81 So. 3d 357
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Gilchrists obtained a $25,000 SunTrust equity line, secured by their home, and had a SunTrust checking account.
- Durable powers of attorney named Woods (daughter) as attorney-in-fact in 2003, with subsequent powers after Kenneth’s death in 2005; Woods handled finances.
- In 2005 SunTrust offset $1,899 from the checking account to partly offset delinquent debt after a disputed $8,000 withdrawal; the debt later defaulted.
- SunTrust began foreclosure in 2006; Vernon and Woods filed suit seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, accounting, and multiple claims including invasion of privacy and conversion.
- Woods, as executor and attorney for Vernon and as representative of the estate of Willa Mae, continued litigation after Willa Mae’s death; SunTrust counterclaimed for a debt and foreclosure rights.
- A jury later found for SunTrust on negligence, wantonness, and Woods’s invasion of privacy; various posttrial proceedings included petitions for writs of mandamus and motions to set aside the foreclosure and determine attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and mootness of injunction appeal | Estate argues trialcourt denial of injunction should be reviewed | SunTrust asserts appeal timely and issues moot after foreclosure | Appeal on injunction denial is untimely and moot; dismiss to that extent. |
| Whether jury should determine attorney-fee amount | Estate seeks jury trial on reasonable attorney fees | Appropriate vehicle is mandamus, not ordinary appeal | Not properly reviewable on appeal; mandamus matters not considered further. |
| Trial court jurisdiction to rule on posttrial set-aside/redistribution | Estate challenges August 27, 2010 order setting redemption amount | Court had jurisdiction to rule on posttrial motions | Trial court order void; mandamus granted to vacate; other appeal moot. |
| Exclusion of telephone-call evidence relevant to Woods's invasion of privacy | Telephone calls to Gilchrist home support Woods’s claim | Calls directed to debtors, not Woods; not probative of Woods's privacy claim | Court did not err in granting in limine; evidence properly excluded. |
| Standing to assert Woods's negligence/wantonness and estate’s conversion claims | Woods/Estate claim harms to Gilchrists support standing | Claims arise from debtor/debt, not Woods’ personal interests | Woods lacked standing; summary judgment affirmed on these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174 (Ala. 1961) (invasion of privacy; debt-collection harassment permissible within reason)
- Barnwell v. Jacksonville State Bank, 481 So. 2d 863 (Ala. 1985) (bank’s collection calls may create invasion of privacy when outrageous)
- Ex parte Moore, 880 So. 2d 1131 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus as remedy for denying jury trial when no adequate ordinary remedy)
- Ex parte Chamblee, 899 So. 2d 244 (Ala. 2004) (Rule 59.1 postjudgment issues; mandamus considerations)
- Ex parte Davidson, 782 So. 2d 237 (Ala. 2000) (mandamus for postjudgment challenge; timing)
- Ex parte Izundu, 568 So.2d 771 (Ala. 1990) (standing and party capacity principles)
- Ex parte Jackson Hosp. Clinic, Inc., 49 So.3d 1210 (Ala. 2010) (authority to review postjudgment jurisdiction; void orders)
- Proctor v. Classic Auto., Inc., 20 So.3d 1281 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (standing; injury must be by a party in interest)
- West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala. 1989) (summary-judgment standard and evidentiary evaluation)