Ross v. W. Wind Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
Decision Date | 05 February 2016 |
Docket Number | 2140675. |
Citation | 216 So.3d 438 |
Parties | Howard ROSS. v. WEST WIND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1150783.
Michael F. Robertson, Huntsville, for appellant.
Curtis L. Whitmore, Huntsville, for appellee.
Howard Ross appeals from a judgment entered by the Madison Circuit Court ("the trial court") in a civil action he had brought against, among others, West Wind Condominium Association, Inc. ("West Wind"). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This is the second appeal involving Ross's claims against West Wind. In Ross v. West Wind Condominium Ass'n, 153 So.3d 29 (Ala.Civ.App.2012), this court affirmed summary judgments the trial court had entered in favor of West Wind and Joseph London III; however, in Ex parte Ross, 153 So.3d 43 (Ala.2014), our supreme court reversed this court's judgment, and we subsequently reversed the summary judgments in favor of West Wind and London and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the supreme court's opinion. Ross v. West Wind Condo. Ass'n, 153 So.3d 52 (Ala.Civ.App.2014).
The supreme court's opinion recites the following facts that are pertinent to this appeal:
In 2008, Ross sued West Wind, London, Jimmy Spruill, Cynthia Spruill, and Delvin Sullivan, alleging, among other things, that the foreclosure sales were invalid because, he said, West Wind had failed to give Ross "reasonable advance notice" of the foreclosure sales as required by § 35–8A–316(a), Ala.Code 1975.1 Thereafter, the trial court entered a default judgment against Sullivan and entered summary judgments in favor of London, the Spruills, and West Wind; however, those judgments did not dispose of the Spruills' cross-claims against West Wind and their counterclaims against Ross. In April 2011, the Spruills and West Wind stipulated to the dismissal, without prejudice, of the Spruills' cross-claims against West Wind, and the trial court entered an order dismissing those cross-claims without prejudice. On July 22, 2011, the Spruills executed quitclaim deeds conveying title to the two condominium units they had purchased from West Wind to Ross in consideration of Ross's paying the Spruills $8,000, and Ross and the Spruills filed a stipulation to the dismissal, with prejudice, of Ross's claims against the Spruills and the Spruills' counterclaims against Ross. Also on July 22, 2011, Ross filed a postjudgment motion challenging the summary judgment in favor of West Wind. On July 25, 2011, the trial court entered an order dismissing, with prejudice, Ross's claims against the Spruills and the Spruills' cross-claims against Ross. That same day, the trial court entered an order denying Ross's postjudgment motion. Ross then appealed from the summary judgments in favor of West Wind and London. As noted above, this court affirmed those summary judgments in Ross v. West Wind, 153 So.3d at 42 ; the supreme court reversed this court's judgment in Ex parte Ross, 153 So.3d at 49 ; and this court subsequently reversed the summary judgments in favor of West Wind and London and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the supreme court's opinion, Ross v. West Wind, 153 So.3d at 52.
After remand, the trial court held a bench trial at which it received evidence ore tenus. Following the trial, the parties stipulated in writing to some of the facts pertinent to a decision in the action and filed post-trial briefs. In his post-trial brief, Ross argued that West Wind's foreclosures of his condominium units were invalid because, he said, he had not been afforded the "reasonable advance notice" of the foreclosures required by § 35–8A–316(a). He further argued that, because the foreclosures were invalid, he was entitled to have title to those condominium units restored to him, to recover damages from West Wind, and to recover an attorney fee from West Wind pursuant to § 35–8A–414, Ala.Code 1975, which provides, in pertinent part:
Ross, who had not introduced any evidence establishing the amount of the attorney fee he had incurred, stated in his post-trial brief that "[he would] submit an itemized statement for his attorney's fees upon the request of the Court."
After the parties submitted their written stipulation of facts and filed their post-trial briefs, the trial court entered a judgment finding that West Wind had failed to give Ross the reasonable advance notice required by § 35–8A–316(a) and that, therefore, the foreclosure sales conducted by West Wind were invalid. As relief, the judgment ordered that title to the condominium units be restored to Ross. However, the judgment denied Ross's claim seeking damages from West Wind on the ground that "Ross [had] failed to provide any, much less sufficient, evidence upon which any damage award could reliably be based" and denied his claim seeking recovery of an attorney fee from West Wind.
Ross timely filed a postjudgment motion asserting that the trial court had erred insofar as it had denied his claims seeking to recover damages and an attorney fee from West Wind. The trial court denied Ross's postjudgment motion, and he then timely appealed. Our supreme court transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to § 12–2–7(6), Ala.Code 1975.2
Because the trial court received evidence ore tenus, our review is governed by the following principles:
Retail Developers of Alabama, LLC v. East Gadsden Golf Club, Inc., 985 So.2d 924, 929 (Ala.2007).
Ross first argues that the trial court erred insofar as it denied his claim seeking to recover damages from West Wind because, he says, he proved that the invalid foreclosures of the two condominium units that West Wind had subsequently conveyed to the Spruills had proximately caused him to pay the Spruills $8,000 as consideration for their executing a quitclaim deed restoring title to those two condominium units to him. We agree that the doctrine of mitigation of damages required him to minimize his damages by acquiring title to those condominium units from the Spruills. See Auburn's Gameday Ctr. at Magnolia Corner Owners Ass'n v. Murray, 138 So.3d 317, 328 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) . Accordingly, because the undisputed evidence indicated that Ross had paid the Spruills $8,000 in order to acquire title to those two condominium units from them, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that Ross had introduced no evidence that would support an award of damages with respect to those two condominium units.
Ross next argues that the trial court erred in denying his claim seeking to recover damages from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bragdon v. Bayshore Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...under [the enforcement provision]" is a "matter[ ] that [is] within the discretion of the trial court." Ross v. W. Wind Condo. Ass'n, Inc. , 216 So. 3d 438, 444 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). Other courts have made similar observations. 16 When interpreting Rhode Island's version of the Condominium......