John Wheeler, Jr. v. James Bice

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/18/10 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 Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama 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 2081180 John Wheeler, J r . v. James B i c e Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-08-900076) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . John Wheeler, J r . , t h e p l a i n t i f f partial summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f James B i c e , d e f e n d a n t s b e l o w . We d i s m i s s In below, appeals March 2007, Wheeler from a one o f t h e the appeal. and B i c e engaged ina business 2081180 t r a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a house on L o t t Road i n C h u n c h u l a that was and Bice in that owned by B i c e disagree ("the regarding the h o u s e " ) ; however, terms they Wheeler agreed to t r a n s a c t i o n . W h e e l e r , who s a y s t h a t he n e g o t i a t e d t h e t e r m s o f the transaction with Melton E v e r i t t e ("Melton") instead of B i c e , a s s e r t s t h a t he c o n t r a c t e d t o buy t h e house f o r a t o t a l p r i c e o f $160,000 and t h a t he and M e l t o n a g r e e d t h a t he w o u l d p a y $5,000 down, t h a t he w o u l d p a y $1,000 p e r month f r o m A p r i l 2007 t h r o u g h December 2007, and that he would be given a c r e d i t a g a i n s t t h e $160,000 p u r c h a s e p r i c e f o r t h o s e p a y m e n t s . Bice asserts t h a t Wheeler contracted the nine-month p e r i o d from A p r i l for a $14,000 total rent of payment and m o n t h l y to lease t h e house f o r 2007 t h r o u g h December t o be paid as i n s t a l l m e n t s o f $1,000 a 2007 $5,000 down from A p r i l 2007 t h r o u g h December 2007. B i c e a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t e r m s o f h i s agreement w i t h Wheeler a r e c o n t a i n e d i n a written residential lease neither Bice nor t h a t Wheeler s i g n e d ; however, a c t i n g on h i s b e h a l f signed the r e s i d e n t i a l anyone lease. W h e e l e r and B i c e a g r e e t h a t W h e e l e r d i d some work on t h e house i n A p r i l and May whether Wheeler was 2 0 0 7 ; however, renovating 2 or they disagree altering the regarding house and 2081180 w h e t h e r W h e e l e r h a d t h e r i g h t t o do t h e work. W h e e l e r that t h e house had t o be renovated because i t was asserts i n poor c o n d i t i o n and t h a t he h a d a r i g h t t o do t h e work b e c a u s e , he says, he was the purchaser of the house. Wheeler a s s e r t s t h a t he s p e n t $32,000 on t h e r e n o v a t i o n further w o r k and t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o be c o m p e n s a t e d f o r t h a t e x p e n d i t u r e . on the other renovation hand, asserts that the house Bice, d i d not need and t h a t t h e w o r k e f f e c t e d a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e h o u s e t h a t were o f p o o r q u a l i t y . B i c e further asserts that Wheeler d i d n o t have t h e r i g h t t o make t h e a l t e r a t i o n s b e c a u s e , says, the r e s i d e n t i a l lease p r o h i b i t e d Wheeler a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e house w i t h o u t B i c e ' s not consent to the a l t e r a t i o n s . Bice from Bice making c o n s e n t and B i c e d i d also asserts that, b e c a u s e t h e a l t e r a t i o n s a r e o f p o o r q u a l i t y , he w i l l i n c u r t h e expense o f r e s t o r i n g t h e house t o i t s o r i g i n a l condition and he i s e n t i t l e d t o c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r t h a t e x p e n s e . W h e e l e r c l a i m s t h a t , i n May 2007, B i c e w r o n g f u l l y ordered h i m t o l e a v e t h e h o u s e and c h a n g e d t h e l o c k s t o d e p r i v e him of access to the house; Bice t o pay the rent due under claims t h a t Wheeler f a i l e d the r e s i d e n t i a l lease and that, in May 2007, W h e e l e r v o l u n t a r i l y a b a n d o n e d p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e h o u s e . 3 2081180 Finally, Wheeler misrepresented Bice claims On that t h a t he w o u l d s e l l that w o u l d a b i d e by claims Wheeler the January 2008, through Melton, the house t o Wheeler, misrepresented terms of the 15, Bice, to Melton residential Wheeler sued while that he lease. Bice, Melton, and Melton's w i f e , V a l e r i e E v e r i t t e ( " V a l e r i e " ) . Wheeler a l l e g e d t h a t he had negotiated with Melton a contract to a l l e g e d purchase c o n t r a c t " ) before he a l l e g e d p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t i n M a r c h 2007. He p u r c h a s e the house ("the entered i n t o the further alleged that alleged purchase misrepresentations the defendants failing to possession anguish, the on him the been i n d u c e d contract that sell of had by the the alleged house h o u s e ; and $32,000 he those had him by he t h e l o s s o f t h e money he had has he stated possession, included a prayer and unlawful ouster. the defendants' the house; that contract depriving him suffered renovation claims enrichment, breach of c o n t r a c t , f r a u d , c o n v e r s i o n , deliver into In of by of mental p a i d f o r the house, s p e n t on t h e allegations, enter purchase