142 So. 3d 529
Ala.2013Background
- Stacey and Innovative Treasury Systems (I.T.S.) sued Peed in Baldwin Circuit Court alleging Peed owed $161,365.78 plus interest (claims: breach of contract, account stated, money lent).
- Stacey swore a promissory note existed (loan on May 5, 2003 for $161,365.78 at 8%); he claimed Peed later removed/destroyed the original note. No original promissory note was produced.
- Plaintiffs submitted bank records showing a May 5, 2003 certified-check deposit into an account naming Stacey as beneficiary on death, two checks from Peed to Stacey (2006: $13,000; 2007: $20,000) each marked “loan,” and a stock-transfer receipt purporting a 2009 payment.
- Peed moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing genuine factual disputes existed on contract formation, account stated, money lent, and that the trial court wrongly treated the transfer as a gift.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the summary-judgment record and addressed whether plaintiffs had produced substantial evidence raising genuine issues of material fact on each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an enforceable contract (breach of contract)? | Stacey: promissory note existed; bank records and payments show agreement and performance. | Peed: no genuine issue; moved for summary judgment denying indebtedness. | Reversed — plaintiffs presented substantial circumstantial evidence creating a factual dispute about contract formation. |
| Is there an account stated? | Stacey: post‑transaction payments and records show acknowledgment of balance. | Peed: no new agreement; summary judgment argued proper. | Affirmed — plaintiffs failed to show the required new agreement/meeting of the minds. |
| Is this an action for money lent / money due on open account? | Stacey: money was delivered as a loan and unpaid; checks marked “loan” and deposit evidence support loan inference. | Peed: no genuine issue; asserted not indebted (and argued gift). | Reversed — sufficient evidence (checks marked “loan,” deposit, nonpayment) created a factual dispute whether funds were a loan. |
| Did the trial court properly treat the transfer as a gift? | Stacey: no evidence supporting a gift; trial court lacked basis to find gift as a matter of law. | Peed: characterized the transfer as a gift. | Reversed — record lacked substantial evidence proving a gift; genuine issue exists whether loan or gift. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So.2d 638 (Ala. 2006) (summary-judgment standard and law on money due on open account)
- Livingston v. Tapscott, 585 So.2d 839 (Ala. 1991) (distinguishing loan vs. gift; money-lent/open-account elements)
- Ayers v. Cavalry SVP I, LLC, 876 So.2d 474 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (elements of account stated)
- Hargrove v. Tree of Life Christian Day Care Ctr., 699 So.2d 1242 (Ala. 1997) (basic elements of contract)
- Bussey v. John Deere Co., 531 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1988) (summary-judgment standard)
- Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. v. Perkins & Assocs., Inc., 578 So.2d 1061 (Ala. 1991) (appellate treatment of assumed trial-court findings)