THOMPSON PROP. v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow
Decision Date | 09 July 2004 |
Parties | THOMPSON PROPERTIES 119 AA 370, LTD., and Thompson Properties 123 AA 370, Ltd. v. BIRMINGHAM HIDE AND TALLOW COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
David B. Anderson, N. Christian Glenos, and Ryan K. Cochran of Walston, Wells, Anderson & Bains, LLP, Birmingham, for appellants.
Eric J. Breithaupt, Richard E. Smith, Deborah Alley Smith, and Jessica K. Stetler of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
On July 9, 1997, Thompson Properties 119 AA 370, Ltd., and Thompson Properties 123 AA 370, Ltd. (hereinafter "the Partnerships"), sued Birmingham Hide and Tallow Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Hide"), and Eastern Valley Trading Company (hereinafter "Eastern"), in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The Partnerships appeal from a judgment in favor of Hide implementing a jury verdict. We affirm.
The Partnerships, as creditors of Eastern's sole shareholder and president, Ronald L. Rockhill, sought to have certain transfers of property set aside pursuant to the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("the AUFTA"), Ala.Code 1975, § 8-9A-1 et seq., on the theory that the properties had been transferred fraudulently. The Partnerships sought to obtain a judgment declaring that Eastern was the alter ego of Rockhill, that a conspiracy existed to defraud the Partnerships, as creditors of Rockhill, and that the transfer of certain assets from Eastern to Hide were fraudulent and in violation of the Partnerships' interests as creditors. The Partnerships sought compensatory damages, as measured by the value of the properties Eastern had transferred to Hide, and punitive damages; the Partnerships also sought to have constructive and equitable trusts imposed on their behalf on any property of Eastern that Hide still possessed as a result of Hide's transaction with Eastern and Rockhill.
On August 26, 1997, Hide answered the complaint and asserted as an affirmative defense that it was a bona fide purchaser for value of the property received from Eastern. Because Eastern did not answer the complaint, the trial court, on October 1, 1997, entered a default judgment against it; that judgment stated, in pertinent part:
On October 6, 1999, the Partnerships filed a motion for a summary judgment on their claims against Hide; on October 28, 1999, Hide filed its opposition to the Partnerships' summary-judgment motion, arguing as follows:
On August 29, 2000, Hide amended its answer to add the affirmative defense that the money it gave Rockhill on the sale of the properties was a "gift."
On October 13, 2000, Hide filed what it labeled as a "renewed" motion for a summary judgment, arguing:
On October 17, 2000, the trial court issued an order granting Hide's motion for a summary judgment on all counts asserted against it by the Partnerships, based on Folmar & Associates LLP v. Holberg, 776 So.2d 112 (Ala.2000), and dismissing the case with prejudice. The Partnerships appealed the summary judgment, and this Court reversed, stating, in pertinent part:
Thompson Props. v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow Co., 839 So.2d 629, 634 (Ala.2002).
The case was tried before a jury. On January 31, 2003, the jury returned a verdict for Hide; the trial court subsequently entered a judgment on that verdict. The Partnerships filed a postjudgment motion for a judgment as a matter of law ("JML"), and a motion for a new trial. The Partnerships argued that they were entitled to a JML on their claims of fraudulent transfer based on the application of law to the undisputed facts; alternatively, they argued that they were entitled to a new trial because of alleged errors in the jury instructions and alleged juror misconduct. They submitted affidavits of jury members in support of the juror-misconduct claim. Hide filed an opposition to the motions and also moved to strike the affidavits of the jury members. On April 10, the trial court granted Hide's motion to strike the affidavits, and denied both postjudgment motions. It provided the following detailed analysis of its rationale for striking the affidavits:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exxon Mobil v. Ala. Dept. of Conservation
...v. Daugherty, 840 So.2d 152, 156 (Ala. 2002)). See also Cochran v. Ward, 935 So.2d 1169 (Ala.2006); Thompson Props. 119 AA 370, Ltd. v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow Co., 897 So.2d 248 (Ala.2004); and Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Land Energy, Ltd., 886 So.2d 787 (Ala.2004). Moreover, with respect......
-
Davis v. Legal Servs. Ala., Inc.
...then Davis’ conspiracy claim founded on those claims or acts must fail as a matter of law. See Thompson Props. 119 AA 370, Ltd. v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow Co. , 897 So. 2d 248, 267 (Ala. 2004) (In Alabama, if "the underlying cause of action is not viable, the conspiracy claim must also fai......
-
City of Orange Beach v. Boles
... ... 1237, 1240 (Ala. 1999)." ... Thompson Props. 119 AA 370, Ltd. v. Birmingham Hide ... ...
-
Leo v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.
...if "the underlying cause of action is not viable, the conspiracy claim must also fail." Thompson Properties 119 AA 370, Ltd. v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow Co., 897 So. 2d 248, 267 (Ala. 2004). Because Counts Two and Three will survive to some extent, and given the limited nature of Alfa's arg......
-
Misconduct
...of community institutions, such as hotels. STATE CASES ALABAMA Thompson Properties 119 AA 370, Ltd. v. Birmingham Hide and Tallow Co. , 897 So. 2d 248, 264-65 (2004). Jury foreperson’s alleged conduct in reading her notes to the jury during its deliberations did not amount to the introducti......
-
Point: Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice-a 10-year Review of the Alabama Supreme Court's Treatment of Jury Verdicts in the Plaintiffs' Favor
...888 So. 2d 1208 (Ala. 2003)($300,000).25. The jury verdicts affirmed in 2004 were: Thompson Properties v. Birmingham Hide & Tallow, 897 So. 2d 248 (Ala. 2004)($194,000); George H. Lanier Mem'l Hosp. v. Andrews, 901 So. 2d 714 (Ala. 2004)($200,000); Continental Casualty Co. v. Plantation Pip......