Jeanette Wicks v. Jeffrey Robert Wicks II
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
rel: 01/14/2011 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 2090817 Jeanette Wicks v. Jeffrey Robert Wicks I I Appeal from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-378) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . J e a n e t t e Wicks ("Jeanette") the Colbert Circuit Court appeals from t h e judgment o f t h a t , among o t h e r things, ordered her t o s e l l h e r i n t e r e s t i n c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y t o J e f f r e y 2090817 Robert Wicks I I ("Jay"). For the reasons s t a t e d h e r e i n , we reverse. J a y f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s f a t h e r , J e f f r e y R. ( " J e f f " ) , and h i s s t e p m o t h e r , J e a n e t t e , s t y l i n g his complaint a " p e t i t i o n In his complaint, Jay alleged currently involved i n a divorce arisen regarding Sheffield ("the grandparents, that, parcel who are his father ("Ronald"), who were the property vested him Jay had with and had owned t h e issue had in his paternal property property uncle, heirs of a l l e g e d t h a t he property property since had 2005 and paternal t h a t c o n f l i c t i n g deeds regarding of the paid the that, been u n i n h a b i t a b l e , amount o f money t o Wicks his recorded had been E. and that one property of while the one deeds v e s t e d J e f f and J e a n e t t e w i t h o w n e r s h i p o f t h e Jay and had Ronald only asserted ownership were located property the judgment." t h a t an that 2008, Jeanette his the been and alleged proceedings, to grandparents. real Jay deceased, estate Jeff a c t i o n and of property"). through granted a on December 23, for declaratory that Wicks renovate i t . 2 t a x e s and because he He had house of the property. insurance the deeds on on the the spent a s u b s t a n t i a l asserted that Jeff and 2090817 Jeanette the had not p a i d the taxes property and that they or the cost of insurance f o r had not contributed m a i n t e n a n c e and i m p r o v e m e n t s on t h e p r o p e r t y . t h a t he was t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y , "to render property Jay a s s e r t e d and g r a n t i n g " t h e t o him. At the t r i a l , deed recorded c o u r t h e l d a bench s e v e r a l deeds were s u b m i t t e d introduced was executed on September 12, 2005. tenants with right trial. i n t o evidence. on A u g u s t 1, 2005, to Jeff purported introduced of s u r v i v o r s h i p . into and and J e a n e t t e A evidence. t o convey the p r o p e r t y By t h a t d e e d , to Jay. as second deed, w h i c h was e x e c u t e d on September 14, 2005, and r e c o r d e d t h a t d a y , was The By t h a t d e e d , R o n a l d and J e f f conveyed ownership of the p r o p e r t y joint the and he a s k e d t h e c o u r t a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a d j u d g i n g On September 9, 2009, t h e t r i a l first to later Jeff The d e e d does n o t l i s t J e a n e t t e as a g r a n t o r , and she d i d n o t e x e c u t e t h a t d e e d . A third deed, w h i c h was identical t o the first deed, was introduced. I t a l s o was e x e c u t e d on September 14, 2005, and was l a t e r t h a t day. recorded At the trial, Ronald t e s t i f i e d that the property had o r i g i n a l l y b e l o n g e d t o E d w a r d W i c k s and E v e l y n W i c k s , who were 3 2090817 Jeff's and Ronald's parents. W i c k s had d i e d i n 1989 and Ronald testified t h a t E d w a r d W i c k s had that Evelyn d i e d i n 2004. R o n a l d s t a t e d t h a t he had b e e n t h e e x e c u t o r o f E d w a r d W i c k s ' s estate and that Jeff Ronald t e s t i f i e d had and and Ronald a u t o m o b i l e and had and an a u t o m o b i l e . agreed a u t o m o b i l e was he that Jay brother 2004, Ronald would receive a l t h o u g h he testified that the with the the i n poor c o n d i t i o n . automobile that Ronald t e s t i f i e d that t o Jay. o f t h e h o u s e was and the He that stated property the that had stated that his opinion had as