Court Opinion

ID: 9372067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 18:01:36.399319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.540254
License: Public Domain

Rel: February 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

         SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023

                                _________________________

                                        1210383
                                _________________________

                                         Georgia Lay

                                                  v.

                                       Todd Destafino

                         Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court
                                  (CV-19-900158)

PER CURIAM.

       This case arises out of a protracted feud between two ex-relatives.

In short, Todd Destafino had a longstanding business relationship with
1210383

his (now former) mother-in-law, Georgia Lay, that soured after Destafino

and Lay's daughter divorced. In the aftermath of the divorce, Lay began

interfering with Destafino's property and business interests. Destafino

eventually sued, claiming that Lay had trespassed on his property,

interfered with his business operations, created a nuisance, and

improperly failed to acknowledge his ownership interest in a company

that he and Lay had jointly formed. After a bench trial, the Shelby

Circuit Court entered judgment in Destafino's favor, awarding him

$167,369.03. Lay appealed. For the reasons explained below, we affirm

the trial court's judgment.

                      Facts and Procedural History

     During the time frame relevant to this case, Destafino and Lay were

both small-business owners.      Destafino had his own construction

company, while Lay owned a medical-supply sales business. Destafino

was married to Lay's daughter, Auderia Destafino, making him Lay's

son-in-law.

     In 2012, Destafino began renting space in a building located on Old

Highway 280 in Chelsea ("the property"), which he used to operate his

construction company. Not long after his lease began, Destafino allowed

                                   2
1210383

Lay to move her business into a portion of his rented space. Destafino

also completed extensive renovations -- which took three months and cost

over $50,000 -- to improve the portion of the property that Lay used for

her business.

     When Destafino's landlord discovered that Destafino was allowing

an unauthorized subtenant to use the property, he served Destafino with

a notice of eviction. But instead of moving out, Destafino and Lay decided

to purchase the property from the landlord. To facilitate their purchase,

they formed a company called BDSC, Inc.             Lay signed BDSC's

incorporation papers, listed herself as BDSC's registered agent, listed

both herself and Destafino as the individuals responsible for seeking

incorporation, and listed both herself and Destafino as BDSC's directors.

     A few days after its formation, BDSC purchased the property from

Destafino's landlord for $228,000 via a promissory note and a mortgage

back to the seller. Destafino and Lay each signed a personal guarantee

of the note and have each made equal, monthly payments on the note

since the purchase.

     Things apparently went smoothly for Destafino and Lay up until

around 2016, when Destafino and Auderia divorced. Shortly thereafter,

                                    3
1210383

Lay and Destafino "start[ed] having problems." Those problems reached

a boiling point in 2018, when Lay began removing equipment and other

property from Destafino's portion of the property. Then, in early 2019,

Lay installed a new lock on Destafino's office and refused to give him a

key, effectively preventing him from accessing his office.

     Shortly after the lockout, Destafino brought this suit against Lay,

claiming that she had trespassed on his property, interfered with his

business operations, and created a nuisance. But Destafino's suit did

little to deter Lay's behavior. Just a few days after Destafino filed his

complaint, Lay removed him from the utility and bank accounts

associated with BDSC and the property. Destafino promptly filed a

motion for emergency relief, which the trial court granted. The trial

court's order enjoined Lay from disposing of any of Destafino's things and

from interfering with his access to the property, and it ordered her to

reinstate Destafino on the accounts associated with BDSC and the

property.

     Despite the trial court's order, Lay continued interfering with

Destafino's equipment and his ability to access the property.         For

example, Lay took some wooden doors belonging to Destafino and used

                                    4
1210383

them to construct a chicken coop; took additional doors and used them as

a stand for her lawnmower; removed one of Destafino's toolboxes; used

Destafino's metal duct work as a burn barrel; obstructed the sign for

Destafino's business; prevented Destafino's vehicles from entering and

exiting the premises; and dumped so much unauthorized trash into

Destafino's dumpsters that he had to make (and pay for) separate

disposal arrangements.

