 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bryant v. Robledo6/30/2005
a fact issue, that case is overruled as inconsistent with Rule 36(b), Thomson, and Steadham.
Additionally, the Bryants assert that because the Robledos' failed to respond to the Bryants' summary-judgment motion with affidavits and other evidence, the trial court was required to accept their version of the facts. That contention fails to acknowledge that the Robledos had previously filed voluminous correspondence, court documents, and other evidence in opposition to the Bryants' motion to dismiss and in support of their own summary-judgment motion. The Bryants' reliance on the cases of Moore Insurance Co. v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., 431 So. 2d 11308 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983), and Sellers v. Doctors Medical Center, 402 So. 2d 1021 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981), is misplaced. Those cases stand for the proposition that a party may not rest on mere allegations in opposing a motion for a summary judgment. Obviously, the Robledos had already filed numerous documents in support of their claims, documents that were "on file" at the time of the summary judgment (see Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.), and the trial court properly entered a summary judgment against James Bryant based on that evidence.
The Bryants also assert that they were entitled to a summary judgment because they proved that the Robledos could not recover under any legal theory. Our standard of review with respect to the grant or denial of a summary-judgment motion is well-settled:
"A motion for summary judgment tests the sufficiency of the evidence. Such a motion is to be granted when the trial court determines that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the burden of negating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Furthermore, when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Rule 56, [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] the non-movant may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Proof by substantial evidence is required."
Sizemore v. Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, 671 So. 2d 674, 675 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). The Bryants contended from the time the Robledos initiated the action that no contract for legal services had been entered into between the parties. For the first time, in their response in opposition to the Robledos' summary-judgment motion, the Bryants addressed the fraud claim and contended that the only possible fraud was promissory fraud, which requires an intent to deceive. The admissions, however, pertain directly to that issue and conclusively established the fact that James Bryant knew or should have known that he would be unable to perform any legal or financial services because Nave had been deemed incompetent before he signed James Bryant's power of attorney.
The Bryants correctly note that four elements must be proven in a fraud action: (1) false representation, (2) as to a material fact, (3) reliance on that representation, and (4) damages resulting from the reliance. Crowne Invs., Inc. v. Bryant, 638 So. 2d 873, 87 (Ala. 1994). The Robledos contended that James Bryant knew or should have known that he would be unable to perform the legal and financial services that he promised to perform; they asserted that if they had been told that Nave was incompetent at the time he gave Bryant a power of attorney, they would never have sent Bryant the $15,000. In addition to the admissions, the Robledos presented to the trial court a number of electronic letters that, they said, prove that James Bryant made false representations as to his legal services and that they lost $15,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|