Case Title: Citizens Bank v. Coffee County Bank

Citation: 431 So. 2d 1203

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1983-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
431 So. 2d 1203 (1983)
The CITIZENS BANK, ENTERPRISE, Alabama
v.
The COFFEE COUNTY BANK, ENTERPRISE, Alabama.
81-557.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 29, 1983.
*1204 James H. Weatherford, Jr., Enterprise, for appellant.
Kenneth T. Fuller, Enterprise, for appellee.
EMBRY, Justice.
This is a conversion case.
The cause came for trial on 17 August 1982. After the evidence was in, Coffee County Bank's motion for a directed verdict was granted by the trial court. This appeal followed denial of Citizens Bank's motion for a new trial. The issue for review is whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to Citizens Bank, evidence was sufficient to justify the submission of the case to a jury.
The record shows that on 15 February 1975, Citizens Bank of Enterprise, Alabama, extended a loan to G.S.F. Corporation and took a security interest in all equipment, parts, and supplies maintained in the debtor's business. G.S.F. was to open and operate a Burger King fast food restaurant. The Burger King restaurant operated for a short period of time, then closed and went into bankruptcy.
On 23 June 1978, the bankruptcy court ordered the real estate where the secured equipment was located released to T.J. Ray, the owner thereof. It ordered the equipment subject to Citizens Bank's security interest released to that bank.
By deed dated 23 June 1978, the Burger King property was conveyed by T.J. Ray to Kenneth Harris and wife, Margaret Harris. Mr. Harris was, at the time, President of *1205 Coffee County Bank. By deed dated 29 June 1978, Mr. and Mrs. Harris conveyed the property to Coffee County Bank.
Mr. Marvin Cotter, a Director of Coffee County Bank, testified that he made the bank aware the Burger King building was for sale. He testified that Harris was given authority by the Board of Directors to negotiate with T.J. Ray for the purchase of the Burger King building.
On 12, 14, 16 and 27 June 1978, letters were exchanged between Mr. Weatherford, attorney for Citizens Bank and Mr. Sawyer, who was the legal representative for both Coffee County Bank and Mr. and Mrs. Harris. These letters are set forth below:
Harris, the owner of the real estate at the time of the correspondence, testified he knew nothing of the exchange of letters between Weatherford and Sawyer prior to the date suit was filed by Citizens Bank.
Sawyer testified that he represented both Coffee County Bank and Mr. Harris and the letter of 14 June 1978 was his reply after having consulted Mr. Eason, Chief Executive Officer of that bank.
Mr. Armstrong, President of Citizens Bank, testified regarding a conversation with Eason in September of 1978, at a banker's meeting in Gulf Shores. The substance of his testimony was that Eason told him that Coffee County Bank was claiming no interest in the equipment. Armstrong testified further that Eason agreed to talk with the bank's president, Harris, and "get back with" him. He further testified that Eason left Coffee County Bank in May of 1979 without having contacted him about the equipment.
Armstrong also testified about a casual conversation in May or early June of 1979, between himself and Mr. Austin Landers, Coffee County Bank's new Executive Vice President. He testified that Landers told him he, Landers, would discuss the matter of the controversy over equipment with Harris and "get back with" him regarding the matter.
Coffee County Bank leased their building to Mr. Reeves during July of 1979. Reeves testified he was notified about a dispute regarding the equipment located in the building but that Harris told him he could use the equipment. He further stated he understood that any equipment he did not care to use was to be stored by Coffee County Bank.
Mr. Cotter, a member of the Board of Directors of Coffee County Bank, testified the Board discussed the conflict over the equipment prior to leasing the building to Reeves and determined the lease should not include the equipment.
Evidence was presented that Attorney Warren Rowe contacted Austin Landers on behalf of Citizens Bank regarding resolution of the dispute over the equipment. This was just prior to the date a lease was entered into by Coffee County Bank with Reeves.
Citizens Bank filed suit against Coffee County Bank on 14 September 1979. Their complaint charged Coffee County Bank with conversion of the secured equipment used in the conduct of the Burger King business.
In determining the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to warrant submission to the jury the trial court outlined its rationale as follows:
We find the above statement of the law and its application to these facts incorrect in part. In Southeastern Machinery Company, Inc. v. Tarpley, 398 So. 2d 700 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), cert. denied, 398 So. 2d 703 (Ala.1981), our Court of Civil Appeals had occasion to correctly set forth the law in Alabama relative to the necessity of proof of demand and refusal in a conversion action. That court stated:
398 So. 2d  at 702.
When considered in light of the above correct statement of the law, Citizens Bank presented material evidence in support of their theory of conversion on the part of Coffee County Bank by improper exercise of dominion over the secured property.
Further, Citizens Bank is not foreclosed from recovery by Section 7-9-313(5), Code 1975, as the trial court held. That statute provides:
There is no evidence in the record of a direct refusal by Coffee County Bank to *1208 allow removal of the secured equipment from the Burger King building premised on Citizens Bank's failure to provide security prior to removal. On the other hand, Citizens Bank contends its letter of 16 June 1978 is evidence of its willingness to provide reimbursement for damages.
It is well established that "it is only where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from them that the question ... is ever considered as one of law for the court. Unless the evidence is free from doubt or adverse inference, the question is for the jury." Alabama Power Co. v. Guy, 281 Ala. 583, 206 So. 2d 594 (1968).
We are satisfied the evidence offered by Citizens Bank in support of its allegations against Coffee County Bank was sufficient to survive a motion for directed verdict. Therefore, Coffee County Bank was not entitled to a directed verdict as a matter of law. The judgment below is due to be and is hereby reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.