Opinion ID: 1117003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Billie Jean Hardy:

Text: The only evidence about Ms. Hardy's assets or business consisted of her testimony, which follows, in pertinent part: Q. Were you employed back in October 1986? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where were you employed? A. Prattville Apparel. Q. What did you do for them? A. I wasran a packing machine. . . . . Q. Do you work for Prattville Apparel? A. I did. Q. But you do not now? A. No. Ms. Hardy's testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to her, as the nonmovant, hardly serves to prove, as a matter of fact, that she [did] not maintain a place of business or [did] not keep assets within the State at the time required by the Act for the plaintiffs to serve a demand on Ms. Hardy. Accordingly, the verdicts for Vardaman and Bowden against Ms. Hardy were erroneously directed. Our thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that a question of fact exists as to whether each defendant fell within one of the two exceptions to the demand provision of the Act. [4] Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.