Ritch v. Waldrop

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtADAMS; TORBERT; EMBRY; EMBRY
Citation428 So.2d 1
Decision Date17 September 1982
PartiesBonnie RITCH v. Grover WALDROP, individually & d/b/a Western Auto Associate Store of Killen, Alabama, Western Auto Supply Co., a Corporation. 80-857.

Page 1

428 So.2d 1
Bonnie RITCH
v.
Grover WALDROP, individually & d/b/a Western Auto Associate Store of Killen, Alabama, Western Auto Supply Co., a Corporation.
80-857.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Sept. 17, 1982.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1983.

Michael Gillion of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Whitfield & Gillion, Mobile, for appellant.

Fred W. Killion, Jr. and Patricia K. Olney of Reams, Wood, Vollmer, Philips, Killion & Brooks, Mobile, for appellees.

ADAMS, Justice.

This appeal involves an action for malicious prosecution. Bonnie Ritch (plaintiff) brought action against Grover Waldrop (defendant) individually, and as operator of the Western Auto Associate Store of Killen, Alabama. The case was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Mobile County. A plaintiff's verdict in the amount of $30,000.00 was returned. The verdict and judgment later were set aside when the trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff appealed.

The dispositive issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff rebutted the presumption of probable cause created by the grand jury's indictment of her on the criminal charge instigated by defendant. Our review of the evidence, and application of Johnson v. Haynie, 414 So.2d 946 (Ala.1982),

Page 2

recently decided by this court, leads us to conclude that she did. Therefore, we find the trial court's action granting defendant's motion for JNOV to be in error, and we reverse for reinstatement of the judgment entered originally for plaintiff.

Before reciting the pertinent facts, we first note the proper standard of review:

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict tests the sufficiency of the evidence in the same way as does the motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. Ala.R.Civ.P. 50, Committee Comments. Granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict says, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, there can be but one reasonable conclusion from the evidence as to the proper judgment. 5A Moore's Federal Practice p 50.07, at p. 50-76.

Hanson v. Couch, 360 So.2d 942 at 944 (Ala.1978); quoted with approval in Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981).

The standard of review for a directed verdict is well established:

A directed verdict is proper only where there is a complete absence of proof on an issue material to the claim or where there are no disputed questions of fact on which reasonable people could differ. Deal v. Johnson, 362 So.2d 214 (Ala.1978). In considering a motion for directed verdict, the court must apply Rule 50(e), ARCP, under which "a question must go to the jury, if the evidence, or any reasonable inference arising therefrom, furnishes a mere gleam, glimmer, spark ... or a scintilla in support of the theory of the complaint ...." Dixie Electric Company v. Maggio, 294 Ala. 411, 318 So.2d 274 (Ala.1975).

In addition, the trial court must view the entire evidence, and all reasonable inferences which a jury might have drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Alabama Power Company v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236 (1975); Vintage Enterprises, Inc. v. Cash, 348 So.2d 476 (Ala.1977). Also, this Court's function in reviewing a motion for a directed verdict is to review the tendencies of the evidence most favorably to the non-movant, regardless of a view we may have as to the weight of the evidence, and we must allow such reasonable inferences as the jury were free to draw, not inferences which we may think the more probable. Beloit Corp. v. Harrell, 339 So.2d 992 (Ala.1976).

Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Ford, 406 So.2d 854 at 856 (Ala.1981).

Guided by the above principles, we next review the facts pertinent to the issue presented by this appeal. Viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence showed the following. In 1976, plaintiff and her husband lived in Florence, Alabama. They had purchased various household items on credit from defendant's store. 1 Mr. Ritch suffered from a respiratory problem. His physician ordered him to move to a sea level altitude for his health. In September 1976, plaintiff and her husband did so. With them, they took approximately $700.00--$800.00 of merchandise bought at defendant's store and subject to a security interest and installment sales agreement. The agreement required monthly payments.

Before moving, plaintiff and her daughter went to see defendant. Plaintiff informed defendant that she and her husband would be moving to Mobile, Alabama, but that they would keep sending payments. Plaintiff stated that she did not have a new address. Defendant, allegedly, acquiesed. No further payments were made.

