Powell v. Phenix Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Supreme Court of Alabama

Powell v. Phenix Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

472 So. 2d 966, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 3677

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 12, 1985

Docket83-240

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 472 So. 2d 966 (Powell v. Phenix Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n) 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

Powell v. Phenix Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 472 So. 2d 966, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 3677 (Ala. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

EMBRY, Justice.

Sara and Era Powell filed this action against Phenix Federal Savings and Loan Association in 1981. The relief they requested was that the trial court grant an injunction against a non-judicial foreclosure on their home. That court did issue a temporary restraining order and then conducted a trial on the merits.

On 2 September 1981, a judgment was entered against the Powells which would have allowed Phenix Federal to proceed with foreclosure, but the Powells filed a motion for new trial, which was granted. The new trial was held on 2 February 1981. Again, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Phenix Federal. The plaintiffs appealed that judgment to this court.

The issue on that appeal was whether the trial court had misapplied the controlling law concerning the enforcement of a due-on-sale clause in a mortgage contract. The trial court had held that, under the controlling law, the clause was enforceable. In that opinion authored by Justice Beatty, which states the facts of this case in detail, we reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case to that court for further findings of fact concerning the enforceability of the due-on-sale clause. Powell v. Phenix Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, 434 So.2d 247 (Ala.1983).

The trial court held a hearing and allowed the parties to present further evidence. After hearing ore tenus evidence without a jury, the trial court again denied the plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief and the plaintiffs again appealed to this court.

After a careful review of the record, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court. It is axiomatic that where a trial court hears ore tenus evidence, its judgment is presumed correct, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly and palpably erroneous. League v. McDonald, 355 So.2d 695 (Ala.1978). Our review of the record below reveals no such error.

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur. JONES, J., concurs in the result. TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, J., dissent.

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

EMBRY, Justice.

Sara and Era Powell filed this action against Phenix Federal Savings and Loan Association in 1981. The relief they requested was that the trial court grant an injunction against a non-judicial foreclosure on their home. That court did issue a temporary restraining order and then conducted a trial on the merits.

On 2 September 1981, a judgment was entered against the Powells which would have allowed Phenix Federal to proceed with foreclosure, but the Powells filed a motion for new trial, which was granted. The new trial was held on 2 February 1981. Again, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Phenix Federal. The plaintiffs appealed that judgment to this court.

The issue on that appeal was whether the trial court had misapplied the controlling law concerning the enforcement of a due-on-sale clause in a mortgage contract. The trial court had held that, under the controlling law, the clause was enforceable. In that opinion authored by Justice Beatty, which states the facts of this case in detail, we reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case to that court for further findings of fact concerning the enforceability of the due-on-sale clause. Powell v. Phenix Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, 434 So.2d 247 (Ala.1983).

The trial court held a hearing and allowed the parties to present further evidence. After hearing ore tenus evidence without a jury, the trial court again denied the plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief and the plaintiffs again appealed to this court.

After a careful review of the record, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court. It is axiomatic that where a trial court hears ore tenus evidence, its judgment is presumed correct, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly and palpably erroneous. League v. McDonald, 355 So.2d 695 (Ala.1978). Our review of the record below reveals no such error.

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur. JONES, J., concurs in the result. TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 So. 2d 966, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 3677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-phenix-federal-savings-loan-assn-ala-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack