Lunceford v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.

641 So. 2d 244, 1994 Ala. LEXIS 99, 1994 WL 63459
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 4, 1994
Docket1921612
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 641 So. 2d 244 (Lunceford v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.) 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
Lunceford v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 641 So. 2d 244, 1994 Ala. LEXIS 99, 1994 WL 63459 (Ala. 1994).

Opinion

This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance proceeds that resulted from fire damage to James Lunceford's property.

The dispositive issues on this appeal are: whether the trial court's orders of November 20, 1991, and January 13, 1992, constituted a final judgment; whether Monumental Life Insurance Company ("Monumental"), a co-mortgagee on the property, was appropriately awarded attorney fees for its efforts to enforce its mortgage contract; and whether the trial court properly entered a summary judgment against Lunceford on Lunceford's claim that Monumental converted an insurance check belonging in part to Lunceford.

In 1986 Lunceford obtained the property from Eleanor McDaniel through a second mortgage. The property, an apartment building, was encumbered by a 1974 mortgage to Monumental and Chubb Life Insurance Company ("Chubb"). Lunceford obtained casualty loss insurance on the property through American Liberty Insurance Company ("American"). The building burned. The property sustained a fire loss. After examining the damage from the fire, American issued $183,872 in insurance proceeds for coverage of the loss. As comortgagees, Monumental and Chubb elected to apply the proceeds toward the debt that Lunceford owed, pursuant to their mortgage contract. The mortgage contract in question requires that hazard insurance be maintained on the property, and it provides:

"In the event of loss, Mortgagors will give immediate notice by mail to the Mortgagees, who may make proof of loss, if not made promptly by the Mortgagors, and each insurance company concerned is hereby authorized and directed to make payment for such loss directly to Mortgagees instead of to the Mortgagors and Mortgagees jointly; and the insurance proceeds, or any part thereof, may be applied by the Mortgagees, at their option, either to the reduction of the indebtedness hereby secured or to the restoration or repair of the property damaged."

(Emphasis added.)

Lunceford then filed a declaratory judgment action against Monumental, Chubb, McDaniel, and American in the Jefferson County Circuit Court; he sought a judgment declaring that he was entitled to use the proceeds to rebuild the damaged building. Monumental and Chubb counterclaimed for a declaration that the proceeds had to be applied, pursuant to their election, toward the mortgage debt. American paid the proceeds into court.

On November 20, 1991, the trial court granted Monumental and Chubb's summary judgment motion, holding that they, as co-mortgagees, were entitled to apply the insurance proceeds toward the mortgage debt. The trial court also granted American's motion for an order discharging it from liability and awarding it attorney fees, but reserved the issue of the fee amount until a later date. The trial court did not certify the November 20 order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., and did not tax costs. *Page 246

While the declaratory judgment action was pending before the trial court, Lunceford was rebuilding the burned building. Under Lunceford's insurance contract with American, the reconstruction made Lunceford eligible for further insurance proceeds. On January 6, 1992, American issued another fire loss check of $77,631.21, payable to Monumental, a real estate company, McDaniel, and Lunceford. Monumental received the check. The proceeds related to the same fire loss and the same insurance policy as the earlier $183,872 payment.

On January 13, 1992, the trial court entered an order determining the amount of attorney fees to be paid to American and distributing the $183,872 to Monumental and Chubb. The trial court did not certify the January 13 order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., and did not tax costs.

After discussing the second fire loss check (for $77,631.21), attorneys for Monumental and Lunceford agreed that Monumental would exchange the second insurance check for a check from Lunceford in an amount calculated to pay both the remainder of the mortgage debt and the attorney fees for Monumental. The checks were exchanged. However, the settlement negotiations eventually failed, and Monumental returned Lunceford's settlement check, and Lunceford gave the $77,631.21 check back to Monumental. Monumental's attorney wrote to Lunceford's attorney on February 21, 1992, suggesting that the $77,631.21 be deposited by American into court:

"I have yet to hear from you regarding my January 22, 1992, letter. Obviously, I do not want to be left in the position of holding onto the fire loss check indefinitely, particularly since your client is entitled to at least a portion of the proceeds.

