D.M.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. Hope
100 So. 3d 1102
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Hope sued D.M.C. for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent suppression, and deceit related to trading her 2008 Mercedes for a 2008 VW and later a 2012 VW.
- Hope alleged she was pressured into purchasing the 2008 VW after a test-drive promotion and later rescinded the 2008 VW contract upon learning it was wrecked.
- Hope claimed D.M.C. misrepresented the value of the 2008 VW on both occasions and contends the 2008 Mercedes remained in D.M.C.'s possession after rescission.
- Hope filed an Instanter Motion for Return of Vehicle seeking the return of the 2008 Mercedes pending litigation, supported by a factual narrative of the events.
- D.M.C. moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration; Hope amended to add claims including exploitation of a protected person and detinue; trial court granted the motion to return the vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What rule governs Hope's Instanter Motion | Hope argues for injunctive or seizure relief to preserve property. | D.M.C. argues the motion is either Rule 65 injunctive relief or Rule 64 prejudgment seizure. | Motion analyzed under both Rule 65 and Rule 64; improper under both. |
| Was the injunction portion properly issued without a bond | Hope contends bond not required in domestic-relations context; asks no bond is needed. | D.M.C. argues Rule 65(c) bond required; failure to post bond renders order invalid. | Trial court erred by granting without a bond; bond mandatory unless exceptions found. |
| Did Rule 64 prejudgment seizure requirements apply | Hope contends seizure was warranted to secure relief. | D.M.C. argues Rule 64 procedures were not met. | Record lacked the required affidavit and evidence; prejudgment seizure improper. |
| Was the trial court's order proper as to either Rule 65 or Rule 64 | Hope sought to preserve the vehicle pending suit. | DM.C. contends order was improper for both Rule 65 and Rule 64 reasons. | Order improper under both Rules; reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spinks v. Automation Pers. Servs., Inc., 49 So.3d 186 (Ala. 2010) (permits injunctive relief to preserve status quo pending arbitration)
- Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So.3d 1173 (Ala. 2008) (discusses injunctive relief and related standards)
- Norman v. Occupational Safety Ass'n of Alabama Workmen's Comp. Fund, 811 So.2d 492 (Ala.2001) (review of injunctions and security requirements in related context)
- Lightsey v. Kensington Mortg. & Fin. Corp., 294 Ala. 281, 315 So.2d 431 (Ala. 1975) (bond required for Rule 65 injunction unless specific exceptions found)
- Monte Sano Research Corp. v. Kratos Def. & Sec. Solutions, Inc., 99 So.3d 855 (Ala. 2012) (reversing injunction order for noncompliance with Rule 65(d)(2))
- Dobbins v. Getz Exterminators of Alabama, Inc., 382 So.2d 1135 (Ala.Civ.App.1980) (distinguishes permanent injunction without bond)
- Ex parte Boykin, 568 So.2d 1243 (Ala.1989) (Rule 64 applicability to attachment statutes with strict compliance)