while their Jay substantial amount he things, conditioning paternal testified of work r e p l a c i n g the unit, and to speculation. and Josh Wicks, Jay's younger ( " J o s h " ) , b e g a n l i v i n g i n t h e h o u s e on t h e p r o p e r t y probated. other was the comparable v a l u e s , the v a l u e that w o r t h b e t w e e n $10,000 and $12,000 and the p r o p e r t y believed heirs. Ronald stated t h a t J e f f would r e c e i v e the p r o p e r t y i n t e n t to g i v e the p r o p e r t y h o u s e on were E d w a r d W i c k s ' s s o l e t h a t , a t Edward Wicks's d e a t h , Edward Wicks owned t h e p r o p e r t y Jeff he grandfather's that to Josh, the roof, replacing 4 estate Jeff, house, and he including, r e p l a c i n g the the was kitchen in being did a among central-airand bathroom 2090817 floors. He testified that the t o t a l i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e p r o p e r t y was $ 3 8 , 0 8 3 . received a letter dated A p r i l cost of a l l the J a y s t a t e d t h a t he 9, 2008, d u r i n g t h e t i m e that J e f f a n d J e a n e t t e were g o i n g t h r o u g h a d i v o r c e , i n d i c t i n g t h a t Jeanette April planned 15, 2008. t o move i n t o t h e h o u s e on t h e p r o p e r t y on Jay t e s t i f i e d that this was t h e f i r s t n o t i c e he h a d t h a t J e a n e t t e c l a i m e d an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y , a n d he s t a t e d t h a t , h a d he known t h a t J e a n e t t e interest i n the property, had claimed he w o u l d n o t have i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t he h a d made. made an a l l the Jay testified t h a t he h a d p a i d a l l t h e p r o p e r t y t a x e s f o rthe property i n 2006, 2005 2007, a n d 2008 f o r the t a x years t e s t i m o n y was s u p p o r t e d showing by t a x records e n t e r e d i n t o t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was a s s e s s e d testified t o 2007. i n Jay's 2005. evidence name. Jay t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was i n s u r e d i n h i s name a n d t h a t he h a d p a i d t h e premium f o r t h e p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e in This beginning J a y s t a t e d t h a t J e a n e t t e had never o f f e r e d t o pay t h e p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e o r p r o p e r t y t a x e s on t h e p r o p e r t y a n d t h a t s h e h a d n o t p a i d f o r a n y o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s t h a t he h a d made t o t h e p r o p e r t y . 5 2090817 Jeanette October testified 2004. She that she testified and J e f f that were married she h a d h e l p e d with in the i m p r o v e m e n t s on t h e p r o p e r t y b y c l e a n i n g and p a i n t i n g and t h a t some o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s , s u c h as t h e new central-air-conditioning roof and h e r i n t e n t i o n younger b r o t h e r to l i v e Jeanette and t h a t , once She a l s o the p r o p e r t y in stated that insurance they she a n d J e f f were g o i n g t o s e l l i t . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she p a i d t h e t a x e s on t h e p r o p e r t y 2005. stated h a d b e e n t o a l l o w J a y and h i s on t h e p r o p e r t y moved o f f o f t h e p r o p e r t y , or new u n i t , had been p a i d f o r out o f a bank a c c o u n t t h a t J e f f and she h a d h e l d j o i n t l y . that J e f f ' s and t h e f o r 2004 she and J e f f were p a y i n g f o r on t h e p r o p e r t y when t h e y were m a r r i e d 2004. Jeff intention testified that that Ronald's i t had daughter been Ronald's receive their and his father's a u t o m o b i l e and t h a t J a y r e c e i v e t h e p r o p e r t y . He s t a t e d that he property were believed that the automobile approximately equal i n value. and the He t e s t i f i e d t h a t J e a n e t t e d i d n o t p a y f o r any o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e p r o p e r t y testified. as she h a d J e f f t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t had been h i s i n t e n t i o n J a y w o u l d own t h e property. 