LaDerle Faulk v. Reginald Rhodes et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/5/2010 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, 2010-2011 2090707 LaDerle Faulk v. R e g i n a l d Rhodes e t a l . Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CV-02-526) THOMAS, J u d g e . LaDerle Faulk appeals from a judgment o f t h e Houston C i r c u i t C o u r t a w a r d i n g h i m $2,500 i n damages r e s u l t i n g f r o m a failed commercial-real-estate remand w i t h instructions. transaction. We r e v e r s e a n d 2090707 F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y F a u l k owned a p a r c e l o f c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y c o n t a i n i n g a building i n Dothan business known as Mr. J ' s S t e a k h o u s e 2001, David tenant ("the p r o p e r t y " ) . Alexander approached who was i n t e r e s t e d Blackmon. After Faulk Faulk on t h e p r o p e r t y . Faulk i n leasing with Alexander then asked interested i n selling the property. a In a prospective t h e p r o p e r t y -- Wayne declined to lease Blackmon, operated whether the property to Faulk be would T h e r e a f t e r , on May 1 5 , 2001, F a u l k e n t e r e d i n t o a 90-day e x c l u s i v e l i s t i n g with Alexander. On A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 1 , F a u l k and R e g i n a l d agreement Rhodes entered i n t o a c o n t r a c t ("the s a l e s agreement"), which p r o v i d e d Rhodes w o u l d p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y prepared Faulk's f o r $630,000. t h e s a l e s agreement a t Rhodes's d i r e c t i o n approval. contained Among a contingency other terms, the sales that Alexander and w i t h agreement p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g Rhodes t o c a n c e l h i s p u r c h a s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t payment o f damages i f he could not locate a q u a l i f i e d notified Faulk of that fact tenant f o r t h e p r o p e r t y a n d he i n w r i t i n g w i t h i n 30 d a y s . The c o n t i n g e n c y p r o v i s i o n a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r l i q u i d a t e d damages i f 2 2090707 Rhodes failed to contingency. The notify Faulk of the failure of the provision stated: " S h o u l d [ R h o d e s ] n o t be a b l e t o s e c u r e a q u a l i f i e d t e n a n t and e n t e r i n t o an a c c e p t a b l e w r i t t e n l e a s e agreement t h e r e w i t h , w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) days a f t e r [ F a u l k ] s h a l l have e x e c u t e d t h i s s a l e s a g r e e m e n t , [ R h o d e s ' s ] e a r n e s t money s h a l l , upon demand, be r e t u r n e d and [ t h e s a l e s a g r e e m e n t ] s h a l l become n u l l and v o i d . S h o u l d [ R h o d e s ] f a i l t o n o t i f y [ F a u l k ] i n w r i t i n g t h a t t h i s c o n t i n g e n c y has n o t b e e n met, i f s u c h s h a l l be t h e c a s e , w i t h i n s a i d t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s of the date [Faulk] shall have e x e c u t e d this agreement, [Rhodes's] earnest money shall be f o r f e i t e d as l i q u i d a t e d damages and d i v i d e d e q u a l l y , o n e - h a l f t o [ F a u l k ] and o n e - h a l f t o [ A l e x a n d e r ] . D e t e r m i n a t i o n and/or q u a l i f i c a t i o n of tenant s h a l l be a t t h e s o l e d i s c r e t i o n o f [ R h o d e s ] . " The sales agreement liquidated-damages money s h a l l equally, also c l a u s e , which be forfeited one-half to should [Rhodes] f a i l , as contained separate s t a t e d : "[Rhodes's] earnest liquidated [ F a u l k ] and f o r any a damages and one-half reason, to divided [Alexander], to abide i n the t i m e l y manner p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n t o which he has agreed." Alexander to Blackmon. proposed Blackmon t o Rhodes t h a t he d e s i r e d to p r o p e r t y on S e p t e m b e r 1, 2001, were scheduled to c l o s e the take l e a s e the property possession a d a t e b e f o r e Rhodes and sale 3 on the property. of the Faulk Rhodes 2090707 testified t h a t he i n f o r m e d B l a c k m o n t h a t B l a c k m o n n e e d e d t o d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e w i t h F a u l k b e c a u s e Rhodes w o u l d n o t own t h e property as a on t h e d a t e t h a t B l a c k m o n d e s i r e d t o t a k e tenant; Blackmon. Faulk declined to enter On A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , Rhodes into a lease Faulk entered f o r the property. 