LaTonya McCain v. James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedOctober 10, 2025
DocketSC-2025-0130
StatusPublished

This text of LaTonya McCain v. James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot (LaTonya McCain v. James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot) 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
LaTonya McCain v. James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot, (Ala. 2025).

Opinion

Rel: October 10, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026

_________________________

SC-2025-0130 _________________________

LaTonya McCain

v.

James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot

Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court (CV-23-900575)

LEWIS, Justice.

LaTonya McCain ("the lessor") appeals from a judgment entered by

the Calhoun Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of James Sneed and SC-2025-0130

Vernetta Smoot ("the lessees"). We affirm the trial court's judgment in

part, reverse it in part, and remand this cause to the trial court.

Procedural History

On December 20, 2023, the lessor filed a complaint against the

lessees, requesting that the trial court declare the parties' rights to

certain property located in Calhoun County ("the property") and award

her possession of the property and damages for lost profits. On January

22, 2024, the lessees filed an answer and a counterclaim, alleging breach

of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory fraud. The lessor filed a

reply to the counterclaim on February 15, 2024. After a trial, the trial

court entered a judgment on December 20, 2024, stating:

"This matter came before the Court on the 18th day of December, 2024[,] with the [lessor] present represented by Jake Mathews and the [lessees] present represented by Gerald Sills. This matter was before the Court pursuant to the Ejectment action filed by the [lessor] and the Counterclaim filed by the [lessees] alleging Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment and Promissory Fraud. Following presentation of testimony and evidence, the Court finds as follows:

"1. A valid lease to purchase contract between the parties exists.

"2. The [lessees] have complied with the terms of the lease to purchase contract.

2 SC-2025-0130

"3. The [lessor] has a mortgage debt remaining on the subject property, in the amount of approximately $21,024.57.

"4. Monies are being held by the [lessor] and/or attorney for [the lessor], as well as the attorney for the [lessees], that were paid by the [lessees] either directly to the [lessor] or being held by the [lessees'] attorney, which represent payments made in accordance with the parties' contract for the months of November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024, as well as a $3,000.00 annual payment made in March 2024, which is held in the trust account of the [lessees'] attorney.

"Based on the testimony and evidence presented, as well as the above findings of fact[,] it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:

"1. All monies being held mentioned in paragraph 4 above should be immediately paid to the [lessor] and the [lessor] shall immediately pay all of these monies to reduce the principle of the mortgage on the subject property.

"2. On or before March 1, 2025, the [lessor] shall satisfy in full the mortgage against the subject property, and any other liens or encumbrances against the subject property.

"3. On or before March 1, 2025, the [lessor] shall execute a deed to the [lessees] conveying clear, fee simple title of the subject property to the [lessees].

"4. The [lessees] shall be responsible for the payment of the 2024 property taxes associated with the subject property.

"5. All other requests made by the parties, not specifically addressed herein, are denied."

(Capitalization in original.)

3 SC-2025-0130

On January 15, 2025, the lessor filed a postjudgment motion,

requesting the following relief:

"1. Pursuant to Rule 52[, Ala. R. Civ. P.], the [lessor] requests the Court to amend its Order to state the facts and conclusions of law for its holding that the [lessees] complied with the provisions of the Lease-Sale Contract.

"2. To vacate the Court's Order and enter an Order denying the relief requested by the [lessor] and enter an Order awarding [the lessor] possession of the property on the following grounds.

"a. There is insufficient evidence to support the holding that the [lessees] had complied with the Lease-Sale Agreement contract in that the [lessees] were not timely in making the October and November 2023 payments as defined by the terms of the Lease-Sale Agreement which states that in the event the [l]essees fail to pay said rent as set forth on the date which it is due, failure on their part to make good said default within twenty (20) days from the due date thereof will authorize the [l]essor to terminate and cancel the lease at her option

"b. There was no evidence that the [lessees] ever gave written notice to [the lessor] of their desire to purchase the real property in dispute as called for in the Lease-Sale Agreement.

"3. To order a new trial on the basis of new evidence. After trial, the [lessees] produced money orders that show that the payments for March, April, May, June, July, and August of 2024, were not timely because they were not made by the 1st of the month pursuant to the terms of the Lease- 4 SC-2025-0130

Sale Agreement. Copies of the referenced money orders are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Furthermore, it is unclear from the $3,000 check drawn on Stubbs, Sills & Fry whether the [lessees] paid it in March of 2024. Moreover, [lessee] James Sneed stated at trial that he had called [the lessor] multiple times in November, 2024, and the [lessor] has pulled phone records reflecting that no such calls were made.

"4. To alter or amend its Order changing the deadline for the [lessor] to pay off the mortgage from March, 2025 to August, 2025.

"5. To alter and or amend its Order to address the issue of insurance. The insurance is paid through escrow by the mortgage company."

The trial court denied that motion on January 16, 2025. The lessor filed

her notice of appeal to this court on February 25, 2025.

The Lease

The "Lease with Option to Purchase" ("the lease") provides:

"THIS LEASE, made and entered into on this the 1st day of October, 2016, by and between LaTonya McCain, a single woman, hereinafter called 'Lessor', and James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot, hereinafter called 'Lessees.'

"WITNESSETH:

"That Lessor does hereby lease and rent unto the Lessees [the] property ….

"….

5 SC-2025-0130

"for use as a residence during the term of ninety-six (96) months, beginning on the 1st day of October, 2016, and ending on the 30th day of September, 2024.

"IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, the Lessees agree to pay the Lessor, on the first day of each month of said term, in advance, as rent for said premises herein leased the sum of Eight Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($825.00) per month, plus additional payments on March of each year as set out herein. Lessees further agree to make an initial payment to Lessor of $10,800.00 which shall apply toward purchase.

"THIS LEASE is made on the following Terms, Conditions and Covenants:

"1. The Lessor covenants to keep the Lessees in possession of said premises during said term.

"2. Nothing herein shall be construed as a warranty that premises are in good condition or are fit or suitable for the use and purpose for which they are rented or leased. The Lessor has made no representations or promises with respect to said premises except as herein expressly set forth.

"3.

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

Related

Raidt v. Crane
342 So. 2d 358 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1977)
Born v. Clark
662 So. 2d 669 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1995)
Reed v. BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR AL. STATE UNIV.
778 So. 2d 791 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2000)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton
675 So. 2d 377 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1996)
COLONIAL BAKING CO. OF ALA. v. Pine Dale, Inc.
436 So. 2d 856 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1983)
Hall v. Mazzone
486 So. 2d 408 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1986)
Ex Parte Board of Zoning Adjustment
636 So. 2d 415 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1994)
BIG THICKET BROADCASTING v. Santos
594 So. 2d 1241 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Smith v. Ann Muchia
854 So. 2d 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
Fort Morgan Civic Ass'n v. City of Gulf Shores
100 So. 3d 1042 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2012)
Kennedy v. Boles Investments, Inc.
53 So. 3d 60 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
LaTonya McCain v. James Sneed and Vernetta Smoot, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latonya-mccain-v-james-sneed-and-vernetta-smoot-ala-2025.