Rivers v. Oakwood College
| Decision Date | 02 December 1983 |
| Parties | 101 Lab.Cas. P 55,483, 15 Ed. Law Rep. 433 Ruth L. RIVERS v. OAKWOOD COLLEGE, et al. 82-783. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Kenneth L. Thomas of Massey, Means & Thomas, Montgomery, for appellant.
Edward L. Hopper, Huntsville, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment in an action filed by Mrs. Ruth Rivers in the Circuit Court of Madison County against Oakwood College, Huntsville, Alabama, and certain officials of the college. We reverse.
Mrs. Ruth L. Rivers was employed as a full-time instructor by Oakwood College for four consecutive school years, namely, the 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82 school years. For each of these school years, Mrs. Rivers signed a "Notice of Employment" which served as her employment contract with Oakwood.
This controversy concerns Mrs. Rivers's employment contract for the 1981-82 school year. On June 8, 1981, Mrs. Rivers and Mr. C.B. Brock, president of Oakwood, signed a "Notice of Employment" for the 1981-82 school year. This particular "Notice of Employment" provided that Mrs. Rivers would be employed from "8/10/81 to 6/11/82," as a full-time instructor with a prescribed rate of pay. Under the "Remarks" section of this contract, however, it stated:
"95% Salary Plan--12 monthly pay periods starting July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981."
The record indicates that the dates stated under the "Remarks" section were incorrect, as the result of a clerical error, and the correct dates should have been "July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982." The business office, which was in charge of drawing up the employment contracts, was responsible for the error.
Just after Mrs. Rivers's contract was signed, Maxine Logan, the president's secretary, noticed the error, and alerted Mr. Brock. They agreed that a revised contract should be drawn up, and Mrs. Logan instructed the business office accordingly.
A representative of the president's office then called Mrs. Rivers and informed her that there was an error in the contract that she had signed on June 8, 1981, and that she should come in and sign a revised contract. The date of this call is in dispute, but it is clear that Mrs. Rivers came in and signed the revised contract on June 29, 1981. It should be noted that both versions of the 1981-82 contract stated that "This Notice of Employment is void if not signed and returned by June 19, 1981."
Mrs. Rivers proceeded to work as a full-time instructor at Oakwood College for the 1981-82 school year and was paid the salary prescribed in both versions of her 1981-82 contract. By letter dated December 2, 1981, Mr. Brock informed Mrs. Rivers that she would not be rehired for the 1982-83 school year.
The record indicates that during the 1981-82 school year, Oakwood College had in effect certain policies and guidelines which the college was obliged to follow in dealing with faculty members. These guidelines and policies are outlined in its handbook entitled General Policies and Benefits for Full-Time Faculty Employees, 1980 Edition. This handbook provides, under "SEPARATION OF A TEACHER NOT ON CONTINUOUS APPOINTMENT," in pertinent part:
On October 6, 1982, Mrs. Rivers filed suit against Oakwood College, et al. In her complaint, Mrs. Rivers sought a judgment declaring that the defendants had violated the above-stated provisions of Oakwood's General Policies and Benefits for Full-Time Faculty Employees by failing to give her timely notice of nonreappointment. Mrs. Rivers also asked the court to declare that Oakwood had breached its contract of employment with her and to enter mandatory preliminary, and permanent injunctions requiring defendants to reinstate Rivers as a full-time business education instructor with all back pay, allowances, seniority, tenure status, and retirement benefits to which she would have been entitled had she been rehired for the 1982-83 school year.
Following denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, denial of each party's motion for summary judgment, and trial of the case ore tenus, the trial judge entered an order declaring:
"... that Ruth Rivers was, following June 19, 1981, an employee at will of the college, and thus she was not the beneficiary of the policies and procedures accorded those employees teaching under contract with the school."
Accordingly, the trial court denied Mrs. Rivers's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middleton v. Dan River, Inc.
...by the parties. Therefore, the surrounding circumstances may help to determine the intention of the parties. See Rivers v. Oakwood College, 442 So.2d 74, 76 (Ala.1983). While the petition itself referred to "any and all claims employee has or may have in the future," it was part of a claim ......
-
Devlin v. Ingrum
...factfinder to determine the true meaning of the contract.' " Owen v. Rutledge, 475 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala.1985) (quoting Rivers v. Oakwood College, 442 So.2d 74, 76 (Ala.1983)); see Byrd Cos., Inc. v. Birmingham Trust Nat'l Bank, 482 So.2d 247, 251 (Ala.1985) (Unless ambiguity is found in a co......
-
Lemond Const. Co. v. Wheeler
...the true meaning of the contract becomes a question for the jury to decide. Dill v. Blakeney, 568 So.2d 774 (Ala.1990); Rivers v. Oakwood College, 442 So.2d 74 (Ala.1983); Miles College, Inc. v. Oliver, 382 So.2d 510 (Ala.1980). The trial court determined that expert testimony would assist ......
-
Ex parte Warrior Basin Gas Co.
...of dispute to be the subject of arbitration. Further, Tre-J argues that, construing the contract against the drafter, Rivers v. Oakwood College, 442 So.2d 74 (Ala.1983), the trial court correctly concluded that the parties intended only a narrow arbitration clause, one applying only to disp......