Opinion ID: 1117003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robin Sheehan:

Text: Ms. Sheehan's testimony, in pertinent part, was as follows: Q. ... Do you maintain a place of business in the State of Alabama? A. No, sir. Q. Do you own your home? A. No, sir. This, the only testimony about Ms. Sheehan's place of business and her assets, does not conclusively prove that, as a matter of fact, 15 days prior to April 7, 1987, she [did] not maintain a place of business or [did] not keep assets within the State. Certainly the term, assets incorporates more than home ownership. Likewise, whether Ms. Sheehan maintained a place of business within the state at the time of trial is not determinative of the question whether she did so before and up until the deadline prescribed by the Act before which demand must be made. Viewing all the evidence about Ms. Sheehan in a light most favorable to her, as the nonmovant, we find that a question of fact exists as to whether Ms. Sheehan should have been served with a demand. Accordingly, the directed verdicts for Rose, Vardaman, and Ms. Bowden against Ms. Sheehan were erroneously directed.