Law Case Study 2
Tenzin Lama
Professor Kurland
Business Law
30 April 2014
Eaton v. Waldrop
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, __ So. 3d __ (2010).
45 So.3d 371 (2010)
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
James M. EATON, Jr. v. Bobby Joe WALDROP.
2081095.
-- March 05, 2010
Type of Action: Right to a trial by jury to set aside a deed
Facts: On December 16, 2005, James M. Eaton, Jr., and Marguerite Eaton filed a complaint against Waldrop alleging that Waldrop had fraudulently induced James to deed certain property situated in Jefferson County ("the property") to Waldrop and Marguerite, jointly with a right of survivorship, and that Waldrop had subsequently fraudulently induced Marguerite to transfer her interest in the property to Waldrop. James and Marguerite requested that the court set aside the deed executed by James transferring the property to Marguerite and Waldrop and requested "other, further or different relief as may be just and proper"; they also demanded a trial by jury. Waldrop answered the complaint on January 26, 2006. Marguerite subsequently died, and James, as the executor of her estate, was substituted as a plaintiff.
The trial court conducted a bench trial on June 11, 2009. At the conclusion of James's case-in-chief, Waldrop moved for a judgment as a matter of 372*372 law,[1] arguing that James had failed to prove that Waldrop had made a representation "with intent to deceive." The trial court granted that motion, and it entered a judgment on partial findings against James and the estate on August 13, 2009. James filed his notice of appeal on August 25, 2009. On appeal, James first argues that the trial court erred in granting Waldrop's motion for a judgment on partial findings because the law does not require him to prove an intent to deceive in order to obtain a rescission of a deed based on fraud. James contends that he proved that Waldrop intended to deceive him into executing the deed. James presented evidence indicating that Marguerite, his mother, had
Professor Kurland
Business Law
30 April 2014
Eaton v. Waldrop
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, __ So. 3d __ (2010).
45 So.3d 371 (2010)
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
James M. EATON, Jr. v. Bobby Joe WALDROP.
2081095.
-- March 05, 2010
Type of Action: Right to a trial by jury to set aside a deed
Facts: On December 16, 2005, James M. Eaton, Jr., and Marguerite Eaton filed a complaint against Waldrop alleging that Waldrop had fraudulently induced James to deed certain property situated in Jefferson County ("the property") to Waldrop and Marguerite, jointly with a right of survivorship, and that Waldrop had subsequently fraudulently induced Marguerite to transfer her interest in the property to Waldrop. James and Marguerite requested that the court set aside the deed executed by James transferring the property to Marguerite and Waldrop and requested "other, further or different relief as may be just and proper"; they also demanded a trial by jury. Waldrop answered the complaint on January 26, 2006. Marguerite subsequently died, and James, as the executor of her estate, was substituted as a plaintiff.
The trial court conducted a bench trial on June 11, 2009. At the conclusion of James's case-in-chief, Waldrop moved for a judgment as a matter of 372*372 law,[1] arguing that James had failed to prove that Waldrop had made a representation "with intent to deceive." The trial court granted that motion, and it entered a judgment on partial findings against James and the estate on August 13, 2009. James filed his notice of appeal on August 25, 2009. On appeal, James first argues that the trial court erred in granting Waldrop's motion for a judgment on partial findings because the law does not require him to prove an intent to deceive in order to obtain a rescission of a deed based on fraud. James contends that he proved that Waldrop intended to deceive him into executing the deed. James presented evidence indicating that Marguerite, his mother, had