Ex parte Susan S. DePaola, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Clifford H. Willcutt III. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Danny Clements Builder, Inc. v. Clifford H. Willcutt III)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 02/12/10 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n before 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 , 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1071620 Ex p a r t e Susan S. D e P a o l a , Clifford trustee i n bankruptcy f o r H. W i l l c u t t I I I PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Danny C l e m e n t s B u i l d e r , I n c . v. Clifford H. W i l l c u t t I I I ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-07-709) WOODALL, J u s t i c e . Clifford of H. W i l l c u t t mandamus, s e e k i n g I I Ip e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t relief from thet r i a l court's denial of 1071620 Willcutt's action m o t i o n s t o amend h i s Danny Clements Builder, against filed Willcutt in S e p t e m b e r 10, of and on a trustee trustee notice We Facts In Builder December for Montgomery. the filed i n t h i s Court 15, the now pursues 2005, Clements B u i l d e r . Clements B u i l d e r b r e a c h e d the (1) had c o n t r a c t by Court placed On November bankruptcy trustee, substituting Willcutt's Procedural Willcutt the Willcutt's petition for History contracted of filed a with commercial constructing several overpaid failing 2 to Clements building the in building, t h a t W i l l c u t t owed i t costs. counterclaims counterclaims, Willcutt been suggestion D e P a o l a , as sued W i l l c u t t , a l l e g i n g In h i s On petition. construction c o m p l a i n t and Court. docket. a p p r o x i m a t e l y $22,000 i n u n p a i d c o n s t r u c t i o n answered the an Builder"), a this party, petitioner. deny the and of In March 2007, a f t e r Clements B u i l d e r 2008, Willcutt's substitution bankruptcy, mandamus r e l i e f . ("Clements i t s administrative f o r W i l l c u t t as in counterclaims in Montgomery C i r c u i t D e P a o l a , as of Inc. September p e t i t i o n on 2 0 0 8 , S u s a n S. filed the 2008, W i l l c u t t bankruptcy, Willcutt's 19, a n s w e r and for follow Willcutt against alleged that i t s work; (2) the contract had plans 1071620 with respect vents, and facts to e x t e r i o r wall studs, e l e c t r i c a l panels, a d r i v e w a y ; ( 3 ) had regarding the e l e v a t i o n fraudulently misrepresented of a misrepresented o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; and ( 4 ) had f a c t s r e l a t e d to the i n s t a l l a t i o n fireplug. I n May setting that 2007, t h e t r i a l the case discovery November days before demand h a d t o be breached the installing after the close trial, also attorney fees. add Amendment a bolts sought claim in that manner good moved 3 t o add a 19, seeking Builder had that On improperly same day, t o add a c l a i m f o r the trial that f o r t h e amendments " w o u l d be s u b s t a n t i a l l y 10 by amendments, a r g u i n g cause On "Second on N o v e m b e r Clements h i s answer Builder a to Counterclaim," another t o amend s t r i k e each of the requested Builder of court i n the b u i l d i n g . Clements not demonstrated leave later, stating and o n l y filed days order, 5, 2 0 0 7 . Willcutt seeking Three contract fees. and of discovery to anchor Willcutt 26, 2007, by November a "Third court a scheduling scheduled the filed entered on N o v e m b e r to Counterclaim," of Clements court completed f o r attorney Willcutt leave for trial 16, 2007, Amendment had fraudulently louver prejudiced court to Willcutt and that i f i t is 1071620 forced to defend opportunity (Emphasis to new claims explore in original that during the discovery court held a hearing hearing, amend the t r i a l h i s answer have an process." court continued because of a scheduling c o n f l i c t . trial not motion.) On N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r i a l date i t did court the t r i a l On M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e on a l l t h e p e n d i n g m o t i o n s . A t t h e orally denied and c o u n t e r c l a i m s . Willcutt's The trial motions to court stated t h a t t h e a m e n d m e n t s w e r e u n t i m e l y b e c a u s e d i s c o v e r y was c l o s e d and because Willcutt counterclaims contract well for knew or attorney i n advance should fees have and of the time known alleging he f i l e d o f h i s new breach of h i s motions to amend. In April mandamus dismissed 2008, Willcutt from the t r i a l relief Willcutt's petition petitioned court's on this ruling. the ground that c o u r t ' s o r a l r u l i n g was n o t an " o r d e r , " u n d e r R u l e R. C i v . P. 1 Rule 1 On 58(a), August A l a . R. 19, 2008, C i v . P., the t r i a l court Court This the Court trial 58(a), A l a . entered provides: "A j u d g e