Jerry James v. City of Russellville

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/08/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080881 J e r r y James v. City of R u s s e l l v i l l e Appeal from F r a n k l i n C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-900042) MOORE, J u d g e . Jerry James a p p e a l s f r o m a summary judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y o f R u s s e l l v i l l e i n a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t and fraud action. We a f f i r m . 2080881 On September 5, 2002, James f i l e d a f i v e - c o u n t complaint a g a i n s t the C i t y of R u s s e l l v i l l e ("the C i t y " ) a r i s i n g out of the C i t y ' s a l l e g e d r e f u s a l t o a l l o w him t o l o c a t e manufactured homes i n c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y b a s e d on t h e C i t y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i t s t h e n - e x i s t i n g ordinance. On A u g u s t 10, 2003, w h i l e t h e a c t i o n was the adopted City a new zoning a d d r e s s i n g m a n u f a c t u r e d homes. the On City entered into a "mediation pending action things, pave i n which the accordance with the City ordinance July James and normal c i t y standards t o , among Run other subdivision " i n and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s On December 3 1 , 2004, no James and S e t t l e m e n t A g r e e m e n t " ( " t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t " ) i n w h i c h he r e l e a s e d the specifically 22, 2004, agreed i n the Deer executed a "General Release pending, agreement" r e g a r d i n g the streets l a t e r t h a n September 20, 2 0 0 7 . " zoning a l l claims against C i t y i n e x c h a n g e f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , the performance o f t h e p r o m i s e s t h e C i t y h a d made i n t h e m e d i a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . I n A u g u s t 2007, t h e C i t y began p a v i n g t h e s t r e e t s Deer Run subdivision. paved a t a w i d t h o f 20 James demanded t h a t feet. m e d i a t i o n agreement r e q u i r e d The i n the the s t r e e t s C i t y maintained that be the o n l y t h a t i t pave t h e s t r e e t s a t 2 2080881 a w i d t h o f 18 f e e t . James n o t i f i e d t h e C i t y t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o p u r s u e l e g a l a c t i o n i f t h e C i t y d i d n o t p a v e t h e s t r e e t s as he demanded. that A t t h a t p o i n t , t h e mayor o f t h e C i t y a l l paving resolved. City work cease until the instructed dispute could James f i l e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e on December 10, 2007, w h i c h he amended on F e b r u a r y 2008, t o a l l e g e t h a t t h e C i t y h a d d e f r a u d e d h i m i n t o the mediation stating be that agreement i t would and pave the s u b d i v i s i o n a t a w i d t h o f 20 On May judgment. the settlement streets 4, entering agreement i n t h e Deer by Run feet. 23, 2008, t h e C i t y filed a motion f o r a summary On June 26, 2008, James f i l e d a b r i e f o p p o s i n g t h a t m o t i o n and r e q u e s t i n g t h e r i g h t t o c o n d u c t d i s c o v e r y t o e n a b l e him t o respond to the C i t y ' s S e p t e m b e r 4, 2008, t h e t r i a l for evidentiary On c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t t h e C i t y w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g James t o c o n d u c t d i s c o v e r y . S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2008, James f i l e d vacate t h e summary parties trial Rule submissions. judgment. a motion to a l t e r , On c o n s e n t e d on t h e r e c o r d December to extend 23, amend, o r 2008, the time C i v . P. ("No 3 the f o r the c o u r t t o r u l e on t h a t m o t i o n t o F e b r u a r y 6, 2009. 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. On postjudgment motion See filed 2080881 p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 50, court 52, 55, o r 59 shall the trial the express consent of a l l the p a r t i e s , remain pending i n f o r more t h a n n i n e t y ( 9 0 ) d a y s , u n l e s s w i t h appear of r e c o r d which consent shall " ) . Because the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not r u l e on t h e m o t i o n on o r b e f o r e F e b r u a r y 6, 2009, t h e m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . postjudgment I d . ("A failure by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e n d e r an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g o f any p e n d i n g postjudgment any motion w i t h i n extension thereof, motion as of the date the time p e r m i t t e d hereunder, shall of constitute expiration the a of denial the of or such period."). James t i m e l y a p p e a l e d . On a p p e a l , James a r g u e s that the trial court erred in d e n y i n g him the r i g h t t o conduct d i s c o v e r y t o o b t a i n e v i d e n c e to oppose t h e C i t y ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n and t h a t t h e C i t y was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t . i n finding We e l e c t t o address the i s s u e s i n r e v e r s e order. Our standard of review in j u d g m e n t has b e e n e n t e r e d i s w e l l cases i n which a settled: " ' " ' T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 (Ala. 