      Destafino eventually amended his complaint to add claims related

to ownership of the property and the management of BDSC.              In

particular, the amended complaint alleged that BDSC did not have a

regular corporate structure and claimed that Lay had fraudulently

misrepresented Destafino's relationship with, and financial obligations

to, the corporation. The amended complaint requested declaratory relief,

a sale for division of the property, an award of attorney fees, and any

"other, further[,] and different relief to which [Destafino] may be

entitled."

      The case went to a bench trial in the spring of 2021. In support of

the claims set out in his amended complaint, Destafino argued during the

trial that he was entitled to an equal ownership interest in BDSC and its

                                    5
1210383

assets because he had provided half the funds that the company used to

purchase and manage the property. He pointed out that he had paid at

least half of the taxes, utility bills, and payments on the note relating to

the property. And while Destafino acknowledged that he had contributed

only $18,600 in cash toward the initial payment on the property (whereas

Lay had contributed $41,842.56), he testified that he and Lay had agreed

-- as a condition to their joint purchase of the property -- that Destafino

would be entitled to a credit for prepurchase rent payments and for the

value of the prepurchase renovations that he had performed on Lay's

portion of the property.

     After the trial ended, the trial court entered a final judgment

finding in Destafino's favor on all of his claims.       The trial court's

judgment further provided:

     "Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

           "….

           "3. … [Lay,] as the sole shareholder of BDSC Inc., shall
           immediately make reimbursement to [Destafino] for the
           following:

                 "a. Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and no/100
                 dollars ($18,600.00) for the initial payment for the
                 property, made at closing;

                                     6
1210383

                "b. Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eight and
                15/100 dollars ($65,808.15) for the restoration
                remodel of [Lay's portion of the property];

                "c. Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty and
                88/100 dollars ($7,960.88) for payment of ½
                property taxes from 2014-2020."

           "4. The Court further FINDS that [Destafino] is due to
           be compensated by [Lay] in the amount of Seventy Five
           Thousand and no/100 dollars ($75,000.00), for
           compensatory and punitive damages in this matter,
           including the necessity of [Destafino] to hire legal
           counsel and file suit. Said damages were caused by
           [Lay's] knowing and willful trespass on to [Destafino's]
           business area, the unauthorized use of [Destafino's]
           business materials and the encroaching on [Destafino's]
           business operations; together with [Lay's] knowing and
           willful interference in [Destafino's] continuing business
           operations, and [Lay's] knowing and willful nuisance,
           annoyance and interference with the use of the property
           by [Destafino] in the daily ongoing operation of his
           business.

           "5. The total judgment amount in favor of [Destafino],
           against [Lay], in this matter, is One Hundred Sixty
           Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Nine and 03/100
           Dollars ($167,369.03) …."

Lay timely appealed.

                          Standard of Review

     Because the trial court conducted a bench trial at which oral

testimony was given, the ore tenus rule governs our review. That rule

provides that, when a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings

                                    7
1210383

on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those

findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous and against the

great weight of the evidence. Sadler v. Players Recreation Grp., LLC,

[Ms. 1210116, Aug. 26, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2022). The ore tenus

standard of review applies to both the trial court's findings of liability

and its assessment of damages. Radetic v. Murphy, 71 So. 3d 642, 648

(Ala. 2011). Though we must presume that the trial court's findings of

fact are correct, we review its legal conclusions and application of law to

facts de novo. Fadalla v. Fadalla, 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. 2005).

                               Discussion

     Lay's appeal raises numerous challenges to the trial court's

judgment. Though she frames her arguments as challenging only the

trial court's damages award -- rather than its underlying determination

of liability -- some of her arguments implicate substantive disputes about

the scope of liability. We address Lay's arguments in turn and, for the

reasons explained below, conclude that each of them fails.

