Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson
Decision Date | 05 October 2001 |
Citation | 816 So.2d 1 |
Parties | WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. Reginald S. PATTERSON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
David S. Snoddy and David A. Lee of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Rhonda Pitts Chambers of Taylor & Taylor, Birmingham; and Bill Thomason of Lipscomb & Thomason, P.C., Bessemer, for appellee. WOODALL, Justice.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"), sought permission pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., to appeal the denial of the summary-judgment motion it filed in an action commenced against it by Reginald S. Patterson. We granted Wal-Mart permission to appeal, and we affirm.
According to the undisputed facts, on September 13, 1993, Sandra Patterson, at that time the estranged wife of Reginald S. Patterson, entered the Wal-Mart discount store in Fairfield, presented merchandise at a checkout counter, and issued a check drawn on the account of Reginald S. Patterson at AmSouth Bank, N.A. ("Am-South"), in payment for the merchandise.1 She signed the check "Reginald S. Patterson." AmSouth refused to honor the check because there were insufficient funds in the account, and it returned the check to Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart attempted unsuccessfully to contact Reginald Patterson at the telephone number printed on the check. On October 19, 1993, Wal-Mart sent a notice by certified mail to "Reginald S. Patterson," at the address printed on the check. That notice stated, in pertinent part:
After unsuccessfully attempting delivery on three separate dates, the United States postal service returned the notice, marked "Unclaimed."
On July 11, 1997, the Fairfield Municipal Court, upon Wal-Mart's complaint, issued a warrant for the arrest of Reginald S. Patterson. On July 15, 1997, Patterson voluntarily presented himself to the Fairfield Police Department for arrest. On October 9, 1997, the case was nolprossed on the ground that the signature on the check was a forgery.
Thereafter, Patterson sued Wal-Mart on various theories of negligence, wantonness, and malicious prosecution. Wal-Mart moved for a summary judgment, on the ground that it was immune from civil liability for instigating the prosecution of Patterson.2 In its order denying that motion, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:
On November 17, 2000, Wal-Mart moved for a certification of appealability to this Court of a "controlling issue of law," which Wal-Mart described as follows:
The trial court granted Wal-Mart's motion, and, pursuant to Ala. R.App. P. 5, this Court allowed Wal-Mart permission to appeal. On appeal, Wal-Mart contends that the trial court erred in denying its summary-judgment motion on the basis that it failed to present evidence that it had complied with the identity provisions of § 13A-9-13.3. Thus, the sole question before us is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that Wal-Mart is not entitled to the immunity § 13A-9-13.2 affords the holder of a dishonored check, absent evidence that it had complied with the identification procedures set forth in § 13A-9-13.3. We answer that question in the negative.
At all relevant times, the Alabama Worthless Check Act, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 13A-9-13.1 to -13.3 ("the Act"), provided, in pertinent part:3
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morris v. Estes, 5:11-cv-01129-SLB-JEO
...195 (5th Cir. 2009); Ex parte Shaver, 894 So. 2d 781 (Ala. 2004); Ex parte Aaron, 913 So. 2d 1110 (Ala. 2005); and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 816 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2001)). Morris asserts that had such "new evidence been presented at [his] trial, there is a substantial likelihood or pr......
-
Kitchens v. Turquoise Properties Gulf Inc.Turquoise Properties Gulf Inc. v. Blakely M. Kitchens
...no authority to rewrite the statute to embrace the broader standard of manifest disregard of the law. See, e.g., Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 816 So.2d 1, 6 (Ala.2001) (‘The Court is not at liberty to rewrite statutes, Reed v. Board of Trustees for Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791,......
-
West v. BRUNNO'S, INC.
...otherwise might constitute malicious prosecution. However, our supreme court recently overruled Johnson. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 816 So.2d 1 (Ala.2001). In Patterson, our supreme court found Johnson to be inapplicable where there is no evidence before the court that the hold......
-
Ex parte Carlton
...this Court is not at liberty to rewrite statutes or to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 816 So.2d 1 (Ala.2001); see also Omni Ins. Co. v. Foreman, 802 So.2d 195 Pursuant to the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, Carlton may not recover......