Court Opinion

ID: 9691677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:57:41.682946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:08.391683
License: Public Domain

*700HEFLIN, Chief Justice
(concurring specially) :
While I am in general agreement with the opinion of Justice Harwood as it relates to title binders or commitments for title insurance, I feel that the case should be reversed for another reason. This case was disposed of by a summary judgment. Such disposition was erroneous in my opinion for the reasons herein set forth.
Litigation in the trial court was instituted, and a statement of the case is as follows : the case was commenced on June 8, 1971; a plea in abatement filed on July 7, 1971; a demurrer to the plea in abatement filed on July 7, 1971; a demurrer to the plea in abatement filed on July 30, 1971, and sustained on September 23, 1971; a demurrer to the complaint filed on October 15, 1971 and overruled on October 14, 1972; pleas and answer filed November 14, 1972; motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by plaintiff July 5 and amended July 6, 1973; response to the motion with supporting affidavits by defendant filed on August 10, 1973; affidavit filed by plaintiff on August 21; pre-trial conference on August 23, summary judgment orally granted at the pre-trial conference, to which defendant filed (1) motion to reconsider adverse rulings to the Defendant of the Court at the pre-trial conference; (2) motion pursuant to ARCP Rule 56(e); (3) motion to set new pre-trial conference; and (4) motion to strike plaintiff’s affidavit filed on August 25, 1973; and entry o.f Summary Judgment of Ouster on September 19, 1973.
It is clear from these procedural steps that the trial court and the litigants followed the general principle that the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure govern any procedural aspects of the case which transpired after July 3, 1973. See ARCP Rule 86. In fact, the plaintiff utilized one of the provisions of the new rules only two days after the new rules went into effect by filing a motion for judgment on pleadings on July 5, 1973. See ARCP Rule 12(c). The defendant responded to this motion by serving two affidavits in opposition to the motion on August 10; the plaintiff then served an affidavit in support of his motion on August 21.
The trial court had set a pre-trial conference for August 22. During this conference the trial court took up the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, converted it into a motion for summary judgment by virtue of the affidavits filed in support of and against the original motion and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. See ARCP Rule 56.
It is from this ruling that the defendants bring this appeal.
Summary judgment is a procedure which has become available to litigants in our state with the advent of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. See ARCP Rule 56. Correctly utilized, this procedure is a proper vehicle for the expeditious determination of certain litigation. This procedure is available in litigation where the facts reveal “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” ARCP Rule 56(c).
The framework within which the summary judgment operates is subject to several general rules, including the following: first, the movant on a motion for summary judgment has the burden of proof “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,” ARCP Rule 56(c), see 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2727 and 6 Moore’s Federal Practice jf 56-. 15 [3]; and second, all inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, see Wright and Miller, Id., and Moore, Id.
Because of these general guidelines, it is important to establish who the moving party was on the summary judgment proceed*701ing in the case under review. In fact, the briefs raise this precise question. The trial court concluded the plaintiff was the movant on the motion for summary judgment. I agree. Recalling that neither party formally moved for a motion for summary judgment but rather the summary judgment proceeding occurred because of a conversion of the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ARCP Rule 12(c) ), it is helpful to review the procedural steps which lead up to the granting of the summary judgment. The plaintiff served a motion for judgment on the pleadings; the defendant responded by serving two affidavits to which the plaintiff responded with one affidavit. ARCP Rule 12(c) provides that a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be treated as a motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the trial court.
1 envision two factual contexts from which a Rule 12(c) motion would be converted into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. The first is where the parties seeking the Rule 12(c) motion supports this motion for judgment on the pleadings with matters outside the pleadings. In this instance, the party moving for the initial motion is responsible for the conversion of the motion into a motion for summary judgment. Clearly, this party is movant on the first motion and movant on the second motion. The second situation is where one party moves for the Rule 12(c) motion and the opposing party is responsible for the conversion of the motion by interposing matters outside the records. This second factual context fits the facts of this appeal. Resolution of who the movant is on the converted motion presents the harder context for analysis.
