Title: Ex parte James Shankles.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: 04/15/2016
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) 229-
0649), 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, 2015-2016
____________________
1150558
____________________
Ex parte James Shankles
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: James Shankles
v.
Troy Moore and Kaci Rogers Moore)
(Etowah Circuit Court, CV-13-900064;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2140521)
MAIN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
Bolin, Shaw, and Bryan, JJ., concur.  
Murdock, J., concurs specially.
1150558
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). 
Our cases well establish that an appellate court "may
affirm a trial court's judgment on 'any valid legal ground
presented by the record.'"  General Motors Corp. v. Stokes
Chevrolet, Inc., 885 So. 2d 119, 124 (Ala. 2003) (quoting
Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. University of Alabama Health
Servs. Found. P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 (Ala. 2003) 
(emphasis added)); see also Spencer v. Malone Freight Lines,
Inc., 292 Ala. 582, 589, 298 So. 2d 20, 25 (1974) (quoting
with approval from 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1464(4) as
follows: "'An appellate court ... may consider any other legal
ground or valid reason for the judgment and affirm the
judgment where it is correct on any legal ground, even though
the ground or reason stated by the lower court is erroneous.'"
(emphasis added)).  
In Pavilion Development, L.L.C. v. JBJ P'ship, 979 So. 2d
24 (Ala. 2007), Justice Lyons dissented.  Pavilion Dev.,
L.L.C., 979 So. 2d at 44 (Lyons, J., dissenting).  He did so
based on his proposal that, under Fogarty v. Southworth, 953
So. 2d 1225 (Ala. 2006), every ground that was asserted by the
prevailing party in the trial court, i.e., by the appellee, 
2
1150558
and that ultimately is considered by a majority of the judges
or justices of the appellate court not to be "frivolous," must
be raised and defeated in the appellant's initial brief on
appeal, else the appellant automatically loses the appeal
because of a supposed "waiver" of any contest of the omitted
ground.  Six Justices concurring in the analysis of the main
opinion, and a seventh Justice concurring in the result,
indicated, among other things, an unwillingness to 
depart 
from
the aforesaid central tenet of appellate review that an
appellate court may affirm a trial court on any valid legal
ground.  Pavilion Dev., L.L.C.; Pavilion Dev., L.L.C., 979 So.
2d at 37 (See, J., concurring specially); Pavilion Dev.,
L.L.C., 979 So. 2d at 41 (Murdock, J., concurring specially). 
In the present case, a question exists regarding the
"validity" of Troy and Kaci Rogers Moore's negligence and
wantonness claims in the face of the invocation by James
Shankles of a defense based on this Court's holding in
Foremost Insurance Co. v. Parham, 693 So. 2d 409, 417 (Ala.
1997).  Nonetheless, I concur in denying certiorari review
because Shankles, the petitioner, raises no issue as to the
manner in which the Court of Civil Appeals invokes Fogarty to
3
1150558
find a "wavier" by the defendant of the Foremost issue as it
relates to those particular claims. 
4