Richard W. Bentley v. Leslie L. Bentley

Rel: April 21, 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
_________________________
SC-2022-0522
_________________________
Richard W. Bentley
v.
James Randall Bentley
Appeal from Cullman Circuit Court
(CV-19-7)
_________________________
SC-2022-0526
_________________________
Richard W. Bentley
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
v.
Leslie Bentley
Appeal from Cullman Circuit Court
(CV-20-900058)
COOK, Justice.
These consolidated appeals arise from a dispute between Richard
W. Bentley and his brother, James Randall Bentley ("Randy"), and from
a dispute between Richard and his ex-wife, Leslie Bentley.
In case no. CV-19-7, an action concerning the administration of the
estate of Richard and Randy's father, Dedrick William Bentley ("the
estate action"), Richard, as coexecutor of Dedrick's estate, asserted cross-
claims against Randy, as the other coexecutor of the estate. Richard
sought, among other things, the return of certain real property previously
owned by their parents to Dedrick's estate and sought to eject Randy from
that property. Randy filed a motion for a summary judgment on those
cross-claims, which was granted by the circuit court. Although the circuit
court certified its partial summary judgment as final pursuant to Rule
54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., that certification was improper, and therefore
Richard's appeal from the partial summary judgment (appeal no. SC-
2
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
2022-0522) is due to be dismissed.
In case no. CV-20-900058 ("the fraudulent-transfer action"), Leslie
sued Richard in the circuit court, seeking to set aside, pursuant to the
Alabama Fraudulent Transfer Act ("the AFTA"), § 8-9A-1 et seq., Ala.
Code 1975, the allegedly fraudulent transfer of assets that Richard had
obtained or inherited from Dedrick's estate to a trust that Richard had
created. Leslie filed a motion for a summary judgment, which was
granted by the circuit court, and Richard appealed (appeal no. SC-2022-
0526). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the circuit court's
judgment in that case.
Facts and Procedural History
Richard and Randy are the sons of Dedrick and his wife, Betty
Chatham Bentley. On June 22, 1998, Dedrick and Betty executed a
warranty deed transferring ownership of the real property on which their
residence was located ("the Bentley property") to Randy. Dedrick and
Betty retained a life estate in the Bentley property. Richard alleges that
Dedrick and Betty deeded the Bentley property to Randy because they
were concerned about losing the property if it became necessary for Betty
to be admitted to a nursing home but that Betty died without ever being
3
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
admitted to a nursing home. According to Richard, Randy had made an
agreement with Dedrick to transfer the Bentley property back to Dedrick
if Betty predeceased him. Randy denies the allegation that he had agreed
to return the Bentley property, and he contends that there is no evidence
of a written agreement to that effect.
On February 1, 2017, Dedrick executed a will that contained the
following pertinent provision:
"My wife, Betty Chatham Bentley, who is currently
deceased, conveyed to our son, James Randall Bentley, our
home located at:
"[address and description of the Bentley property]
"My wife and I retained a life estate in the above
conveyance which was executed on June 22, 1998 and
recorded on June 22, 1998 in the Cullman County Probate
Office at Book 469 Page 61. This conveyance was made with
the understanding that my son, James Randall Bentley,
would convey back to me the said real property in the event
his mother, Betty Chatham Bentley, should pass away.
"In the event my son, James Randall Bentley, conveys
the above described real property back to me by an
unencumbered general warranty deed, then upon my death I
devise and bequeath all my property, whether it be personal,
real or mixed equally to each of my two (2) sons, James Randal
[sic] Bentley and Richard William Bentley.
"In the event my son, James Randall Bentley, refuses or
fails to convey the above real property to me as set out above,
all of my remaining property, whether it be real, personal or
4
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
mixed will be devised and bequeathed to my son, Richard
William Bentley."
On April 30, 2018, Dedrick executed a power of attorney in favor of
Randy. Richard alleges that Randy took advantage of Dedrick's alleged
failing mental health to have his own lawyer prepare the power of
attorney for Dedrick. Dedrick executed the document in the lawyer's
office in the presence of both Randy and Richard. Richard alleges that
Randy then used the power of attorney to gain control over Dedrick's
bank accounts and to transfer the funds in those accounts to himself.
On May 9, 2018, Randy transferred $130,031.15 from Dedrick's
bank account to Randy's account at a different bank. Richard alleges that
this transfer was fraudulent, but Randy denies the allegation. Randy
points out that the funds were in a "payable on death" account with
Randy as Dedrick's beneficiary. He contends that he transferred the
funds out of the account in Dedrick's name in an effort to assist Dedrick
in qualifying for certain veteran's benefits.
On May 21, 2018, pursuant to the power of attorney, Randy
conveyed to Richard a 2003 Corvette automobile owned by Dedrick. The
bill of sale reflected that Richard paid nothing for the Corvette and stated
that the Corvette was a "gift from D.W. Bentley."
5
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
On May 22, 2018, Richard executed a document titled the "Richard
W. Bentley Trust of 2018," pursuant to which he purported to transfer
the Corvette, as well as any assets he might inherit from Dedrick's estate,
into that trust. Richard named a friend, Richard Edward Morgan, Jr., as
trustee.
Dedrick died on June 7, 2018. A few days later, Randy filed in the
Cullman Probate Court a petition to probate a will purportedly executed
by Dedrick on September 9, 1994. On October 1, 2018, Richard objected
to Randy's petition and submitted to the probate court the will that
Dedrick had executed in 2017. He later petitioned the court to probate
that will.
On March 15, 2019, the probate court entered an order admitting
Dedrick's 2017 will for probate and appointing both Randy and Richard
as coexecutors of Dedrick's estate over Randy's objection. Shortly
thereafter, Randy and Richard each filed a petition to remove the estate
proceedings to the Cullman Circuit Court; that court granted those
petitions.
On August 17, 2019, Richard filed a cross-claim against Randy in
the estate action. He later amended that cross-claim and alleged, among
6
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
others, claims seeking to have the Bentley property placed into a
"constructive trust" or a "resulting trust" for the benefit of Dedrick's
estate and seeking to eject Randy from the Bentley property.
Leslie and Richard were divorced in 1995. Thereafter, Leslie
commenced an action against Richard for past-due child support ("the
child-support action") and, in 1998, 1999, and 2004, obtained several
judgments against him for past-due child support. On August 29, 2018,
three months after Richard established his trust and purported to
transfer assets into it, the trial court in that action entered a judgment
against Richard for $78,802.99, which included the total amount of child
support he owed as well as attorney fees.
When Richard failed to make any payments toward the judgment
entered in the child-support action, Leslie had a writ of garnishment
issued against Dedrick's estate. Leslie stated that she had learned about
Richard's trust after receiving a copy of the trust document from Randy
in response to the writ of garnishment. As a result, on February 27, 2020,
Leslie commenced the fraudulent-transfer action against Richard and
Morgan, the trustee of Richard's trust, in which she sought to set aside
what she alleged was the fraudulent transfer of assets from Dedrick's
7
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
estate to Richard's trust by Richard in violation of the provisions of the
AFTA.
On April 24, 2020, Leslie moved to consolidate the fraudulent-
transfer action with the estate action. The circuit court granted Leslie's
motion and entered an order consolidating the two actions.
Six months later, Randy filed a motion for a judgment on the
pleadings or, in the alternative, for a summary judgment as to Richard's
cross-claims in the estate action seeking to have the Bentley property
placed into a "constructive trust" or a "resulting trust" and seeking to
eject Randy from the Bentley property. In his motion, Randy argued that
he owned the Bentley property, that Dedrick had lived on the Bentley
property pursuant to his life estate until his death, that he and Dedrick
had both performed their obligations under the warranty deed
transferring title of the Bentley property to Randy, and that Dedrick's
will anticipated that Randy would keep all of his interest in the Bentley
property.
