Court Opinion

ID: 9666052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:03:26.715603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:23.116647
License: Public Domain

FAULKNER, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion is based principally on the theory that the movant for summary judgment must negate the defense of oral waiver by affidavit or some other evidence. Rule 56 does not provide for any such theory. Subdivision (a) permits a claimant to move for a summary judgment “with or without supporting affidavits;” subdivision (b) permits the defending party to move in a similar manner, and subdivision (c) includes the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, a motion for summary judgment may be made wholly on the pleadings. Reynolds v. Needle, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 53, 132 F.2d 161 (1942). In that case the complaint showed on its face that the statute of limitations had run out. In affirming summary judgment the court said:
“Appellant contends that there were issues of material fact because there might possibly be facts which would toll *613the statute of limitations and avoid the plea. But he alleged no such facts and raised no such issues. If he had such facts to allege he might have amended his complaint, served affidavits, or asked permission to reply.”
In the case before us the answer alleges modification of a written lease by oral agreement — oral waiver of written notice to renew. Thus, the alleged oral waiver violates the Statute of Frauds. § 3, Title 20, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958. See Hackney v. Griffin, 244 Ala. 360, 13 So.2d 772 (1943). In Weatherwax v. Heflin, 244 Ala. 210, 12 So.2d 554 (1943), this court said:
“In 118 A.L.R. p. 1511, the general rule on the subject is stated to the effect that a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing cannot be modified by subsequent parol agreement
I am of the opinion that any modification of the lease in question, which was required to be in writing under our Statute of Frauds, must also be in writing. The oral waiver is a sham defense. Since the allegation of oral waiver showed on its face that it violated the Statute of Frauds, Ray and Plough should have tiled evidentiary matter showing that the Statute of Frauds was inapplicable. By not doing so, the pleadings showed there was no genuine issue of a material fact. Midfield did not have to file evidentiary materials to negate a waiver invalid on its face. Midfield rested its case for summary judgment on the pleadings as it could do under Rule 56. It was then up to Ray and Plough to lay some cards on the table.
When the moving party has presented satisfactory moving papers, regardless of the composition thereof, the opposing party cannot create a genuine question of a material fact on the mere strength of his pleadings.
I would affirm the trial court.
MERRILL and EMBRY, JJ., concur.