                                    8
1210383

     A. Lay Failed to Preserve Her Argument That the Trial Court Erred
     by Not Itemizing Damages

     We first consider Lay's argument that the trial court failed to fully

itemize its damages award in accordance with state law. As relevant

here, Alabama law requires:

          "In any civil action based upon tort …, the damages
     assessed by the factfinder shall be itemized as follows:

                 "(1) Past damages.

                 "(2) Future damages.

                 "(3) Punitive damages.

     "… Where the court determines that any one or more of the
     above categories is not recoverable in the action, those
     categories shall be omitted from the itemization."

§ 6-11-1, Ala. Code 1975. Lay argues that part "4" of the trial court's

damages award violated this requirement by lumping together

"compensatory and punitive damages" into a single $75,000 sum.

     Though Destafino does not contest the applicability of § 6-11-1, he

argues that Lay waived her ability to appeal the trial court's error by not

bringing that error "to the attention of the [t]rial [c]ourt" in the first

instance.   Destafino's brief at 24-25.    In support of this argument,

Destafino relies on Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Standridge, 565 So. 2d

                                      9
1210383

38 (Ala. 1990), in which this Court refused to reverse a jury's award of

damages based on noncompliance with § 6-11-1. This Court explained in

Green Tree that we will not reverse an award of damages based on an

itemization error that was not first brought to the attention of the trial

court. Id. at 46. That holding was in keeping with our general rule that

appellate courts "cannot consider arguments advanced for the purpose of

reversing the judgment of a trial court when those arguments were never

presented to the trial court for consideration or were raised for the first

time on appeal." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So. 2d

807, 821 (Ala. 2005).

     Lay responds by arguing that Green Tree is distinguishable

because Green Tree, unlike this case, involved a jury trial -- meaning that

the parties had an opportunity in advance of the verdict to review (and

object to) a set of instructions and verdict forms telling jurors how to

classify and compute damages. Lay suggests that since she lacked such

notice of how the trial court would frame its damages award, she also

lacked an opportunity to raise her objection to the trial court in the first

instance and therefore cannot be faulted for failing to object.

                                    10
1210383

     We disagree. Even though Lay may not have had a prejudgment

opportunity to object to the trial court's classification of damages, she did

have an opportunity to object after judgment. Namely, she could have

filed a timely motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment under Rule

59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P. While it is true that postjudgment motions under

Rule 59(e) are usually elective rather than mandatory, such a motion is

necessary to preserve an objection for appellate review when -- as here --

that motion is the only possible mechanism for bringing the alleged error

to the trial court's attention. That is true even in the context of a bench

trial. See Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 1993). Accordingly,

we hold that Lay failed to preserve her § 6-11-1 objection by not giving

the trial court a chance to correct its alleged error in the first instance.

     B. Lay's Remaining Arguments Lack Merit

     Lay raises several other objections to the trial court's judgment, but

-- for the reasons explained below -- each fails.

     First, Lay says that the trial court erred by ordering her to

reimburse Destafino for the money he spent remodeling her portion of

the property. She points out that the trial court's award of remodeling

costs was based on oral testimony, and she argues that the admission of

                                     11
1210383

such testimony violates the parol-evidence rule, which " 'provides that,

absent some evidence of fraud, mistake, or illegality, a party to an

unambiguous written contract cannot offer parol, or extrinsic, evidence

of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements to change, alter, or

contradict the terms of the contract.' " Alabama Elec. Coop., Inc. v.

Bailey's Constr. Co., 950 So. 2d 280, 287 (Ala. 2006) (citation omitted;

emphasis added). There is an obvious problem with Lay's parol-evidence

argument: as the preceding quote makes clear, the parol-evidence rule

applies only to "written contract[s]," not oral contracts, and the

agreement between Lay and Destafino was oral.1 Accordingly, the bar

on parol evidence has no application to this case.

