Case Title: Chunn v. Whisenant

Citation: 877 So. 2d 595

Docket Number: 1021180

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
877 So. 2d 595 (2003)
Betty CHUNN
v.
Kathryn WHISENANT et al.
1021180.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 19, 2003.
*596 Burt W. Newsome of Hubbard, Smith, McIlwain, Brakefield & Browder, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Charles H. Pullen, Huntsville, for appellee Kathryn Whisenant.
Elizabeth T. Cvetetic, Huntsville, for appellees Donald Morrow, Ernestine Morrow, and River Valley Properties, Inc.
WOODALL, Justice.
Betty Chunn appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of Kathryn Whisenant, Don Morrow, Ernestine Morrow, and River Valley Properties, Inc., in Chunn's action seeking, among other things, an equitable lien on improvements she made to real estate as Whisenant's *597 lessee. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The facts material to this appeal are undisputed. In 1991, Whisenant owned a building in Huntsville, in which an adult lounge had operated for several years. By an instrument dated August 1, 1991, Whisenant agreed to lease the property to Chunn for six months. Chunn began operating an "adult cabaret" on the premises, known as "Chick's Lounge." By its terms, the lease expired on January 31, 1992; it was never renewed in writing. However, Chunn continued to operate the lounge under an oral arrangement ("the arrangement") until 1997.
On April 13, 1997, the property was damaged by a fire. Because the property was uninsured and unusable in its damaged state, Chunn and Whisenant discussed the future of the arrangement. When Whisenant indicated that she did not intend to repair the building, they discussed whether Chunn could pay for the repairs. Whisenant described the conversation as follows:
During that same conversation, Whisenant also said that if she ever sold the property, she would give Chunn the "first opportunity to buy it."
Subsequently, Chunn paid $42,514 for repairs to the building. In June 1997, the lounge reopened and continued in operation for the next four years.
By an instrument dated August 24, 2001, Whisenant agreed to sell the property to Ernestine Morrow and her husband, Don Morrow, for $119,270. It is undisputed that Whisenant never offered to sell the property to Chunn for that price. According to the unrefuted testimony, at or about the time of the offer to the Morrows, Whisenant offered to sell the property to Chunn for $179,000. Chunn declined the offer and did not discover the substance of the offer to the Morrows until after the sale.
Subsequently, in October 2001, discussions occurred between the Morrows and Chunn regarding the future of Chick's Lounge. At that time, according to Don Morrow's deposition, he proposed to Chunn that she sell him "her equipment," including poker machines, a cooler, tables and chairs, and liquor. He presented Chunn with an instrument, styled "Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Assets" ("the Agreement"), pursuant to which he agreed to buy the equipment for $19,000. Morrow told her that if she did not sign the Agreement, she would have to remove her equipment from the premises.
During the discussion, Chunn asked Morrow about the $42,514 she had invested in the premises. Morrow told her that he "didn't know anything about that, [and that] she would have to take that up with [Whisenant]."
Chunn did ask Whisenant to reimburse her for the improvements, and Whisenant refused to pay her anything, stating: "I didn't tell you to put it in there, you done it on your own." Chunn and Don Morrow signed the Agreement on October 15, 2001.
On February 7, 2002, Chunn sued Whisenant and Don Morrow. The complaint, as last amended, named as defendants Whisenant; Don Morrow and Ernestine Morrow; and River Valley Properties, Inc., which, it was alleged, was owned by the Morrows and had some interest in the property. The complaint contained claims against Whisenant alleging (1) fraud, (2) misrepresentation, (3) breach of contract, *598 (4) a quasi-contract theory of recovery, (5) "interference with contractual or business relations," and (6) promissory estoppel. It contained claims against Ernestine Morrow alleging breach of contract, and against Don Morrow and Ernestine Morrow alleging (1) breach of fiduciary duty and (2) "interference with contractual or business relations."[1] It sought various species of equitable relief, including (1) an "equitable lien against the premises," (2) damages in quantum meruit, and (3) annulment of the sale of the premises to the Morrows.
On August 29, 2002, Chunn moved for a summary judgment on her breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims against Whisenant. On November 18, 2002, Don Morrow and Ernestine Morrow moved for a summary judgment as to Chunn's claims against them and River Valley Properties. On February 25, 2003, Whisenant moved for a summary judgment. Whisenant's motion challenged specifically only the breach-of-contract claim, asserting that the claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds, Ala.Code 1975, § 8-9-2. As for the remainder of Chunn's claims, Whisenant's motion stated:
(Emphasis added.) On February 28, 2003, the trial court  citing only the Agreement  granted the motions of the Morrows and Whisenant and denied the motion of Chunn.
Chunn appealed, contending that the Agreement did not release or extinguish any claims she has against Whisenant.[2] She insists that Morrow and she never intended for the Agreement to encompass her claims for the recovery of funds she expended on improvements to the leased premises following the fire in April 1997. Moreover, she argues, Whisenant never paid any consideration for the Agreement, and, therefore, Whisenant is "not entitled to ... benefit from any purported release language contained in the Agreement." Brief of Chunn, at 46.
The Agreement provides:
