Robbins v. Sanders
Decision Date | 21 October 2005 |
Docket Number | 1040437. |
Citation | 927 So.2d 777 |
Parties | Pete M. ROBBINS v. Terrill W. SANDERS, as administrator of the estate of Mary C. Bailey, deceased; and as administrator of the estate of James B. Bailey, deceased. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Barnes F. Lovelace, Jr., of Harris, Caddell & Shanks, P.C., Decatur, for appellant.
Kay L. Cason of Gorham & Cason, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is the second appeal resulting from an action brought by the respective personal representatives of the estates of the two minority stockholders in Corridor Enterprises, Inc., against Pete M. Robbins, the majority shareholder in the corporation. The plaintiffs asserted individual claims on behalf of the estates and shareholder-derivative claims on behalf of the corporation. For a full discussion of the factual and procedural history of the lawsuit, the details of the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered following a bench trial awarding damages to the shareholder estates and Corridor Enterprises against Robbins and the seven issues Robbins raised on his appeal, see our opinion in Robbins v. Sanders, 890 So.2d 998 (Ala.2004) ("Robbins I"). We will hereinafter discuss the facts and procedural events only as necessary for our discussion of the issues presented on this second appeal.
In Robbins I we agreed with Robbins that any tort claims the husband and wife minority stockholders, James B. Bailey and Mary C. Bailey, were entitled to assert against Robbins during their lifetime, but which were not the subject of any action filed by them during their lifetimes, were extinguished at the time of their deaths, pursuant to the "survival" provisions of § 6-5-462, Ala.Code 1975. We explained, however, that this case actually involved no such tort claims:
We then noted:
Our opinion in Robbins I also disposed of Robbins's contention that "the claims asserted by the estates that are not derivative claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in § 6-2-38, Ala.Code 1975." 890 So.2d at 1012. Robbins argued that the undisputed evidence revealed that the Baileys knew enough facts during their lifetimes, and more than two years before the action was filed, to trigger the running of the two-year statute of limitations. Quoting Jefferson County Truck Growers Ass'n v. Tanner, 341 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala.1977), Robbins argued that "the Baileys had `such knowledge . . . sufficient to provoke inquiry in reasonable minds which would have led to the facts on which the claims in this action are based.'" 890 So.2d at 1012. We answered that contention as follows:
We went on to explain that the evidence established that Robbins had engaged in tortious conduct toward the minority shareholders "after the estates became the minority shareholders in Corridor Enterprises." Id.
We also addressed the "survivability" issue and the statute-of-limitations issue "in the context of the shareholder-derivative claim asserted by the estates on behalf of Corridor Enterprises." 890 So.2d at 1013. Our analysis and determinations on those issues were as follows:
On another point, we agreed with Robbins's contention that minority shareholders are not entitled to recover damages in a shareholder-derivative action. "[A]n award of damages directly to the minority shareholders on a shareholder-derivative claim is improper" because "the individual shareholders may not share in the corporation's recovery on the shareholder-derivative claims." 890 So.2d at 1014. Consequently, because "every award of damages as made by the trial court was `in favor of Corridor Enterprises, Inc. and the plaintiffs'" we held that "the manner in which the trial court structured its damages award is improper." 890 So.2d at 1014.
Last...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Gillis v. Frazier
- Tanner v. Ebbole
- Allen v. Scott (In re Scott)
-
Springhill Hosps. v. West
... ... should not be used in making a comparison, but the Court ... disagreed, explaining: ... "[The defendants] cite Robbins v. Sanders , 927 ... So.2d 777, 790 (Ala. 2005), in support of this contention ... However, the statement they quote from Robbins was ... ...
-
Post-judgment Review of Punitive Damages
...owned assets," id. A defendant's liabilities include any compensatory damages the jury or trial court awarded. See Robbins v. Sanders, 927 So. 2d 777, 791 (Ala. 2005); Wilson v. Dukona Corp., 547 So. 2d 70, 73-74 (Ala. 1989). Several cases have held that where compensatory damages consumed ......