may r e n d e r a n o r d e r o r a j u d g m e n t : (1) b y executing a separate written document, (2) b y including the order or judgment in a judicial opinion, (3) b y e n d o r s i n g u p o n a m o t i o n t h e w o r d s 4 for a 1071620 written and order denying Willcutt's counterclaims. petitioned this On Court trial court to grant and counterclaims. bankruptcy, mandamus now relief. motions August 29, for a writ t o amend h i s a n s w e r 2008, Willcutt o f mandamus again directing the h i s m o t i o n s f o r l e a v e t o amend h i s a n s w e r DePaola, pursues We as Willcutt's Willcutt's second trustee petition in for deny t h e p e t i t i o n . Standard of Review "Mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y a n d w i l l b e g r a n t e d o n l y where t h e r e i s '(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t in the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) a n imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.'" Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d . B a n k , F S B , 872 S o . 2 d 8 1 0 , 813 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) (quoting Ex 1991)). parte "A extraordinary ruling writ remedy, regarding shown t h a t Alfab, of will I n c . , 58 6 mandamus, issue So. 2d being to correct t h e amendment o f p l e a d i n g s the t r i a l court has exceeded 8 8 9, a 8 91 ( A l a . drastic a trial only and court's when i t i t sdiscretion." 'granted,' 'denied,' 'moot,' o r w o r d s o f s i m i l a r i m p o r t , a n d d a t i n g a n d s i g n i n g o r i n i t i a l i n g i t , (4) b y m a k i n g o r c a u s i n g t o b e made a n o t a t i o n i n t h e c o u r t r e c o r d s , o r (5) b y e x e c u t i n g a n d t r a n s m i t t i n g an electronic document to the e l e c t r o n i c - f i l i n g system." 5 i s Ex 1071620 parte Liberty Nat'l Life I n s . C o . , 858 S o . 2 d 9 5 0 , 952 ( A l a . 2003). Analysis This Court has s t a t e d : " R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., r e f l e c t s A l a b a m a ' s l i b e r a l p o l i c y i n f a v o r o f a l l o w i n g amendments t o pleadings: "'Unless a c o u r t has o r d e r e d o t h e r w i s e , a p a r t y may amend a p l e a d i n g w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , b u t s u b j e c t t o d i s a l l o w a n c e on t h e c o u r t ' s own m o t i o n o r a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y , a t a n y t i m e m o r e t h a n forty-two (42) d a y s before the first s e t t i n g of the case f o r t r i a l , and such amendment shall be f r e e l y allowed when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . Thereafter, a party may amend a p l e a d i n g o n l y by leave o f c o u r t , a n d l e a v e s h a l l be g i v e n o n l y u p o n a s h o w i n g o f g o o d c a u s e . ... ' "We n o t e d i n E x p a r t e GRE I n s u r a n c e G r o u p , 822 So. 2 d 3 8 8 , 390 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , t h a t u n d e r R u l e 15 a m e n d m e n t s t o p l e a d i n g s a r e t o be ' f r e e l y a l l o w e d ' u n l e s s t h e r e e x i s t s some v a l i d r e a s o n t o d e n y t h e m , s u c h as ' a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e o r undue d e l a y [ . ] ' "When, a s h e r e , t h e amendment i s s o u g h t w i t h i n the 42-day window, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s f r e e t o deny a p a r t y l e a v e t o amend h i s o r h e r p l e a d i n g u n l e s s t h e p a r t y c a n d e m o n s t r a t e ' g o o d c a u s e . ' ... H o w e v e r , in light of the overarching liberal policy of a l l o w i n g amendments u n d e r R u l e 15, t h e a p p r o p r i a t e way t o v i e w t h e r e q u e s t f o r l e a v e t o amend, i f a 6 1071620 p a r t y d e m o n s t r a t e s 'good c a u s e , ' i s as t h o u g h t h e r e q u e s t h a d b e e n b r o u g h t m o r e t h a n 42 d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l , when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e ' u n b r i d l e d d i s c r e t i o n ' t o d e n y t h e l e a v e t o amend, b u t c a n do so o n l y u p o n t h e b a s i s o f a ' v a l i d g r o u n d ' a s s t a t e d above." Liberty In 1189 N a t i o n a l , 858 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 3 - 5 4 . Blackmon v. N e x i t y (Ala. 2006), this Financial Court Corp., 953 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 0 , noted: " R u l e 1 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] ' " i s n o t c a r t e b l a n c h e a u t h o r i t y t o amend ... a t a n y t i m e . " ' B u r k e t t v . A m e r i c a n G e n . F i n . , I n c . , 607 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 , 141 ( A l a . 1992) (quoting S t a l l i n g s v. A n g e l i c a Uniform Co., 388 S o . 2 d 942 , 947 ( A l a . 1 98 0 ) ) . ... The trial c o u r t c a n r e f u s e t o a l l o w a n amendment i f a l l o w i n g i t would r e s u l t i n a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e to the opposing p a r t y o r f o r r e a s o n s o f 'undue d e l a y . ' [Ex p a r t e ] GRE I n s . G r o u p , 822 S o . 2 d [ 3 8 8 , ] 390 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] . "Undue d e l a y c a n h a v e t w o d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s i n a case. F i r s t , the t r i a l court has d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y a n amendment t o a p l e a d i n g i f a l l o w i n g t h e amendment w o u l d u n d u l y d e l a y t h e t r i a l . S e c o n d , an u n e x p l a i n e d u n d u e d e l a y i n f i l i n g a n amendment when the p a r t y has had s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c o v e r t h e f a c t s n e c e s s a r y t o f i l e t h e amendment e a r l i e r i s also sufficient grounds upon w h i c h t o deny t h e amendment." The Court not exceeded amend i n B l a c k m o n w e n t on t o s a y t h a t t h e t r i a l i t s discretion h i s complaint "Blackmon complaint was aware because of when he f i l e d the c o u r t had i n denying Blackmon's the t r i a l court had found justifying the facts his original 7 complaint," motion to that amended and because 1071620 the trial court had additional discovery setting." Id. at found DePaola the delay Clements allowed still argued because in not amendments. be i t would regard to and "be not had [those and require the trial also i f the argues that the f a c t s by opportunity claims]." trial The court is the new regarding However, to conduct at Builder [Willcutt's] trial that there t o amend, C l e m e n t s prejudiced an and that B u i l d e r ' s knowledge. motions cause f o r counterclaims prejudiced DePaola on W i l l c u t t ' s [ i t had] delay d e m o n s t r a t e d good h i s answer are w i t h i n Clements that amendment w o u l d substantially argues that W i l l c u t t B u i l d e r would hearing "the 1189-90. i n amending the would time f o r d i s c o v e r y claims the and that claims discovery court agreed, stating: "I think they're right. I mean, d i s c o v e r y is closed. Y o u know, I t h i n k t h e y make a g o o d p o i n t . We've a l r e a d y a n s w e r e d . We've a l r e a d y a m e n d e d . I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t i t w o u l d be p r o p e r f o r me t o g r a n t that because d i s c o v e r y i s c l o s e d " (Emphasis contract added.) claim, With regard the t r i a l to court Willcutt's went on to new breach-of- say: "You a l r e a d y know t h e r e ' s p r o b l e m s . Y o u c a n ' t come i n h e r e a n d s a y , ' J u d g e , we d i d n ' t know [ a b o u t t h e breach-of-contract claim] u n t i l [the anchor b o l t s ] 8 1071620 w e r e dug up correctly.' and we found out that i t wasn't done "Well, here's evidence right here [from W i l l c u t t ' s O c t o b e r 1, 2 0 0 7 , d e p o s i t i o n testimony] t h a t i t h a d n ' t b e e n d o n e c o r r e c t l y . ... T h a t t h e y w e r e n ' t s c r e w i n g t h i n g s i n r i g h t ; t h a t t h e y were u s i n g the wrong s i z e s c r e w ; t h a t they weren't l i n i n g up t h e p l a t e s ; t h a t t h e y w e r e u s i n g t h e t o r c h to make t h e m f i t . What a b o u t a l l o f t h i s ? I s t h i s n o t a problem?" The trial there such concluded were p r o b l e m s w i t h that issue Willcutt earlier, attorney's It court court the should and that fees appears that construction have y'all in this lose case, Blackmon, facts 953 necessary So. suffer prejudice 2d at i f the on as d e t e r m i n e d t h a t W i l l c u t t "had discover "on "on of conducted W i l l c u t t was So that W i l l c u t t was that notice those and pleadings under our filed within National, 858 So. pleadings are t o be 2d at the file the amendment[s] 1189, and that Clements B u i l d e r 42 953 days of ("[U]nder ' f r e e l y allowed' 9 trial. unless 15 to See to would These A l a . R. motions Rule trial earlier," m o t i o n s t o amend w e r e g r a n t e d . addressing those opportunity to caselaw that issues." i n Blackmon, sufficient on about two that building," discovery r e a s o n s c o n s t i t u t e " v a l i d g r o u n d s " u n d e r R u l e 15, P., notice Civ. amend Liberty amendments there to e x i s t s some 1071620 valid reason delay' on valid t o deny them, such "). Because grounds it, DePaola its discretion the adequately trial deny the p e t i t i o n PETITION ' a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e or court's decision s u p p o r t e d by has n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d i n denying as evidence that the t r i a l Willcutt's f o r the w r i t the of was motions. court undue based before exceeded Therefore, mandamus. DENIED. Cobb, C . J . , and Smith, P a r k e r , and 10 Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . we
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.
