White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. Prs II, LLC

Citation998 So.2d 1042
Decision Date18 April 2008
Docket Number1070050.
PartiesWHITE SANDS GROUP, L.L.C.; Jeff Valentine; and Chris Rolison v. PRS II, LLC, et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

George W. Walker III and C. Nelson Gill of Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA, Montgomery, for appellants.

Jerome E. Speegle, Anthony M. Hoffman, and Jennifer S. Holifield of Zieman, Speegle, Jackson & Hoffman, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellees PRS II, L.L.C., Langan Development Co., Bar Pilot Land, L.L.C., and Pilots Pointe Development, L.L.C.

J. Byron Brackin III of Brackin, McGriff & Johnson, P.C., Foley, for appellees Michael Asfour and Peter Sterling.

WOODALL, Justice.

This appeal is brought by Jeff Valentine, Chris Rolison, and White Sands Group, L.L.C. ("White Sands")—a real-estate developer whose members include Valentine and Rolison (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Group")—following the entry of a summary judgment in favor of PRS II, LLC, and others in a quiet-title action commenced by PRS II against White Sands and Valentine. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I. The Case

This action began on August 3, 2005, when PRS II filed a complaint against White Sands and Valentine. The complaint sought a judgment declaring that PRS II owned an undivided fee interest in approximately 96 acres known as "Pilot Town" in Baldwin County, and that White Sands and Valentine had no valid interest in or claim to any portion of the property. In September 2005, White Sands and Rolison filed a five-count counter-complaint against PRS II and numerous additional entities and individuals. At the motions of the counterclaim defendants, the trial court dismissed counts four and five of the counter-complaint and entered a summary judgment against White Sands and Rolison on the remaining counts of the counter-complaint, as well against White Sands and Valentine on PRS II's complaint. This appeal challenges the propriety of the summary judgment, as well as the dismissal of counts four and five.

II. Factual Background

Viewed in a light most favorable to the Group, the evidence tends to show the following. The dispute underlying this litigation arose out of the proposed development of Pilot Town and the purported purchase by White Sands of a portion of the property within the Pilot Town development. The property on which Pilot Town was to be developed was owned by Thomas Langan, Jr. (also referred to as "Tommy Langan"), and other members of the Langan family, either individually or through various business entities hereinafter described. By May 2004, the Langans had begun contemplating the platting and subdivision of that property for sale as single-family residences. Indeed, on December 4, 2002, the Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Commission granted "Preliminary Plat Approval" for the development and subdivision of Pilot Town.

The Langans' real-estate operations, and the Pilot Town project in particular, involved various business entities owned by one or more of the Langans. One such entity was Langan Development Company, Inc. ("Langan Development"), a corporation wholly owned by Thomas Langan, Jr. Other entities included Bar Pilot Land, L.L.C. ("Bar Pilot"), and Pilots Pointe Development, L.L.C. ("Pilots Pointe"). These three entities will be referred to collectively herein as "the Langan entities."

In May 2004, Valentine and Rolison met with Langan to discuss a possible purchase by White Sands of property within Pilot Town. Subsequently, on May 12, 2004, Valentine, on behalf of White Sands, addressed a letter to "Thomas J. Langan, Jr.," and "Langan Development Company." The letter stated, in pertinent part:

"I'm writing to make a formal offer on lots in the Pilot Town subdivision at mile marker 3 off hwy 180 in Fort Morgan.

"We are making the offer thru our development company, White Sands Group, L.L.C. in the amount of $85,000 cash on (5) lots 23-27. We are agreeable to making a deposit to show good faith in the project.

"We are in contact with potential buyers of some of your waterfront lots as well. We propose a 5% compensation to White Sands Group for any successful purchasers of additional lots in the neighborhood.

"This offer is contingent on amenities described and discussed previously. They are inclusive of but not limited to a swimming pool with waterfall, community entertainment area, community access to the bay front with a possible pier, neighborhood to be gated, etc.

"The offer is also contingent on successful subdivision of lots and completion of roadways. It was also expressed that environmental, wetlands delineation, archeological, beach mouse, and all other issues have been addressed which will provide these lots to be buildable thru the normal permitting process. The offer is also subject to our ability to obtain reasonable financing at the completion of the neighborhood.

"I look forward to hearing from you promptly. Please call me if you have any questions."

(Emphasis added.) The letter was signed by Valentine as the purchaser.

Langan "penciled in" some changes in the third paragraph, and struck out the words "with waterfall" in the fourth paragraph. These changes were reflected in a letter addressed to "Thomas J. Langan, Jr.," and "Langan Development Co.," dated May 17, 2004, which stated, in pertinent part:

"I'm writing to make a formal offer on lots in the Pilot Town subdivision at mile marker 3 off hwy 180 in Fort Morgan.

