Parrish v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1996 |
| Citation | 682 So.2d 1383 |
| Parties | A. L. PARRISH, individually, et al. v. BLAZER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and Great Western Financial Corp. 2950762. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Gusty Yearout and John G. Watts of Yearout, Myers, Traylor, P.C., Birmingham, and Jerry O. Lorant and Haydn M. Trechsel of Lorant & Associates, Birmingham, for A. L. Parrish.
John R. Chiles of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Birmingham, for Appellees.
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment. It was deflected to this court by the Alabama Supreme Court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.
Initially we note that in order to enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Bussey v. John Deere Co., 531 So.2d 860 (Ala.1988). Rule 56 is read in conjunction with the "substantial evidence rule," § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975, for actions filed after June 11, 1987. See Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989). To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence, creating a genuine issue of material facts; substantial evidence has been defined as "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).
The material facts are undisputed. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., and Great Western Financial Corporation (collectively "Blazer") engaged in a practice known as the "Check-in-the-Mail" ("CIM") program. In this program, Blazer targeted certain persons and mailed them unsolicited loans in the form of actual, negotiable checks. Each check was attached to the bottom of a letter that stated "HERE'S YOUR CHECK FOR...." The letter also advised recipients to "just endorse it, cash it, or deposit it in your checking account and the cash is yours!"
On the back of the letter and check were certain disclosures. These included an annual percentage rate of 25.11%, which, for example, amounted to a finance charge of $446.38 for a loan of $1,029.62. On the back of the check were written the terms of a promissory note, and recipients were instructed to endorse the check by signing at the bottom of the note. Thus, after the recipients had cashed or deposited the checks, they no longer had copies of the notes. However, most of the information that was contained on the back of the check was also repeated in some fashion on the back of the letter.
A.L. Parrish was one of those targeted by the CIM program. He endorsed his check and thereby signed the promissory note sent by Blazer. Parrish sued Blazer, basing his claims on the CIM program. His lawsuit was certified as a class action. Both Parrish and Blazer filed motions for summary judgment, with accompanying briefs. The trial court entered a partial summary judgment, holding that (1) Blazer's CIM program violates Alabama's Mini-Code, specifically § 5-19-6, Ala.Code 1975, and the plaintiff class can recover for actual damages caused by Blazer's violation of § 5-19-6, Ala.Code 1975; and (2) Blazer's CIM program does not violate the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA").
The court certified the partial summary judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Parrish appeals.
Parrish agrees with that portion of the trial court's judgment that finds Blazer guilty of violating the Mini-Code. However, Parrish does not agree with the trial court's judgment regarding the class's potential recovery. Indeed, Parrish contends that the class's recovery should not be limited to actual damages caused by Blazer's Mini-Code violation, and that in any case class members should be allowed to recover at least a portion of the interest charged by Blazer on the notes resulting from the CIM program.
The trial court held that Blazer had violated § 5-19-6, Ala.Code 1975, which provides, in pertinent part: "Any creditor, when extending credit with respect to a consumer credit sale, loan or lease other than open-end credit, shall at that time furnish to the debtor duplicate copies of all instruments executed by the debtor in connection with the transaction." The loan instruments were printed on the reverse side of the actual loan checks, which were then cashed or deposited by the debtors. The record reflects that copies of these instruments were never provided to the debtors. Therefore, the trial court held that Blazer had violated § 5-19-6.
After determining that Blazer had violated § 5-19-6, the trial court proceeded to address the issue of damages recoverable by the class members as a result of Blazer's violation. The court held that the class was limited to recovery for actual damage caused by the particular violation. The court also indicated that the class would not be able to recover the interest charged by Blazer. However, the court did not make a final ruling as to the amount or scope of damages recoverable.
Parrish also appeals from that portion of the summary judgment holding that Blazer's CIM program had not violated the TILA. He argues that Blazer violated the TILA by failing to provide the class members with duplicate copies of the loan instruments, by failing to make certain required disclosures, and by failing to use "clear and conspicuous" language.
The TILA, unlike Alabama's Mini-Code, does not require that the debtor be provided with a duplicate copy of the loan agreement. Instead, the TILA requires that certain disclosures be made "clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a form that the consumer may keep." 12 C.F.R. § 226.17(a)(1). Blazer argues that these required disclosures were provided in the letters to the recipients of the checks and in the statements contained on the back of the letters.
As noted previously, this is an appeal of a partial summary judgment certified as final in accordance with Rule 54(b),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirksey v. Johnson
...). Rule 54(b) certifications are not to be entered routinely and should be made only in exceptional cases. Parrish v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 682 So.2d 1383 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). ‘ “Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.” ’ Harper Sales Co. v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, In......
-
Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player
...Rule 54(b) certifications are not to be entered routinely and should be made only in exceptional cases. Parrish v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 682 So.2d 1383 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996). "`Appellate review in a piecemeal fashion is not favored.'" Harper Sales Co. v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, Inc., ......
-
Long v. City of Hoover
...that there is no just reason for delay. Williams v. Fogarty, 727 So.2d 831, 832 (Ala.Civ.App.1999); Parrish v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc. 682 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). Rule 54(b) certifications should be granted only in exceptional cases and should not be entered routinely. Parrish......
-
Schlarb v. Lee
...54(b) certifications should be entered only in exceptional cases. Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player, supra; Parrish v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 682 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). The facts of this case are not so exceptional as to warrant a Rule 54(b) certification of the summary-judgme......
-
Rule 54(b) Orders: Are They Losing Their Appeal?
...claims might render moot the adjudicated claim from which an appeal was taken. See A. L. Parish v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 682 So.2d 1383 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); Fullilove v. Home Finance Co., Inc., 678 So.2d 151 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). See generally 10 Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice......