Opinion ID: 1638588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's Fraud Counterclaim

Text: As to the Board's fraud claims, in its appellate brief the Board argues, in part: The [March 2005] Order's stated grounds for granting summary judgment, i.e., that Harbert was wrongfully terminated, even if true, (which is disputed), would not be a defense to the Board's fraud claims. ... As such, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Board's claims of fraud under the correct standard of review. In support of its argument, the Board quotes a statement from Cooley v. Gulf Bank, Inc., 773 So.2d 1039, 1043 (Ala.Civ. App.1999), listing the elements of a fraud claim, and cites pages in three other cases where those elements are also listed, namely Brushwitz v. Ezell, 757 So.2d 423, 429 (Ala.2000); Foremost Insurance Co. v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409, 422 (Ala.1997); and Carter v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 849 So.2d 977, 981 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002). The trial court implicitly found, however, that the manner in which the Board terminated Contract 15 and Contract 16 constituted a breach of those contracts and that this breach defeated the Board's fraud claims. The Board cites no authority in its brief to this Court for its contrary position that the viability of a plaintiff's claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentations or suppression relating to a contract does not depend on its performance of its obligations under that contract. It is the appellant's burden to refer this Court to legal authority that supports its argument. Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., requires that the argument in an appellant's brief include citations to the cases, statutes, [and] other authorities ... relied on. Consistent with Rule 28, [w]e have stated that it is not the function of this court to do a party's legal research. Spradlin v. Spradlin, 601 So.2d 76, 78 (Ala.1992) (citing Henderson v. Alabama A & M University, 483 So.2d 392, 392 (Ala. 1986) (`Where an appellant fails to cite any authority, we may affirm, for it is neither our duty nor function to perform all the legal research for an appellant.' Gibson v. Nix, 460 So.2d 1346, 1347 (Ala. Civ.App.1984).)). Because the Board has cited no legal authority that addresses whether a party's failure to perform its contractual obligations defeats its fraud claims relating to those contracts, we will not consider whether the trial court's judgment should be reversed as to this issue.