"Please let me know if it is acceptable with your client to advise the insurance company of the dispute and to request that the insurance company deposit the funds in dispute with the Court."

On March 4, 1992, Lunceford filed another declaratory judgment action, this time in the Shelby County Circuit Court. On March 24, 1992, Monumental and Chubb amended their counterclaims in the Jefferson County action to include a claim to the proceeds of the second check. American paid the amount of the second fire loss check into the Jefferson County Circuit Court. Lunceford petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson County Circuit Court to relinquish its jurisdiction on the matter; we denied that petition on October 9, 1992. The Shelby County action was dismissed on December 21, 1992.

Lunceford then amended his complaint in the Jefferson County action to allege conversion against Monumental, based on Monumental's handling of the second fire loss check. On June 10, 1993, the trial court entered a summary judgment against Lunceford on the conversion claim and awarded Monumental and Chubb, as comortgagees, attorney fees. The trial court then taxed costs. It is from this June 10, 1993, summary judgment that Lunceford now appeals.

Lunceford asserts that the trial court's orders of November 20, 1991, and January 13, 1992, regarding the first fire loss check, constituted a final judgment and that he owed Monumental only the proceeds from the first check because that judgment was final. Lunceford further contends that the trial court incorrectly awarded attorney fees to Monumental for its enforcement of the mortgage contract and erroneously granted Monumental's summary judgment motion on his conversion claim.

A final judgment is an order "that conclusively determines the issues before the court and ascertains and declares the rights of the parties involved." Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249,1253 (Ala. 1990); Taylor v. Taylor, 398 So.2d 267 (Ala. 1981). An order or ruling that "adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties"; such a ruling or order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of [a] judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties." Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P.; Hallman v. Marion Corp., 411 So.2d 130 (Ala. 1982). Such an order or ruling, absent a specific Rule 54(b) order, is *Page 247 interlocutory. Chambers v. Chambers, 356 So.2d 634 (Ala. 1978).

Neither the November 20 order nor the January 13 order was certified as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). They did not resolve all of the claims of the parties.

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

Related

In re England
586 B.R. 795 (M.D. Alabama, 2018)
In re Ochab
586 B.R. 803 (M.D. Alabama, 2018)
Bekken v. Greystone Residential Ass'n
227 So. 3d 1201 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2017)
M.C. v. Tallassee Rehabilitation, P.C.
201 So. 3d 525 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2015)
Southeast Construction, L.L.C. v. War Construction, Inc.
110 So. 3d 371 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2012)
Wooten v. Morton
138 So. 3d 990 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2012)
Wachovia Bank, National Ass'n v. L & H Investments, LLC
728 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (M.D. Alabama, 2010)
Kennedy v. Boles Investments, Inc.
53 So. 3d 60 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2010)
Mosley v. Builders South, Inc.
41 So. 3d 806 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2010)
Kappa Sigma Fraternity v. Price-Williams
40 So. 3d 683 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2009)
Phillips v. Dickey
47 So. 3d 222 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2009)
Moss v. Mosley
948 So. 2d 560 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2006)
George v. Sims
888 So. 2d 1224 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
American Automotive Acceptance Co. v. New South Federal Savings Bank
867 So. 2d 1061 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
Austin Apparel, Inc. v. Bank of Prattville
872 So. 2d 158 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. v. James
836 So. 2d 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2002)
Ex Parte James
836 So. 2d 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2002)
Plantation South Condominium Ass'n v. Profile Management Corp.
842 So. 2d 663 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2001)
Osborn v. Roche
813 So. 2d 811 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
641 So. 2d 244, 1994 Ala. LEXIS 99, 1994 WL 63459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunceford-v-monumental-life-ins-co-ala-1994.