     1Lay  argues elsewhere that any oral agreement (and any award of
damages related to it) would have been void under a provision of the
Alabama Statute of Frauds, which requires any "promise to answer for
the debt … of another" to be expressed "in writing." § 8-9-2(3), Ala. Code
1975. This argument fails because Lay provides no reason to conclude
that her and Destafino's agreement to purchase property involved a
promise to assume the debt of another. Lay could not have been
assuming Destafino's debt, because the credit for renovations was an
amount owed to Destafino, not an amount owed by him. And Lay could
not have been assuming the debt of Destafino's prior landlord because,
by Lay's own admission, the landlord was not obligated to compensate
Destafino for improvements that Destafino made to the property while
he was a tenant.

                                   12
1210383

     Lay fights this conclusion by arguing that the oral agreement was

later reduced to a written agreement because it was briefly summarized

in the unsigned minutes to one of BDSC's board meetings. 2 Lay's reply

brief at 4. That argument also fails. Lay does not cite, and we are not

aware of, any authority holding that an unsigned, after-the-fact written

summary of an oral agreement displaces the original agreement for

purposes of the parol-evidence rule.

     Lay also seems to suggest that the trial court lacked authority to

order her to reimburse Destafino for his remodeling costs because those

costs were not listed in Destafino's original or amended complaints. But

Lay does not develop this argument or cite any authority related to it.

This Court has explained, in other circumstances, that trial courts may

award damages not pleaded in the complaint so long as the evidence

      Lay later theorizes, in her reply brief, that the oral agreement
violated a different subsection of the Statute of Frauds -- subsection (6),
which requires the purchase of real estate to be in writing -- but Lay
failed to preserve this theory by not raising it in her opening brief. See
Sverdrup Tech., Inc. v. Robinson, 36 So. 3d 34, 46-47 (Ala. 2009) ("[T]his
Court will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply
brief.").

     2Those  minutes were signed by Auderia (who described herself as
BDSC's "secretary") and by one other witness but were not signed by
either Lay or Destafino.
                                 13
1210383

justifies such an award and the defendant had fair notice of the claims

on which the award is based. See, e.g., Robbins v. Sanders, 890 So. 2d

998, 1009 (Ala. 2004); Roberson v. Ammons, 477 So. 2d 957, 960 (Ala.

1985); accord Rule 54(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("Except as to a party against

whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant

the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even

if the party has not demanded such relief in the party's pleadings."). Lay

does not explain why that logic should not apply here, nor does she argue

that she lacked fair notice of the claim giving rise to the trial court's

award. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred.

     Lay next takes issue with the trial court's holding that she

trespassed on Destafino's portion of the property. She argues that since

"[y]ou cannot trespass on or interfere with possession of your own

property," she -- as an owner of BDSC, which in turn owned the property

on which Destafino's office space was located -- cannot have committed

trespass on Destafino's office space. Lay's brief at 24. Accordingly, she

argues, the trial court could not have considered trespass in computing

its damages award. Id. at 23-24.

                                     14
1210383

     There are multiple problems with this argument. For one thing, it

overlooks the fact that Lay and BDSC are separate legal entities. See

Econ Mktg., Inc. v. Leisure Am. Resorts, Inc., 664 So. 2d 869, 870 (Ala.

1994) (" ' " The concept that a corporation is a legal entity existing

separate and apart from its shareholders is well settled in this state." ' "

(citations omitted)). For another, Lay does not cite, and we are not aware

of, any authority supporting her assertion that a landlord cannot trespass

against her tenant. Typically, it is the right to possession, not ownership,

that is protected against trespass, and a tenant can have a right to

exclusive possession of property (or a portion of that property) even if he

does not own it. See Johnson v. Northpointe Apartments, 744 So. 2d 899,

902 (Ala. 1999) (" 'A tenant, having an estate in land, has the general and

exclusive right of possession during the term. He may exclude third

persons and, with few exceptions, the landlord as well.' " (citation

omitted)); Jefferies v. Bush, 608 So. 2d 361, 362 (Ala. 1992) ("Trespass is

a wrong against the right of possession."); see also Peltier v. Roy, 453 F.

