Ex Parte Carpenter

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex Parte Carpenter

510 So. 2d 549, 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4395

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1987

Docket86-479

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 So. 2d 549 (Ex Parte Carpenter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Carpenter, 510 So. 2d 549, 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4395 (Ala. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

ADAMS, Justice.

We are of the opinion that the petition for writ of certiorari should be denied. However, our denial of the writ should not be construed as an adoption of the Court of Civil Appeals’ interpretation of Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank, 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1985), as it pertains to the awarding of attorney fees. Here, Judge Bradley has interpreted Reynolds as being inapposite because this case involves “the award of an attorney’s fee to a winning party in a fraud case not [emphasis added] involving a common fund.” In Reynolds, we reversed Judge Price’s holding that attorney fees must be awarded exclusively from the common fund established by plaintiffs’ attorneys. We said in Reynolds that part of the attorney fees should have been assessed against the defendant bank and not against the common fund; however, the existence of a common fund was not in that instance, and is not in the present case, a prerequisite to the awarding of attorney fees.

WRIT DENIED.

[550]*550MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur. TORBERT, C.J., concurs specially.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ADAMS, Justice.

We are of the opinion that the petition for writ of certiorari should be denied. However, our denial of the writ should not be construed as an adoption of the Court of Civil Appeals’ interpretation of Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank, 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1985), as it pertains to the awarding of attorney fees. Here, Judge Bradley has interpreted Reynolds as being inapposite because this case involves “the award of an attorney’s fee to a winning party in a fraud case not [emphasis added] involving a common fund.” In Reynolds, we reversed Judge Price’s holding that attorney fees must be awarded exclusively from the common fund established by plaintiffs’ attorneys. We said in Reynolds that part of the attorney fees should have been assessed against the defendant bank and not against the common fund; however, the existence of a common fund was not in that instance, and is not in the present case, a prerequisite to the awarding of attorney fees.

WRIT DENIED.

[550]*550MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur. TORBERT, C.J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 549, 1987 Ala. LEXIS 4395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-carpenter-ala-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack