Ex parte Michael J. Gilley and Susan Helms Gilley. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Demarius Hughes Aman v. Michael J. Gilley and Susan Helms Gilley)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 05/14/10 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 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1041904 Ex p a r t e M i c h a e l J . G i l l e y and Susan Helms PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In Gilley TO THE r e : Demarius Hughes Aman v. Michael J . G i l l e y and Susan Helms Gilley) (Geneva C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-03-73; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2031166) 1041904 PER CURIAM. Michael Court J. Gilley f o ra writ Appeals' Hughes 2, 2 0 0 5 ] Appeals' concerning S e e Aman review decision the application such as t h i s the So. 3d certiorari one. to review the Court trial a prescriptive Aman's p r o p e r t y . granted the reversing the Gilleys September Civil of c e r t i o r a r i decision granting and Susan Helms G i l l e y p e t i t i o n e d court's easement over v. G i l l e y , of this Civil decision Demarius [Ms. 2 0 3 1 1 6 6 , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005). t o c o n s i d e r whether conflicts with the Court our rule of precedent in a case S e e R u l e 3 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( D ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. For following reasons, this of the ore tenus We Court reverses the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s ' judgment. Facts In the and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y i t s o p i n i o n , the Court relevant of C i v i l procedural history Appeals summarized and t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s follows: "Aman s u e d t h e G i l l e y s , who a r e c o t e r m i n o u s l a n d o w n e r s o n t h e s o u t h e r n b o u n d a r y o f Aman's r e a l p r o p e r t y , t o q u i e t t i t l e t o a 120-acre p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y and t o e n j o i n them f r o m interfering w i t h a f e n c e e r e c t e d b y Aman a n d h e r h u s b a n d . The G i l l e y s answered, c l a i m i n g t o have p a i d t a x e s on a strip o f land 20 f e e t wide and 975 f e e t long p u r p o r t e d l y l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e 120-acre p a r c e l . The 2 as 1041904 Gilleys counterclaimed f o r a determination of the boundary l i n e between t h e i r p r o p e r t y a n d Aman's p r o p e r t y , and they c l a i m e d ownership o f t h e s t r i p o f l a n d b y a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 y e a r s . The c a s e was t r i e d b e f o r e a j u d g e w i t h o u t a j u r y . "During the t r i a l , the p a r t i e s stipulated that t h e 20 f o o t b y 9 7 5 f o o t s t r i p o f l a n d w a s a p u b l i c d i r t road. A t t r i a l , however, t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e d the ownership o f an a d d i t i o n a l strip of land (hereinafter 'thedisputed property') approximately 20 f e e t w i d e a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 0 f e e t l o n g l o c a t e d at t h e e n d o f t h e d i r t r o a d ; t h e G i l l e y s u s e t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y as a driveway. At t r i a l , the G i l l e y s c l a i m e d t o own t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y t h r o u g h adverse possession. "In their p o s t t r i a l brief, f o rthe f i r s t time, the Gilleys claimed to own an easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n over t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . I n her p o s t t r i a l b r i e f , Aman a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t the Gilleys had not claimed an easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n before o r a t t r i a l and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , they were not entitled to an easement by prescription. Aman specifically directed the court's attention to Michael Gilley's trial t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e G i l l e y s were c l a i m i n g o w n e r s h i p of the disputed property by adverse possession. Aman a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e G i l l e y s h a d f a i l e d t o prove that t h e i r possession o f the disputed property was e x c l u s i v e a n d h o s t i l e . The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment f i n d i n g t h a t 'the G i l l e y [ s ] have a c q u i r e d an easement or right o f w a y down t h e r o a d w a y i n c l u d i n g the driveway i n question and t h a t t h e Gilley[s] s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o u s e t h e r o a d a n d driveway f r e e o f any i n t e r f e r e n c e from [Aman] o r [Aman's] a g e n t s o r e m p l o y e e s . ' " Aman, Before So. 3d a t the Court . of C i v i l Appeals, 3 Aman a r g u e d that the 1041904 