Shankles v. Moore
205 So. 3d 1253
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Troy and Kaci Moore purchased a house from James Shankles, believing the sale included two adjacent lots (total ~1.18 acres) based on an MLS listing, on-site flyer, and a laminated map shown at the property.
- The closing and deed, however, conveyed only Lot 7 (the house lot); Lot 6 was not deeded to the Moores. Moores later discovered they did not own Lot 6.
- The Moores sued Shankles (and initially Realty Plus and the McMurrys) asserting breach of contract, fraud, and negligence/wantonness/recklessness; the non-Shankles defendants later settled and were dismissed.
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for the Moores and awarded $9,900 in damages; the judgment contained no findings of fact or allocation of damages.
- Shankles appealed, arguing (1) caveat emptor, (2) parol/written-documents control (precluding oral statements), (3) insufficient proof of damages, and (4) entitlement to a setoff for the co-defendants’ settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Shankles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether caveat emptor bars recovery | Moores relied on seller representations and listing materials; doctrine should not defeat fraud claim | Caveat emptor applies to used-residential sales and bars Moores’ claims | Waived by Shankles on appeal — he never raised caveat emptor at trial; appellate court declines to consider it |
| Whether written closing documents preclude reliance on prior oral/posted statements | Moores say they reasonably relied on representations/maps/flyers and that reliance supports fraud claim | Shankles contends the written instrument controls, barring reliance on prior oral/misleading materials | Court declines to reverse; Shankles didn’t brief how this would affect negligence/wantonness claim and thus waived reversal on incomplete argument |
| Whether Moores proved damages for alleged misrepresentation | Moores introduced evidence (tax appraisal for Lot 6 showing $9,900) to show value of omitted lot | Shankles says plaintiffs failed to show diminished value and thus no damages | Reversal denied — appellant failed to develop legal argument and did not preserve sufficiency challenge by postjudgment motion; some evidence of damages was presented |
| Whether trial court should have set off Moores’ settlement with co-defendants | Moores’ settlement with codefendants arguably reduces recovery against remaining defendant | Shankles seeks pro tanto setoff for settlement amount under joint-tortfeasor principles | Court rejects reversal — trial court did not specify basis/nature of damages (compensatory vs punitive); without that the appellate court will not presume error and appellant failed to show entitlement to setoff |
Key Cases Cited
- Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd. v. Parks, 977 So.2d 440 (Ala. 2007) (ore tenus standard and presumption of correctness for trial-court factual findings)
- Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So.2d 1083 (Ala. 2005) (limitations of ore tenus presumption; legal conclusions not cloaked by it)
- Hays v. Olzinger, 669 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1995) (rule of caveat emptor applies to sales of used residential real estate)
- McCollum v. Reeves, 521 So.2d 13 (Ala. 1988) (Rule 15(b) and when issues are deemed tried by implied consent)
- Fogarty v. Southworth, 953 So.2d 1225 (Ala. 2006) (failure to brief an issue on appeal waives it where trial court’s order is non-specific)
- Campbell v. Williams, 638 So.2d 804 (Ala. 1994) (pro tanto setoff for codefendants’ settlement in joint-tortfeasor context)
- Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Von Haden, 416 So.2d 699 (Ala. 1982) (doctrine allowing release or evidence of payment by co-tortfeasor as pro tanto credit)
- Roberson v. C.P. Allen Constr. Co., 50 So.3d 471 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (appellate court will not assume trial-court error; nature of damages matters for setoff analysis)