A couple of months after Randy filed his summary-judgment
motion, Leslie filed her own summary-judgment motion in the
fraudulent-transfer action, in which she argued that Richard had
8
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
maintained possession of the Corvette that was supposedly transferred
to Richard's trust, that Richard had concealed the purported transfer of
the Corvette to the trust, that Leslie had commenced the child-support
action against Richard before he had purported to transfer the Corvette
to the trust, and that the Corvette composed substantially all of Richard's
assets. She further argued that the purported transfer had occurred
shortly before she had obtained a substantial judgment against Richard
in the child-support action, that the purported transfer was made
without Richard's receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange
for the transfer, and that Richard was insolvent at the time of, or as a
result of, the purported transfer. Leslie therefore contended that she was
entitled to relief under the AFTA.
The circuit court held a hearing on both summary-judgment
motions on December 7, 2021. That same day, the circuit court entered a
partial summary judgment in favor of Randy on Richard's cross-claims
seeking to have the Bentley property placed into a "constructive trust" or
a "resulting trust" for the benefit of Dedrick's estate and seeking to eject
Randy from the Bentley property. At Randy's request, the circuit court
certified its partial summary judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b),
9
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
Ala. R. Civ. P.
On December 29, 2021, the circuit court entered a summary
judgment in favor of Leslie and established a lien upon the Corvette and
any further distributions to Richard's trust, to the extent of Leslie's
outstanding judgment against him in the child-support action. The
circuit court found that the purported transfers by Richard to th e trust
were fraudulent transfers and void to the extent of Leslie's outstanding
judgment. The circuit court further authorized Leslie to levy execution
on the Corvette and any other asset acquired by Richard's trust.
Richard filed a postjudgment motion as to both judgments, which
was denied by operation of law. In appeal no. SC-2022-0522, Richard
challenges the circuit court's partial summary judgment in favor of
Randy in the estate action. In appeal no. SC-2022-0526, Richard
challenges the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Leslie in the
fraudulent-transfer action. This Court consolidated the appeals.
Standards of Review
In Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So. 2d 988 (Ala. 2006), this Court
articulated the following standard of review applicable to an order
entered pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.:
10
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
"Whether the action involves separate claims and whether
there is a final decision as to at least one of the claims are
questions of law to which we will apply a de novo standard of
review. Whether there was 'no just reason for delay' is an
inquiry committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,
and, as to that issue, we must determine whether the trial
court exceeded its discretion."
955 So. 2d at 996.
Additionally,
" ' "[t]his Court's review of a summary judgment is de
novo. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 886 So. 2d
72, 74 (Ala. 2003). We apply the same standard of review as
the trial court applied. Specifically, we must determine
whether the movant has made a prima facie showing that no
genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R.
Civ. P.; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Hodurski, 899
So. 2d 949, 952-53 (Ala. 2004). In making such a
determination, we must review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant. Wilson v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756,
758 (Ala. 1986). Once the movant makes a prima facie
showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the
burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce 'substantial
evidence' as to the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d
794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12.
'[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality
that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial
judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought
to be proved.' West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Fla., 547 So.
2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)." ' "
Gooden v. City of Talladega, 966 So. 2d 232, 235 (Ala. 2007) (quoting
Prince v. Poole, 935 So. 2d 431, 442 (Ala. 2006), quoting in turn Dow v.
11
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 (Ala. 2004)).
"Questions of law are reviewed de novo." Pritchett v. ICN Med. Alliance,
Inc., 938 So. 2d 933, 935 (Ala. 2006).
Analysis
Appeal No. SC-2022-0522 --
Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Randy
First, as best we can discern, Randy argues that the circuit court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the cross-claims because Richard
asserted those claims "on behalf of the estate" without Randy's
agreement as his coexecutor. Because this Court is " 'duty bound to notice
ex mero motu the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction,' " we must first
address this issue before discussing the merits of Richard's arguments on
appeal. Baldwin Cnty. v. Bay Minette, 854 So. 2d 42, 45 (Ala. 2003)
(quoting Stamps v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941, 945 n.2
(Ala. 1994)).