trial court easement erred because in the granting Gilleys the did Gilleys not a prescriptive allege that they a c q u i r e d an e a s e m e n t b y p r e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m because the by Michael Gilleys adverse Civil were Gilley testified c l a i m i n g ownership possession. Appeals specifically stated, As to of that in pertinent the at trial disputed argument, the part: "'At t h e o u t s e t , we note that Rule 54(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure gives the trial court the d i s c r e t i o n t o award any r e l i e f a p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o , even i f t h e p a r t y has not specifically requested such r e l i e f . The rule provides, in pertinent p a r t : " ' " E x c e p t as t o a p a r t y against whom a j u d g m e n t i s e n t e r e d by default, every final judgment s h a l l grant the r e l i e f to which t h e p a r t y i n whose f a v o r i t i s rendered i s e n t i t l e d , even i f the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings." "'The same p r i n c i p l e i s e n u n c i a t e d b y R u l e 15(b), [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] where i t i s stated: "'"When i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d b y t h e p l e a d i n g s are t r i e d by e x p r e s s or i m p l i e d consent of the parties, they shall be treated in a l l respects as i f they had been r a i s e d i n the p l e a d i n g s . " 4 had and that property Court of 1041904 "'We f i n d t h a t t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s make c l e a r the f a c t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s empowered w i t h t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o award r e l i e f t o a party, even when such relief i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y requested i n the complaint. See A w a d v . A w a d , 54 A l a . A p p . 1 5 4 , 3 0 6 S o . 2 d 21 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 7 5 ) . ' "'Beason v . B e a s o n , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 6 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . T h u s , i t was w i t h i n t h e t r i a l court's d i s c r e t i o n , i f i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e i s s u e had been t r i e d by the implied consent o f the p a r t i e s , t o award t h e G i l l e y s r e l i e f not requested i n their counterclaim, i . e . , an easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n . However, a trial court can grant relief not specifically requested in a complaint or c o u n t e r c l a i m o n l y when t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g s u c h r e l i e f has met i t s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h a t claim." Aman, So. 3d a t Aman the also argued before Gilleys failed their claim . the Court of Civil t o meet t h e i r b u r d e n o f p r o o f o f an easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n . Appeals that to establish Specifically, Aman a r g u e d t h a t t h e G i l l e y s h a d f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t t h e i r u s e of the disputed property was a d v e r s e t o Aman's i n t e r e s t . C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s a g r e e d w i t h Aman a n d r e v e r s e d court's judgment, the t r i a l holding: "A p e r m i s s i v e u s e o f l a n d s d o e s n o t r i p e n i n t o a n adverse use u n t i l t h e r e has been a r e p u d i a t i o n o f the p e r m i s s i v e u s e so as t o a f f o r d t h e owner n o t i c e of an a d v e r s e c l a i m . C o t t o n v . May, 2 9 3 A l a . 2 1 2 , 301 S o . 2 d 168 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; G o n z a l e z v . Naman, 678 S o . 2 d 1152 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996). Furthermore, an 5 The 1041904 easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n ' " i s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d m e r e l y by t h e use o f t h e l a n d s o f another f o r a p e r i o d o f t w e n t y y e a r s o r more."' C o t t o n v . May, 293 A l a . a t 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 3 0 1 S o . 2 d a t 170 ( q u o t i n g W e s t v . W e s t , 2 5 2 Ala. 296, 297-98, 40 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 874 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ) . A c c o r d C a r r v . T u r n e r , 575 So. 2 d 1 0 6 6 , 1067-68 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; F i s h e r v . H i g g i n b o t h a m , 406 So. 2 d 8 8 8 , 889 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; F o r d v . A l a b a m a B y - P r o d u c t s C o r p . , 392 S o . 2 d 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ; B e l c h e r v . B e l c h e r , 284 A l a . 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 , 224 S o . 2 d 6 1 3 , 614 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; L o v e m a n v . L a y , 2 7 1 A l a . 