Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Alabama
Decision Date | 29 September 1989 |
Citation | 551 So.2d 1045 |
Parties | Linda SANDERS, et al. v. COLONIAL BANK OF ALABAMA, a corporation, et al. 88-409. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James H. Faulkner, Birmingham, for appellants.
Bradley R. Byrne of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, and James L. North, Birmingham, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Colonial Bank ("the Bank") on a claim by Linda Sanders for injunctive relief and damages based on alleged unconscionability and bad faith in the Bank's assessing a $15 service charge for each check honored by the Bank when funds in Sanders's account were insufficient to cover the issued check. We affirm.
Two issues are presented: 1 "1) If relief is granted by the trial court for an unconscionable contract, whether that relief can be limited to prospective relief only; and 2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Sanders's complaint that Colonial Bank breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with its depositors."
As to issue number one, we find no error. See Cowin Equipment Co. v. General Motors Corp., 734 F.2d 1581 (11th Cir.1984) ( ); Lloyd v. Service Corp. of Alabama, 453 So.2d 735 (Ala.1984); and Ex parte Redshaw, Inc., 524 So.2d 367 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). For cases to like effect in other jurisdictions, see Galvin v. First National Monetary Corp., 624 F.Supp. 154 (E.D.N.Y.1985); Bennett v. Behring Corp., 466 F.Supp. 689 (S.D.Fla.1979); Jamestown Farmers Elevator Inc. v. General Mills, 413 F.Supp. 764 (D.N.D.1976), rev'd on other grounds, 552 F.2d 1285 (8th Cir.1977); Whitman v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 400 F.Supp. 1341 (D.Conn.1975); Best v. United States Bank of Oregon, 78 Or.App. 1, 714 P.2d 1049 (1986), aff'd, 303 Or. 557, 739 P.2d 554 (1987); Witmer v. Exxon Corp., 260 Pa.Super. 537, 394 A.2d 1276 (1978); and Vom Lehn v. Astor Art Galleries, Ltd., 86 Misc.2d 1, 380 N.Y.S.2d 532 (Sup.Ct.1976). See, also, the following treatises: J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 4-8 (2d ed. 1980); W. Jaeger, 15 Williston On Contracts § 1763A at 215 (3d ed. 1972); and 1 Corbin, Corbin On Contracts § 128 (1963).
As to issue number two, we find no error. See Peninsular Life Insurance Co. v. Blackmon, 476 So.2d 87 (Ala.1985) ( ). For other cases that have refused to extend the tort of bad faith, see Brown-Marx Associates, Ltd. v. Emigrant Savings Bank, 527 F.Supp. 277 (N.D.Ala.1981) (applying Alabama law); Gaylord v. Lawler Mobile Homes, Inc., 477 So.2d 382 (Ala.1985) (sales contract); Williams v. Killough, 474 So.2d 680 (Ala.1985) ( ); Keeton v. Bank of Red Bay, 466 So.2d 937 (Ala.1985) (foreclosure redemption contracts); Hall v. Hall, 455 So.2d 813 (Ala.1984) ( ); and Kennedy Electric Co. v. Moore-Handley, 437 So.2d 76 (Ala.1983) (settlement agreements).
AFFIRMED.
1 We take these two issues directly from the appellant's brief and we note that a third issue (whether the trial court erred in denying certification of the suit as a class action) is mooted in light of our affirmance of the judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elmy v. W. Express, Inc.
...Although we have been unable to find any Tennessee cases directly on point, we agree with the decisions in Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Alabama, 551 So.2d 1045 (Ala.1989) and Cowen Equipment Co. v. General Motors Corp., 734 F.2d 1581 (11th Cir.1984), which hold that the doctrine of unconscio......
-
Camp v. Ala. Telco Credit Union
...law, unconscionability is an affirmative defense and not available for use in obtaining affirmative relief. Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Alabama, 551 So. 2d 1045, 1045 (Ala. 1989); Cowin Equipment Co., Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 734 F.2d 1581, 1582-83 (11th Cir. 1984); Winecoff v. Compass......
-
WINECOFF v. Compass Bank
...that the bank's assessment of a $15 service charge on checks returned for insufficient funds was unconscionable. Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Alabama, 551 So.2d 1045 (Ala.1989). In so holding, our supreme court cited with approval a number of cases holding that the doctrine of unconscionabil......
-
Williams v. E.F. Hutton Mortg. Corp.
...that the doctrine of unconscionability is not available to obtain affirmative relief, but only as a defense." Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Alabama, 551 So.2d 1045, 1045 (Ala.1989). Sanders and most of the authorities cited therein, including Cowin, concerned the application of the Uniform Co......
-
Evolving Business and Social Normsand Interpretation Rules: the Needfor a Dynamic Approach Tocontract Disputes
...sophisticated than consumers, would garner even less success with the defense." Id. 227. Id. 228. See Sanders v. Colonial Bank of Am., 551 So. 2d 1045 (Ala. 1989) (per curiam); Cal. Grocers Ass'n, Inc. v. Bank of Am., 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (stating that CAL. CIV. CODE § ......