Pittman v. Gattis
| Decision Date | 30 September 1988 |
| Parties | George T. PITTMAN v. Thomas T. GATTIS and Rachel J. Gattis. 87-332. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. Drew Redden of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, and M. Douglas Ghee, Anniston, for appellant.
Gordon F. Bailey, Jr., Thomas H. Young, and Gary Stanko of Bolt, Isom, Jackson & Bailey, Anniston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in an eviction action. Thomas Gattis filed a complaint against George Pittman to evict Pittman from property that Gattis had bought at a foreclosure sale. The District Court of Calhoun County granted Gattis an order of eviction, and Pittman appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Gattis. Pittman appeals, raising issues concerning the trial court's granting of the summary judgment as well as the trial court's refusal to set aside the summary judgment.
The tract of land in question was previously owned by Pittman. Gattis purchased it at a foreclosure sale on September 29, 1986. On or about October 2, 1986, Gattis's attorney sent Pittman a certified letter demanding possession. This certified letter was returned to Gattis's attorney without any explanation or notation on the envelope as to why it was returned. Later in October 1986, Gattis's attorney mailed another certified letter which was later returned marked "unclaimed." Near the time of the mailing of the second certified letter, Gattis's attorney also mailed a regular first-class letter to the same address, and this letter was not returned. Gattis has adopted Pittman's statement in Pittman's brief to this Court that, considering all the evidence, the only letter that could have been received is the first-class letter.
Gattis, seeking to remove Pittman from the land, filed this eviction action in the District Court of Calhoun County on December 31, 1986. On the date of trial, Pittman served a notice of his desire to redeem his property. The district court entered an order of eviction, which Pittman appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo. A pretrial conference on the appeal was set for June 17, 1987, but Pittman's attorney withdrew from representing Pittman on June 16, 1987. Apparently, the trial court never held the scheduled conference. Gattis filed a motion for summary judgment, with affidavits from his attorney and the attorney's secretary on July 6, 1987, and, following other motions by Gattis, a hearing on the summary judgment motion was set for July 31, 1987. Pittman neither appeared nor was represented at this hearing, and the trial court granted summary judgment for Gattis and for Gattis's wife, Rachel, who was added as a party to Gattis's action at the time the trial court granted summary judgment. On August 19, 1987, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of eviction, and on the same day Pittman filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment. The trial court denied Pittman's motion.
Pittman's first issue is whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Gattis and his wife Rachel. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.; Houston v. McClure, 425 So.2d 1114 (Ala.1983). In determining whether the moving party has met this burden, the trial court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.; Fulton v. Advertiser Co., 388 So.2d 533 (Ala.1980).
The dispositive issue is whether Pittman lost his right to redeem the foreclosed property. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-233, addresses redemption of real estate and provides:
Thus, according to the statute, if Pittman received a written demand for possession of the real estate, but did not deliver possession, his right of redemption would be forfeited. Accordingly, the trial court's inquiry into whether Pittman had the right to redeem his property should have included inquiry into whether Pittman had received a written demand for possession of the real estate.
Gattis convinced the trial court that both the "service" of the letters and Pittman's receipt of the letters was conclusively established by Rule 5, A.R.Civ.P. Rule 5 relates to service and filing of pleadings, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn Constr. Co. Llc v. Bell Aerospace Serv. Inc.
...law, an alleged recipient's testimony denying receipt of the letter can be sufficient to rebut the presumption. See Pittman v. Gattis, 534 So.2d 293, 295 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); see also Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Reed, 57 So.3d 742, 749 (Ala.2010) (“The presumption could have been rebut......
-
Glenn Constr. Co. Llc v. Bell Aerospace Serv. Inc., CASE NO. 1:09-cv-250-MEF
...law, an allegedrecipient's testimony denying receipt of the letter can be sufficient to rebut the presumption. See Pittman v. Gattis, 534 So. 2d 293, 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988); see also Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Reed, No. 107605, 2010 Ala. LEXIS 109, at *17 (Ala. June 25, 2010) ("Th......
-
Davis v. Alabama Dept. of Indus. Relations
...exists that a letter, mailed with postage prepaid and properly addressed, was received in due course by the addressee. Pittman v. Gattis, 534 So.2d 293 (Ala.1988). However, the presumption is only a rebuttable one and is not conclusive. Republic Steel Corp. v. Gilbert, 38 Ala.App. 227, 83 S......
-
Graham Foods, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank
...the evidence must be looked at in a light most favorable to the non-moving party in reviewing a summary judgment motion, Pittman v. Gattis, 534 So.2d 293 (Ala.1988), we accept the testimony that Hicks did assure Graham and Landry that Graham Foods would receive the Nevertheless, a finding t......