 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Easterling v. Awtrey Building Corp.9/17/1999
James Easterling appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Jefferson County Circuit Court in favor of Awtrey Building Corporation ("ABC") on Easterling's claims arising from the diversion of water onto his real property. Because we conclude that the trial court applied the incorrect statute of limitations, we reverse and remand.
Easterling filed a seven-count complaint on May 19, 1997, alleging several theories of liability, including trespass, against ABC, Awtrey Realty Company, and other parties, arising out of the channeling of surface water from land developed by ABC onto Easterling's land. After discovery was concluded, ABC and Awtrey Realty Company moved for a summary judgment, contending that each of Easterling's claims actually sounded in "trespass on the case" and was therefore barred by the two-year residual personal-injury statute of limitations, § 6-2-38(l), Ala. Code 1975 (" ll actions for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising from contract and not specifically enumerated ... must be brought within two years."). In response, Easterling contended that he had stated a trespass claim against the defendants that was subject to a six-year limitations period. See § 6-2-34(2), Ala. Code 1975 (providing that actions for any trespass to real or personal property must be brought within six years). The parties later filed supplemental submissions in support of, and in opposition to, the motion for summary judgment.
The court entered a summary judgment in favor of ABC and Awtrey Realty Company, concluding that Easterling's claims sounded in trespass on the case and that, because "the original occurrences were more than 2 years prior to the filing of the complaint," those defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Easterling's claims against all of the other defendants that had been served with process were adjudicated via voluntary dismissal or by summary judgments on other grounds.
Easterling appealed the summary judgment in favor of ABC on his trespass claim to the Alabama Supreme Court; that court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975. Easterling did not name Awtrey Realty Company as an appellee.
The sole issue raised by Easterling is whether the trial court properly concluded that a two-year, rather than a six-year, limitations period applied to Easterling's trespass claim, and that ABC was therefore entitled to a summary judgment. In assessing the correctness of those Conclusions, we apply the following legal principles:
"Rule 56, Ala.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tiered standard for determining whether to enter a summary judgment. In order to enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine: 1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and 2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. No presumption of correctness attaches to the decision of the trial court regarding the summary judgment motion, and our review is de novo. Hipps v. Lauderdale Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 631 So. 2d 1023, 1025 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (citing Gossett v. Twin County Cable T.V., Inc., 594 So. 2d 635 (Ala. 1992)). Moreover, when an appeal focuses on the application of the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness is accorded to the trial court's judgment and we review de novo the application of the law to the facts of such a case. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)." Pearson v. City of Hoover, 706 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
The pertinent facts are essentially undisputed. Since receiving a parcel of real property from family members in approximately 1984, Easterling has lived on that parcel, which is loc
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|