myers and Frank H. Hawthorne, Jr., of Hawthorne & Myers, LLC, Montgomery, for appellants.
Robert E. Poundstone IV of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Montgomery; and Joseph B. Mays, Jr., and Marc James Ayers of Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC.
Thomas T. Gallion III and Constance C. Walker of Haskell Slaughter Young & Gallion, LLC, Montgomery; and Jesse P. Evans III of Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, for the appellee Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery.
George E. Russell and Thomas E. Russell, as coexecutors and cotrustees of the will and testamentary trust of Earnest W. Russell, and Myrtis Russell ("the Russells"), and Price McLemore, Mary H. McLemore, John McInnis, Jr., Timothy N. McInnis, Charles R. McInnis, Williams S. Newell, and the Peoples Bank and Trust Company, as trustee for the Adaline Hooper Trust A and B ("the McLemore group"), sued the Industrial Development Board of the City of Montgomery ("the IDB") and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC ("Hyundai"), alleging breach of contract. Specifically, they alleged that the IDB, on behalf of Hyundai, exercised options to purchase their real property but failed to pay them in accordance with the most-favored-nation clause in the option agreements the same price per acre that was paid to another landowner. The trial court entered summary judgments for the IDB and Hyundai. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In September 2001, various officials of the State of Alabama, the City of Montgomery ("the City"), the Montgomery County Commission ("the County"), the Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Montgomery Water Works Board began making preparations to secure options to purchase property in the Montgomery area to create an incentive package in the hope that they could persuade Hyundai to build an industrial plant in the Montgomery area for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling motor vehicles. This intent is evidenced by a signed letter to Hyundai from the City, the County, and the IDB stating that they, "in partnership with the State," would commit to providing an industrial site to Hyundai at no cost. Although the funds to purchase the property were to be provided by the City and the County only, the option agreements on the property were acquired by the IDB, whose primary role in industrial projects is to "serve as the entity through which monies flow for the purchase of land for the ultimate use in industry."1 B.M. Ahn, the Hyundai representative in charge of Hyundai's project to open a plant in the United States, testified during his deposition that one of the basic elements of an incentive package is "free land" offered to an automobile company as part of the incentive for the company to locate in a certain area. Ahn stated that Hyundai had no role in acquiring the options on the land.
The Russells owned approximately 328 acres of land in Montgomery County. In the fall of 2001, Reuben Thornton, the chairman of the IDB, entered into an option agreement on behalf of the IDB to purchase the Russells' property for an industrial project.2 The agreement provided an option period of 120 days and stated:
The Russells and the IDB amended the option agreement in February 2002 to provide:
In February 2002, Thornton, on behalf of the IDB, entered into an option agreement with the McLemore group, who owned approximately 54 acres of land near the Russell property. The terms in the option agreement with the McLemore group are identical to the terms in the original option agreement between the Russells and the IDB.
The IDB also acquired four additional option agreements with landowners near the property belonging to the Russells and the McLemore group. During the acquisition process, the IDB approached Joy Shelton about an option to purchase her property; however, she refused to enter into an option agreement. The IDB decided that the Shelton property4 was not necessary for the incentive package. By mid-March 2002, the IDB determined that it was not going to designate any additional funds, other than the funds already committed, to this particular project. The State and the IDB sent the incentive package, including the proposed project site, to Hyundai for consideration.
On March 28, 2002, Ahn contacted Todd Strange, then the director of the Alabama Development Office. He stated that Hyundai had not decided whether to locate the plant in Montgomery or in Kentucky but that additional property would need to be acquired for the rail access Hyundai required if Montgomery was to be selected as the site for the Hyundai plant. Ahn informed Strange that he would need an answer by noon of the next day as to whether the property could be acquired. Strange met with various State, City, and County officials to discuss Hyundai's request. Recognizing that the City and the County would not provide additional funds to acquire more property and that the other option agreements contained most-favored-nation clauses, they decided to ask CSX Transportation, Inc., the rail company, to acquire the option to purchase the Shelton property. On March 29, 2002, Strange sent David Hemphill, an assistant vice president for CSX, the following letter via facsimile:
Also on March 29, 2002, Hemphill sent the following e-mail to Dave Echols:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perdue v. Green
...contracting parties to new or changed contractual terms while the original contract remains executory. See McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC, 7 So.3d 318, 333 (Ala.2008); and Alabama Terminix Co. v. Howell, 276 Ala. 59, 62, 158 So.2d 915, 918 (1963); see also Beacon Terminal Corp.......
-
Perdue ex rel. Perdue v. Green, 1101337
......1101337 1101506 SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 Dated: March 16, 2012 Notice: This ...2d 105, 108-09 (Ala. 2001); see also Ex parte Jones Mfg. Co. , 589 So. 2d 208, 211 (Ala. 1991) ("[A] specific ... See McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC , 7 So. 3d 318, 333 ......
-
Zucaro v. Anand Patel, Raman Patel, & Gulf Coast Mgmt. Co.
...the contracts at issue, as contract construction is primarily an issue of law. See, e.g., McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Ala., LLC, 7 So. 3d 318, 327 (Ala. 2008) ("When a trial court is faced with a contract issue, it is important for the trial court to determine as soon as practicable the ......
-
Wheeler v. George, No. 1070484 (Ala. 7/17/2009)
...... No. 1070487. . No. 1070514. . Supreme Court of Alabama. . July 17, 2009. . Page 2 . Appeals ...Randall Evans, a vice president of CSX; Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, and Hyundai Motor America ... IDB to purchase approximately 54 acres from Price McLemore, Mary H. McLemore, John Mclnnis, Jr., Timothy N. Mclnnis, ...See McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC , 7 So. 3d 318 (Ala. 2008). Our decision in ......