Supp. 1373, 1375 (D.R.I. 1978) ("The fact that Plaintiff may have had an

ownership interest in the property does not preclude the possibility that

he was trespassing. The right to possession, not ownership, is the more

                                    15
1210383

dispositive consideration; thus even a landlord may properly be sued in

trespass by his tenant." (collecting cases)). We therefore reject Lay's

argument that she was legally incapable of committing trespass.

      Lay next argues that even if she did trespass, the trial court still

could not consider her trespass in computing its damages award because,

according to her, Destafino did not prove that Lay's trespass reduced the

value of his property. Even if Lay is correct in asserting that Destafino

did not introduce evidence showing diminution in property value, her

argument fails because it overlooks the trial court's authority to award

nominal damages. See Martin v. Glass, 84 So. 3d 131, 134 (Ala. Civ. App.

2011). Moreover, " '[o]nce actual damages, even nominal damages, are

established' " in a trespass action, " 'punitive damages may be awarded if

it is a proper case to do so.' " Id. (citation omitted).

      The availability of punitive damages brings us to Lay's next

argument -- that the trial court's award of punitive damages was per se

improper under Alabama law because § 6-11-20, Ala. Code 1975,

provides, in pertinent part, that "[p]unitive damages may not be awarded

in any civil action … other than in a tort action where it is proven by clear

and convincing evidence that the defendant consciously or deliberately

                                      16
1210383

engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, or malice with regard to the

plaintiff." Lay does not make any particularized argument as to why the

award of punitive damages violated § 6-11-20. Instead, she simply recites

the statutory standard and then asks this Court to "review the [trial-

court] pleadings and the transcript" in their entirety, in search for any

potential "errors regarding [the trial court's] award of punitive damages."

Lay's brief at 25. Lay seems to believe that we are obligated to conduct

such a search because of the de novo standard of review that applies to

any award of punitive damages. See Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v.

Daphne Auto., LLC, 155 So. 3d 930 (Ala. 2013).

      Again, Lay is mistaken. The de novo standard of review does not

relieve an appellant of her burden of demonstrating that the trial court

erred. Under our precedent and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, an

appellant -- even one seeking de novo review -- must make reasoned and

particularized arguments in support of reversal. See, e.g., Archer ex rel.

Archer v. Estate of Archer, 45 So. 3d 1259, 1266 (Ala. 2010) (applying a

de novo standard of review, yet refusing to entertain an argument

unsupported by specific citations to the record and to authority,

explaining that " ' " ' "it is neither our duty nor function to perform all the

                                      17
1210383

legal research for an appellant" ' " ' " (citations omitted)); White Sands

Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008) ("Rule

28(a)(10)[, Ala. R. App. P.,] requires that arguments in briefs contain

discussions of facts and relevant legal authorities that support the party's

position. If they do not, the arguments are waived."); accord Rule 28(a),

Ala. R. App. P. After an appellant has fulfilled that threshold obligation,

this Court will review the relevant aspects of the trial court's decision de

novo (that is, without a presumption of correctness). But an appellant

who has not performed that threshold function has failed at the outset to

carry her burden of presentation and, accordingly, cannot prevail on

appeal. Archer, 45 So. 3d at 1266. That is the position Lay is in here.

She has not made a reasoned argument as to why the trial court lacks

authority to award punitive damages, so we will not reverse the trial

court's award.

     Lay's final argument is that the trial court improperly admitted

certain evidence. In particular, she complains that the trial court should

not have admitted certain social-media posts by Auderia or testimony

about "family problems extending from Lay's care of Destafino's

daughter." Lay's brief at 19-20. But Lay does explain why the admission

                                    18
1210383

of this evidence was improper under the applicable rules of evidence or

how that admission prejudiced her. The trial court's final judgment

contains no mention of -- let alone findings related to -- those items of

evidence. Accordingly, Lay has again failed to demonstrate reversible

error.

     For all these reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

     AFFIRMED.

     Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook,

JJ., concur.

     Sellers and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result.

                                   19