160 So. 3d 278
Ala.2014Background
- Stephens, nephew of Dees and Colley, moved Dees from a rehab center to her home in 2012 and began co-residing with her.
- Colley alleges Stephens restricted Dees’s contact with Colley and others and barred Colley from overnight stays.
- Dees executed a durable power of attorney in September 2012 naming Stephens as attorney-in-fact and a will naming Stephens as executor/primary heir.
- Stephens was added as signatory/beneficiary to Dees’s financial accounts, with bank personnel noting unusual activity and Stephens’s adamant push for changes.
- Dees died in February 2013; Stephens sought to execute the will and became executor before Colley moved to remove him and consolidate actions.
- Colley filed multiple complaints alleging undue influence, fiduciary breach, and sought injunctive relief to freeze assets and maintain Dees’s property in name of Dees pending litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 65(d)(2) compliance of the injunction | Colley argues the order lacks stated reasons. | Stephens argues the court’s reasoning was implicit in the record. | Order violated Rule 65(d)(2); reversed regardless of evidence. |
| Evidence sufficiency for Perley factors | Colley contends evidence shows irreparable harm and likelihood of success. | Stephens argues insufficient competent evidence. | Not reached on merits due to Rule 65(d)(2) failure; may be revisited on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monte Sano Research Corp. v. Kratos Defense & Sec. Solutions, Inc., 99 So.3d 855 (Ala.2012) ( Rule 65(d)(2) compliance required; reasons must be stated.)
- Marathon Constr. & Demolition, LLC v. King Metal Recycling & Processing Corp., 129 So.3d 272 (Ala.2013) (failure to comply with Rule 65(d)(2) is dispositive.)
- Perley ex rel. Tapscan, Inc. v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 So.2d 585 (Ala.1994) (established four elements for preliminary injunction.)
- Walden v. ES Capital, LLC, 89 So.3d 90 (Ala.2011) (reiterates mandatory nature of Rule 65(d)(2).)
- Hall v. Reynolds, 27 So.3d 479 (Ala.2009) (Rule 65(d)(2) mandatory; insufficient reasoning invalidates injunction.)