and that to the they would s e l l breached l o s s of the Based he concerning and work. unjust failure to addition, he f o r damages f o r m e n t a l a n g u i s h as t h o u g h i t 4 2081180 constituted a separate claim rather than an element of damages. A n s w e r i n g , B i c e , M e l t o n , and V a l e r i e d e n i e d l i a b i l i t y . I n addition, Bice asserted a counterclaim against Wheeler. I n h i s counterclaim, contract Bice to lease alleged that t h e house ("the a l l e g e d l e a s e t h a t Wheeler had f a l s e l y the terms lease without represented of the a l l e g e d contract Wheeler had e n t e r e d lease Bice's contract"), t h a t he w o u l d a b i d e b y contract, p r o h i b i t e d Wheeler into a from that the a l l e g e d altering t h e house c o n s e n t , t h a t W h e e l e r h a d made a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e h o u s e w i t h o u t B i c e ' s c o n s e n t , t h a t t h e a l t e r a t i o n s were o f p o o r q u a l i t y a n d t h a t t h e h o u s e w o u l d have t o be r e s t o r e d t o its original restoring alleged t h e house lease house b e f o r e breached before condition, contract to that Bice would i t s original expenses i n condition, that the p r o h i b i t e d Wheeler from v a c a t i n g the t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f i t s term, and t h a t Wheeler had the a l l e g e d lease contract by v a c a t i n g the e x p i r a t i o n of i t s t e r m . Based allegations, incur Bice fraud, negligence, On O c t o b e r asserted claims t h e house on t h o s e of breach of factual contract, and w a n t o n n e s s . 24, 2008, Bice 5 moved for a partial summary 2081180 judgment with respect to Wheeler's claims of unjust e n r i c h m e n t , f r a u d , b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , and f a i l u r e t o d e l i v e r possession. With respect to Wheeler's claim of unjust enrichment, B i c e a s s e r t e d t h a t , i f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n between him and W h e e l e r c o n s t i t u t e d a l e a s e c o n t r a c t , he was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e c o u r t s have h e l d that t h e t h e o r y o f u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t does n o t a p p l y t o i m p r o v e m e n t s on l e a s e d if l a n d made b y a l e s s e e . M o r e o v e r , he a s s e r t e d the t r a n s a c t i o n between purchase contract, he because, he Wheeler said, was him and Wheeler entitled could to a that, constituted summary not e s t a b l i s h a judgment that Bice k n o w i n g l y a c c e p t e d t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e a l l e g e d improvements t o the house o r t h a t Wheeler had a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n compensated by Bice f o r renovating allegedly contracted With respect asserted he that Bice had claim, Bice to s e l l him. t o Wheeler's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment b e c a u s e , said, Statute a house t o be the alleged of Frauds contract possession existed purchase because, he and because, contract said, he was no said, barred written Wheeler purchase had o f t h e h o u s e as a l e s s e e , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g 6 by the taken to Bice, 2081180 disqualified exception Wheeler from a s s e r t i n g the t o the S t a t u t e of F r a u d s . partial-performance 1 With r e s p e c t t o Wheeler's f r a u d c l a i m , B i c e a s s e r t e d t h a t he was entitled Wheeler could on Wheeler; an a summary n o t e s t a b l i s h two claim. First, based to Bice asserted a l l e g e d promise that, i n order judgment because, e s s e n t i a l elements t h a t Wheeler's by he Bice f o r such fraud to s e l l a promise said, of claim t h e house that was to to constitute a c t i o n a b l e f r a u d , W h e e l e r w o u l d have t o p r o v e t h e e l e m e n t s o f promissory f r a u d ; and t h a t W h e e l e r c o u l d not prove t h a t , a t t h e t i m e B i c e a l l e g e d l y made t h a t p r o m i s e , he i n t e n d e d n o t t o sell t h e house t o W h e e l e r . S e c o n d , B i c e a s s e r t e d t h a t W h e e l e r c o u l d not prove the element of r e a s o n a b l e r e l i a n c e because, B i c e s a i d , W h e e l e r h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d w i t h documents i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B i c e was l e a s i n g t h e house a l l e g e d l y promised to s e l l With possession respect t o Wheeler at the time Bice t h e house t o W h e e l e r . t o Wheeler's claim of failure to deliver o f t h e h o u s e , B i c e a s s e r t e d t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he s a i d , the u n d i s p u t e d evidence The S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s i s c o d i f i e d as § 8-9-2, A l a . Code 1975. The p a r t i a l - p e r f o r m a n c e e x c e p t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d i n § 8-92(5). 