3 8 5 , 3 9 2 , 124 S o . 2 d 9 3 , 98 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; R o b e r t s v . M o n r o e , 2 6 1 A l a . 5 6 9 , 5 7 7 , 75 S o . 2d 4 9 2 , 499 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ; a n d West v . W e s t , 252 A l a . 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 - 9 8 , 40 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 874 ( 1 9 4 9 ) . "The G i l l e y s ' u s e o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y w a s presumed t o be p e r m i s s i v e . H o l l i s v. Tomlinson, [ 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 862 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ] . The G i l l e y s d i d n o t p r e s e n t any evidence t o rebut t h e presumption t h a t t h e i r u s e o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y was p e r m i s s i v e . The G i l l e y s p r e s e n t e d o n l y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e y h a d used t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y f o r 26 y e a r s as a driveway. However, as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e mere u s e o f t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y f o r 20 y e a r s o r m o r e d o e s not e s t a b l i s h an easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n . Cotton v . May, s u p r a ; C a r r v . T u r n e r , s u p r a ; F i s h e r v . Higginbotham, s u p r a ; and F o r d v. Alabama B y - P r o d u c t s Corp., supra. Therefore, the Gilleys failed to prove adverse use of the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y , which i s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r e n t i t l e m e n t t o an easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n . " Aman, The review Gilleys So. 3d a t Gilleys then of the Court . petitioned of C i v i l a n d Aman w a i v e d their this Court for certiorari Appeals' decision. right 6 to f i l e a brief Both the i n this 1041904 Court; thus, petition this f o r the case writ was of submitted solely on the Gilleys' certiorari. Discussion In their petition before that, i n r e v e r s i n g the Civil Appeals evidence, court in property necessary This an 816, 818 Court, court's the ore was that permissive to establish Court (Ala. and tenus thus the prescription Gilleys rule, the d i d not use of satisfy Court of the the trial the disputed the elements to establish v. Tagert, 584 So. 1991): "'[T]he c l a i m a n t must use the p r e m i s e s o v e r which the easement i s c l a i m e d f o r a p e r i o d of twenty years or more, a d v e r s e l y t o t h e owner o f t h e premises, under c l a i m of r i g h t , exclusive, continuous, and u n i n t e r r u p t e d , w i t h a c t u a l or presumptive knowledge o f t h e o w n e r . The p r e s u m p t i o n i s t h a t t h e u s e i s permissive, and the claimant has the burden of p r o v i n g t h a t the use i s a d v e r s e t o the o w n e r . ' " (Quoting The Bull trial v. Salsman, court here 435 So. found as 2d 27, 29 (Ala. 1983).) follows: " [ T ] h e G i l l e y s h a v e a c q u i r e d an e a s e m e n t o r r i g h t way down t h e roadway i n c l u d i n g the driveway q u e s t i o n and ... t h e G i l l e y s s h a l l be e n t i t l e d 7 of easement. elements necessary i n Apley argue reweighed for that Gilleys' a prescriptive set f o r t h by the the judgment, s u b s t i t u t e d i t s judgment determining easement trial disregarded and this of in to 2d 1041904 use t h e r o a d and d r i v e w a y f r e e o f any i n t e r f e r e n c e from [Aman] or [Aman's] agents or e m p l o y e e s . " Although the trial Gilleys' use of interest in judgment in fact, must we necessary be to clearly The not case and assume support specifically property property, a not make does that and was "when the Townhomes court the v. that to court a of the weight 567 So. Court of Civil "[t]he Gilleys Appeals d i d not reversed present that their use permissive" and, thus, that adverse use of element to establish prescription." the Gilleys the 2d 1287, 1990). presumption that would of the trial court's judgment g r a n t i n g the G i l l e y s a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement, that facts findings great Hunter, Aman's enters found the the findings specific unless against find adverse trial trial i t s judgment, Lakeview (Ala. did disputed erroneous evidence." 1289 the the a court the disputed Aman, appeal presented d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y was the "the evidence to rebut disputed Gilleys property, their which entitlement So. presented no of any 3d a t a . question evidence to to property failed i s an an of show t h a t law to the was prove essential easement B a s e d on by i t s holding in their a d v e r s e t o Aman's i n t e r e s t , 8 holding that use of the Court the the of 1041904 Civil Appeals determined that the ore tenus rule d i d not apply. The Gilleys Court of C i v i l d i dnot present Appeals any e v i d e n c e of the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y Gilleys i n fact erred presented i n holding indicating was a d v e r s e t o Aman's evidence that the t h a t t h e i r use interest. The upon w h i c h t h e t r i a l court c o u l d have p r o p e r l y based i t s h o l d i n g t h a t t h e G i l l e y s ' use o f the disputed In (1969), Belcher used v. the t r i a l easement over its property was a d v e r s e Belcher, 284 court granted a property following interest. A l a . 