Opinion ID: 2532185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Specificity of the Complaint

Text: It is undisputed that Penick owns the real property at issue in this action, that Penick mortgaged the property, and that the Lodge holds the second mortgage on the property. It is undisputed that the mortgage originally described that property incorrectly but that a corrected mortgage was subsequently issued accurately describing the property. The record contains copies of both the original and the corrected mortgage documents. Those documents were properly before the trial court on the summary-judgment motion. However, Penick argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the Lodge's complaint because the mortgage that was attached to the Lodge's complaint was not the corrected mortgage and the property was not otherwise precisely and accurately described in the complaint. Penick also argues that the summary judgment in favor of the Lodge was improper because, according to Penick, the Lodge did not sufficiently aver in its complaint that it had fulfilled all conditions precedent to foreclosing on the mortgage and that it was willing to do equity. In support of these arguments, Penick relies on Shepherd, supra , which describes specific pleading requirements for complaints in actions on mortgages before the adoption of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. [11] Penick also relies extensively on the following rule set forth in Chandler v. Bodeker, 219 Ala. 357, 359, 122 So. 435, 436 (1929), another case predating the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure: [A] general allegation of [contract] performance on the part of complainant is insufficient as against demurrer. . . . ... [T]he bill shall by averments of fact make certain to a common intent that a valid, enforceable contract exists, the terms thereof, and performance by complainant on his part or a sufficient excuse for nonperformance, accompanied with averments showing he is able and willing to perform, and offers so to do. The adoption of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure rendered obsolete the specific pleading averments needed to overcome a demurrer in a contract action that are described in Shepherd and Chandler. [12] Penick's extensive reliance on those cases is misplaced. See Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. (stating that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the issues specifically set forth in the motion.). Therefore, we will not reverse the summary judgment on the authority of Shepherd and Chandler, because of an alleged lack of specificity of the complaint.