1 into a possession lease and Blackmon with entered On t h e same d a y , Rhodes a n d i n t o a w r i t i n g t h a t was t i t l e d as an "addendum" t o t h e s a l e s agreement. The addendum provided: "Buyer has e n t e r e d i n t o a l e a s e agreement w i t h a t h i r d p a r t y a n d h a s r e c e i v e d t h e f i r s t month's r e n t i n t h e amount o f $5,500.00. Buyer and s e l l e r m u t u a l l y a g r e e t h a t i f t h e s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y does n o t c l o s e on o r b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 1 , t h e s e l l e r i s e n t i t l e d t o a p r o - r a t e d amount o f S e p t e m b e r r e n t u n t i l t h e day o f c l o s i n g . " The addendum a l s o c h a n g e d t h e p u r c h a s i n g p a r t y f r o m Rhodes t o R.A.R. P r o p e r t i e s , L.L.C., a n d a l l o c a t e d t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f $630,000 a s $600,000 f o r the purchase of the property $30,000 f o r a 5 - y e a r non compete a g r e e m e n t . s i g n e d b y Rhodes a n d F a u l k . and The addendum was 2 R h o d e s s i g n e d t h e l e a s e i n h i s c a p a c i t y as t h e s o l e member o f R.A.R. P r o p e r t i e s , L.L.C. The l e a s e a l s o l i s t e d T.G.R. P r o p e r t i e s , L.L.C., a n d D i c k ' s R e n t a l s , L.L.C., as lessors. 1 R h o d e s s i g n e d t h e addendum i n h i s c a p a c i t y as t h e s o l e member o f R.A.R. P r o p e r t i e s , L.L.C. 2 4 2090707 On September property and 1, began 2001, B l a c k m o n operating took possession his restaurant. of the Blackmon's i n i t i a l r e n t c h e c k t o R h o d e s , f o r $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 , was r e t u r n e d b y t h e bank f o r i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s ; t h e b a n k n o t i f i e d Rhodes o f t h i s f a c t on S e p t e m b e r 14, 2 0 0 1 . T h a t same d a y , w h i c h was t h e 3 0 t h day after Rhodes a g r e e m e n t , Rhodes determined Rhodes was vacate Faulk orally had declining the property until the property; f o l l o w i n g year. October sales t h a t Rhodes had t e n a n t and t h a t money. Alexander Blackmon d i d 21, 2001; he d i d n o t F o l l o w i n g the f a i l u r e of the s a l e of t h e bank t o make h i s m o r t g a g e f o r e c l o s e d on Faulk l a t e r declared summarized the the p r o p e r t y . r e t u r n e d Rhodes's e a r n e s t t h e p r o p e r t y , F a u l k was u n a b l e We into n o t i f i e d Alexander t o purchase make any r e n t p a y m e n t s . on entered t h a t B l a c k m o n was n o t a q u a l i f i e d subsequently not and the procedural F a u l k v. Rhodes, 43 So. 3d 624 payments the property bankruptcy. history of ( A l a . C i v . App. this case 2010): "On J u l y 18, 2002, L a D e r l e F a u l k s u e d R e g i n a l d Rhodes, The F l e t c h e r Moore Company, A.L. Trull, Rhodes P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, and T. Graham Rhodes P r o p e r t i e s , LLC. I n F a u l k ' s c o m p l a i n t , he a l l e g e d a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m and a c l a i m seeking specific performance arising out of a failed c o m m e r c i a l - r e a l - e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n . F a u l k amended h i s c o m p l a i n t i n A u g u s t 2002 t o add a c l a i m s e e k i n g 1 5 the in 2090707 moneys a l l e g e d l y owed t o F a u l k a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms of a c o m m e r c i a l - l e a s e agreement e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n Rhodes and Wayne B l a c k m o n . On S e p t e m b e r 20, 2002, Rhodes moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t , p u r s u a n t to R u l e s 19 and 20, A l a . R. C i v . P., t o add B l a c k m o n and W i l l i a m Hampton d/b/a Hampton F i n a n c i a l as n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . Rhodes a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t he had b e e n named as a d e f e n d a n t i n F a u l k ' s l a w s u i t b e c a u s e o f B l a c k m o n ' s and Hampton's f a i l u r e t o pay t h e amounts owed t o Rhodes u n d e r a c o m m e r c i a l lease. Rhodes filed in that same motion a c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i n s t B l a c k m o n and Hampton a l l e g i n g breach of c o n t r a c t f o r t h e i r breach of the l e a s e . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d R h o d e s ' s m o t i o n . "In June 2008, F a u l k moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t o add R.A.R. P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, as a d e f e n d a n t t o t h e a c t i o n and t o add t o h i s c o m p l a i n t a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m a g a i n s t i t . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d F a u l k ' s motion. 