White v. Drivas
Decision Date | 29 September 2006 |
Docket Number | 2050041. |
Citation | 954 So.2d 1119 |
Parties | Darrell WHITE v. Charles DRIVAS. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
N. Tracy Nickson, Prattville, for appellant.
Allen C. Jones, Troy, for appellee.
The plaintiff Darrell White appeals a summary judgment in favor of the defendant Charles Drivas. We reverse and remand.
On February 25, 2004, White sued Drivas and other defendants, alleging claims of conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. White subsequently dismissed his claims against all defendants other than Drivas. Drivas answered White's complaint and counterclaimed, alleging nuisance. White filed a motion for a partial summary judgment, which was supported by various evidentiary submissions. Drivas then filed a countermotion for a summary judgment on both of White's claims, and he supported the countermotion with evidentiary submissions. White subsequently filed a response to Drivas's countermotion for a summary judgment. Following a hearing on the pending motions, the trial court granted Drivas's motion for a summary judgment on August 29, 2005. White appealed the summary judgment to the supreme court, and the supreme court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.
The trial court's August 29, 2005, summary-judgment order did not adjudicate Drivas's counterclaim alleging nuisance. "A ruling that disposes of fewer than all claims or relates to fewer than all parties in an action is generally not final as to any of the parties or any of the claims. See Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P." Wilson v. Wilson, 736 So.2d 633, 634 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999). A nonfinal order will not support an appeal. Williams Power, Inc. v. Johnson, 880 So.2d 459, 461 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). This court remanded the cause to the trial court for the trial court either to certify its August 29, 2005, order as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., or to adjudicate Drivas's counterclaim alleging nuisance. Drivas subsequently dismissed his counterclaim; therefore, White's appeal is now an appeal from a final judgment.
The record on appeal establishes the following material facts. Drivas leased to Johnny Childs a mobile home located on Drivas's property. Unbeknownst to Drivas at the time, White resided at the mobile home as Childs's guest during parts of 2003. White stored personal property belonging to him at the mobile home. White also stored his inoperable 1995 Chevrolet pickup truck at the mobile-home lot. In September 2003, the mobile-home lease agreement between Drivas and Childs was terminated, and Drivas helped Childs move out of the mobile home. At or around the time that Drivas helped Childs move out, Drivas transported personal property, some of which belonged to White and some of which belonged to Childs, from the mobile home to Drivas's farm. Drivas stored the personal property at his farm. A few days after Childs vacated the mobile home, he retrieved some of his personal property from Drivas's farm. At the time, Drivas believed that all of the personal property taken from the mobile home and stored at his farm belonged to Childs. When Childs moved out, Drivas also had White's pickup truck towed by a wrecker from the mobile-home lot to Drivas's farm, where it was stored. At the time, Drivas was unaware that White owned the pickup truck.
Approximately one to two months after Childs moved out of the mobile home, White asked Drivas to return White's pickup truck and White's other personal property that Drivas was storing at his farm. It appears from the record that Drivas was then in possession of the following items of personal property belonging to White: the pickup truck, a kitchen table with two matching chairs, and a couch with a matching love seat. Drivas refused to return White's property, stating that White could not have his property unless he compensated Drivas for the costs Drivas had incurred in towing the pickup truck and storing White's property. According to White's deposition testimony, when White requested that his property be returned, Drivas told White that he would have to pay approximately "twelve hundred dollars, or something to that effect" in wrecker and storage costs in order to take possession of the property. Drivas testified by deposition that he did not tell White that he would have to pay approximately $1,200 for the return of his property. Drivas also testified that the wrecker and storage costs combined were about $400 or $500 at the time White requested the return of his property. White refused to pay Drivas, and Drivas retained White's property.
Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 690 So.2d 341, 344 (Ala.1997).
On appeal, White argues that the trial court erred by entering a summary judgment on White's conversion claim.1
Martin v. Luckie & Forney, Inc., 549 So.2d 18, 19 (Ala.1989) (emphasis added).
Jones v. DCH Health Care Auth., 621 So.2d 1322, 1323 (Ala.1993) (emphasis added). See also SouthTrust Bank v. Donely, 925 So.2d 934, 939-40 (Ala.2005).
Scott Paper Co. v. Novay Cherry Barge Serv., Inc., 48 Ala.App. 368, 371, 265 So.2d 150, 153 (Civ.App.1972). See also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 15, at 99 (5th ed. 1984) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaeffer v. Poellnitz
...qualified. Whether there is a reasonable qualified refusal to surrender personal property presents a jury question. White v. Drivas, 954 So.2d 1119, 1124 (Ala.Civ.App.2006). See Gabrielson v. Healthcorp of Eufaula, Inc., 628 So.2d 411, 414 (Ala.1993). In this case, there was sufficient evid......
-
Romer v. Romer, No. 2080353 (Ala. Civ. App. 12/4/2009)
...no. 2080353, is due to be dismissed as having been taken from an interlocutory order of the trial court. See White v. Drivas, 954 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ("A nonfinal order will not support an appeal."). For the reasons that the trial court's September 24, 2008, QDRO was a f......
-
Romer v. Romer, No. 2080353 (Ala. Civ. App. 9/25/2009)
...no. 2080353, is due to be dismissed as having been taken from an interlocutory order of the trial court. See White v. Drivas, 954 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) ("A nonfinal order will not support an appeal."). For the reasons that the trial court's September 24, 2008, QDRO was a f......
-
Massey v. Shell
...or its detention, and without illegal assumption of ownership or illegal user or misuser, is not conversion." White v. Drivas, 954 So. 2d 1119, 1123 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). In addition, "where a taker acquires possession of the property rightfully and has neither asserted legal title to it n......