254, 224 a contiguous owner's l a n d . judgment t h a t t h e contiguous t h e easement t o Aman's f o r the required 2d 613 p r o p e r t y owner an The t r i a l property So. court based owner h a d a d v e r s e l y 20-year period upon the evidence: " [ T ] h a t f o r more t h a n t w e n t y y e a r s , t h e o c c u p a n t s o f d w e l l i n g s on [ t h e c o n t i g u o u s p r o p e r t y o w n e r ' s ] l a n d used t h e road t o h a u l t h e i r b e l o n g i n g s i n and o u t , t h a t one o f them h a d p a i d [ t h e o t h e r p r o p e r t y o w n e r ] to p u l l h i s automobile out o f mudholes three or f o u r t i m e s w i t h a t r a c t o r when i t was s t u c k o n t h e r o a d , t h a t t h e i r c h i l d r e n u s e d t h e r o a d t o go t o a n d f r o m s c h o o l , t h a t t h e i r v i s i t o r s u s e d t h e r o a d when t h e y used t h e i r automobiles to v i s i t them and t h a t t h e r o a d was t h e o n l y means o f v e h i c u l a r i n g r e s s a n d egress." Belcher, 284 A l a . a t 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 224 S o . 2 d a t 6 1 4 - 1 5 . 9 This Court 1041904 affirmed the t r i a l court's decision, 2d (1949), c o u r t ' s judgment. 873 established we by period of twenty adverse t o t h e owner is claimed We concluded lower the trial or "a p r i v a t e of the lands more. Such of the premises use easement i s not of another must over which for a have been the easement B e l c h e r , 284 A l a . a t 2 5 6 , 224 S o . 2 d a t 6 1 4 . that "[w]here erroneous decree that the use years court's decree palpably the c i t e d W e s t v . W e s t , 252 A l a . 2 9 6 , 40 S o . recognizing merely In a f f i r m i n g will unjust." was heard be on appeal upheld or m a n i f e s t l y of the t r i a l manifestly the cause unjust. c o u r t was 284 either A l a . at We ore tenus cannot plainly 257, unless 224 the i tis say that erroneous So. 2d or at 615 t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , as i n B e l c h e r , i t i s u n d i s p u t e d that (citation omitted). In the p r o p e r t y has been used the Gilleys' as t h e o n l y i n g r e s s p r o p e r t y f o r more than 20 and e g r e s s t o years, either Gilleys themselves, o r by t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r i n t i t l e , Helms. The G i l l e y s presented evidence used the disputed property to access e x p r e s s p e r m i s s i o n f r o m 1963 t o 1 9 7 5 . his property to the G i l l e y s indicating Leonard that his property Helms without Helms s o l d a p o r t i o n o f i n 1975, and t h e G i l l e y s 10 by t h e continued 1041904 to use the d i s p u t e d 1976 u n t i l the January Gilleys testified from property express permission 2 0 0 3 , when Aman e r e c t e d a f e n c e using the disputed t h a t he c o n t i n u e d 1976 t o a c c e s s without h i s land from preventing property. Helms also t o use the d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y that after l a y t o the west of the G i l l e y s ' property. The Helms's use Court of testimony property property he was However, when that on the basis anything Helms's t e s t i m o n y apparent that Helms testified property in title. i n context, that he i t to the in title: predecessor Right. "[Aman's a t t o r n e y ] : Y ' a l l got along well together? Yes. "[Aman's a t t o r n e y ] : A n d y o u were n o t d o i n g 11 i s believed was n o t a d v e r s e " [ A m a n ' s a t t o r n e y ] : A n d y o u a n d [Aman's i n t i t l e ] were f r i e n d s ? "[Helms]: adverse antagonistic to the i s viewed h e l d b y Aman's p r e d e c e s s o r "[Helms]: dismissed of a portion of h e l d b y Aman's p r e d e c e s s o r h i s use of the d i s p u t e d interest t o have h i s and t h e G i l l e y s ' not doing i n the property readily appears i n w h i c h he s t a t e d t h a t b e f o r e Aman a c q u i r e d interest not Appeals as e v i d e n c i n g of the disputed Helms's t e s t i m o n y the Civil anything 1041904 antagonistic to [Aman's i n t e r e s t , were you? "[Helms]: As the review to note in their petition o f Mr. Helms' ... [Aman's p r e d e c e s s o r manner would easement." could petition, that related or not have t o h i s use Also not of response the to the the property property to disputed in the 1963 until Gilleys testimony showing that mechanic business on customers use Mr. Gilley egress the also his disputed