Reynolds v. Fowler Pest Control and Insulation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1985 |
| Citation | 479 So.2d 1185 |
| Parties | Maurice Gardner REYNOLDS and Rebecca Reynolds v. FOWLER PEST CONTROL AND INSULATION, INC., et al. 83-1029. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard W. Tingle, Huntsville, for appellants.
Danny D. Henderson, Arnold Rankin Sneed, and John Caylor, of Williams, Spurrier, Moore, Rice, Henderson & Grace, Huntsville, for appellees.
This is an appeal from the trial court's order granting summary judgment for all defendants in a termite damage case based on fraud.
On December 30, 1981, the plaintiffs, Maurice G. Reynolds, Jr., and his wife, Rebecca Ann Reynolds, purchased from Chester Walls a home at 2820 Old Big Cove Road in Owens Crossroads, Alabama.
At the closing the plaintiffs were presented with a V.A. Form 26-8850 titled "WOOD DESTROYING INSECT INFORMATION--EXISTING CONSTRUCTION." This form was completed by James D. Holland who was listed on the form as manager of Fowler Pest Control. This completed form was to become the basis of the plaintiffs' complaint for fraud.
The plaintiffs moved in after purchasing the house and experienced no difficulties with termites until the end of March. At that time the plaintiffs noticed a termite swarm along the sidewalk beside the front porch. The plaintiffs called Fowler Pest Control, which sent an employee to treat the problem. The plaintiffs saw no more termites until May, when they found termites inside the northeast corner of the house. While they were looking for damage caused by these termites, the floor collapsed beneath them and dropped down several inches. Upon inspection they found that termites had done extensive damage to certain support beams under the house.
The plaintiffs filed suit against Fowler Pest Control & Insulation, Inc.; Irby Fowler; James D. Holland; and Butch Holland, a.k.a. Ernest Holland, on the grounds of fraud. The alleged fraud was that the defendants had represented in writing on V.A. Form 26-8850 at the loan closing that the property was free of termite damage, when in fact there was significant damage to the house. They further alleged that the representations were false, that the defendants knew or should have known they were false, that they were made with the intent that the plaintiffs rely upon them, and that the plaintiffs believed the representations and to their detriment relied upon them and purchased the property.
From the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, the plaintiffs now appeal.
We first address the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs failed to give notice of appeal within the 42-day time limit provided by Rule 4, A.R.A.P.
The trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment was dated April 24, 1984. It was not a final judgment under Rule 54(b), A.R.C.P., because it did not contain an express determination that the judgment would be final, there being no just reason for delay. Rule 4, A.R.A.P., provides that "the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 42 days (6 weeks) of the date of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from." The plaintiffs gave notice of appeal on June 6, 1984. If the April 24 order established the date for the beginning of the 42-day time limit for filing an appeal, the notice of appeal would have been one day late.
This case, however, involved also a cross-claim by James D. Holland against Irby Fowler and Fowler Pest Control & Insulation, Inc., which was not dismissed until May 25, 1984. This cross-claim contained a definite money claim in count two and did not appear to be merely defensive, as contended by defendants.
We find, therefore, that there was no final judgment in this case until May 25, 1984, and thus, that this appeal was timely filed.
The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. White v. Law, 454 So.2d 515 (Ala.1984); Griffin v. Little, 451 So.2d 284 (Ala.1984); Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P. If there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is made, summary judgment may not be granted. Savage v. Wright, 439 So.2d 120 (Ala.1983); Campbell v. Alabama Power Co., 378 So.2d 718 (Ala.1979).
The plaintiffs base their claim solely on their theory of fraud. They contend that Fowler Pest Control represented on V.A. Form 26-8850 at the closing that the property was free of termite damage when in fact there was significant damage to the house. They further contend that Fowler Pest Control knew or should have known that this representation was false, that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleveland v. Dyn-A-Mite Pest Control, Inc.
...Co. v. Leisure, 1935 OK 342, 42 P.2d 863; Knudson v. Weeks, 394 F.Supp. 963 (W.D.Okla.1975); and Reynolds v. Fowler Pest Control and Insulation, Inc., 479 So.2d 1185 (Ala.1985). Each of these cases, however, is ¶ 33 In Leisure, a suit for rescission based upon fraud, the plaintiffs purchase......
-
Reinhardt Motors, Inc. v. Boston
...actions for legal fraud can be maintained." 454 So.2d at 512. The second case relied upon by Defendant is Reynolds v. Fowler Pest Control & Insulation, Inc., 479 So.2d 1185 (Ala.1985), in which a similar situation occurred. As a part of the Veterans' Administration financing for the purchas......
-
Phillips v. Wayne's Pest Control Co., Inc.
...WPC raises two arguments. First, it argues that this situation is controlled by this Court's decision in Reynolds v. Fowler Pest Control & Insulation, Inc., 479 So.2d 1185 (Ala.1985). Reynolds involved a fraud claim against a pest control company based on a V.A. form almost identical to the......
-
Fowler Pest Control and Insulation, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Alabama
...Rebecca Ann Reynolds. The underlying action against Fowler by the Reynoldses was before this Court in Reynolds v. Fowler Pest Control & Insulation, Inc., 479 So.2d 1185 (Ala.1985). There the cause of action was stated as "AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD" "1. On, to wit, the 30th day of December......