Opinion ID: 1842881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Wealth Issue

Text: Gulf Shores argues that testimony regarding how much money it raised through taxes and a bond issue to fund wastewater treatment improvements and/or a new wastewater treatment plant was inadmissible and highly prejudicial because it was evidence of Gulf Shores's wealth. Harbert, ESA, and Parkson argue that Gulf Shores opened the door to the admission of this evidence through testimony given by Larry Stejskal, the Government Utilities manager. Harbert, ESA, and Parkson assert that the evidence was proper as cross-examination, impeachment, or follow up, once Gulf Shores opened the door. The record reveals the following testimony given by Larry Stejskal, the Government Utilities manager, while on direct examination by Gulf Shores's attorney: Q: Can you identify the documents that are in Plaintiff's Exhibit 460? .... A: Yes, sir. This is a document pack related to Change Order Number 1 to the wastewater treatment plant contract. Q: Can you tell from those documents, or your recollection, what the amount of the increase in the cost of the new treatment plant was? A: Forty-eight thousand, one hundred thirty-nine dollars and no cents. Q: Did GUSC pay that amount? A: Yes, sir. Q: To whom was that money paid? A: Harbert. Q: What was the reason for Change Order Number 1 to the treatment plant contract? A: Change Order Number 1 was necessitated by additional costs requested by Harbert to reflect what was termed standby time demobilization to remobilization time. I can try to explain what that means, if you like. Q: Go ahead. A: After the moratorium was imposed and Gulf Shores was certainly having to take another hard look at all of its options in face of the moratorium being in place [Objection by counsel for Harbert that answer was narrative. Overruled by the Court.] A: I forgot where I was. The need to take another good hard look at all the options that were available to try to recover from the imposition of the moratorium and to ensure that the limited resources of the community would be available to both address the short-term problem of the moratorium and to continue to look at the long-term problem of building the big wastewater treatment facility, we asked Harbert to cease progress on the big plant, the wastewater treatment plant, until we could fully assess those options. (R. at 1835-37, emphasis supplied.) Further, on cross-examination by Harbert's attorney, Mr. Stejskal testified: Q: Well, what did you do? Did you order Harbert to stop work? A: On December of 20-some-odd of '85, yes, sir. Q: Okay. And why did you do that, please, sir? A: As I have testified to earlier, with the imposition of the moratorium and the trauma that certainly imposed on the community, we had to find a way to resolve that issueresolve that problem, to get the moratorium lifted. There was only a limited amount of resources available in the community. And what we were certainly concerned about is having the capability to both proceed with the large plant contract and simultaneously be able to address the moratorium. And rather than continuing in a headlong direction that was incurring costs daily or further getting us into the big contract with Harbert, and apparently no one had a quick answer of how to solve the problem, we thought it was prudent to control the budget, make sure we knew where the money was going, we had [sic] [did not have?] the money to solve all of our options. We asked Harbert to stop so we could fully investigate how to recover from the failure of the filter system. Q: How much money did Gulf Shores have in the bank in the fall of 1985 for the purpose of constructing a new plant? [By Gulf Shores's counsel] Object, Your Honor. [By Harbert's counsel] Your Honor, the witness testified something about limited resources. [By the Court] Overrule the objection. A: I don't know. (R. at 1846-47, emphasis supplied.) We acknowledge this Court's long-standing rule that evidence of a party's wealth, be it plaintiff's or defendant's, is inadmissible generally. See, Southern Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Whitman, 358 So.2d 1025 (Ala.1978); Allison v. Acton-Etheridge Coal Co., 289 Ala. 443, 268 So.2d 725 (1972); and C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 189.05(1) at p. 478 (4th ed. 1991) (hereinafter, Gamble). However, we also recognize that an opposing party may inquire into the other party's wealth on cross-examination or in rebuttal if the other party opens the door. Record Data Int'l, Inc. v. Nichols, 381 So.2d 1 (Ala.1979); Alabama Power Co. v. Bruce, 209 Ala. 423, 96 So. 346 (1923); and Gamble, supra, at § 189.05(2)(c), p. 481. Here, Stejskal clearly injected the issue of Gulf Shores's financial ability to solve the problem into the case by asserting that Gulf Shores had only a limited amount of money with which to address its wastewater treatment problems. Gulf Shores used its limited resources as the reason for change order number 1, which changed the relationship between Gulf Shores and Harbert, ESA and Parkson. Once the issue was raised by Gulf Shores, Harbert, ESA, and Parkson were entitled to inquire into the matter further to rebut or impeach Gulf Shores's stated reason for the change. We conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the defendants to inquire into the amount of money Gulf Shores had allocated for its wastewater treatment problems.