The next day plaintiff and her husband moved to Dauphin Island, which is located

Page 3

in the Mobile area. The parties exchanged correspondence. Plaintiff offered to make a double payment on the account in October, because she had missed the September payment. Defendant refused to accept such a payment. Defendant informed plaintiff that he wanted payment in full. The parties were unable to reach a compromise on this matter.

In June, 1977, plaintiff was taken into custody by the Mobile County Sheriff's Department and transported to the county jail. She was detained for only fifteen minutes and then released without being booked or fingerprinted. Approximately one month later, defendant called plaintiff at her home, inquiring why she was not in jail. According to plaintiff, defendant stated that "he would go to the ends of hell to get his money out of [her]," that he would get his money "one way or another," and that he would put her in jail. In fact, defendant had been to see the district attorney in Lauderdale County concerning plaintiff. The matter was presented to the grand jury, before which defendant testified, and an indictment was returned in May 1977. Plaintiff was indicted for intending to hinder, delay, or defraud defendant's lien in the subject goods by selling or removing them in violation of Code 1975, § 13-4-2. Defendant testified that some time between April 1977 and March 1978, he offered to attempt to have the charge dropped if she would pay half of the balance due on the account.

In September 1977, defendant wrote to Mr. Ritch asking him to fill out a form for the purpose of collecting disability insurance to pay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 practice notes
  • Industrial Chemical & Fiberglass Corp. v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 30, 1988
    ...389 So.2d 932 (Ala.1980). And, like the trial court, we must view any evidence below most favorably to the nonmovant. Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 A witness standing on the tank at the time of the fire testified: "Q: What happened? "A: They were coming out and I couldn't see. I was trying ......
  • Ruffino v. City of Hoover, Case No. 2:08–CV–0002–SLB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • August 29, 2012
    ...the defendant, in a malicious prosecution action, is not regarded as having instigated the criminal proceeding.”Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.1982) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958, 962 (Ala.1981)), quoted in Cutts v. American United Life Ins. Co., 505 So.2d 12......
  • Ruffino v. City of Hoover, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-0002-SLB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • August 29, 2012
    ...suspects, the defendant, in a malicious prosecution action, is not regarded as having instigated the criminal proceeding.Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So. 2d 1, 3 (Ala. 1982)(quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So. 2d 958, 962 (Ala. 1981)), quoted in Cutts v. American United Life Ins. Co., ......
  • Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 10, 1989
    ...of proof on a material issue or where there are no disputed questions of fact on which reasonable people could differ. Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 (Ala.1982). When a motion for directed verdict is requested, the entire evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the opposing part......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
  • Industrial Chemical & Fiberglass Corp. v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 30, 1988
    ...389 So.2d 932 (Ala.1980). And, like the trial court, we must view any evidence below most favorably to the nonmovant. Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 A witness standing on the tank at the time of the fire testified: "Q: What happened? "A: They were coming out and I couldn't see. I was trying ......
  • Ruffino v. City of Hoover, Case No. 2:08–CV–0002–SLB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • August 29, 2012
    ...the defendant, in a malicious prosecution action, is not regarded as having instigated the criminal proceeding.”Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.1982) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958, 962 (Ala.1981)), quoted in Cutts v. American United Life Ins. Co., 505 So.2d 12......
  • Ruffino v. City of Hoover, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-0002-SLB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • August 29, 2012
    ...suspects, the defendant, in a malicious prosecution action, is not regarded as having instigated the criminal proceeding.Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So. 2d 1, 3 (Ala. 1982)(quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So. 2d 958, 962 (Ala. 1981)), quoted in Cutts v. American United Life Ins. Co., ......
  • Southern States Ford, Inc. v. Proctor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 10, 1989
    ...of proof on a material issue or where there are no disputed questions of fact on which reasonable people could differ. Ritch v. Waldrop, 428 So.2d 1 (Ala.1982). When a motion for directed verdict is requested, the entire evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the opposing part......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT