Case Title: Ex parte Joseph Ramsey. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Joseph Ramsey v. Anthony Wilson) (Lauderdale Circuit Court: CV 03-399; Civil Appeals : 2050342). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1060465

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 02/23/07 Ex parte Joseph Ramsey
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
_________________________
1060465
_________________________
Ex parte Joseph Ramsey
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re:  Joseph Ramsey
v.
Anthony Wilson)
(Lauderdale Circuit Court, CV-03-399;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2050342)
WOODALL, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.
1060465
2
See, Lyons, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, and Parker, JJ.,
concur.
Cobb, C.J., dissents.
Murdock, J., recuses himself.
1060465
David Tubbs and Joe Ramsey were initially the only named
1
defendants.  Subsequently the complaint was amended to
substitute Janice Tubbs as a defendant in place of David
Tubbs, who died after the complaint was filed.  Title to the
vehicle had been issued in David Tubbs's name pursuant to a
power of attorney held by Janice Tubbs.
3
COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I dissent from the majority's decision to deny this
petition for a writ of certiorari.  Joseph Ramsey makes two
arguments in his petition: (1) that the judgment against him
should be reversed because a principal-agent relationship
existed between David Tubbs and Janice Tubbs, on the one hand,
and Joseph Ramsey, on the other, and the verdicts rendered
involving Janice Tubbs  and Ramsey were inconsistent, and (2)
1
that Anthony Wilson did not have standing to bring the
underlying action because, Ramsey argues, Anthony Wilson did
not possess title to the subject vehicle.  The majority
apparently has 
concluded, I believe 
correctly, 
that 
Ramsey did
not preserve the issue of inconsistent verdicts for appellate
review because he did not raise the issue in his motion for a
new trial.  However, as to the standing issue, the majority
apparently has concluded that the one claim of conflict
1060465
4
regarding the ownership issue is insufficient to invoke this
Court's review.  I disagree.  
The facts presented in Ramsey's petition indicate that at
the time the purported conversion occurred legal title to the
vehicle was in the name of Jason Wilson, Anthony's brother.
After the proper legal notices appeared in the local
newspaper, the abandoned vehicle was sold to David Tubbs on
March 10, 2003.  On March 17, 2003, Jason Wilson submitted an
application for replacement title with the Alabama Department
of Revenue.  It was not until April 1, 2003, that Anthony
Wilson submitted an application for certificate of title to
the Department of Revenue.  There is no indication that
Anthony Wilson ever held legal title to the vehicle; the
Alabama Department of Revenue issued title to the vehicle to
David Tubbs on April 4, 2003.  "Legal title with immediate
right of possession by the plaintiffs to the converted
property at the time of conversion is a necessary element of
the conversion action."  Roberson v. Ammons, 477 So. 2d 957,
962 (Ala. 1985).  Because it is not clear at this stage of the
proceeding whether Anthony Wilson had legal title with
immediate right of possession of the vehicle at the time of
1060465
5
the purported conversion, I would grant the writ of certiorari
to review this issue.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent from
the majority's decision to deny the writ.