Citing paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Agreement, the appellees argue that "Chunn clearly and unequivocally sold or assigned all of the rights she might have had in the property or the purported lease to Morrow." Brief of appellees, at 17-18 (emphasis added). "That assignment," they insist, "included her right to bring the instant action against the appellees." Id. at 18 (emphasis added). "As a result," they argue, "the trial court's entry of summary judgment was correct and is due to be affirmed." Id. For the following reasons, we disagree with these contentions.
First, the appellees exaggerate the scope of paragraph 1. They read it as though it said: "[Chunn] agrees to sell and deliver to [Morrow] on the closing date, all [of Chunn's] properties, assets and business as a going concern." Actually, the paragraph states:
(Emphasis added.) In other words, the appellees ignore the clear language of paragraph 1, which limits the scope of the sale to those assets "herein described," that is, to those assets actually described in the document.
Those assets are listed in paragraph 3(a) and (b), under the heading, "Inventory." They consist of "the business" and the "goodwill, office supplies, inventory, and attachments of said business." Conspicuously absent from this list  and from every other paragraph in the instrument  is reference to any legal or equitable interest in real estate.
According to the familiar principle of noscitur a sociis,"where general and specific words which are capable of an analogous meaning are associated one with the other, they take color from each other, so that the general words are restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general." Winner v. Marion County Comm'n, 415 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Ala.1982). Nothing in the Agreement evidences an intent to include within the terms "assets" or "business" the transfer or assignment of an interest, or a right to assert an interest, in real estate.
This is especially significant in light of the fact that the real estate was then owned by the Morrows. The appellees argue: "Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the appellees as to all of Chunn's claims because, prior to her initiation of this action, Chunn sold the subject business along with all of her *601 rights therein, including any rights she might have had as a tenant, to Morrow." Brief of appellees, at 16. The appellees' argument invites the conclusion that Morrow purchased the right to assert an equitable lien against property owned by him.
We cannot reach this conclusion. The purchase of such a right would have been in essence a "release." However, the Agreement does not purport to be a "release." The word, "release," like the phrase "real estate," appears nowhere in the Agreement.[3]
Equally unavailing is the appellees' reliance on paragraph 7, which states: "[Chunn] hereby assigns to [Morrow] her rights in the lease she previously entered into with [Whisenant]." (Emphasis added.) The "lease" expired on January 31, 1992. From then until Whisenant sold the property, Chunn operated Chick's Lounge by the amorphous oral permission of Whisenant. Presumably, it was this arrangement to which paragraph 7 referred.
In any case, Whisenant's promise to give Chunn the "first opportunity to buy" the property was not a "lease" in any sense, but a "right of first refusal" in the form of a side agreement. It was supported by consideration independent of the lease, namely, Chunn's promise to repair the real estate. Thus, paragraph 7, by its express reference to the lease, did not purport to assign or transfer any interest arising from the right-of-first-refusal side agreement. In short, the Agreement has no effect on claims arising out of the alleged breach of the right of first refusal, and the trial court erred in relying on the Agreement as a basis for its summary judgment.
It is undisputed that the Agreement was the sole basis for the summary judgment. The effect of the Agreement on Chunn's claims is the sole issue addressed in the appellees' brief. Indeed, the purported assignment is the only argument ever directed to all of Chunn's claims. More specifically, Whisenant's summary-judgment motion did not otherwise challenge Chunn's claims of fraud, misrepresentation, quasi-contract, interference with contractual or business relations, or promissory estoppel. Because the trial court considered those claims only in the context of the Agreement, and erred in so doing, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Whisenant, and remand the case for further proceedings.
We hasten to point out, however, that Chunn makes no argument and cites no authority in support of any of her claims against the Morrows or River Valley Properties. Thus, we deem as abandoned any challenge to the summary judgment in favor of the Morrows and River Valley Properties. Tucker v. Cullman-Jefferson Counties Gas Dist., 864 So. 2d 317 (Ala.2003); Bettis v. Thornton, 662 So. 2d 256, 257 (Ala.1995) (an argument not made on appeal is abandoned or waived); Pardue v. Potter, 632 So. 2d 470, 473 (Ala.1994) ("Issues not argued in the appellant's brief are waived."). The summary judgment in favor of Don Morrow, Ernestine Morrow, and River Valley Properties is, therefore, affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
HOUSTON, LYONS, JOHNSTONE, and STUART, JJ., concur.
[1]  The complaint, as last amended, asserted no claims specifically against River Valley Properties.
[2]  On appeal, Chunn makes no argument and cites no authority in support of her claims against the Morrows and River Valley Properties; thus, she has abandoned any challenge to the summary judgment in their favor.
[3]  Indeed, the word "release" never appears in the brief the appellees filed in this Court. Otherwise stated, the appellees do not argue that the Agreement constitutes a "release."