While I have not found nor have the parties pointed to any cases in point in any jurisdiction, the conclusion that the movant on the original Rule 12(c) motion should remain the movant on the converted motion for summary judgment is the most tenable answer. A fair reading of the conversion aspect of Rule 12(c) indicates that only the name of the motion is to be changed by the introduction of matter outside the pleadings. Moreover, the party moving for the Rule 12(c) motion is seeking a judgment in his favor. As such, he assumes the burden of showing that he is entitled to the judgment. To keep such a burden on the movant for the initial motion should cause no surprise nor undue hardship.
Thus, a threshold question presented on this appeal is whether the plaintiff has met the burden of showing that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(c).
One of the issues Land Title raises in this appeal ,is whether the affidavit filed by plaintiff in support of the motion complies with the requirements of Rule 56(e) that the affidavit be made on personal knowledge and that the affidvait shall set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence.
The affidavit in question was made by H. G. NeSmith, vice-President of State National Bank, Oneonta, Alabama. It consists of five paragraphs each of which purports to describe a mortgage transaction the bank entered into with prospective buyers of property which Land Title had issued commitments of title insurance. Each paragraph uses precisely the same words with variations for the names of the mortgagees, the amount of the loan and the dates of the transactions. For brevity, only one of these paragraphs is set out as illustrative of the rest of the affidavit:
“That State National Bank, Oneonta, Alabama, heretofore made a loan to Anthony B. DeCicco, Jr., and Patricia De-Cicco in the sum of $21,000.00 secured by a mortgage on certain real property located in Blount County, Alabama. That Land Title Company of Alabama, *702an Alabama corporation, issued an instrument described as ‘Commitment for Title Insurance,’ dated April 19, 1971. That the ‘Commitment for Title Insurance’ contained a legal description of the land involved and stated ‘The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is a fee simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Anthony B. DeCicco, Jr., and Patricia A. DeCicco.’ That State National Bank, Oneonta, Alabama, relied upon the statement that the proposed borrowers Anthony B. DeCicco, Jr., and Patricia De-Cicco were vested with a fee simple title, and but for this representation by Land Title Company of Alabama, State National Bank, Oneonta, Alabama, would not have made the loan and accepted as security therefor a mortgage on the real property described in the ‘Commitment for Title Insurance.’ ”
I am of the opinion that the language used above falls short of the requirements set forth in Rule 56(e) :
“Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”
An examination of this affidavit convinces" us that the appellant’s challenge to its sufficiency is valid. Nowhere is there an affirmative statement to show that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated herein; nowhere is it simply stated that the affiant handled the transaction on behalf of the bank. There is no positive indication that the statements are made on personal knowledge. The form of this affidavit closely resembles the following description as found in Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir. 1972):
“[T]here is no showing whatever that the statements therein were made on personal knowledge as required by the Rule. From the fact of the affidavits, they might well be based on mere hearsay or, at best, reflect only a summary of the general routine prescribed for the institution. The absence of an affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and accordingly, summary disposition based thereon was improper. Doza v. American National Insurance Company, 314 F.2d 230 (8 Cir. 1963); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1237 (Wright ed. 1958). See also Arguelles v. U. S. Bulk Carriers, Inc., 408 F.2d 1065, 1068 (4 Cir. 1969).”
Furthermore, some of the statements are conclusions involving the mental operation of the bank. “It is well established that the affidavits contemplated in Rule 56(e) must be evidentiary in nature and should set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence.” Maldonado v. International Business Machines, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 452, 454 (D.C.D.Puerto Rico 1972); see 10 Wright and Miller, supra § 2738 and 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22 [1].
Title insurance business walks a close and sometimes thin line between what is legal and what constitutes the practice of law. In this case there is the allegation that Land Title Co. of Ala. charged a fee for rendering an opinion of title along with the services of examining the public records of Blount County which charge was in excess and in addition to the premium for the issuance of a policy of title insurance. Since this case is being reversed and remanded, it would appear that a determination of the activities of Land Title Co. of Ala. should be made only after full development of facts in a trial.