2 "The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on M a r c h 19, 2009, a t w h i c h t h e t r i a l court heard evidence p r e s e n t e d ore tenus. F o l l o w i n g the h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g F a u l k $2,500 i n damages on h i s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m a g a i n s t Rhodes and R.A.R. P r o p e r t i e s , L L C . The j u d g m e n t d i d n o t a d d r e s s F a u l k ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t Rhodes P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, o r R h o d e s ' s c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i n s t B l a c k m o n and Hampton. F a u l k f i l e d a p u r p o r t e d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h t h e t r i a l court denied. 3 " The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f A.L. T r u l l on a l l F a u l k ' s c l a i m s . T. Graham Rhodes P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, was d i s m i s s e d f r o m t h e c a s e by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . Faulk entered into a p r o t a n t o s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h The F l e t c h e r Moore Company, s e t t l i n g a l l F a u l k ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t 1 6 2090707 it. The c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s i s s u e on a p p e a l . " R.A.R. Rhodes. P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, 2 are not at i s wholly owned by " A t t r i a l , F a u l k o r a l l y abandoned h i s s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e c l a i m , s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c l a i m h a d become moot b e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n h a d b e e n f o r e c l o s e d on b y t h e m o r t g a g e h o l d e r . " 3 43 So. 3d a t 624-25. Faulk appealed to this court. appeal, h o l d i n g that the t r i a l because i t had not d i s p o s e d We dismissed Faulk's c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was n o t f i n a l of Faulk's claim against Rhodes P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, o r R h o d e s ' s c r o s s - c l a i m a g a i n s t B l a c k m o n and Hampton. I d . S u b s e q u e n t l y , denying Faulk's denying Rhodes's Faulk appealed claim t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment against Rhodes cross-claim against the t r i a l P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, Blackmon and c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h i s and Hampton. court. Issues F a u l k r a i s e s two i s s u e s i n h i s a p p e a l : was required to f u l f i l l (1) w h e t h e r Rhodes t h e t e r m s o f t h e s a l e s a g r e e m e n t by c l o s i n g on t h e p r o p e r t y a n d (2) w h e t h e r t h e liquidated-damages clause l i m i t e d Faulk's recovery f o r breach of c o n t r a c t . Standard of Review 7 2090707 "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on those f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s or m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). '"The p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ore tenus r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the facts.' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC Inc., 985 So. 2d 924, 929 v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f Club, ( A l a . 2007). Analysis Faulk his first a r g u e s t h a t Rhodes was o b l i g a t i o n under property because, the Faulk sales says, required to agreement Rhodes to entered fulfill purchase into a the lease a g r e e m e n t w i t h B l a c k m o n , t h u s q u a l i f y i n g B l a c k m o n as a t e n a n t . However, the question agreement i s not trial not whether Rhodes at issue i n t h i s case. breached the sales Rhodes a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d b r e a c h e d t h e s a l e s a g r e e m e n t b e c a u s e he give Faulk written notice 8 that he had not secured at did a 2090707 q u a l i f i e d t e n a n t , as r e q u i r e d by t h e s a l e s a g r e e m e n t . note t h a t Faulk abandoned h i s s p e c i f i c - p e r f o r m a n c e trial. Thus, t h e only issue for this appeal i s whether the trial court's court award to of We also claim at consider on damages was Faulk next argues t h a t the liquidated-damages c l a u s e did proper. not limit his recovery agreement because, F a u l k for Rhodes's says, c o n s t i t u t e d a p e n a l t y and, the the sales liquidated-damages clause t h u s , was breach of void. "Th[e Supreme] C o u r t s e t f o r t h t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f l i q u i d a t e d damages c l a u s e s i n C a m e l o t M u s i c , I n c . v. Marx R e a l t y & Improvement Co., 514 So. 2d 987 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) : " ' I t i s t r u e i n Alabama t h a t , because p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n s a r e v o i d as against p u b l i c p o l i c y , " C o u r t s ... a r e d i s p o s e d t o lean against any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t w h i c h w i l l make t h e p r o v i s i o n one f o r l i q u i d a t e d damages and, i n a l l c a s e s o f doubtful intention, will pronounce the s t i p u l a t e d sum a p e n a l t y . " Cook v. Brown, 408 So. 2d 143, 144 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ; see a l s o , K e e b l e v. K e e b l e , 85 A l a . 