Brown v. First Federal Bank
2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 37
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Geanie Shannon Brown appeals from a summary judgment favoring First Federal Bank, Jerry Brown, and Eaton.
- Jerry forged Geanie’s signature on two mortgages securing lines of credit; Eaton notarized the signatures.
- Geanie was unaware of the November 2005 and January 2006 mortgages until 2008; First Federal and Eaton were involved in the transactions.
- Jerry created two lines of credit: a $30,000 first line (Nov. 2005) and a $62,000 second line (Jan. 2006) secured by Geanie’s residence.
- In 2008, Geanie refinanced the mortgage debt; First Federal canceled a mortgage and released another in 2008; a portion of the refinancing proceeds went to Geanie’s household expenses.
- Geanie asserted negligence, wantonness, fraudulent suppression, and conspiracy claims against the defendants; the trial court granted summary judgment, and Geanie appealed, challenging the dismissal of several claims and the timing of discovery and admissibility of certain documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6-2-3 tolling applies to the defendants’ statutes of limitations | Geanie argues suppression tolled discovery of the forged mortgages. | Defendants contend no tolling duty existed and accrual occurred earlier. | Tolling does not apply to First Federal/Eaton; Jerry’s claim is treated separately. |
| Whether First Federal and Eaton owed a duty to disclose facts to Geanie | Geanie asserts a duty to disclose existed and the banks breached it. | There was no such duty absent a confidential relationship. | No such duty found; summary judgment proper for First Federal/Eaton on negligent/suppression claims. |
| Whether Geanie can pursue wantonness claims against Jerry despite limitations | Jerry’s wantonness caused mental anguish and injury; tolling applies. | Claims barred by statute or lack of duty; ratification defense. | There is a genuine issue of material fact for wantonness against Jerry; reversal as to this claim. |
| Whether damages for mental anguish are recoverable for wantonness against Jerry | Geanie sought mental-anguish damages. | Mental anguish may not be recoverable in negligence; recoverable in wantonness. | Mental anguish damages are recoverable for wantonness against Jerry; negligence damages not sustained. |
| Whether ratification defeats Geanie’s claims against Jerry | Ratification does not excuse Jerry’s conduct. | Ratification could bar some claims. | Ratification does not bar wantonness against Jerry; supports reversal on that issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maciasz v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 991 (Ala. 2008) (establishes standard for reviewing summary judgments in light favorable to nonmovant)
- Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So.2d 61 (Ala. 1996) (elements of fraudulent-suppression claim)
- CIT Financial Services, Inc. v. Bowler, 537 So.2d 4 (Ala. 1988) (ratification not a defense to negligence/wantonness in lending)
- Christopher v. Shockley, 199 Ala. 681 (1917) (notice on proper recording is conclusive to all world on face of instrument)
- Pittman v. Pittman, 247 Ala. 458, 25 So.2d 26 (1945) (recording statutes generally do not affect preexisting interests)
- Ex parte Capstone Building Corp., — So.3d — (Ala. 2011) (overruled McKenzie; wantonness timing addressed)
- Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409 (Ala. 1992) (appellate review scope; evidence considered)
- Tonsmeire v. Tonsmeire, 285 Ala. 454, 233 So.2d 465 (1970) (confidential relationship may create duty to disclose)
- McKenzie v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala. 2004) (six-year vs two-year limitation in wantonness; later overruled)
- Haines v. Tanning, 579 So.2d 1308 (Ala. 1991) (constructive notice distinctions in recording)