6 that 2090817 After the t r i a l , Jeanette argued t h a t the evidence filed a brief i n which she a t t r i a l d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t s h e owned a o n e - h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y a s a t e n a n t i n common w i t h Jay. She a s s e r t e d t h a t J e f f a n d R o n a l d h a d t a k e n o w n e r s h i p o f t h e p r o p e r t y as t e n a n t s i n common a n d t h a t t h e A u g u s t 1, 2005, deed conveyed right title to Jeff o f s u r v i v o r s h i p , each a n d h e r as j o i n t owning tenants an u n d i v i d e d , with one-half interest i n theproperty. She a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e September of the property 14, 2005, deed s e r v e d t o convey J e f f ' s Jay, her one-half interest destroying the survivorship rights t o become t e n a n t s from J e f f toJay i n the property to and c a u s i n g J a y and i n common o f t h e p r o p e r t y . She a r g u e d t h a t t h e t h i r d d e e d , w h i c h was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f i r s t deed, was i n v a l i d b e c a u s e , a t t h e t i m e i t was r e c o r d e d , n e i t h e r J e f f nor R o n a l d had any l e g a l i n t e r e s t As t o the testimony at t r i a l remaining i n the property. r e g a r d i n g improvements t h a t had b e e n made t o t h e p r o p e r t y , J e a n e t t e argued t h a t the i s s u e of r e i m b u r s e m e n t among c o t e n a n t s was n o t an i s s u e t h a t was b e f o r e the c o u r t and t h a t , i n s t e a d , t h e o n l y i s s u e b e f o r e was the request for relief i n Jay's complaint, the court i.e., declaration of thep a r t i e s ' respective rights i nthe property. 7 a 2090817 She argued that "each p e t i t i o n the court that, "when further addressing those by i n common has t h e r i g h t t o f o r sale or d i v i s i o n of the property" an a c t i o n request Jay tenant of for partition the Court," i s filed she would o f t h e deeds, " t h e p a r t i e s property." and/or file upon a brief He s t a t e d that, issues. also f i l e d a b r i e f a f t e r the t r i a l . virtue and He a r g u e d t h a t are cotenants the property presently of the was w o r t h s u b s t a n t i a l l y more t h a n i t h a d b e e n w o r t h i n 2005 a n d t h a t , "[i]f any money i s due t o be e x c h a n g e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s as cotenants then [ h e ] i s due t o be expended f o r t a x e s , insurance, mistaken b e l i e f that stated that situation property only relief that t o order bona of any f i d e owner." i s equitable sole t o [ h i m ] a n d t o remove any c l o u d [Jeanette] f o r t h e sums a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s made u n d e r t h e he was t h e s o l e i s f o r the Court divesting property." "[t]he reimbursed interest possession i n this of the on [ h i s ] t i t l e she has He by i n the 1 J e a n e t t e a r g u e s t h a t she was n o t s e r v e d w i t h a c o p y o f J a y ' s p o s t t r i a l b r i e f b e f o r e the e n t r y of t h e f i n a l judgment. We n o t e t h a t J a y d i d n o t a t t a c h t o h i s p o s t t r i a l b r i e f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f s e r v i c e i n d i c a t i n g s e r v i c e o f t h e b r i e f on Jeanette. 1 8 2090817 On December 29, 2009, the trial court entered a j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h i t f o u n d t h a t J e a n e t t e and J a y were in common o f t h e therein. to and property, each owning a o n e - h a l f I t f o u n d t h a t J a y had p a i d f o r a l l t h e the p r o p e r t y s i n c e 2005, t h a t J a y had tenants interest improvements paid property taxes i n s u r a n c e on t h e p r o p e r t y i n t h e amount o f $3,550.09, that Jeanette had not c o n t r i b u t e d to the payment o f t h e p r o p e r t y t a x e s The final trial September court 2005 and insurance found t h a t the value was $15,000. improvements or Based of on t h e the on to property. property those and as of findings, i t ordered: "1. [ J a y ] s h a l l r e t a i n ownership of the p r o p e r t y "2. [Jeanette] s h a l l deed t o s a i d p r o p e r t y . sole give possession [Jay] a quit and claim "3. [ J a y ] s h a l l pay [ J e a n e t t e ] t h e amount o f $5,724.95, f o r her one-half interest in said p r o p e r t y l e s s o n e - h a l f o f t h e t a x e s and insurance p a i d on s a i d p r o p e r t y s i n c e 2005, upon r e c e i p t o f the q u i t c l a i m deed." Jeanette filed a postjudgment motion, after which the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an amended o r d e r c l a r i f y i n g t h a t t h e total amount due to trial court c a l c u l a t e d by had her from Jay was $5,724.95, w h i c h deducting 9 half of the the taxes and 2090817 property insurance Jay had paid f o r the property from the $7,500 v a l u e o f J e a n e t t e ' s o n e - h a l f i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . Jeanette f i l e d a timely appeal. Because the t r i a l evidence, we correct, and will we c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d on o r e presume will not that set i t s factual them p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong o r u n j u s t . So. 2d 423, presumption 428 ( A l a . C i v . App. 271 findings unless they ( A l a . C i v . App. of Cedar B l u f f 1255-56 We do n o t e x t e n d See H i n d s v. H i n d s , 2003). I n s t e a d , we v. Citizens Caring 887 review to this 2d trial See Town So. 2d ( A l a . 2004). Jay Specifically, that she he did not t h e p r o p e r t y and c o u r t e r r e d by g r a n t i n g request in his argues t h a t , i n h i s complaint, o n l y a d e c l a r a t i o n as t o t h e p a r t i e s ' the 990 So. a f o r C h i l d r e n , 904 Jeanette contends t h a t the t r i a l relief are See T y l e r v. T y l e r , c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s de n o v o . 1253, are of c o r r e c t n e s s to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o the f a c t s , however. 267, 2008). aside tenus t h a t the t r i a l determination requested, d i v i d e d the p a r t i e s ' Jay sought ownership i n t e r e s t s i n c o u r t , i n a d d i t i o n to making improperly went i n t e r e s t s i n the p r o p e r t y . 10 complaint. further We and agree. 2090817 In Chapman v. supreme c o u r t Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972 ( A l a . 2007), stated: "We f i r s t address the defendants' contention t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g r e l i e f i n p a r a g r a p h s 8-10 o f i t s o r d e r b a s e d on an i s s u e n e v e r j o i n e d by t h e p a r t i e s , n a m e l y , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f § 1 7 7 ( b ) [ , A l a . C o n s t . 1901] We r e c o g n i z e t h e r u l e t h a t a ' f i n a l judgment s h a l l g r a n t the r e l i e f t o w h i c h t h e p a r t y i n whose f a v o r i t i s r e n d e r e d i s e n t i t l e d , e v e n i f t h e p a r t y has n o t demanded s u c h r e l i e f i n the p a r t y ' s p l e a d i n g s . ' A l a . R. C i v . P. 54(c). However, t h e r u l e has i t s l i m i t s : "'A c o u r t may n o t , w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f a l l p e r s o n s a f f e c t e d , e n t e r a judgment w h i c h goes b e y o n d t h e c l a i m a s s e r t e d i n t h e pleadings.... Unless a l l parties in i n t e r e s t a r e i n c o u r t and have v o l u n t a r i l y litigated some issue not within the p l e a d i n g s , t h e c o u r t can c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e i s s u e s made by t h e p l e a d i n g s , and the j u d g m e n t may n o t e x t e n d b e y o n d s u c h i s s u e s nor beyond the scope of the relief demanded. " ' "'The foregoing rules are a l l f u n d a m e n t a l and s t a t e n o t h i n g more t h a n t h e e s s e n t i a l s o f due p r o c e s s and o f f a i r p l a y . They a s s u r e t o e v e r y p e r s o n h i s day i n c o u r t b e f o r e judgment i s pronounced a g a i n s t him.' " C e n t r a l Bank o f A l a b a m a , N.A. v. Ambrose, 435 So. 2d 1203, 1206 ( A l a . 