Arthur Isaiah Radcliff v. Hall Housing Investments, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/02/2010 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 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 2081196 Arthur Isaiah Radcliff v. H a l l Housing Investments, Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-09-2410) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Arthur entered Isaiah Radcliff by t h e J e f f e r s o n appeals Circuit f r o m a summary Court i n favor judgment of Hall H o u s i n g I n v e s t m e n t s , I n c . ( " H a l l " ) , on September 15, 2009. affirm. We 2081196 Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History On J u l y 1, 2009, H a l l f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t detainer ("the against district Radcliff Radcliff court"). had f a i l e d alleging i n the J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t In that complaint, t o pay r e n t and l a t e fees a written notice and that he possession of the leased premises to H a l l . i n unpaid had Court Hall alleged that w i t h a w r i t t e n l e a s e agreement a f t e r h a v i n g t o pay unlawful i n accordance been s e r v e d failed to with return H a l l claimed Radcliff owed $2,315.20 rent and late Radcliff filed an answer on J u l y 8, 2009, i n w h i c h he that charges. denied r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a s s e r t e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m against Hall. his he counterclaim, lease-renewal that, Radcliff at t h a t time, Radcliff, the u t i l i t i e s represented that he and allowance lease allowance. had signed a H a l l r e v e a l e d t h a t R a d c l i f f h a d b e e n due original original that addendum t o renew h i s l e a s e on June 2, 2009, and a monthly u t i l i t i e s his asserted In lease the and Radcliff o f $104 d u r i n g t h e term o f t h e addendum allowance "N/A" but that, according to h a d b e e n m a r k e d t h r o u g h on h a d been asserted that w r i t t e n beside Hall had that falsely t o R a d c l i f f t h a t he was r e q u i r e d t o p a y u t i l i t i e s , had signed the lease 2 in reliance on that 2081196 representation, and t h a t he h a d f a l l e n b e h i n d i n h i s r e n t b e c a u s e he was w i t h h o l d i n g a l l e g e d were due h i m f r o m A trial was held the u t i l i t i e s allowances that he Hall. i n the d i s t r i c t court at which appeared w i t h counsel and R a d c l i f f a p p e a r e d p r o s e . 3, 2009, t h e d i s t r i c t court entered on i t s u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r only an o r d e r On A u g u s t i n favor of H a l l claim against R a d c l i f f . court ordered that the subject property Hall The district was t o be r e s t o r e d t o H a l l ; i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t r e n t was a s c e r t a i n e d t o be $556 p e r month due on t h e f i r s t o f t h e m o n t h ; and i t d e t e r m i n e d that r e n t i n t h a t amount h a d a c c r u e d s i n c e t h e d a t e t h e a c t i o n was commenced. trial The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e n s e t " t h e money c l a i m " f o r on O c t o b e r 27, 2009. On A u g u s t 10, 2009, R a d c l i f f the Jefferson notice, C i r c u i t Court Radcliff asserted f i l e d a notice of appeal t o ("the c i r c u i t that Hall r e i m b u r s e m e n t s t h a t were due R a d c l i f f had had court"). withheld fiduciary intentionally duty, defrauded" suppressed Radcliff. 3 utility and a l l e g e d t h a t " w i l l f u l l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y b r e a c h e d t h e l e a s e [its] In that material Hall contract, facts, and 2081196 H a l l f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e c o u r t on A u g u s t 25, 2009. t h e r e was In that motion, H a l l asserted that 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 and t h a t H a l l e n t i t l e d t o a judgment i n i t s f a v o r claim. circuit was on i t s u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r In support of t h a t motion, H a l l attached the a f f i d a v i t o f T e r i a M c C r e a r , H a l l ' s p r o p e r t y manager, t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t between Hall eviction and Radcliff, notice, and a the addendum t o t h e breakdown of the lease, the due from rent Radcliff. Radcliff filed a response to Hall's m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 2, 2009, a r g u i n g summary-judgment t h a t H a l l had t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t by s t a t i n g t h a t R a d c l i f f was to a utilities allowance and that Hall falsified not e n t i t l e d owed Radcliff u n p a i d u t i l i t i e s a l l o w a n c e s i n t h e amount o f $ 3 , 6 6 6 . for Radcliff f a i l e d t o a t t a c h any e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n s t o h i s r e s p o n s e . In response t o R a d c l i f f ' s a second Radcliff's utilities affidavit rent had from arguments, McCrear, been i n which calculated she after stated that deducting the allowance. On S e p t e m b e r 10, 2009, H a l l f i l e d possession however, H a l l s u b m i t t e d i n which i t asserted 4 a motion f o r a w r i t that R a d c l i f f had failed of to 2081196 pay money into court pending the appeal r e q u i r e d by § 35-9A-461(d)(1), of the case, A l a . Code 1975. The as circuit c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on S e p t e m b e r 15, 2009, g r a n t i n g H a l l ' s motion for a detainer, waiving summary judgment granting Hall's the