89 So. 3d 756
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Tamarra Martin and Lesester Williams sued Hodge’s Chapel, LLC (funeral home) and Whispering Pines Cemetery, LLC (cemetery) in 2010 for negligence, wantonness, outrage, breach of contract, and fraud related to four family burials.
- Decedents: Emma Lee Prince (Ms. Prince, buried 1990), Steven Prince, Sr. (buried 1996), Stephen Prince, Jr. (buried 2000), and William Mae Mobley (buried 2004).
- Funeral home assured records were kept to locate graves; over time cemetery premises deteriorated and landmarks changed, making graves hard to locate.
- In May 2009 Martin sought grave locations; funeral home provided some locations but could not locate Ms. Prince’s grave; plaintiffs learned of a pending suit alleging misplaced remains, prompting concerns about all four graves.
- Funeral home moved to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing misidentification of party name, rule of repose (20 years), and statutes of limitations; cemetery did not answer defense.
- Trial court granted dismissal with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed and supreme court transferred to this court. The case involves multiple factual timelines and accrual considerations for tort, contract, fraud, and outrage claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the rule of repose bar the Prince burial-site claims? | Rule of repose not applicable to all Prince claims. | 20-year repose bars claims arising from 1990 interments filed in 2010. | Partial reversal: repose does not bar all Prince claims; some claims may survive depending on accrual timing. |
| Are fictitious-party allegations a basis to dismiss claims against the funeral home? | Fictitious defendants could encompass liable entities; discovery could identify successors. | No substitution or Rule 56(f) delay requested; claims fail if party proper. | Affirmed dismissal against Prince and Prince, Sr. for funeral home; reversed as to cemetery; fictitious-party issue not grounds to delay ruling. |
| Did accrual timing defeat limitations for the Prince, Jr. and Mobley contract and tort claims? | Accrual in May 2009 when graves location misidentified, within limitations for filing in 2010. | Accrual occurred earlier or limitations expired; cannot determine accrual date. | Genuine issues of material fact on accrual date prevent law-based bar; contract claims may be timely depending on accrual timing. |
| Are the tort (negligence/wantonness) and fraud/outrage claims time-barred by the rule of repose? | Distinction between accrual and repose; distress from May 2009 supports later accrual. | Repose applies separately to each claim type and grave site; time-bar issues unresolved. | Tort-of-outrage: distress in May 2009 means repose did not begin more than 20 years before filing; fraud also not time-barred; some claims survive. |
| Do the contract claims against Jr. and Mobley have a definite breach date within six years? | Breach occurred when records failed to locate graves (2000s), possibly within six years of 2010. | Ambiguity on breach date may trigger repose or limitations; need discovery to decide. | Because accrual/breach timing is contested, summary judgment on contract claims for Jr. and Mobley cannot be entered as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Shadow Lawn Memorial Park, 709 So.2d 1241 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (repose applicability requires factual accrual timing; still unresolved from pleadings)
- Ex parte Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 825 So.2d 758 (Ala.2002) (rule of repose broader than limitations; starts when capable to assert claims)
- American General Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Underwood, 886 So.2d 807 (Ala.2004) (repose begins when essential elements coexist; different for tort vs. contract)
- Payne v. Alabama Cemetery Ass’n, 413 So.2d 1067 (Ala.1982) (accrual not until injury discovered in certain cemetery torts)
- Chaney v. Ala West-AL, LLC, 22 So.3d 488 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (outrage accrues when plaintiff suffers severe distress)
- Padgett v. Hughes, 535 So.2d 140 (Ala.1988) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
- DGB, LLC v. Hinds, 55 So.3d 218 (Ala.2010) (fraudulent suppression elements)
- Freightliner, L.L.C. v. Whatley Contract Carriers, L.C., 932 So.2d 883 (Ala.2005) (fraudulent suppression / accrual context)
- Stephens v. Creel, 429 So.2d 278 (Ala.1983) (contract damages and breach concepts for accrual)
- Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973 (5th Cir.1995) (pleading standard: must allege elements or show plausible claims)