1983) ( q u o t i n g S y l v a n Beach, I n c . v. K o c h , 140 F.2d 852, 861-62 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 4 4 ) ) . The q u e s t i o n t h u s r e s o l v e s i t s e l f t o w h e t h e r t h e r e l i e f g i v e n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s b a s e d upon i s s u e s 11 our 2090817 that 'were i n t h e c a s e . ' (emphasis added)." 974 So. 2d a t 984-85. 121, 122-23 pursuant See a l s o P r i c e which the opposing to challenge, the r e l i e f s u s t a i n e d on a p p e a l . ' " 266, 2d a t 1207 v. P r i c e , 54(c) i s not j u s t i f i e d by p r o o f opportunity So. 442 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983) ( " ' [ I ] f t h e r e l i e f t o Rule justified 435 by t h e proof granted or i s p a r t y h a s n o t h a d an granted should n o t be ( q u o t i n g C a r d e n v. Penney, 362 So. 2d 269 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) ) ) . The e f f e c t o f t h e t r i a l case was t o d e c l a r e t h a t common o f t h e p r o p e r t y , require Jeanette to s e l l Section 35-6-100 et c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h e p r e s e n t J a y and J e a n e t t e to partition were tenants i n the property, and t o her i n t e r e s t i n the property t o Jay. s e q . , A l a . Code s t a t u t o r y basis f o r a l l o w i n g a tenant 1975, p r o v i d e s 2 the i n common t o p u r c h a s e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e o t h e r t e n a n t s i n common as was o r d e r e d b y the t r i a l court i n this case. S e c t i o n 35-6-100 p r o v i d e s : "Upon t h e f i l i n g o f a n y p e t i t i o n f o r a s a l e f o r d i v i s i o n o f any p r o p e r t y , r e a l o r p e r s o n a l , h e l d by j o i n t owners o r t e n a n t s i n common, t h e c o u r t s h a l l On court's property judgment 2 a p p e a l , both J a y and J e a n e t t e agree t h a t t h e t r i a l f i n d i n g t h a t t h e y a r e t e n a n t s i n common o f t h e was c o r r e c t . T h u s , we a c c e p t t h a t a s p e c t o f t h e as a c c u r a t e . 12 2090817 provide f o r the purchase of the i n t e r e s t s of the j o i n t owners o r t e n a n t s i n common f i l i n g f o r t h e p e t i t i o n o r a n y o t h e r s named t h e r e i n who a g r e e t o t h e s a l e b y t h e o t h e r j o i n t owners o r t e n a n t s i n common o r a n y one o f them. P r o v i d e d t h a t t h e j o i n t owners o r t e n a n t s i n common i n t e r e s t e d i n p u r c h a s i n g s u c h i n t e r e s t s s h a l l n o t i f y t h e c o u r t o f same n o t l a t e r t h a n 10 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l o f t h e c a s e a n d s h a l l be a l l o w e d t o p u r c h a s e w h e t h e r d e f a u l t h a s b e e n e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them o r n o t . " If the tenants i n common a r e n o t a b l e "the v a l u e of the i n t e r e s t determined b y one o r more c o m p e t e n t r e a l e s t a t e a p p r a i s e r s o r commissioners, or interests t o a g r e e on a p r i c e , t o be s o l d s h a l l be as t h e c o u r t s h a l l approve, a p p o i n t e d f o r such p u r p o s e b y t h e c o u r t , " a n d t h e a p p r a i s e r s a r e t o make a r e p o r t to t h e c o u r t o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e i n t e r e s t o r i n t e r e s t s t o be purchased. § 35-6-101. The c o t e n a n t purchasing c o t e n a n t s ' i n t e r e s t must p a y t h e d e t e r m i n e d and, upon so d o i n g , transferring cotenant. In for the the clerk purchased amount i n t o c o u r t , i s to issue interest the other to an instrument the purchasing § 35-6-102. the present case, Jay s t y l e d h i s complaint a " p e t i t i o n d e c l a r a t o r y judgment," and, f o r a l l t h a t appears i n t h e complaint, rights he s o u g h t o n l y i n the property. indicating a d e c l a r a t i o n as t o t h e p a r t i e s ' There i s nothing t h a t he s o u g h t t o have t h e t r i a l 13 i n h i s complaint court partition 2090817 t h e p r o p e r t y and o r d e r J e a n e t t e t o s e