Mantiply v. Mantiply

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed cross-appeals arising from a former spouses' dispute over alleged loans, an asserted equitable mortgage, legal-services compensation, and claims involving a law practice. The court examined the propriety of summary judgment and whether deposition testimony and a later affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact. The excerpt indicates that the court rejected the argument that the affidavit impermissibly contradicted prior testimony.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was improper because Mallory presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the payments to or on behalf of Mary Elizabeth were loans that she was obligated to repay.
2. Mallory's equitable-mortgage claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds because the agreement concerning an interest in the real property was not in writing and the part-performance exception did not apply.
3. An oral promise that is void under the Statute of Frauds cannot support a promissory-fraud claim.
4. Summary judgment was improper on the unjust-enrichment claim because the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Mary Elizabeth's retention of the money and property-related payments was unjust.
5. Mallory presented a prima facie quantum-meruit claim because the parties had no enforceable express or implied-in-fact contract concerning compensation, and factual issues existed as to whether Mary Elizabeth knowingly accepted his services and whether he reasonably expected compensation.
6. Summary judgment was improper because factual questions existed as to whether Mallory's conduct violated the clean-hands doctrine and therefore barred equitable recovery.
7. The trial court's order striking portions of Mary Elizabeth's counterclaim, summary-judgment narrative, and affidavit was affirmed because Mary Elizabeth failed to cite relevant supporting authority, and Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings rather than summary-judgment materials.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Mallory's claim for money owed based on alleged loans.
2. Whether Mallory's affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact despite his deposition testimony concerning the nature of the payments.
3. Whether Mallory could obtain an equitable mortgage based on an oral agreement concerning an interest in real property.
4. Whether Mallory's promissory-fraud claim could proceed when based on an oral promise unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
5. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed on Mallory's unjust-enrichment claim.
6. Whether Mallory presented a prima facie quantum-meruit claim for the value of legal services performed at Mantiply & Associates.
7. Whether factual issues concerning the clean-hands doctrine precluded summary judgment on the quantum-meruit claim.
8. Whether the trial court erred in striking portions of Mary Elizabeth's counterclaim, summary-judgment narrative, and affidavit.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded