Mills v. Culbreth
Decision Date | 16 July 1999 |
Citation | 738 So.2d 1281 |
Parties | Jack B. MILLS v. Kim CULBRETH. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Robert J. Hedge of Jackson, Taylor & Martino, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.
Edward P. Rowan of Janecky, Newell, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R.App.P.; Rule 54(d), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U.S. 265, 108 S.Ct. 1130, 99 L.Ed.2d 289 (1988); Hinson v. Holt, [Ms. 2970541, Nov. 20, 1998] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Civ.App.1998); and Littleton v. Gold Kist, Inc., 480 So.2d 1236 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).
Appellee's motion for damages and attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 38, Ala. R.App. P. and §§ 12-19-271 and 12-19-272, Ala.Code 1975, is denied.
I wish to point out that Culbreth made an offer of judgment on September 18, 1996, just seven weeks after Mills filed the complaint in this case. The offer of judgment was made before depositions were taken, and obviously before the motion for summary judgment was filed and the trial was held. Rule 68, Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that, "[i]f the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable that the offer, the offerree must pay the costs incurred after making of the offer."
Because nearly all of the costs incurred by the defendant arose after she made the offer of judgment, and because it appears that all the costs were necessary in defending the case, I agree that the trial court correctly enforced the taxation of costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goree v. Shirley
...to the defense of the action. We conclude that Judge Monroe correctly stated the rule in his special concurrence in Mills v. Culbreth, 738 So.2d 1281 (Ala. Civ.App.1999). See also Lyons v. Cunningham, 583 F.Supp. 1147 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Sack v. Carnegie Mellon University, 106 F.R.D. 561 The c......
- Brooks v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO.