James M. Eaton, Jr. v. Bobby Joe Waldrop

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/05/2010 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 2081095 James M. Eaton, J r . v. Bobby Joe Waldrop Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer (CV-05-1587) Division MOORE, J u d g e . James M. E a t o n , findings entered Jefferson Circuit judgment J r . ,appeals i n favor Court, of from Bobby a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l Joe Waldrop Bessemer D i v i s i o n . a n d remand t h e c a s e forfurther by t h e We r e v e r s e t h e proceedings. 2081095 Procedural History On December 16, 2005, James M. E a t o n , J r . , a n d M a r g u e r i t e Eaton, by her next friend, James M. Eaton, Jr., filed a complaint a g a i n s t Waldrop a l l e g i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t Waldrop James had property fraudulently situated induced i n J e f f e r s o n County Waldrop and M a r g u e r i t e , j o i n t l y and that Waldrop Marguerite to Waldrop. had deed certain ("the p r o p e r t y " ) t o with a r i g h t of survivorship, subsequently transfer to her fraudulently interest James a n d M a r g u e r i t e i n the requested induced property to that the court s e t a s i d e t h e d e e d e x e c u t e d b y James t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y t o Marguerite and Waldrop different relief as demanded a t r i a l J a n u a r y 26, 2006. and may by j u r y . be requested "other, just proper"; and further they or also Waldrop answered the c o m p l a i n t on M a r g u e r i t e s u b s e q u e n t l y d i e d , a n d James, as t h e e x e c u t o r o f h e r e s t a t e , was s u b s t i t u t e d as a p l a i n t i f f . On S e p t e m b e r demand. On 17, 2007, W a l d r o p moved t o s t r i k e December 5, 2007, case-action-summary sheet The t r i a l c o u r t conducted t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f James's the j u r y the t r i a l court noted on t h e t h a t t h e case was " n o n j u r y only." a bench t r i a l on June 11, 2009. At c a s e - i n - c h i e f , W a l d r o p moved f o r a 2 2081095 j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w , p r o v e t h a t W a l d r o p had deceive." The arguing t h a t James had f a i l e d to made a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n " w i t h i n t e n t to 1 t r i a l court granted t h a t m o t i o n , and i t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s a g a i n s t James and t h e e s t a t e A u g u s t 13, 2009. 25, The 2009. James f i l e d e s t a t e has h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on not on August appealed. Discussion On in appeal, granting findings not Waldrop's (see require James f i r s t n o t e 1, him argues t h a t the t r i a l motion for a judgment s u p r a ) b e c a u s e , he to prove an court i n t e n t to says, partial the deceive o b t a i n a r e s c i s s i o n o f a d e e d b a s e d on f r a u d . on law into executing the deed. We find the does i n order to Alternatively, James c o n t e n d s t h a t he p r o v e d t h a t W a l d r o p i n t e n d e d t o him erred former deceive argument dispositive. James cites Ala. Code Sterne, Agee & L e a c h , Inc., support of his argument 1975, 965 that § So. 6-5-101, 2d intent 1076 to and Davis v. ( A l a . 2007), in deceive is not a T h i s m o t i o n i s p r o p e r l y r e f e r r e d t o as a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See L o g g i n s v. R o b i n s o n , 728 So. 2d 1268, 1270-71 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . 1 3 2081095 necessary element of "Misrepresentations deceive, fraud. of a Section material or r e c k l e s s l y without 6-5-101 fact made provides: willfully to k n o w l e d g e , a n d a c t e d on b y t h e o p p o s i t e p a r t y , o r i f made b y m i s t a k e a n d i n n o c e n t l y a n d a c t e d on b y t h e o p p o s i t e added.) 101, party, constitute legal fraud." In Davis, stated (Emphasis t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , "a that citing even false i n n o c e n t l y or by mistake, representation, o p e r a t e s as a l e g a l § 6-5¬ i f made fraud i f i ti s a m a t e r i a l f a c t t h a t i s a c t e d upon w i t h b e l i e f i n i t s t r u t h . " 965 So. 2d a t 1 0 9 1 . We a l s o n o t e t h a t o u r supreme c o u r t h a s a p p l i e d § 6-5-101 i n an a c t i o n t o s e t a s i d e v. Cox, 431 So. 2d 527 court, applying erred have 1983). motions notwithstanding reasonably See Cox I n Cox, t h e supreme § 6-5-101, h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l i n denying judgment (Ala. a deed. court had not f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and f o r a t h e v e r d i c t because inferred a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n made b y m i s t a k e , case of "a j u r y fraud could through though i n n o c e n t l y . " a 431 So. 2d a t 528. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t A l a b a m a l a w does n o t require a p l a i n t i f f seeking r e s c i s s i o n o f a d e e d b a s e d on an a l l e g a t i o n of fraud t o prove i n t e n t t o deceive. 4 2081095 In this case, James p r e s e n t e d evidence indicating that M a r g u e r i t e , h i s mother, had deeded him c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y . M a r g u e r i t e a n d W a l d r o p t h e n moved i n t o a m o b i l e property with the permission requesting parcel that James deed o f p r o p e r t y on w h i c h consented to Waldrop's o f James. Waldrop t o Waldrop soon began and M a r g u e r i t e t h e the mobile request home on t h a t home r e s t e d . only after James Waldrop had r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t he a n d M a r g u e r i t e h a d m a r r i e d , w h i c h was n o t true. James t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n e v e r w o u l d have e x e c u t e d t h e deed transferring Waldrop, truth. with the property rights jointly of survivorship, In the present context, that to Marguerite and i f he h a d known t h e evidence presented a prima f a c i e case o f m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h o u t f u r t h e r p r o o f o f Waldrop's i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e . g r a n t i n g Waldrop's motion James's e v i d e n c e Thus, t h e t r i a l court erred i n f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l showed t h a t , some t i m e a f t e r findings. James h a d e x e c u t e d the deed t o M a r g u e r i t e and Waldrop, Waldrop c o n v i n c e d M a r g u e r i t e t o deed t h e p r o p e r t y s o l e l y t o him. that, f o r certain technical e f f e c t i v e l y pass l e g a l t i t l e need not address that reasons, that James deed argues d i d not i n t h e p r o p e r t y t o Waldrop. issue. On remand, 5 should We the t r i a l 2081095 c o u r t d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e d e e d t o M a r g u e r i t e and W a l d r o p be the rescinded, M a r g u e r i t e would not property t o c o n v e y , so the have had issue t r a n s f e r t o W a l d r o p w o u l d be moot. trial court should not property finds be that rescinded, that would the deed of the On to him to interest in validity of her the o t h e r hand, i f the Marguerite James w o u l d have no allow any should object to and Waldrop interest in the the subsequent t r a n s f e r of M a r g u e r i t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y to Waldrop. In e i t h e r case, n e i t h e r t h i s c o u r t , nor the t r i a l court, need resolve compliance with the i n order to the issue of Marguerite's t e c h n i c a l requirements f o r deeding r e a l property properly adjudicate James's c l a i m f o r r e s c i s s i o n . Med. C t r . , I n c . v. E a s t A l a b a m a H e a l t h 243, 245-46 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) See C a r e A u t h . , 908 Auburn So. (holding that a court 2d will n o t d e c i d e a l e g a l i s s u e t h a t i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e outcome o f case). James finally argues that the trial d e n y i n g h i s r e q u e s t f o r a t r i a l by j u r y . pleadings see to determine the R i c h e y v. C r e e l , 437 c o n c l u d e t h a t James was erred in A f t e r examining the t r u e n a t u r e of the So. 2d 554 court relief ( A l a . C i v . App. not e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y t r i a l . 6 sought, 555), we In h i s 2081095 complaint, James s o u g h t Waldrop r e s c i n d e d . t o have t h e Our deed t o M a r g u e r i t e supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s no r i g h t t o a t r i a l by j u r y i n an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o s e t a deed. ("This L o r e n z a v. B r o t h e r s , is an action and that 534 So. is equitable c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantee of t r i a l by 2d 300, 302 in aside (Ala. 1988) nature. The j u r y does n o t e x t e n d causes of a c t i o n t h a t are e q u i t a b l e i n n a t u r e . " ) . James to has not c i t e d t o t h i s c o u r t a s i n g l e case s u p p o r t i n g h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t he T h u s , we should receive a jury t r i a l conclude t h a t the t r i a l James's demand f o r a t r i a l Based on the by forgoing, on h i s r e s c i s s i o n claim. c o u r t d i d not e r r i n denying jury. we reverse the trial court's j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s and remand t h i s c a u s e f o r a new trial consistent with this REVERSED AND Thompson, opinion. REMANDED. P.J., and Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.