McCain v. Sneed — Lease-option mandate requires $79,200 payment
The Alabama Supreme Court held that its earlier lease-option mandate required the buyers to pay the remaining $79,200 purchase price before receiving the property.
The Alabama Supreme Court held that its earlier lease-option mandate required the buyers to pay the remaining $79,200 purchase price before receiving the property.
The Alabama Supreme Court enforced a tenant’s exercised purchase option where the sellers’ closing agent failed to provide timely figures, while requiring a new closing date and continued occupancy accounting.
The Alabama Supreme Court held that volunteer and State-agent immunity protected planning participants, defeating a developer’s respondeat-superior negligence claim against Fairhope and its commission.
The Alabama Supreme Court upheld striking a late summary-judgment response and Rule 54(b) certification, but reversed the trial court’s dismissal of claims that the partial judgment did not resolve.
The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Finality depends on whether the trial court has ended the proceedings and resolved the issues before it, not merely on whether an earlier judgment was final. The order on the amended Rule 60 motion left substantive property-transfer questions pending and therefore did not put an end to the controversy.
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed. Rule 65(a)(2) allows consolidation of a preliminary-injunction hearing with a merits trial, but the parties must receive clear and timely notice so they can marshal evidence and prepare to litigate final relief. A court cannot apply a provisional-relief standard and then impose an irreversible permanent remedy without that procedural protection.
The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. A default judgment establishing liability but reserving damages ordinarily remains interlocutory because it does not end the litigation or fully adjudicate the parties’ rights. The continuing need to determine monetary relief was not a ministerial detail; it was part of the merits still pending before the trial court.
The Alabama Supreme Court unanimously reversed summary judgment for a subdivision developer, holding that a general contractor holding a valid Building Construction license did not void its contract by lacking a Municipal and Utility classification at signing—reaffirming the substantial-compliance exception from McNairy v. Sugar Creek Resort and refusing to equate “mis-licensure” with “non-licensure” under the Alabama General Contractor’s Practice Act.