"We are making the offer thru our development company, White Sands Group, L.L.C. in the amount of $85,000 cash on (5) lots 23-27. We will place a deposit of $2,000.00 per lot until the subdivision is complete and we can proceed with closing. Upon closing, we agree to pull building permits and begin construction on one of the lots within 2 months. Any delays in the permitting process will be in addition to the 2 month projected start.

"White Sands Group will receive 5% compensation for purchasers of waterfront lots, in the amount of $210,000.00 or greater. These buyers will be introduced by us, and this commission option expires on 6/11/2004.

"This offer is contingent on amenities described and discussed previously. They are inclusive of but not limited to a swimming pool, community entertainment area, community access to the bay front with a possible pier, neighborhood to be gated, etc.

"The offer is also contingent on successful subdivision of lots and completion of roadways. It was also expressed that environmental, wetlands delineation, archeological, beach mouse, and all other issues have been addressed which will provide these lots to be buildable thru the normal permitting process. The offer is also subject to our ability to obtain reasonable financing at the completion of the neighborhood.

"I look forward to hearing from you promptly. Please call me if you have any questions."

(Emphasis added.) The letter (hereinafter referred to as "the Valentine letter") was signed by Valentine as the purchaser and initialed by Thomas Langan as the seller.

On July 8, 2004, Langan accepted an "offer to purchase" Pilot Town ("the Pilot Town contract") from Peter Sterling and Michael Asfour, members of P & M Builders, LLC ("P & M"), an entity based in New York. The contract expressly excluded lots 23-27, as well as several lots reserved by various members of the Langan family. It contemplated the construction on the remainder of the property of "five condominium structures" and a "full service marina," consisting of at least 275 "boat slips." On July 22, 2004, Sterling and Asfour contracted with Rolison ("the Rolison contract") for Rolison to perform construction services on the facilities to be built under the Pilot Town contract.

Sterling and Asfour sought financing through Peter Morris of PRM Realty, Inc. ("PRM"), in Chicago. In August 2004, Morris, Sterling, Asfour, and Langan viewed the property. At that time, they discussed White Sands' interest in Pilot Town. Also at that time, Morris and Sterling expressed an interest in acquiring Pilot Town in its entirety for the construction of condominiums. In that connection, P & M hired Volkert & Associates, Inc. ("Volkert"), "to perform certain professional surveying, planning, environmental, and engineering services for improvements" to Pilot Town.

Subsequently, Tommy Langan and Morris began to discuss whether the Valentine letter was an enforceable contract. Morris wanted the purchase of Pilot Town to include the property in its entirety, and he began, in his words, to "put pressure on" the Langans to include in the sale some or all of the lots excluded from the Pilot Town contract.

On October 11, 2004, the Langans sent Valentine a letter, stating, in pertinent part:

"Per your conversation the other day with Tommy Langan, I am writing about your option dated 5/[17]/04 to Langan Development Company. Due to [damage inflicted by Hurricane Ivan] we are having to add some additional cost to the lots to cover the damage, interest and fee delays, and clean-up to name just a few items. At this point we also are not able to complete the swimming pool, community entertainment area, community access to bay or the front wall and gates and are not sure when they will be complete. However once the roadways and base utilities are in we will give you the total cost change per lot and at that time you will need to close on the lots in your option letter. Any additional environmental, wetlands delineation, archeological, or other issues will also have to be taken into consideration as to the total lot cost. Also as previously agreed we are adding the pro-rata share per lot the cost of the proposed pier/marina, bulkhead (time frame for construction not yet determined) and sewer and water cost."

(Emphasis added.) On October 21, 2004, after receiving this letter, Valentine sent a letter to Mark Langan, stating, in pertinent part:

"I'm writing to express that we are still interested in our reserved lots in Pilot Town. I am...

To continue reading

Request your trial
305 cases
  • Okafor v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 12 de fevereiro de 2016
    ...and relevant legal authorities that support the party's position. If they do not, the arguments are waived." White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.2008). In his brief to this court, Okafor cites Miranda and other cases holding that statements made by a person in......
  • Tanner v. Ebbole
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 30 de dezembro de 2011
    ...871 So.2d 1, 20 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994)).”White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.2008). The trial court correctly concluded that a jury issue was presented with respect to whether the material on th......
  • Hope For Families & Cmty. Serv. Inc. v. Warren
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 30 de junho de 2010
    ...and tortious interference with a business relationship are “separate and distinct” torts. White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1054 (Ala.2008) (“ White Sands I ”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A legal significance of that separation is that “the absen......
  • Perdue v. Green
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 de abril de 2013
    ...not contain the legal and factual analysis necessary to comply with the rule, then the argument is waived. White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.2008). Because the briefs on return to remand do not explain how § 16–33C–19 constitutes an “existing defense” under......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Twombly and Iqbal: the Effect of the "plausibility" Pleading Standard on Alabama Litigators
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 71-1, January 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure were patterned after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1056 (Ala. 2008) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Ex parte Scott, 414 So. 2d 939, 941 (Ala. 1982) ("Due to the similarity of the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT