64 So. 3d 666
Ala. Civ. App.2010Background
- Stackhouse leased an apartment from Ervin under a December 27, 2007, transient weekly lease stating rent $100/week, utilities included up to a $100 monthly allowance, security deposit $100, and a $300 per week pet deposit.
- The lease required Stackhouse to pay any utility costs above the $100 monthly allowance and included provisions about pet deposits and occupancy as a residence.
- On January 26, 2008, Ervin’s secretary photographed Stackhouse’s cats and informed her that she was in violation of the pet-deposit provision and that electricity would be disconnected unless a $600 payment was made by January 28, 2008.
- Electricity was disconnected on January 28, reconnected, then disconnected again on January 31, 2008, after which Stackhouse filed suit in district court for injunctive relief and damages for wrongful eviction.
- Ervin then filed an unlawful-detainer action on February 4, 2008; Stackhouse was later incarcerated February–March 2008 and the apartment was burglarized; in March 2008 the district court dissolved the preliminary injunction and Stackhouse’s eviction claim was tried in circuit court, which found a wrongful self-help eviction and awarded Stackhouse $1,200 for improper utility disconnection; Ervin appealed, and the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed.
- The circuit court concluded the lease was governed by the Alabama Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, not a transient occupancy arrangement, and that Ervin’s utility disconnections without a writ of possession constituted an unlawful eviction; the appeal is timely and the court did not consider constitutional arguments not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease is governed by the Act. | Stackhouse argues the Act covers the lease as a residential tenancy. | Ervin argues the lease is a transient occupancy not within the Act. | Yes, the lease is governed by the Act. |
| Whether the disconnection of utilities without a writ constituted unlawful eviction. | Stackhouse contends the utility shutoffs were improper self-help eviction. | Ervin argues actions were authorized by the lease and not a self-help eviction. | Yes, the disconnection without a writ constituted unlawful self-help eviction. |
| Damages for wrongful eviction and related conduct. | Stackhouse sought damages for eviction and property loss due to removal of belongings. | Ervin contends damages were improper or excessive and not supported. | Circuit court properly awarded $1,200 for improper utility disconnection; damages for property removal denied. |
| Whether any constitutional arguments were properly preserved or considered. | Not stated as a dispositive issue by Stackhouse in the circuit court. | Ervin raised constitutional arguments for the first time on appeal. | Constitutional arguments waived; not reviewed on appeal. |
| Whether the lease was subject to the transient-occupancy exclusion. | Stackhouse and witnesses treated as residential tenancy despite the word 'transient' in the lease. | Ervin relied on the transient exclusion to avoid the Act. | The lease was subject to the Act; transient exclusion not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pieper v. American Sign/Outdoor Adver., Inc., 564 So.2d 49 (Ala. 1990) (unlawful eviction context; writ of possession required for dispossession)
- Moriarty v. Dziak, 435 So.2d 35 (Ala. 1983) (unlawful detainer principles apply to eviction actions)
- Moss v. Hall, 18 So.2d 368 (Ala. 1944) (earlier unlawful-detainer guidance)
- Edwards v. Allied Home Mrotg. Capital Corp., 962 So.2d 194 (Ala. 2007) (interpretation of contract terms and public policy; substantive unconscionability)
- Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723 (Ala. 2002) (public-policy-based contraction of unconscionable terms)
- Gwaltney v. Russell, 984 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 2007) (intention and interpretation of contracts from four corners)
- Ingalls Iron Works Co. v. Ingalls, 256 Ala. 124, 53 So.2d 847 (Ala. 1951) (contract interpretation principles)
- Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409 (Ala. 1992) (appellate review limits; arguments raised below only)