automatic on motion i t s claim for a writ of unlawful of possession, s t a y o f t h e judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 6 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d c e r t i f y i n g t h a t j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. Radcliff filed a notice of appeal from the circuit c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 16, 2009; that court transferred the appeal to this court, p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Standard o f Review "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a summary j u d g m e n t i s t h e same as t h e s t a n d a r d f o r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n . ' M c C l e n d o n v . M o u n t a i n Top I n d o o r F l e a M a r k e t , I n c . , 601 So. 2d 957, 958 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . "'A summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s 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 and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y 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 ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s 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 and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a matter of law. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether the movant has c a r r i e d t h a t b u r d e n , t h e c o u r t i s t o v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most 5 2081196 f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and t o draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f t h a t p a r t y . To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e nonmoving p a r t y must p r e s e n t " s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" c r e a t i n g a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t -- " 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 that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment 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 . " Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989) .' " C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v. T h o r o u g h - C l e a n , I n c . , 639 So. 2d 1349, 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . Q u e s t i o n s o f l a w a r e r e v i e w e d de n o v o . A l a b a m a R e p u b l i c a n P a r t y v. M c G i n l e y , 893 So. 2d 337, 342 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . " Tiller Civ. v. YW App. Hous. Partners, L t d . , 5 So. 3d 623, 628 ( A l a . 2008). Discussion On without appeal, Radcliff j u r i s d i c t i o n to enter H a l l b e c a u s e , he s a y s , district not court final court. that the c i r c u i t and w o u l d n o t court was a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f undecided claims and, t h u s , See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , Hall provides argues the d i s t r i c t support an remained before court's appeal judgment to the the was circuit A l a . R. C i v . P. a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t § 35-9A-461, A l a . Code 1975, an e x p e d i t e d procedure that authorizes the appeal of 6 2081196 an " e v i c t i o n j u d g m e n t " d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t o t h e r c l a i m s have not y e t been adjudicated. S e c t i o n 35-9A-461 p r o v i d e s , in pertinent part: "(a) A l a n d l o r d ' s a c t i o n f o r e v i c t i o n , r e n t , m o n e t a r y damages, o r o t h e r r e l i e f r e l a t i n g t o a t e n a n c y s u b j e c t t o t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be g o v e r n e d by t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e and t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e e x c e p t as m o d i f i e d by t h i s chapter. II "(d) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f S e c t i o n 12-12-70, [ A l a . Code 1975,] any p a r t y may appeal f r o m an e v i c t i o n j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a t any t i m e w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y t h e r e o f . The f i l i n g o f a t i m e l y post-judgment m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o the Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure s h a l l suspend the running of the t i m e f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . I n c a s e s where post-judgment motions are f i l e d , the f u l l time f i x e d f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l be computed f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y i n t h e c i v i l d o c k e t o f an order g r a n t i n g or denying such motion, or the date o f t h e d e n i a l o f s u c h m o t i o n by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . Upon f i l i n g o f an a p p e a l by e i t h e r p a r t y , the c l e r k of the c o u r t s h a l l schedule the a c t i o n f o r t r i a l as a p r e f e r r e d c a s e , and i t s h a l l be s e t f o r t r i a l w i t h i n 60 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e a p p e a l . I n e v i c t i o n a c t i o n s , an a p p e a l by a t e n a n t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t o r t o an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t does not prevent the issuance of a writ of r e s t i t u t i o n or p o s s e s s i o n u n l e s s the tenant pays t o the c l e r k of the c i r c u i t c o u r t a l l r e n t s p r o p e r l y p a y a b l e under the terms of the l e a s e s i n c e the date o f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e a c t i o n , and c o n t i n u e s t o pay a l l r e n t t h a t becomes due and p r o p e r l y p a y a b l e u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e l e a s e as t h e y become due, during 7 2081196 the pendency o f t h e a p p e a l . I n t h e event o f d i s p u t e , t h e amounts p r o p e r l y p a y a b l e s h a l l be a s c e r t a i n e d b y the c o u r t . II "(e) I f an e v i c t i o n j u d g m e n t e n t e r s i n f a v o r o f a l a n d l o r d , a w r i t o f p o s s e s s i o n s h a l l i s s u e upon a p p l i c a t i o n b y t h e l a n d l o r d . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g R u l e 62 of t h e Alabama Rules of C i v i l Procedure, the automatic s t a y on t h e i s s u a n c e of the w r i t of p o s s e s s i o n o r r e s t i t u t i o n s h a l l be f o r a p e r i o d o f seven days. I f a tenant w i t h o u t j u s t cause r e - e n t e r s t h e p r e m i s e s , t h e t e n a n t c a n be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t a n d s u c c e s s i v e w r i t s may i s s u e as a r e n e c e s s a r y to e f f e c t u a t e t h e e v i c t i o n judgment." H a l l a r g u e s t h a t § 35-9A-461(d) m o d i f i e s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e that an a p p e a l from a f i n a l lies "from f r o m an u n l a w f u l - d e t a i n e r judgment l i e s j u d g m e n t on a l l c l a i m s b y s t a t i n g t h a t an an e v i c t i o n judgment." We judgment" r a t h e r than from a only appeal "final agree. There i s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t e v e r y word, s e n t e n c e , o r p r o v i s i o n [ o f a s t a t u t e ] was i n t e n d e d f o r some u s e f u l p u r p o s e , has some f o r c e a n d e f f e c t , and t h a t some e f f e c t i s t o be g i v e n t o e a c h , a n d a l s o t h a t no s u p e r f l u o u s words o r p r o v i s i o n s were u s e d . ' " ' Ex p a r t e C h i l d r e n ' s Hosp. o f A l a b a m a , 721 So. 2d 184, 191 ( A l a . 1998) ( q u o t i n g S h e f f i e l d v . S t a t e , 708 So. 2d 899, 909 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n 82 C.J.S. S t a t u t e s § 316 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ) . Moreover, ' [ c ] o u r t s w i l l attempt t o g i v e meaning t o a l e g i s l a t i v e enactment and i t i s presumed t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t do a v a i n a n d u s e l e s s t h i n g , ' A l i d o r v. M o b i l e C o u n t y Comm'n, 291 A l a . 552, 558, 284 So. 2d 257, 261 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a n d ' t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , i n e n a c t i n g new l e g i s l a t i o n , i s p r e s u m e d t o know t h e II I II I 8 2081196 e x i s t i n g law.' B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f Alabama, I n c . v. N i e l s e n , 714 So. 2d 293, 297 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . " C i t y o f Montgomery v. Town o f P i k e Road, [Ms. 1071690, June 5, 2009] So. 3d The , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . use o f t h e phrase "eviction judgment" i n § 35-9A- 4 6 1 ( d ) , r a t h e r than t h e p h r a s e " f i n a l judgment," alongside the l a n g u a g e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h a t Code s e c t i o n s u p e r s e d e s § 12-12¬ 70, A l a . Code indicates 1975, w h i c h refers the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s intent types o f judgments. Allowing to a "final judgment," to distinguish a litigant t h o s e two t o p r o c e e d w i t h an a p p e a l f r o m an e v i c t i o n j u d g m e n t w h i l e o t h e r c l a i m s , the s u c h as "money c l a i m " a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , r e m a i n pending, thereby entered, sounds interpretation have been precluding i n logic effort final o f § 35-9A-461(d) evicted from judgment and good p u b l i c their appeal from those judgments, final a would homes from policy. allow being Such litigants an who an e x p e d i t e d avenue o f w h e r e a s an a p p e a l t a k e n f r o m a j u d g m e n t on a l l c l a i m s may be s o d e l a y e d as t o make t h e moot. We conclude that the l e g i s l a t u r e intended to a l l o w a p p e a l s f r o m an e v i c t i o n j u d g m e n t t o p r o c e e d i n c i r c u i t court despite there being pending claims before the d i s t r i c t c o u r t by v i r t u e o f t h e language used i n § 9 35-9A-461(d). 2081196 In within the the present case, i t s jurisdiction district court's therefore, to entertain Radcliff's judgment judgment i n f a v o r o f H a l l . raised circuit by Radcliff court's the c i r c u i t and t o t h e n appeal a brief, we was from summary B e c a u s e t h i s was t h e o n l y i n h i s appellate judgment. enter court affirm issue the 1 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , concur. We n o t e t h a t R a d c l i f f r a i s e d a number o f a r g u m e n t s i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f on a p p e a l s p e a k i n g t o t h e m e r i t s o f H a l l ' s c l a i m and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s p u r p o r t e d e r r o r i n e n t e r i n g a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f H a l l . However, b e c a u s e t h i s c o u r t w i l l not address i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time i n a p a r t y ' s r e p l y b r i e f , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . P a t e v . B i l l y B o y d R e a l t y & C o n s t r . , I n c . , 699 So. 2d 186, 189 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . 1 10

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.