Defense Verdicts, Dismissals, and Summary Judgment Highlight Recent Successes

Gerald Swann and Acker Holt were granted a Summary Judgment in a construction defect case which arose out of the construction of a new home.

The Plaintiffs were the original purchasers following completion. Prior to purchasing the plaintiffs had no contact with the builder or any subcontractor involved in construction. After moving in, the new homeowners began to experience numerous issues, including foundation movement, electrical and plumbing defects. The plaintiffs brought suit seeking recovery from the builder and subcontractors. The Court ruled in favor  of the subcontractor finding the lack of privity between the plaintiffs and subcontractors prevented recovery. They were not third-party beneficiaries and there was no evidence to support any misrepresentations were ever made by the subcontractor.

Joe Wiley Mitchell recently obtained a favorable verdict following a bench trial in a declaratory judgment action involving a disputed access easement.

The case centered on the parties’ respective rights and obligations related to access over a parcel of land critical to Joe Wiley’s client’s business operations. His client is the owner of the dominant estate, meaning their property benefits from an easement granting the legal right to use a portion of a neighboring property for a specific purpose—in this case, access for ingress and egress.

The dispute arose when the neighboring landowner threatened to install a gate across the easement area, which would have significantly interfered with our client’s ability to access their property and, in turn, harmed their business operations. After two days of witness testimony and presentation of evidence, the court ruled decisively in our client’s favor. The court found that the easement is valid and enforceable; that the neighboring landowner may not place a gate or otherwise obstruct the easement; and that our client’s use of the easement did not constitute an overburdening of the easement.

This case underscores the importance of clearly defined easement rights and the willingness of courts to enforce those rights when they are challenged.

Ham Wilson and Chalankis Brown recently defended a registered nurse in a wrongful death case that was tried in Perry County for just less than two weeks.

The plaintiff claimed their client breached the standard of care so as to warrant the recovery of punitive damages for the wrongful death of the patient. The jury returned a defendant’s verdict in favor of the nurse defended by Ham and Chalankis while awarding damages against a co-defendant.

Chalankis Brown and Graham Neeley secured the dismissal of a Section 1983 action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama Southern Division.

Their client was the former Chief of Police of the City of Mobile. He was sued in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action in which the plaintiff claimed that his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment rights were violated when he was placed under arrest for the alleged use of counterfeit money. Chalankis and Graham initially filed a Motion to Dismiss which was grounded in the doctrine of Qualified Immunity. The Motion  was granted by the Court with leave for the plaintiff to amend. The plaintiff amended his Complaint, and Chalankis and Graham filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff then agreed to dismiss the action against the Chief of Police.