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f review as the trial court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e 4 summary 2080881 movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004) . I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Once t h e movant makes a prima facie showing that t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. " [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " ' "Gooden v. C i t y o f T a l l a d e g a , 966 So. 2d 232, 235 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g P r i n c e v. P o o l e , 935 So. 2d 431, 442 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dow v. A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y , 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 ( A l a . 2 00 4))." Ex p a r t e Duncan, 1 So. In h i s f r a u d i n d u c e d him into 3d 15, claim, 19 ( A l a . 2008). James m a i n t a i n e d t h a t e x e c u t i n g the mediation the C i t y agreement and had the s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t by s t a t i n g t h a t i t w o u l d p a v e t h e s t r e e t s in t h e Deer Run subdivision a t a w i d t h o f 20 5 feet. We note 2080881 t h a t s u c h a l l e g a t i o n s amount t o a c l a i m o f p r o m i s s o r y fraud. "'"The e l e m e n t s o f f r a u d a r e (1) a false representation (2) o f a m a t e r i a l e x i s t i n g f a c t (3) r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d upon by t h e p l a i n t i f f (4) who s u f f e r e d damage as a proximate consequence of the misrepresentation. To prevail on a p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d c l a i m ... , two a d d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t s must be s a t i s f i e d : (5) p r o o f t h a t at the time of the m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the d e f e n d a n t had t h e i n t e n t i o n n o t t o p e r f o r m t h e a c t p r o m i s e d , and (6) p r o o f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had an i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e . " ' "[Ex p a r t e ] M i c h e l i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , 795 So. 2d [674,] 678-79 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] ( q u o t i n g P a d g e t t [v. Hughes,] 535 So. 2d [140,] 142 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ] ) . " S o u t h l a n d Bank v. A & A D r y w a l l S u p p l y Co., 12, (Ala. 2008). 2008] So. 3d , In h i s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t City had breached 1060204, c l a i m , James a l l e g e d t h a t i t s promise contained agreement t o pave the s t r e e t s i n the a w i d t h o f 20 S e p t e m b e r 20, f e e t by [Ms. in Deer Run the Dec. the mediation subdivision at 2007. "To p r e v a i l on a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t claim, a p l a i n t i f f i s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e '(1) t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a v a l i d c o n t r a c t b i n d i n g the p a r t i e s i n the a c t i o n , (2) [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ] own p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h a t contract, (3) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n o n p e r f o r m a n c e , and (4) damages.' S o u t h e r n Med. H e a l t h Sys., I n c . v. Vaughn, 669 So. 2d 98, 99 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " B a l d w i n v. Panetta, 4 So. 3d 555, 6 561 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). 