Opinion ID: 2543467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims

Text: Bon Harbor and Hinds argue that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for United Bank and the third-party defendants on their claims of breach of duty, fraud, and suppression, and for a declaratory judgment because, they say, genuine issues of material fact existed as to those claims. In their principal brief on appeal, Bon Harbor and Hinds argue generally and do not specify arguments relating to each of their four claims. They do not cite to any authority except for the proposition that [o]nce a fraud has been accomplished, subsequent actions cannot completely erase the injury done to the person against whom the fraud was committed. Boswell v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 643 So.2d 580, 584 (Ala.1994). Also citing Spooner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 709 So.2d 1157 (Ala.1997); Soutullo v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 646 So.2d 1352 (Ala.1994); and Old Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Woodall, 348 So.2d 1377 (Ala.1977), Bon Harbor and Hinds argue only that their claims are analogous to the situations presented in these cases; that a substantial wrong occurred on July 8, 2005, and that United Bank cannot undo it; and that the facts relating to the fraudulent failure to make the loan on July 8th must be taken as true. Bon Harbor and Hinds do not state any arguments regarding how the authority they cite relates to their claims of breach of duty, fraud, and suppression, and for a declaratory judgment. Nor do they show how the authority relates to a finding that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the elements of those claims. As stated above, `it is not the function of this Court to do a party's legal research or to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.' Jimmy Day Plumbing, 964 So.2d at 9 Bon Harbor and Hinds have not complied with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) Ala. R.App. P., with respect to this argument. Accordingly, Bon Harbor and Hinds have not shown that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for United Bank and the third-party defendants on their counterclaims and third-party claims.