l l t o him h e r i n t e r e s t i n the property. trial, as Jay d i d not r e q u i r e d by give n o t i c e 10 § 35-6-100, t h a t he days b e f o r e was interested p u r c h a s i n g J e a n e t t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y . of the evidence adduced a t t r i a l the in A l t h o u g h some f o c u s e d on t h e v a l u e o f the p r o p e r t y and t h e v a l u e o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s t h a t had b e e n made t o t h e p r o p e r t y , we c o n c l u d e , a f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e transcript of the t r i a l , sufficient t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y p r o v i d e d was not t o p l a c e J e a n e t t e on n o t i c e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i g h t r e q u i r e her to sell her further conclude support the t r i a l interest that the in the property evidence was to not Jay, and we sufficient to c o u r t ' s judgment a w a r d i n g Jay such relief, g i v e n t h e c l e a r l a c k o f n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by § 35-6-100 and absence of a v a l u a t i o n of the property by an appraiser the or c o m m i s s i o n e r as r e q u i r e d by § 3 5 - 6 - 1 0 1 . We hold, presented, implicitly based that or on Jeanette otherwise, r e q u i r e d to s e l l her pleadings did the not issue and the voluntarily whether she evidence litigate, should i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y t o Jay. R u l e 5 4 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., final the be Thus, which g e n e r a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t the judgment " s h a l l g r a n t the r e l i e f 14 to which the p a r t y i n 2090817 whose f a v o r i t i s r e n d e r e d not demanded s u c h r e l i e f permit the trial court i s e n t i t l e d , even i f the p a r t y i n the p a r t y ' s in this case to pleadings," "'enter has did a not judgment w h i c h goes b e y o n d t h e c l a i m a s s e r t e d i n t h e p l e a d i n g s , ' " i . e . , Jay's c l a i m f o r a d e c l a r a t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' property. having Chapman, resolved determining the 974 So. issue 2d set at forth 984. rights The trial i n Jay's in the court, complaint by t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e v a r i o u s deeds was to create a t e n a n c y i n common i n t h e p r o p e r t y b e t w e e n J a y and Jeanette, was not p e r m i t t e d In above, to a f f o r d the p a r t i e s a d d i t i o n a l r e l i e f . a d d i t i o n to does n o t relying support the on Rule 54 (c) , w h i c h , challenged aspect of as noted the trial c o u r t ' s judgment, Jay argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r J e a n e t t e s e l l her i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y t o him i s by § 6-6-230, A l a . Code 1975, which provides r e l i e f b a s e d on a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t may necessary or p r o p e r . " a court trial the We supported that "[f]urther be g r a n t e d whenever do n o t r e a d t h a t s e c t i o n as granting power, after entering j u d g m e n t , t o e n t e r a d d i t i o n a l r e l i e f t h a t was t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h a t was that a declaratory not requested n o t l i t i g a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s , and 15 in that 2090817 is not supported this by t h e e v i d e n c e . Thus, Jay's argument i n regard i s without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the c o u r t e r r e d when i t o r d e r e d J e a n e t t e t o s e l l one-half interest i n the property to Jay. trial her undivided, As a r e s u l t , i t s judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cause i s remanded. 3 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman, Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without B e c a u s e we r e s o l v e t h e a p p e a l pretermit consideration of Jeanette's arguments. 3 16 writing. i n this manner, we additional appellate
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.