2080881 I n t h i s c a s e , one James requires common e l e m e n t o f b o t h c l a i m s r a i s e d by proof that s t r e e t s o f t h e Deer Run his b r i e f to t h i s f a c t s t h a t he agreed, and t w e n t y (20) court, to affidavit James f i l e d of Russellville feet as represented has and hereto " agreement representation that the s u b d i v i s i o n at a width C i t y w o u l d pave the standards and the o f 20 f e e t . In City of represented, subdivision streets f i n d the mediation in opposition agreement to the and motion f o r a James a t t e s t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t t h a t City mediation the pave R e v i e w i n g the pages of the r e c o r d t o which summary j u d g m e n t . attached pave to i n h i s statement evidence t h a t the James r e f e r s i n h i s b r i e f , we the promised James m a i n t a i n s obligated feet." City s u b d i v i s i o n at a width "submitted is the refused t o pave the r e q u i r e d by (Bold the typeface does not s t r e e t s to in original.) contain feet; i t provides any later than The express streets in the only that the s t r e e t s " i n accordance w i t h s p e c i f i c a t i o n s no 20 mediation agreement C i t y would pave the o f 20 "the normal September city 20, 2007." I n i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e that the "normal city standards 7 and City asserted s p e c i f i c a t i o n s " do not 2080881 require City 20-foot-wide paved s t r e e t s presented ordinance evidence regulating "Manufactured Home ordinance, which presented further subdivision Districts" indicating the created width Districts" required does i n the subdivision. that of roads created not l i e pertains roadways. indicating within that State Highway specifications, Department i n turn, zoning The C i t y shall that Home Thus, t h e which state be a c c o r d i n g t o the Specifications." require Run the "Manufactured b y t h e 2003 z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e . " t h e minimum roadway w i d t h s to t h e Deer C i t y then turned t o i t s " S u b d i v i s i o n Regulations," that zoning b y t h e 2003 20-foot-wide evidence the only The Those roadways w i t h a speed l i m i t o f b e t w e e n 10 a n d 40 m i l e s p e r h o u r must be a t l e a s t 18feet wide. for The C i t y showed t h a t the streets hour. Taken the applicable i n t h e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n together, the evidence speed limit i s 25 m i l e s p e r presented by t h e C i t y proves t h a t the C i t y ' s s t a n d a r d s r e q u i r e o n l y t h a t the streets i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n be p a v e d a t a w i d t h o f a t l e a s t 18 f e e t . In calls response, James a r g u e d t h a t f o r 20-foot-wide subdivision because paved that the mediation streets subdivision 8 agreement i n t h e Deer lies within Run a 2080881 " M a n u f a c t u r e d Home D i s t r i c t " a n d h a s s i n c e S e p t e m b e r 19, 2000. On t h a t d a t e , an u n s i g n e d a n d u n n o t a r i z e d document "Restrictions o f Deer Run S u b d i v i s i o n " Probate of Franklin Court restrictions family limiting County. entitled was r e c o r d e d i n t h e That document t h e use o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n d w e l l i n g s c o n s t r u c t e d i n accordance s e t out to single- with standards e s t a b l i s h e d " e i t h e r b y t h e S t a t e Minimum S t a n d a r d Codes ... o r the National Manufactured Housing C o n s t r u c t i o n and S a f e t y S t a n d a r d s A c t s f o r m a n u f a c t u r e d homes." The document t h e n s e t out c e r t a i n requirements f o r i n s t a l l i n g manufactured the s u b d i v i s i o n . homes i n James m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e restrictive covenants transformed the on the subdivision use into of a the subdivision "Manufactured Home District." That argument i s without merit. The standard requiring 2003 zoning ordinance i s the only City roadways. T h a t r e q u i r e m e n t a p p l i e s o n l y t o " M a n u f a c t u r e d Home Districts" c r e a t e d by t h e C i t y ordinance. The r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e c o r d e d i n 2000 e x i s t e d before t h e 2003 covenants zoning pursuant 20-foot-wide ordinance was were n o t c r e a t e d b y t h e C i t y . 9 t o t h e 2003 enacted, zoning and t h e Rather, they appear 2080881 to be restrictive covenants created b y t h e owners of the subdivision. "Zoning ordinances regulate t h e use o f l a n d through the exercise of the p o l i c e power i n accordance with a comprehensive plan f o r the e n t i r e community. As an e x e r c i s e o f t h e s t a t e p o l i c e power t o promote t h e g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , z o n i n g i s e n t i r e l y divorced i n concept, c r e a t i o n , enforcement, and administration from r e s t r i c t i o n s a r i s i n g out o f a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n p r i v a t e p a r t i e s who, i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o f freedom o f c o n t r a c t , can impose whatever l a w f u l r e s t r i c t i o n s upon t h e use of t h e i r lands that they deem advantageous o r d e s i r a b l e . Z o n i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s and restrictions imposed by p r i v a t e covenants are i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r o l s upon t h e u s e o f t h e l a n d , t h e one imposed by the m u n i c i p a l i t y f o r the p u b l i c welfare, t h e o t h e r p r i v a t e l y imposed f o r p r i v a t e benefit. "Both t y p e s o f l a n d r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e h e l d by courts t o l e g a l l y o p e r a t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f one another." 