552, 5 So. 149 (1888). In Alabama, l i q u i d a t e d damages a r e a sum t o be p a i d i n l i e u o f p e r f o r m a n c e , F o r s y t h v. C e n t r a l F o u n d r y Co. , 240 A l a . 277, 198 So. 706 (1940), while a penalty i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a security for the performance of the a g r e e m e n t o r as a p u n i s h m e n t f o r d e f a u l t . S t a n d a r d T i l t o n M i l l i n g Co. v. T o o l e , 22 3 Ala. 450, 137 So. 13 ( 1 9 3 1 ) . The c o u r t s 9 2090707 g e n e r a l l y i d e n t i f y t h r e e c r i t e r i a by w h i c h a v a l i d l i q u i d a t e d damages c l a u s e may be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a p e n a l t y . F i r s t , the injury caused by the breach must be difficult or impossible to accurately e s t i m a t e ; s e c o n d , t h e p a r t i e s must i n t e n d t o p r o v i d e f o r damages r a t h e r t h a n f o r a p e n a l t y ; and, t h i r d , t h e sum s t i p u l a t e d must be a r e a s o n a b l e p r e - b r e a c h [estimate] o f t h e p r o b a b l e l o s s . See, C. Gamble and D. C o r l e y , A l a b a m a Law o f Damages, § 5-4 (1982). Determining whether a l i q u i d a t e d damages p r o v i s i o n i s v a l i d i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w t o be d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e t r i a l court b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e . Cook v. Brown, 408 So.2d 143 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981).' "514 So. 2d 990." Sutton v. E p p e r s o n , 631 So. 2d 832, 835 In this difficult Rhodes case, the injury caused to accurately estimate entered into the sales ( A l a . 1993). by breach was at the time t h a t Faulk and agreement. the The damages that F a u l k c l a i m e d h a d b e e n c a u s e d by R h o d e s ' s b r e a c h o f t h e s a l e s agreement payments included: on the that he property, could not resulting make in h i s mortgage the bank later f o r e c l o s i n g on t h e p r o p e r t y ; t h a t t h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e and t h e S t a t e o f Alabama f i l e d l i e n s a g a i n s t F a u l k f o r u n p a i d taxes; and t h a t wide-ranging Faulk injuries was and forced to f i l e damages 10 bankruptcy. claimed by Faulk The for 2090707 Rhodes's breach difficult to e s t i m a t e or f o r e s e e at the time of the f o r m a t i o n of of the sales the s a l e s agreement. the record that c l a u s e was agreement I n a d d i t i o n , we would indicate that party Highway D e p ' t , of contract." 568 So. 2d 784, A p e n a l t y has been designed to punish Milton 790 been liquidated-damages d e s i g n e d t o a c t as a p e n a l t y . f o r breach have f i n d no e v i d e n c e i n the d e f i n e d as "a s e c u r i t y f o r p e r f o r m a n c e would C o n s t r . Co. ( A l a . 1990). v. We one State see no evidence i n the r e c o r d t h a t the liquidated-damages clause i n this threat of Finally, we case was punishment designed f o r breach to of secure the performance sales by agreement. f i n d t h a t t h e amount o f l i q u i d a t e d damages p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e sales agreement estimate of -- $5,000 -- Faulk's probable was loss. a reasonable Although e x t e n s i v e damages f o r a m u l t i t u d e o f i n j u r i e s Rhodes's f a i l u r e t o complete cannot pre-breach Faulk claims resulting from t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , we a g r e e t h a t , a b s e n t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e t r i a l court t h a t t h o s e damages were i n t h e s p e c i f i c contemplation of the parties into damages at the time arising foreclosures, that from they entered potential and b a n k r u p t c y filings 11 tax the agreement, liens, mortgage were damages t h a t were 2090707 reasonable breach. was for the parties have estimated before the T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h a t t h e l i q u i d a t e d - d a m a g e s c l a u s e valid. Like the liquidated-damages the liquidated-damages by to the plaintiff, the clause at issue clause i n this nonbreaching i n Sutton, case i s b e i n g a t t a c k e d party, who wishes to r e c o v e r more t h a n t h e amount a l l o w e d by t h e l i q u i d a t e d - d a m a g e s clause. I n S u t t o n , o u r supreme c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h e unusual n a t u r e of a case i n v o l v i n g a p l a i n t i f f ' s s e e k i n g t o escape the e n f o r c e m e n t o f a l i q u i d a t e d - d a m a g e c l a u s e . S u t t o n , 631 So. at 834. The 2d Sutton court noted: " I n A m e r i c a n D i s t r i c t T e l e g r a p h Co. o f A l a b a m a v. R o b e r t s & Son, I n c . , 219 A l a . 