Opinion ID: 6349703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Samara’s Case Against Taylor

Text: On April 15, 2019, Samara filed a new case against Davis’s son-in-law, Thomas Keith Taylor (our appellee), contending that Parcel A had been fraudulently transferred to Taylor. Samara called his complaint a “COMPLAINT TO REFORM MORTGAGE AND TO TRANSFER TITLE.” In that complaint, Samara cited ALA. CODE § 35-4-153, which says: USCA11 Case: 20-14629 Date Filed: 06/14/2022 Page: 16 of 27 16 Opinion of the Court 20-14629 When, through fraud, or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party which the other at the time knew or suspected, a deed, mortgage, or other conveyance does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised by a court on the application of the party aggrieved so as to express that intention, insofar as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value. ALA. CODE § 35-4-153 (emphasis added). On September 3, 2019, Samara moved for summary judgment and Taylor moved for judgment on the pleadings. Not two weeks later, the district court granted Taylor’s motion and denied Samara’s, reasoning that (1) the statute of limitations for reformation had expired and (2) Samara had not (in any event) sufficiently alleged fraud or mistake to justify reformation. On September 15, 2020, Samara filed a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration, which the district court summarily denied. Samara timely appealed the district court’s orders (1) dismissing the case and (2) denying his Rule 59 motion. And here we are.