5 E d w a r d R. Z i e g l a r , R a t h k o p f ' s The Law o f Z o n i n g a n d P l a n n i n g § 82:2 (2005). The p a r t i e s who recorded the restrictive c o v e n a n t s may have i n t e n d e d t h a t m a n u f a c t u r e d homes w o u l d be a l l o w e d i n t h e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n s u b j e c t to the conditions contained i n the covenants, but they d i dnot thereby create a " M a n u f a c t u r e d Home D i s t r i c t " w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e C i t y ' s zoning ordinance. 10 2080881 James also argued t h a t because the City maintains two d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the w i d t h of roadways, the phrase "normal a latent c i t y s t a n d a r d s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s " ambiguity whether a phrase that only a jury 466 So. resolve. P & S Bus., 2d 928, 931 I n c . v. S o u t h C e n t . B e l l T e l . ( A l a . 1985) ( c i t i n g Haddox v. A l a b a m a Bank o f Montgomery, 449 So. 2d 1226, 1228 and 429 1028 Food Serv. However, i n a c o n t r a c t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f law f o r the c o u r t . Co., can constitutes Distribs., (Ala. 1983)). I n c . v. Barber, First ( A l a . 1984), So. 2d 1025, The two d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s t o w h i c h James r e f e r s are (1) t h e s t a n d a r d a p p l i c a b l e t o " M a n u f a c t u r e d Districts" requiring applicable to 20-foot a l l other roadways districts depends on t h e o p e r a t i v e s p e e d one standard applies existence of uncertainty to the another, as to the Deer Run meaning of (2) i n which limit. unrelated and standard roadway width However, b e c a u s e o n l y subdivision, standard the the Home does mediation the not mere inject agreement, which r e q u i r e d the C i t y t o pave the s t r e e t s i n the s u b d i v i s i o n " i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h n o r m a l c i t y s t a n d a r d s and specifications." T h a t p h r a s e can mean o n l y t h a t t h e C i t y w o u l d p a v e t h e s t r e e t s 11 2080881 i n the s u b d i v i s i o n i n compliance w i t h the standard a p p l i c a b l e to such James n e x t ordinarily streets. contended t h a t the " F r a n k l i n County Highway Department S u b d i v i s i o n R e g u l a t i o n s " a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e the roads i n t h e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n t o be p a v e d a t a w i d t h o f 20 f e e t . I n h i s b r i e f i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e C i t y ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment, James purported to quote a portion of those r e g u l a t i o n s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n and i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had E." a t t a c h e d t h e q u o t e d m a t e r i a l t o h i s a f f i d a v i t as " E x h i b i t However, t h e exhibit. not The record before p a g e s c i t e d by this court contains no such James i n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f c o n t a i n the quoted m a t e r i a l . I t i s not the duty of this c o u r t t o s e a r c h an a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d f o r e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t appellant's Chevrolet, contention I n c . , 575 Nevertheless, the of error. So. 2d 1157, 1161 court searched the r e g u l a t i o n upon w h i c h James r e l i e s B e c a u s e we d i d n o t f i n d i t , the Run 2060245, Nov. 2, 2007] Landmark entire record c o u l d not an 1991). for the locate i t . we must assume t h a t , i f i t e x i s t s , court properly considered subdivision. