Petersen v. Woodland Homes of Huntsville
Decision Date | 01 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2050637.,2050637. |
Citation | 959 So.2d 135 |
Parties | Michael R. PETERSEN and Rebecca C. Petersen v. WOODLAND HOMES OF HUNTSVILLE, INC., and Michael W. Friday. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Melissa D. Endsley of Thomas S. McGrath, P.C., Huntsville, for appellants.
Benjamin R. Rice and Thomas A. Wheat of Spurrier, Rice & Hall, Huntsville, for appellees.
The plaintiffs, Michael R. Petersen and Rebecca C. Petersen, appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Woodland Homes of Huntsville, Inc., and Michael W. Friday, the president of Woodland Homes. We reverse and remand.
In January 2001, the Petersens contracted with Woodland Homes to purchase a recently built house. After the Petersens moved into the house, defective kitchen cabinets in the house were replaced, pursuant to a manufacturer's warranty. On November 7, 2003, Michael Petersen sued Woodland Homes in the Madison District Court, alleging that Woodland Homes had improperly installed the replacement kitchen cabinets. On March 31, 2004, the district court entered a judgment in favor of Woodland Homes on Petersen's claim. Petersen subsequently appealed the district court's judgment to the Madison Circuit Court for a trial de novo, pursuant to § 12-12-71, Ala.Code 1975. That case was docketed in the circuit court as case no. CV-04-968. Petersen's appeal of the district court's judgment to the circuit court was pending when the summary judgment against the Petersens in the present case was entered and when the Petersens appealed that judgment.
On September 2, 2005, the Petersens filed a complaint against Woodland Homes, Michael W. Friday, and fictitiously named parties in the Madison Circuit Court, alleging suppression, reckless misrepresentation, fraud, willful deception, innocent misrepresentation, negligence, wantonness, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of the implied warranty of good workmanship, breach of expressed and implied warranties, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices.1 The claims alleged by the Petersens were based upon these factual allegations in the complaint:
On September 29, 2005, the defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss the Petersens' action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, asserting that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, i.e., issue preclusion, barred the Petersens' claims.2 The defendants attached to their motion to dismiss a motion that had been filed by Michael Petersen in case no. CV-04-968, the appeal from the district court's judgment. The attached motion, filed on August 17, 2005, was titled "Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" and stated that Petersen was withdrawing his motion to amend his complaint in case no. CV-04-968. The face of that motion indicated that the motion had been granted by the circuit court on August 18, 2005. The defendants also attached to the motion to dismiss a motion that Woodland Homes had filed in case no. CV-04-968, titled "Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint."
On October 20, 2005, the Petersens filed a response to the motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that their claims were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. On October 31, 2005, the defendants filed an "amended motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative[,] a motion to compel arbitration." Although titled as an "amended motion to dismiss," the motion was only a motion to dismiss insofar as it incorporated the defendants' September 29, 2005, motion to dismiss; the motion essentially was a motion to compel arbitration.
The circuit court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss and the Petersens' response to that motion on November 4, 2005. On November 8, 2005, the circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants in the present case. The judgment stated that the circuit court considered "testimony and evidence presented" in ruling on the motion to dismiss, but the judgment did not specify the "testimony and evidence" that was pre-sented to and considered by the circuit court.
On December 6, 2005, the Petersens moved the circuit court to reconsider the dismissal, arguing that their claims were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The "motion to reconsider" was denied by operation of law, pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. The Petersens timely appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.
Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., states, in pertinent part: "If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment. . . ." Although the defendants titled their motion as a motion to dismiss, they submitted in support of that motion filings in Michael Petersen's previously filed action, case no. CV-04-968. Additionally, the circuit court's judgment indicates that the circuit court considered matters outside the pleadings in ruling on the motion to dismiss. In Hornsby v. Sessions, 703 So.2d 932, 937-38 (Ala.1997), the supreme court stated:
"When matters outside the pleadings are considered on a motion to dismiss, the motion is converted into a motion for summary judgment, Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; this is the case regardless of what the motion has been called or how it was treated by the trial court, Papastefan v. B & L Constr. Co., 356 So.2d 158 (Ala.1978); Thorne v. Odom, 349 So.2d 1126 (Ala.1977)."
Because the circuit court was presented with, and did not exclude from its consideration, matters outside the pleadings, the defendants' motion to dismiss was converted into a motion for a summary judgment. Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Hornsby v. Sessions, supra. Therefore, in reviewing the circuit court's judgment, we apply the standard of review applicable to summary judgments.
Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 54 (Ala.2003).
On appeal, the Petersens argue that the circuit court erred in entering a summary judgment because, the Petersens say, their claims were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Stewart v. Brinley, 902 So.2d 1, 11 (Ala.2004).
Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.2d 634, 636 (Ala.1998).
Lee L. Saad Constr. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 851 So.2d 507, 520 (Ala.2002).
The defendants argue that the circuit court correctly entered a summary judgment because, they say, the district court's judgment entered against Michael Petersen operates as res judicata on the Petersens' claims. Michael Petersen appealed the district court's judgment to the circuit court for a trial de novo, pursuant to § 12-12-71, Ala.Code 1975. Section 12-12-71, Ala.Code 1975, provides that, with certain exceptions that are not applicable in this case, "all appeals from final judgments of the district court shall be to the circuit court for trial de novo." "...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franklin v. Woodmere at the Lake
...(quoting Rudolph v. State, 286 Ala. 189, 190, 238 So.2d 542, 543 (1970)) (emphasis omitted).”Petersen v. Woodland Homes of Huntsville, Inc., 959 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). Furthermore, “[b]ecause the circuit court tries de novo the case appealed from the district court's judgment, t......
-
Wheeler Bros., Inc. v. Jones (In re Jones)
...nondischargeability proceedings were actually litigated in the prior District Court Litigation. Petersen v. Woodland Homes of Huntsville, Inc. , 959 So. 2d 135, 139 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ("The burden is on the party asserting collateral estoppel to prove that the issue it is seeking to bar ......
-
Franklin v. Woodmere
...1983) (quoting Rudolph v. State, 286 Ala. 189, 190, 238 So. 2d 542, 543 (1970)) (emphasis omitted)."Petersen v. Woodland Homes of Huntsville, Inc., 959 So. 2d 135, 139 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). Furthermore, " [b]ecause the circuit court tries de novo the case appealed from the district court's......
-
Mays v. Trinity Prop. Consultants, LLC
...App. 2018) (quoting Crews v. Jackson, 218 So.3d 368, 370-71 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016), quoting in turn Petersen v. Woodland Homes of Huntsville, Inc., 959 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ) (" ‘ " ‘ "Alabama cases have consistently held that a trial de novo means an entirely new trial, ‘as ......