1 7 2081180 e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e house had been d e l i v e r e d t o Wheeler. Wheeler filed a brief i n opposition to Bice's partial- summary-judgment m o t i o n . F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l court, on M a r c h 10, 2009, e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g B i c e ' s m o t i o n f o r a partial summary j u d g m e n t . On May 19, 2009, p u r s u a n t t o a s t i p u l a t i o n p a r t i e s , the t r i a l without court court dismissed the claims against to certify Rule 54(b), i t s March 10, 2009, o r d e r i t s M a r c h 10, 2009, as a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . Wheeler appealed t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to to this the supreme On A u g u s t court, which court pursuant t o § 12-2-7(6), Code 1975. As a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , certification of i t s order j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as a f i n a l says, judgment p u r s u a n t t h a t m o t i o n and c e r t i f i e d order Ala. Bice's 22, 2009, t h e t r i a l granted 2009, granting A l a . R. C i v . P. On J u l y court 28, Valerie p r e j u d i c e . On J u n e 29, 2009, W h e e l e r moved t h e t r i a l p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as a f i n a l to f i l e d by t h e Wheeler B i c e argues t h a t the t r i a l granting Bice's court's partial-summary- j u d g m e n t was i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e , he s t a t e d t h e same claims 8 against both Bice and 2081180 Melton, the claims granted Bice's partial-summary-judgment pending against Melton separate with respect i n the t r i a l adjudications unreasonable risk t o which of motion court, those of inconsistent the t r i a l claims results. court are still and, t h e r e f o r e , would pose Moreover, an Bice argues t h a t t h e i s s u e whether t h e t r a n s a c t i o n between B i c e and Wheeler c o n s t i t u t e d a purchase c o n t r a c t o r a l e a s e c o n t r a c t i s common t o some o f t h e c l a i m s w i t h r e s p e c t court granted Bice's Bice's counterclaims in the trial summary-judgment t o which the t r i a l motion a n d some a g a i n s t Wheeler, which a r e s t i l l court. Consequently, Bice says, of pending separate a d j u d i c a t i o n s o f some o f t h e c l a i m s w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h t h e trial court granted h i s p a r t i a l - s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t motion and some o f h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m s inconsistent results. In Schlarb supreme c o u r t v. We w o u l d p o s e an u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k o f agree. L e e , 955 So. 2d 418 ( A l a . 2006), stated: "This Court looks with some c e r t i f i c a t i o n s under Rule 54(b). disfavor "'It bears repeating, here, that " ' [ c ] e r t i f i c a t i o n s under Rule 54(b) s h o u l d be e n t e r e d o n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s a n d s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d r o u t i n e l y . ' " S t a t e v . L a w h o r n , 830 So. 2d 720, 725 ( A l a . 2002) 9 upon the 2081180 ( q u o t i n g B a k e r v. B e n n e t t , 644 So. 2d 901, 903 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n B r a n c h v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373 (Ala. 1987)). "'"Appellate review i n a p i e c e m e a l f a s h i o n i s not favored." Goldome C r e d i t C o r p . [v. P l a y e r , 869 So. 2d 1146, 1148 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] ( q u o t i n g Harper Sales Co. v. Brown, Stagner, R i c h a r d s o n , I n c . , 742 So. 2d 190, 192 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Brown v. W h i t a k e r C o n t r a c t i n g C o r p . , 681 So. 2d 226, 229 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)) (emphasis added).' "Dzwonkowski v. S o n i t r o l o f M o b i l e , I n c . , 892 So. 2d 354, 363 (Ala. 2004). Also, a Rule 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be e n t e r e d i f t h e i s s u e s i n t h e c l a i m b e i n g c e r t i f i e d and a c l a i m t h a t w i l l r e m a i n p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' " a r e so c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d t h a t s e p a r a t e a d j u d i c a t i o n w o u l d p o s e an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results."' Clarke-Mobile C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t . v. P r i o r E n e r g y C o r p . , 834 So. 2d 88, 95 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g B r a n c h v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373, 1374 (Ala. 1987))." 955 So. 2d a t 419-20. See So. 3d 1213, We hold that 1215 a l s o Howard v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co., 9 (Ala. 2008). the trial court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n in c e r t i f y i n g i t s order granting Bice's partial-summary-judgment motion as issues claims are a final so counterclaims separate judgment because intertwined with issues r e l a t e d to t h a t remain pending before adjudications would pose 10 an related the t r i a l to those claims court unreasonable risk and that of 2081180 i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s . See S c h l a r b v. L e e , s u p r a , a n d Howard v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co., s u p r a . A n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . I d . T h e r e f o r e , we d i s m i s s W h e e l e r ' s a p p e a l as b e i n g from a n o n f i n a l judgment. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 11 Thomas, a n d Moore, 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.