Opinion ID: 1676925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: fraud-as to the carters

Text: Triple J and Herring argue that they presented sufficient evidence to create a conflict warranting jury consideration of their promissory fraud claim against the Carters. Although Betty Joan Carter was included as a defendant, Triple J and Herring made no allegations or arguments regarding her. Therefore, the court properly directed the verdict in favor of Betty Joan Carter. The sole evidence presented at trial with respect to the fraud claim was this testimony by Herring: And in the process of buying [the stockyard company], Billy [Carter] told me that he and his attorney were going to sue Bobby Chambers and [that] I would be the beneficiary of any amount of money that was received as a result of that suit. Billy Carter's alleged misrepresentation constitutes a promise to perform an act in the future contingent on the outcome of litigation or negotiations. Therefore, the claim is one of promissory fraud. See Padgett v. Hughes, 535 So.2d 140, 141 (Ala. 1988) (holding that the claim that defendant promised that he would foreclose the mortgage so that Padgett could receive clear, unencumbered title when the [outstanding tax] liens were satisfied constituted a claim of promissory fraud). A claim of promissory fraud requires proof of six elements: (1) a false representation, (2) of a material existing fact, (3) that is justifiably relied upon by the plaintiff, (4) that causes damage to the plaintiff as a proximate result of the reliance, (5) proof that at the time of the misrepresentation, the defendant had the intention not to perform the act promised, and (6) proof that the defendant had an intent to deceive. Padgett v. Hughes, 535 So.2d at 142; see also Hickox v. Stover, 551 So.2d 259, 263 (Ala.1989) (changing the standard for reliance from reasonable reliance to justifiable reliance). Herring and Triple J presented no evidence that Billy Carter, at the time he made the alleged promise, intended to deceive or not to perform. See Russellville Production Credit Ass'n v. Frost, 484 So.2d 1084, 1086 (Ala.1986) (holding that the failure to perform a promised act is not in itself evidence that the promisor, when the promise was made, intended to deceive). Therefore, the court properly directed the verdict in favor of Billy Carter on the claim of promissory fraud.