uses o f a s c h o o l bus the to the adverse a Gilleys from road of in a prescriptive trial urge of court in The the time property disputed Gilleys operates property the indicating transferred a Gilley their not and for disputed t h a t Helms he purchased portion also an of his presented automobile- that a l l of ingress and egress. property for f r o m h i s p r o p e r t y , w h i c h he 12 issue e x c h a n g e was use evidence he the The that "[A] property. i n 1975. Mr. rise the used during property to 11.) Court, 'antagonistic' had at disputed p r o p e r t y , the G i l l e y s p r e s e n t e d the he as this limited give concluded, pertinent maintained title's] to being was petition, Helms's before as whether would (Gilleys' certainly response in title] f r i e n d s and that in No." Gilleys them b e i n g predecessor ingress operates his and as 1041904 a bus d r i v e r "fire f o r the Houston County Board of Education, department equipment" a n d an a m b u l a n c e chief of the Wicksburg Volunteer also presented carriers, property garbage Gilley also t e s t i f i e d never discussed support the t h a t he " d i d n ' t f e e l property the t r i a l court's some with i n the rule applies the G i l l e y s to the t r i a l court's Aman. record easement over t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y . ore tenus Mr. the G i l l e y s property that disputed property. and t h a t evidence holding the mail [he] needed t o " a s k t h e i r use of the d i s p u t e d i s undoubtedly prescriptive a l l used as The G i l l e y s personnel, to the G i l l e y s ' t o use the d i s p u t e d There F i r e Department. collectors f o r i n g r e s s and egress permission i n h i s role evidence showing that u t i l i t i e s and and o f to have a Therefore, findings of fact. When e v i d e n c e "'resolves the Lilly conflicting parties, unless they v. i s presented questions i t sfindings were Palmer, clearly 4 95 S c a r b r o u g h v. Smith, ore tenus and t h e t r i a l will of fact n o t be erroneous So. 2d disturbed or m a n i f e s t l y 5 2 2 , 525 (Ala. 445 S o . 2 d 5 5 3 , 555 presumption of correctness [accorded 13 i n favor o f one o f on 1 98 6) court's appeal unjust.'" (quoting (Ala. 1984)). a trial court "The judgment 1041904 in a b o u n d a r y - l i n e d i s p u t e when i t s f i n d i n g s tenus evidence] i s particularly cases, because i t i s difficult 9 5 0 , 950 The ore f o r an that rule the Appeals court Gilleys have a unjust. Therefore, the Court reversed and t h e case remand i n determining that the The t r i a l prescriptive property i s not clearly easement erroneous of C i v i l judgment i s court. whether the parties tried implied consent. As Appeals held the t r i a l Gilleys' a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e y had a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement Appeals must determine the prescriptive-easement issue set forth above, court the Court properly bench trial. Specifically, that " i t was within consent of the the Court the t r i a l issue the parties, had to been award 14 of C i v i l court's of Civil by the Gilleys over after the Appeals discretion, tried by considered the Aman's p r o p e r t y , w h i c h a r g u m e n t was n o t r a i s e d u n t i l that the manifestly Court that Civil finding over or Appeals' remanded t o t h a t of court's the determined to R i c e v . M c G i n n i s , 653 S o . erred d i d not apply here. disputed On appellate ( A l a . 1995). Court of C i v i l tenus on o r e strong i n adverse possession review the evidence i n such c a s e s . " 2d are based the held i f i t implied relief not 1041904 requested in their prescription." of Civil tried Aman, Appeals hold judgment that . easement However, by the Court determined whether the issue had been of the parties. the evidence awarding i . e . , an So. 3d a t never by the consent We counterclaim, the G i l l e y s supported the t r i a l a prescriptive court's easement over Aman's p r o p e r t y , i f t h e i s s u e was i n d e e d t r i e d b y t h e i m p l i e d consent of the p a r t i e s . Therefore, the Court of C i v i l Appeals m u s t d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r e s c r i p t i v e - e a s e m e n t i s s u e was t r i e d b y the implied consent, not, consent the t r i a l the t r i a l of the parties. I f i t was t r i e d b y c o u r t ' s judgment s h o u l d be such affirmed; i f c o u r t ' s judgment s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d . Conclusion Based Civil on Appeals the foregoing, t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e case of the Court remanded to the Court of C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s R E V E R S E D AND Cobb, Parker, opinion. REMANDED. C . J . , and Lyons, Woodall, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, of J . , recuses himself. 15 Stuart, Smith, Bolin,

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.