Opinion ID: 2532289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leslie and GUBMK's Burden and the Standard of Review

Text: The following principles are well settled: The first prerequisite for JML in favor of a movant who asserts a claim or an affirmative defense is that the claim or affirmative defense be valid in legal theory, if its validity be challenged. See Driver v. National Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 658 So.2d 390 (Ala.1995). The second prerequisite for JML in favor of such a movant, who necessarily bears the burden of proof, American Furniture Galleries v. McWane, Inc., 477 So.2d 369 (Ala.1985), McKerley v. Etowah-DeKalb-Cherokee Mental Health Board, Inc., 686 So.2d 1194 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), and Oliver v. Hayes International Corp., 456 So.2d 802 (Ala.Civ.App.1984), is that each contested element of the claim or affirmative defense be supported by substantial evidence. See Driver, supra , and McKerley, supra . The third prerequisite for JML in favor of such a movant is that the record be devoid of substantial evidence rebutting the movant's evidence on any essential element of the claim or affirmative defense. See Driver, supra , and First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Tillery, 626 So.2d 1252 (Ala.1993). Substantial rebutting evidence would create an issue of fact to be tried by the finder of fact and therefore would preclude JML. See Driver, supra , and First Financial, supra. JML in favor of the party who asserts the claim or affirmative defense is not appropriate unless all three of these prerequisites coexist. See Driver, supra , and First Financial, supra, McKerley, supra , and Oliver, supra .  Ex parte Helms, 873 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Ala. 2003).