Case Title: Washington v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc.

Citation: 876 So. 2d 1103

Docket Number: 1020285

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
876 So. 2d 1103 (2003)
Floyd WASHINGTON,
v.
BILL HEARD CHEVROLET, INC., and Chevy Chase Bank, FSB.
1020285.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 12, 2003.
J. Zach Higgs, Jr., and Robert D. Lee of Higgs & Emerson, Huntsville, for appellant.
D. Edward Starnes III and Jeffrey T. Kelly of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, P.C., Huntsville, for appellee Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc.
Charles R. Johanson III and Jonathan E. Raulston of Engel, Hairston & Johanson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
The plaintiff Floyd Washington appeals the orders of the trial court compelling him to arbitrate his claims of fraud against defendant Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., and dismissing his claim for declaratory relief against defendant Chevy Chase Bank, FSB. We affirm the order for arbitration and reverse the order of dismissal. Because the order for arbitration is supported by well-established law, this opinion will not address the arbitration issue, see Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(E) and (F), Ala. R.App. P., but will address only the dismissal issue.
The complaint initially alleged a breach of contract claim against Chevy Chase Bank. However, in an amended complaint, the plaintiff replaced the breach of contract claim with a declaratory relief claim. The allegations pertinent to the declaratory relief claim are:
Pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion by Chevy Chase Bank, the trial court dismissed this claim by the plaintiff for a judgment declaring the "forged" third retail installment sale contract void and unenforceable. Before us on this appeal, Chevy Chase Bank argues that the plaintiff's claim for a declaratory judgment fails to state a justiciable controversy with Chevy Chase Bank.
Klein v. State Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 549, 551 (Ala.Civ.App.1988). "[T]his Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail." Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So. 2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985) (citation omitted). "[T]here must be a bona fide existing controversy of a justiciable character to confer upon the court jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under declaratory judgment statutes." Shadix v. City of Birmingham, 251 Ala. 610, 611, 38 So. 2d 851, 852 (1949) (citations omitted).
According to the allegations of the complaint, the balloon payment of the third retail installment sale contract exceeds the balloon payment of the second; and, for aught that appears in the complaint, the third retail installment sale contract does not relieve the plaintiff from the obligations of the second. For aught that appears, the plaintiff will be bound to pay both retail installment sale contracts unless the trial court declares the third void as a forgery, as the complaint alleges it is, or unless the trial court otherwise addresses the apparent existence of the two putative contracts. Therefore, within the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff may prove that he will suffer real harm in the absence of a declaratory judgment. Thus, the complaint does state a justiciable controversy, and the trial court committed reversible error in entering the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
While we affirm the order granting the motion of Bill Heard Chevrolet to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against that company, we reverse the order dismissing the claim for declaratory relief against Chevy Chase Bank. We remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
*1106 HOUSTON, LYONS, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.
SEE, BROWN, and WOODALL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
WOODALL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the order granting the motion of Bill Heard Chevrolet to compel the plaintiff, Floyd Washington, to arbitrate his claims against that company. However, I dissent insofar as the majority opinion reverses the order dismissing the claim for declaratory relief against Chevy Chase Bank.
SEE and BROWN, JJ., concur.