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

Heading: Kitty Quailes:

Text: It is undisputed that at the time of her involvement with the scheme, Ms. Quailes owned real property in the state of Alabama, but that at the time of her trial testimony she did not. In fact, at trial, her undisputed testimony, in pertinent part, was as follows: Q. Mrs. Quailes, did you live in Dallas County in April of 1987? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have a place of business here where you were cutting hair in 1987? A. Yes, sir. . . . . Q. Did you own any property in Dallas County in 1987? A. Yes, sir. Her testimony, taken in the light most favorable to her, as the nonmovant, points to the existence of a fact question as to whether she owned real property within the state 15 days prior to the filing of these suits against her. Even if we assume that Ms. Quailes did not own real property in the state, that would not be dispositive of whether she [kept] assets within the State 15 days prior to the filing of these actions against her. Also, when asked whether she was a partial owner of a business in Alabama known as New Creations, Ms. Quailes responded that she was. But, again, there is no proof that she maintained a place of business in the state 15 days prior to filing this action. Thus, we hold that there is a fact question as to whether Ms. Quailes [kept] assets within the State and whether she maintain[ed] a place of business here. Because of that fact question on the demand issue, the verdicts for Rose, Vardaman, and Ms. Bowden against Ms. Quailes were erroneously directed.