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. but the t r i a l Deer Jenkins do See So. 12 3d i t t o be Kaufman , v. i n a p p l i c a b l e to Kaufman, [Ms. (Ala. Civ. App. 2080881 2007) is ("Further, when a l l t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e not submitted appeal, it this 1250, 613, court as p a r t court of the record on c o u r t must presume t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e n o t b e f o r e was s u f f i c i e n t (citing to this thet r i a l Berryhill t o support v. Mutual 1251 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , the t r i a l court's judgment." o f Omaha I n s . Co., 479 So. 2 d a n d W i l k e n s v . Kaufman, 615 So. 2 d 615 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) ) ) . Finally, the mediation James m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had agreed i n a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e C i t y w o u l d amend i t s z o n i n g laws t o i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : " S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s Ordinance s h a l l not a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s o f owners o f l o t s i n Deer Run S u b d i v i s i o n t o combine o r p l a c e any h o u s e , M a n u f a c t u r e d Home o r M o d u l a r Home i n t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n u n d e r t h e a p p r o v a l g r a n t e d by t h e P l a n n i n g Commission o f t h e C i t y p r i o r to t h e i r a d o p t i o n o f t h i s Ordinance p r o v i d e d t h a t s a i d homes have a r o o f p i t c h o f a t l e a s t 9:12 nominal, are a e s t h e t i c a l l y compatible with other homes i n Deer Run S u b d i v i s i o n a n d o t h e r w i s e meet t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a C l a s s A M a n u f a c t u r e d Home o r M o d u l a r Home." James c o n t e n d s t h a t , when c o n s t r u i n g t h e m e d i a t i o n as 932 agreement a w h o l e , s e e A d c o c k v . Adams Homes, L L C , 906 So. 2 d 924, of contract r e f e r r i n g t o same s u b j e c t m a t t e r s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d together as ( A l a . 2005) a whole), (holding the t r i a l that court a l lportions should 13 have c o n c l u d e d that the 2080881 parties recognized the Deer Run subdivision to be a " M a n u f a c t u r e d Home D i s t r i c t " a n d t h a t t h e 2 0 - f o o t - r o a d - w i d t h requirement should therefore amendment merely authority t o approve individual manufactured with regular That authority variance. County, endorses apply. the location and modular above-quoted planning the City The commission's i n the subdivision of homes deemed c o m p a t i b l e homes b e f o r e t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e 2003 o r d i n a n c e . e s s e n t i a l l y amounts t o t h e power t o g r a n t a See Swann v. Board o f Adjustment 459 So. 2 d 896 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) . of Jefferson James does n o t e x p l a i n how r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h a t a u t h o r i t y e v i d e n c e s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t r e a t t h e e n t i r e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n a s a " M a n u f a c t u r e d Home D i s t r i c t " f o r r o a d - p a v i n g p u r p o s e s . court This cannot agree t h a t the m e d i a t i o n agreement e v i d e n c e s any s u c h i n t e n t on b e h a l f Viewing favorable impression of both p a r t i e s . the e n t i r e t y of the evidence i n a light most t o James, i t a p p e a r s t h a t he was u n d e r t h e m i s t a k e n that t h e 2000 amendment t o t h e 2003 restrictive covenants and t h e zoning ordinance had transformed t h e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o a " M a n u f a c t u r e d Home D i s t r i c t . " James s t a t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , b a s e d on h i s s u b j e c t i v e 14 As belief, 2080881 he saw "no n e e d ... t o b a r g a i n As a result, agreement he from f o r twenty d i d not e x t r a c t the C i t y that (20) f o o t any e x p r e s s i t would, streets." statement i n fact, pave t h e s t r e e t s i n t h e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n a t a w i d t h o f 20 f e e t . it turns out, the evidence proves without agreement to pave the streets in accordance w i t h normal c i t y standards d i d not imply failed City a 20-foot-width to present ever stated agreed requirement. to As that the subdivision " i n and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s " a l s o s u b s t a n t i a l evidence or the dispute or pave Hence, James h a s indicating the streets that the i n the s u b d i v i s i o n as he c l a i m s . As f o r h i s discovery issue, James p o i n t s out t h a t , on F e b r u a r y 7, 2008, o n l y t h r e e d a y s a f t e r he f i l e d h i s amended complaint a s s e r t i n g a fraud claim against the C i t y , the t r i a l court stayed a l l discovery. As a r e s u l t , as James p u t s i t , d i d n o t g e t t o c o n d u c t any d i s c o v e r y C i t y ' s m o t i o n f o r summary " t o p r o p e r l y oppose t h e judgment." R u l e 5 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides: "Should i t appear from the a f f i d a v i t s o f a p a r t y opposing the motion t h a t the p a r t y cannot, f o r