The Intra-Party Fight Among the Democratic Candidates Is Necessary and Healthy

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the Democratic presidential candidates attacking each other over policy differences and other issues rather than unifying to oppose President Trump in the general election. Buchanan argues that, perhaps illogically, the infighting is essential and a healthy part of the process.

Read More

Taylor v. Hoehn

Docket: 1180375

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Alisa Kelli Wise

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Trusts & Estates

Plaintiff Helene Hoehn Taylor, appealed a trial court's judgment on partial findings in favor of defendant Margaret Hoehn. John Alphonse Hoehn ("Hoehn") died on or about October 17, 2014. He was survived by his wife, Margaret, and four daughters: Helene Taylor, Barbara Roberts, Ann Self, and Roman Fitzpatrick. In 2015, Helene filed a petition requesting that a will of Hoehn's that was dated June 7, 2005, be admitted to probate and that letters testamentary be issued to her. She attached to the petition an unsigned copy of a the purported will, stated that she believed that Margaret had the original signed will in her possession, and requested that the probate court enter an order requiring Margaret to produce the signed will so it could be properly probated. Margaret ultimately moved to dismiss Helene's petition, alleging Hoehn had died intestate. Helene sought to compel Margaret to produce Hoehn's executed will. In response, Margaret asserted she had been married to Hoehn for 46 1⁄2 years and that she was not aware of any will that he had executed. She moved again for Helene's petition be dismissed. Helene attempted to probate a lost will. The circuit court dismissed the daughters' attempt to intervene. At a bench trial, Roman testified she was present when her father signed the will at issue; she also produced a signed copy of a revocable trust agreement, wherein the trust would be funded by the terms of the will. An attorney who drafted the will and trust agreement also testified; his office did not have an executed copy of Hoehn's will or the trust agreement. Further, the attorney testified that "knowing what [he] knew about the family and the potential for subsequent litigation, it would have been unusual for [him] to have Roman or anybody else sitting right there" while the Hoehns signed the documents. The attorney testified Hoehn asked the attorney to revoke the power of attorney and any other writing he had made which purported to gift anything of value to Roman or Helene. Margaret moved for judgment on partial findings at the close of Helene's case. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed judgment in favor of Margaret, finding the circuit court could have reasonably concluded that Helene did not establish that Hoehn ever properly executed the purportedly lost will, and could have reasonably concluded that, even if Hoehn had signed the will, that will had been revoked.

GEICO Insurance Co. v. Evans

Docket: 1180699

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Tommy Bryan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Insurance Law, Personal Injury

GEICO Insurance Company appealed a trial court judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Johnson Evans, Jimmy Smith, and Bernard Smith on plaintiffs' claims for damages resulting from an automobile accident caused by GEICO's insured, Bernard Grey. GEICO argued that the April 17, 2019, judgment entered against it was void because it did not receive notice of plaintiffs' claims against it or notice of the hearing on plaintiffs' claims. For their part, plaintiffs did not dispute that GEICO never received actual notice of any action pending against it in the present case. Instead, they argued GEICO had "constructive notice of potential litigation" because it had actual notice of Grey's accident involving plaintiffs -- which occurred in 2010 -- and that GEICO was aware that plaintiffs claimed to be injured by Grey's actions. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed with GEIDO that "constructive notice of potential litigation" clearly fell short of "even the most basic requirements of due process." Because it was undisputed GEICO never received notice of any claim pending against it, the April 17 judgment violated due process, and was therefore void. Because a void judgment would not support an appeal, the trial court was instructed to vacate its judgment, and GEICO's appeal was thus dismissed.

Ex parte Sonya C. Edwards and Edwards Law, LLC.

Docket: 1180255

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Contracts, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

Sonya C. Edwards and Edwards Law, LLC (collectively, "Edwards"), petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct a trial court to enter a summary judgment in their favor in an action filed against them by Ivan Gray. Sonya previously represented Gray in proceedings in federal court. In 2015, after mediation and a settlement, those proceedings concluded with the entry of a final judgment. Thereafter, Gray sought to set aside the settlement, and Sonya terminated her representation of Gray. In 2017, Gray sued Edwards alleging Edwards had entered into a contract with Gray in June 2014 in which Sonya agreed to represent Gray in the federal proceedings in exchange for a contingency fee of 50%. Gray alleged that he paid a total retainer fee in the amount of $14,380.85 to cover expenses. According to Gray's complaint, when his federal case concluded, Edwards disclosed that the actual expenses amounted to $4,516.77, therefore, he felt he was entitled to a refund of $9,864.08. When the refund was not forthcoming, Gray alleged Edward converted his retainer and breached the contract between the two. The Supreme Court determined the "act or omission or failure giving rise to the claim" occurred on September 16, 2015, and that was the operative date from which to measure the applicable two-year limitations period. Gray did not file his action until October 27, 2017, which was beyond the two-year limitations period. Accordingly, Edwards has demonstrated a clear legal right to have a summary-judgment entered in her favor.