187 So. 3d 1172
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Chase filed to reform Wade Tennant’s February 2008 mortgage to describe a residential lot as security, and sought an equitable lien against the residential lot and to set aside Wade’s conveyance to his son Blake.
- Tennants counterclaimed for entry into the house and lock changes in August 2010, and for damages related to alleged trespass and negligence.
- A January 2014 judgment reformed the deed back to 2008 and set aside Wade-to-Blake conveyance; it also denied other Chase claims as moot.
- Chase moved for summary judgment on the Tennants’ counterclaims, arguing entry and lock change were authorized by Section 9 of the mortgage, given Wade’s default.
- Tennants argued issues of entry authority, notice requirements under Section 7, and alleged negligence in lockbox installation; trial court granted summary judgment in Chase’s favor in August 2014, which Tennants challenged on appeal.
- Court reverses in part: upholds dismissal of trespass-to-real-estate and trespass-to-chattel claims, but reverses as to the negligence claim and remands for factual resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to enter under Section 9 after Wade’s default | Chase relied on reformed deed dating to 2008. | Tennants contend entry was improper absent abandonment or proper notice. | Chase authorized to enter under Section 9; summary judgment on real-estate trespass affirmed. |
| Notice requirement under Section 7 | Not central; abandonment clause suffices. | Notice required to enter under Section 7. | Section 7 issue not preserved for reversal; not considered. |
| Trespass-to-real-estate | Chase had right to enter to secure property. | Entry without proper basis could be trespass. | Summary judgment upheld for trespass-to-real-estate. |
| Trespass-to-chattel | Chase removed or damaged personal property; evidence insufficient. | Wade identified missing items; potential for recovery. | Summary judgment affirmed for Blake; Wade’s claim unresolved but insufficient evidence. |
| Negligence claim against Chase | Lockbox was negligently installed, leaving property unsecured. | No evidence of negligent installation; duty and causation not proven. | Summary judgment reversed for negligence; case remanded for trial on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Martin, 726 So.2d 701 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (reformation relates back to instrument date)
- Ex parte General Motors Corp., 769 So.2d 903 (Ala.1999) (burden shifting in summary judgment; Rule 56 standard)
- Marshall, ex rel. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept. v. Tucker, 893 So.2d 326 (Ala.2004) (preserve objections for postjudgment rulings; limits on partial summary judgments)
- Prince Furniture Co. v. Stanfield, 386 So.2d 1163 (Ala.Civ.App.1980) (notice pleading liberally construed; adequate notice of claims)
- Ex parte Burr & Forman, LLP, 5 So.3d 557 (Ala.2008) (pleading against tort claim based on contract language not decisive; liberal pleading allowed)
- Wint v. Alabama Eye & Tissue Bank, 675 So.2d 383 (Ala.1996) (trespass elements and wrongful taking principles)
- Boyce v. Cassese, 941 So.2d 932 (Ala.2006) (trespass to real estate requires unlawful entry)
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Van Hoornaar, 44 F.Supp.3d 846 (E.D. Wis.2014) (federal interpretation of Section 9-like mortgage provisions)