The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, December 19, which included the following opinions of interest to the Alabama business community:
- Dendy v. Ryan: This decision affirmed a bench verdict concluding that the defendants constructed buildings in violation of restrictive covenants and ordering that the buildings be brought into compliance or torn down. The Court’s opinion by Justice Bryan began by considering whether the defendants waived their two defenses by not raising them in their answer, ultimately concluding that only one of the two—the “relative hardship” defense—was preserved because the defendants raised it in pre- and post-trial briefs before the trial judge. On the merits, the Court reasoned that the judge had discretion to rule that the defendants’ inequitable conduct—continuing to build even after it became apparent that the construction was noncompliant—precluded them from relying on the “relative hardship” defense. Today’s release list marked the first opinions from newly appointed Justice Will Parker. He concurred specially in this case, to note that the “relative hardship” defense may not be an affirmative defense that the defendant must assert in the answer at all, but instead an element the plaintiff must prove to obtain an injunction of this sort. (He also wrote a concurrence in a criminal case.)
- Laborde v. Citizens Bank, N.A.: Homeowners alleged that they had tried to reinstate their mortgage prior to a bank’s foreclosure sale, but the bank had refused to accept payment and sold their home for more than the original purchase price. The Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the homeowners’ claim for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.” It explained that although Alabama recognizes an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, there is no independent cause of action for a breach of that duty. But by a vote of 6-3, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the homeowners’ claims for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, and unjust enrichment. The Court determined that the homeowner’s breaches of the contract’s payment provisions did not bar their claims that the bank had breached contractual provisions permitting the homeowners to cure missed payments. As to the wrongful foreclosure claim, the Court held that allegations that the bank lacked foreclosure authority, coupled with general assertions that the sale was conducted for an improper purpose, sufficiently alleged that the bank exercised the power of sale for a purpose other than to secure the debt. Finally, allegations that the foreclosure sale resulted in a payment greater than the original purchase price sufficiently alleged unjust enrichment.