595, 122 So. 837 ( 1 9 2 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t observed about a s i m i l a r c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n : "'As we v i e w t h i s c l a u s e , i t i s b u t a limitation o f t h e amount r e c o v e r a b l e i n case of a breach of the c o n t r a c t . I t i s u n l i k e those c o n t r a c t s or clauses construed by t h e c o u r t s as b e i n g i n v a l i d b e c a u s e p r o v i d i n g a p e n a l t y t h o u g h d e s i g n a t e d as l i q u i d a t e d damages. "'The c o n t r a c t does n o t p e n a l i z e t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r a f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m , and i t o n l y r e s t r i c t s t h e p l a i n t i f f as t o i t s recovery i n case o f a b r e a c h by the d e f e n d a n t , and does n o t a t t e m p t t o p e n a l i z e o r f i x t h e damages a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f i n c a s e o f a b r e a c h by i t . I t d e a l s o n l y w i t h a b r e a c h by t h e d e f e n d a n t , and i n no s e n s e 12 2090707 p e n a l i z e s i t f o r a breach Conceding, h o w e v e r , t h a t , b y l i m i t i n g t h e amount o f r e c o v e r a b l e damages, i t o p e r a t e s as a b u r d e n o r h a r d s h i p on t h e p l a i n t i f f , s t i l l we a r e n o t a t l i b e r t y ... t o make a new c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p a r t i e s o r t o s t r i k e ... a clause w e l l understood and e v i d e n t l y w i t h i n the i n t e n t i o n of the p a r t i e s . ' "219 A l a . a t 598, 122 So. a t 839." I d . a t 836. in this to We see no r e a s o n c a s e , w h i c h was allow Faulk t o r e w r i t e t h e s a l e s agreement f r e e l y e n t e r e d i n t o by b o t h t o escape the o p e r a t i o n of the parties, liquidated- damages c l a u s e w i t h r e g a r d t o h i s c l a i m s o f damages r e s u l t i n g from Rhodes's b r e a c h of t h a t agreement. However, t h e l i q u i d a t e d - d a m a g e s c l a u s e does n o t f o r e c l o s e F a u l k f r o m r e c o v e r i n g t h e amount o f r e n t due f o r t h e p r o p e r t y for t h e month o f September agreement. u n d e r t h e addendum t o t h e s a l e s One o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e addendum s t a t e s t h a t F a u l k i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e n t s due f r o m B l a c k m o n f o r t h e month of September date. -- f r o m September 1, 2001, until the closing Rhodes n e v e r c l o s e d on t h e p r o p e r t y , and B l a c k m o n a tenant f o r the e n t i r e month o f S e p t e m b e r , thus was entitling F a u l k t o r e c e i v e t h e $5,500 i n r e n t due f r o m B l a c k m o n f o r t h a t month. for Rhodes's o b l i g a t i o n t o pay F a u l k r e n t f o r t h e p r o p e r t y t h e month o f September i s separate 13 and apart from any 2090707 o b l i g a t i o n t o c l o s e on t h e p r o p e r t y . Rhodes of h i s o b l i g a t i o n Even absent t o purchase a breach by the property, still w o u l d have h a d an o b l i g a t i o n share o f t h e r e n t due f o r t h e p r o p e r t y f o r S e p t e m b e r . the liquidated-damages clause does t o pay Faulk Rhodes not prevent a prorated Thus, Faulk from r e c o v e r i n g t h e $5,500 i n r e n t due f o r t h e month o f S e p t e m b e r . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l and remand t h e c a u s e t o t h a t c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s trial court t o award Faulk $8,000 court for the i n damages -- $5,500 i n damages f o r t h e u n p a i d r e n t payment i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e $2,500 the t r i a l c o u r t had awarded F a u l k under t h e l i q u i d a t e d - d a m a g e s clause. 3 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Bryan, a n d Moore, J J . , concur. On a p p e a l , F a u l k a l s o a r g u e s t h a t he s h o u l d have b e e n a w a r d e d i n t e r e s t on t h e amount a w a r d e d u n d e r t h e l i q u i d a t e d damages c l a u s e . However, F a u l k d i d n o t f i r s t p r e s e n t t h i s a r g u m e n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; t h u s , we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r i t . See D e F r i e c e v . M c C o r q u o d a l e , 998 So. 2d 465, 472 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p a r t y " c a n n o t now, i n [an] a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , r a i s e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e c l a i m s t h a t were n e v e r made i n the t r i a l c o u r t " ) . 3 14

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.