71 So. 3d 642
Ala.2011Background
- Divorceed Murphys hired Eufaula Agency to sell marital home; Radetic offered $600,000 with no contingencies and earned $20,000 earnest money held by Eufaula Agency.
- Radetic failed to close by May 8, 2006 after mortgage denials from Countrywide and Quicken; contract breach triggered interpleader of earnest money.
- Murphys and Eufaula Agency pursued damages; multiple cross-claims for breach, fraud, and misrepresentation; Eufaula sought commission-related relief.
- Trial court granted default against Radetic on liability and scheduled damages; damages hearing later determined different award components for Murphys and Eufaula Agency.
- February 17, 2010 damages order awarded $177,750 to Murphys and awarded Eufaula a lost-commission amount; Radetic moved to set aside or for new trial.
- Court ultimately held the damages award was improperly calculated using post-breach market value and reversed/remanded for proper calculation consistent with law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Radetic timely due to Rule 4(a)(3) tolling. | July 28, 2008 order was final; appeal period expired before 2010. | Timely; February 2010 final order and Rule 59.1 denial tolled period. |
| Damages measurement date for breach of land sale | Damages should use market value at time of breach (April–May 2006). | Damages based on later market value after breach. | Held improper; use value at time of breach; remand for correct measurement. |
| Proper damages formula for breach of land contract | Contract clause allowed recovery of lost sale value plus earnest-money treatment. | Damages conform to asserted contractual liquidated-damages framework. | Damages formula misapplied; court must adhere to standard measure and recalibrate on remand. |
| Consideration of fair-market value evidence | Evidence of April 2006 value existed and should have informed damages. | Value post-breach was used to compute damages. | Evidence existed but not properly considered; remand to apply correct valuation date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkens v. Kaufman, 615 So. 2d 613 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992) (damages for land sale measured at date of breach)
- Duncan v. Rossuck, 621 So. 2d 1313 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (damages measured by market value at breach date)
- Brett v. Wall, 530 So. 2d 797 (Ala. 1988) (land-sale damages = contract price minus market value at breach)
- Woodham v. Singletary, 545 So. 2d 78 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (damages for land sale follow breach-date value rule)
- Cook v. Brown, 428 So. 2d 59 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982) (damages for land contract breach measured at date of breach)