Opinion ID: 1813839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Valid transfer

Text: Hutchinson, however, also makes, in effect, an alternative argument applicable to the Hutchinson trust, namely, that the trustee now holds the quitclaim mortgage. Although he contends, at one point in his brief, that the [trial] court correctly determined the existence of an equitable mortgage in favor of George Hutchinson,  Hutchinson's brief, at 17 (emphasis added), elsewhere in his brief, he contends that he created the George Hutchinson, Junior, present interest trust [No.] 1 on August 20, 1999, ... and transferred the Smith mortgage to it.  Hutchinson's brief, at 20 (emphasis added). The basis for Hutchinson's argument that he assigned an interest in the apartments to the Hutchinson trust is a document executed by Hutchinson on August 26, 1999, which states, in toto: SCHEDULE `A' ADDITIONS BY GIFT TO THE GEORGE ELLIS HUTCHINSON, JR. PRESENT INTEREST TRUST (1) The undersigned Grantor hereby gives and transfers to George Ellis Hutchinson, Jr. Present Interest Trust No. 1 the following: Stock in Auburn Medical Center, Certificate Number(s): 19, 31, 35, and 36. Any and all present and future assets, funds, payments of receivables, shares of stock, tangible and intangible properties of any kind as described in a statement dated August 20, 1999, signed by the President of the Auburn Medical Center, Inc., and attached hereto. /s/ George Ellis Hutchinson George Ellis Hutchinson Dated: August 26, 1999 The undersigned, Donald Ray Hutchinson, as Trustee, hereby accepts the foregoing additions to Trust, this the 26th day of August, 1999. /s/ Donald Ray Hutchinson Donald Ray Hutchinson (Emphasis added.) This writing was accompanied by a document signed by Benny H. Sanders, as president of AMC. It stated: It is understood that George E. Hutchinson has transferred all of his stock in Auburn Medical Center, Inc. (AMC), either that stock already received or that stock to be issued, to a trust set up for his son on August 20, 1999. All monies advanced to AMC or its lawyers or funds used for any purpose for AMC and provided by George E. Hutchinson, are the property of said trust, including any stock owned by said trust. Any and all funds provided to AMC by any entities of George E. Hutchinson are to be repaid to the Trustee of the George Ellis Hutchinson, Jr., Trust. Further, any and all dividends due from AMC are to be paid to the said trustee for the benefit of George Ellis Hutchinson, Jr. (Emphasis added.) Both documents are hereinafter collectively referred to as Schedule A. Walden contends that Schedule A is insufficient, as a matter of law, to transfer the quitclaim mortgage to the Hutchinson trust. In particular, she states: The documents Mr. Hutchinson relies on as proof of his conveyance to a trust contain no legal description of any real property whatsoever, much less, a legal description of [the apartments]. Nor do they comply with various other statutory requirements of a conveyance.  Walden's reply brief to Hutchinson's brief, at 4-5 (emphasis added). However, she cites no legal authority that supports this argument. Indeed, she merely cites an inapposite statute, namely, § 35-4-21, Ala.Code 1975. Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., requires that arguments in an appellant's... brief contain `citations to the cases, statutes, [and] other authorities ... relied on,' University of South Alabama v. Progressive Ins. Co., 904 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Ala.2004), and the effect of noncompliance with this rule is well established. `[W]here no legal authority is cited or argued, the effect is the same as if no argument had been made. ' Steele v. Rosenfeld, LLC, 936 So.2d 488, 493 (Ala.2005) (quoting Bennett v. Bennett, 506 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) (emphasis added in Steele )). This is so, because it is neither this Court's duty nor its function to perform an appellant's legal research. City of Birmingham v. Business Realty Inv. Co., 722 So.2d 747, 752 (Ala.1998). Because of the absence of a legally supported argument against the efficacy of Schedule A, the trial court's judgment that the Hutchinson trust has a valid secondary lien on the subject property is essentially unchallenged on appeal. We, therefore, affirm the judgment to the extent of that holding.