Opinion ID: 1104871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory Requirements for Contracts Entered into by Municipalities and by Baldwin

Text: On the last day of trial, Baldwin moved the trial court to exclude all of the testimony from all witnesses on the issue of the alleged oral agreement between Fairhope and Baldwin and electronically filed an Answer to Counterclaim, in which Baldwin asserted three Affirmative Defenses to Fairhope's claim that an oral service-territory agreement existed between the parties. The basis of both Baldwin's motion and its answer was, according to Baldwin, that all evidence of the alleged oral agreement should be excluded and that Fairhope's oral-agreement claims were barred because contracts entered into by municipalities, such as Fairhope, must be in writing, as required by § 11-47-5, Ala. Code 1975, [14] and that according to § 37-6-3(13), Ala.Code 1975, contracts entered into by Baldwin must be approved by its board of trustees. [15] The trial court denied Baldwin's motion. Baldwin subsequently submitted requested jury instructions that contained, verbatim, the language of the statutes on which Baldwin's argument relies; the trial court refused to give those instructions. [16] Baldwin now argues that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to give Baldwin's requested jury instructions on those statutes. Baldwin contends that the jury should have been instructed that Alabama law mandates that contracts of municipalities be in writing, executed by the proper city official and by the other contracting party, and that Alabama law also addresses the role of [Baldwin]'s Board of Trustees in approving contracts to which [Baldwin] is a party. Baldwin's brief at 37. Baldwin argues that this error was further compounded by an instruction that the trial court did give, which stated that there is no rule of law that all contracts must be in writing. Baldwin's brief at 37. Fairhope argues, however, that Baldwin's failure to even mention its defenses based on these statutes prior to the last day of trial justified the trial court's refusal of the proposed jury charges. Fairhope's brief at 61. Relying on Rule 8(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., [17] Fairhope contends that Baldwin's jury charges related to two unpleaded affirmative defenses to the counterclaim asserted by Fairhope. These defenses should have been raised in a responsive pleading before trial, not in a motion to strike in the middle of trial and in jury charges offered at the end of trial. Fairhope's brief at 62. Fairhope argues that Baldwin waived these defenses by failing to appropriately and timely plead them in its answer to Fairhope's counterclaim. Fairhope's brief at 62. We agree. The rule is that a party is entitled to have his theory of the case, made by the pleadings and issues, presented to the jury by the proper instructions. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Jericho Plantation, Inc., 481 So.2d 343, 344 (Ala.1985) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dodd, 276 Ala. 410, 162 So.2d 621 (1964)). Baldwin argues, without citation to authority, that it had no obligation to plead in its Complaint the statutes which require city contracts to be in writing. This was an evidentiary issue. Baldwin's reply brief at 12. First, these claims appear substantive, rather than evidentiary, because they go directly to the existence and validity of the alleged oral agreement. Moreover, the three claims appear, in fact, to be affirmative defenses. See Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. HealthSouth Corp., 979 So.2d 784 (Ala.2007) (An affirmative defense is `[a] defendant's assertion of facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff's or prosecution's claim, even if all the allegations in the complaint are true.' (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 451 (8th ed.2004))). See also Rule 8(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. (In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively ... statute of frauds ... and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.). Certainly, all three of the claimed defensesthe Statute of Frauds; § 11-47-5, Ala.Code 1975; and § 37-6-3(13), Ala.Code 1975would defeat Fairhope's claim that the Act unconstitutionally impaired the contract between the parties because these statutes frustrate Fairhope's claim of the existence or validity of the alleged oral service-territory agreement. The record supports Fairhope's claim that Baldwin did not answer Fairhope's counterclaim or address either of these statutes or defenses until the last day of the trial, which was 13 years after the original pleadings and 3 years after Fairhope last asserted its counterclaims. Baldwin's answer, which was filed without leave of court, was untimely. See Rule 12(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. (A party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within thirty (30) days after the service upon that party. The plaintiff shall serve a reply to a counterclaim in the answer within thirty (30) days after service of the answer or, if a reply is ordered by the court, within thirty (30) days after service of the order, unless the order otherwise directs.); Rule 15, Ala. R. Civ. P. (Unless a court has ordered otherwise, a party may amend a pleading without leave of court, but subject to disallowance on the court's own motion or a motion to strike of an adverse party, at any time more than forty-two (42) days before the first setting of the case for trial, and such amendment shall be freely allowed when justice so requires. Thereafter, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court, and leave shall be given only upon a showing of good cause.). Therefore, Baldwin's affirmative defenses, asserted in its untimely pleading, are waived. Rule 8(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. See also McCrary v. Butler, 540 So.2d 736, 740 (Ala.1989) (Failure to affirmatively set forth a defense required to be affirmatively pleaded constitutes a waiver of the defense. (citing Hayes v. Payne, 523 So.2d 333 (Ala.1987))). [18] Because Baldwin's claims were not properly before the trial court, the trial court did not err by refusing to give the two instructions Baldwin requested on Baldwin's untimely defenses. [19]