reasons s t a t e d , p r e s e n t by a f f i d a v i t f a c t s e s s e n t i a l t o j u s t i f y t h e p a r t y ' s o p p o s i t i o n , t h e c o u r t may deny t h e m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t o r may o r d e r a c o n t i n u a n c e t o p e r m i t a f f i d a v i t s t o be o b t a i n e d o r 15 he 2080881 d e p o s i t i o n s t o be t a k e n o r d i s c o v e r y t o be h a d o r may make s u c h o t h e r o r d e r as i s j u s t . " In this case, one o f James's attorneys filed an affidavit i n d i c a t i n g t h a t James n e e d e d t o d e p o s e t h e w i t n e s s e s who filed affidavits motion. i n support summary-judgment Those w i t n e s s e s i n c l u d e d B i l l F u l l e r , Tom P a c e , C h r i s Hargett, inspector and Mayor Johnny Brown. Fuller f o r t h e C i t y , and he t e s t i f i e d C i t y amended i t s z o n i n g Home of the C i t y ' s had Districts" superintendent i s the b u i l d i n g that, ordinances to recognize f o r the first f o r the C i t y ; time. he Pace testified i n 2003, t h e "Manufactured i s the that the street City's s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s s t a t e t h a t t h e minimum roadway w i d t h s must be i n accordance with the "State Highway Department S p e c i f i c a t i o n s , " w h i c h r e q u i r e an 1 8 - f o o t w i d t h f o r r o a d s w i t h s p e e d l i m i t s o f b e t w e e n 10 and 40 m i l e s p e r h o u r . the chief of p o l i c e o f t h e C i t y , and he attested Hargett i s that the s p e e d l i m i t i n t h e Deer Run s u b d i v i s i o n i s 25 m i l e s p e r h o u r . Mayor Brown t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n 2007, James demanded t h a t t h e C i t y p a v e t h e r o a d s i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a t a w i d t h o f 20 o r he w o u l d s e e k h i s a t t o r n e y ' s that conversation, Mayor Brown ceased. 16 feet a s s i s t a n c e a n d t h a t , b a s e d on ordered that a l l paving be 2080881 James's attorney d i d not explain how deposing those witnesses could p o s s i b l y lead to evidence c o n t r a d i c t i n g statements. all W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f Mayor Brown's the testimony record. relates to indisputable facts their affidavit, of public Mayor Brown's a f f i d a v i t m e r e l y e x p l a i n s why t h e C i t y ceased paving the roads i n the s u b d i v i s i o n , a f a c t t h a t i s not m a t e r i a l t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e summary-judgment motion. W i t h o u t t h e r e q u e s t e d d i s c o v e r y , James was a b l e t o m a r s h a l a l l t h e e v i d e n c e upon w h i c h he r e l i e d t o s u p p o r t h i s b e l i e f t h e C i t y h a d a g r e e d t o p a v e t h e r o a d s a t a w i d t h o f 20 James has n o t i d e n t i f i e d control of the C i t y any p o t e n t i a l evidence w i t h i n that feet. the o r i t s w i t n e s s e s t h a t would have h e l p e d him prove h i s case. "'Rule 56(f) p r o t e c t s a p a r t y opposing a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t i f t h e p a r t y s t a t e s r e a s o n s why he c a n n o t present essential facts.' S t a r k s v. C o m m e r c i a l U n i o n I n s . Co., 501 So. 2d 1214, 1216 (Ala. 1987). Proper a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule 56(f) r e q u i r e s t h e nonmoving p a r t y t o demonstrate by a f f i d a v i t , H e r r i n g v. Parkman, 631 So. 2d 996, 1002 (Ala. 1994), ' t h a t m a t t e r s i t seeks by f u r t h e r d i s c o v e r y a r e " c r u c i a l " t o i t s c a s e . ' S m i t h v. Yanmar D i e s e l E n g i n e Co., 855 So. 2d 1039, 1042 ( A l a . 2003) ( c i t i n g S t a l l w o r t h v. AmSouth Bank, 709 So. 2d 458, 468 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) ; s e e a l s o M c C u l l a r v. U n i v e r s a l U n d e r w r i t e r s L i f e I n s . Co., 687 So. 2d 156, 161 ( A l a . 1996) (nonmovant a t summary-judgment s t a g e h a s t h e 'burden o f p r o v i n g how i n f o r m a t i o n 17 2080881 f r o m [documents her c a s e ' ) . " V i c k v. Sawyer, sought i n d i s c o v e r y ] i s crucial 936 So. 2d 517, 521-22 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . to Based on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d not exceed judgment motion discovery. 1993) i t s discretion i n granting without allowing James the City's summary- to conduct further See G r i f f i n v. A m e r i c a n Bank, 628 So. 2d 540 ( A l a . ( r e v i e w i n g d e n i a l o f R u l e 5 6 ( f ) m o t i o n b a s e d on of-discretion abuse- standard). AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 18 without w r i t i n g .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.