Relying on Stone v. Jones, 530 So. 2d 232 (Ala. 1988), Randy
contends that Alabama law requires that all coexecutors must join in a
lawsuit brought on behalf of an estate. Randy's reliance on Stone is
misplaced.
In Stone, the plaintiff, one of two coexecutors of her mother's estate,
12
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
asserted a claim against the estate of the trustee who had administered
a trust established for the benefit of the plaintiff's mother, in an effort to
obtain benefits to which her mother's estate was allegedly entitled. The
other coexecutor refused to join in the claim. This Court held that, in
cases in which the use of discretion is required in making decisions that
are not within the normal process of administering a decedent's estate,
coexecutors must act unanimously in making those decisions. The Court
further held that an executor's decision to file a lawsuit is discretionary
in nature. 530 So. 3d at 235. See also Douglass v. Jones, 628 So. 2d 940,
941 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (recognizing that lawsuits on behalf of an estate
must be brought unanimously by coexecutors).
In this case, Richard asserted his cross-claims against his
coexecutor -- Randy. This Court has not questioned the trial court's
subject-matter jurisdiction in previous cases in which coexecutors have
sued each other. See, generally, Cox v. Parrish, 292 So. 3d 312 (Ala. 2019)
(coexecutors' ability to sue one another did not impact the trial court's
subject-matter jurisdiction); and Kershaw v. Kershaw, 848 So. 2d 942(Ala. 2002) (same). Based on the foregoing, there is nothing that would
13
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
cause us to believe that the circuit court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction or that we lack appellate jurisdiction in this case.
Having established that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, we
now turn to Richard's contention that the circuit court's certification of
its partial summary judgment in favor of Randy as final pursuant to Rule
54(b) was improper.
Rule 54(b) provides, in part:
"When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action,
whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may
direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer
than all of the claims or parties only upon an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon
an express direction for the entry of judgment."
This Court has discussed what it considers when reviewing a judgment
adjudicating fewer than all the claims in a case that has been certified as
final under Rule 54(b):
" 'If a trial court certifies a judgment as final pursuant
to Rule 54(b), an appeal will generally lie from that judgment.'
Baugus v. City of Florence, 968 So. 2d 529, 531 (Ala. 2007)
(emphasis added). However, this Court will not consider an
appeal from a judgment certified as final under Rule 54(b) if
it determines that the trial court exceeded its discretion in
concluding that there is 'no just reason for delay.' Rule 54(b)
….
"A trial court exceeds its discretion in determining that
14
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
there is 'no just reason for delay' when … 'the issues in the
claim being certified and a claim that will remain pending in
the trial court " 'are so closely intertwined that separate
adjudication would pose an unreasonable risk of inconsistent
results.' " ' Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d 418, 419-20 (Ala. 2006)
(quoting Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy
Corp., 834 So. 2d 88, 95 (Ala. 2002), quoting in turn Branch v.
SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373, 1374 (Ala.
1987))."
Loachapoka Water Auth., Inc. v. Water Works Bd. of Auburn, 74 So. 3d
419, 422-23 (Ala. 2011). See also Kirkley v. Phillips, 197 So. 3d 464, 472-
73 (Ala. 2015).
It is difficult to conceive of issues that are more closely intertwined
than those related to the administration of a decedent's estate. Here, the
circuit court certified as final its partial summary judgment as to two of
six cross-claims asserted by Richard against Randy. Randy argues that
the circuit court properly determined that there was no just reason for
delaying the certification of the judgment resolving those two cross-
claims as final because they dealt only with the Bentley property, which
he maintains he has owned since Dedrick and Betty deeded it to him in
1998. We disagree.
We have only to look at Dedrick's 2017 will to conclude that the
disposition of the Bentley property is intertwined with the other
15
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
provisions of the will. The disposition of the remainder of Dedrick's estate
hinges on whether Randy returned the Bentley property to Dedrick, and
the various disputes between the brothers inform each issue raised in
Richard's cross-claims. Under these circumstances, we conclude that
Richard's cross-claims relating to the Bentley property should not be
adjudicated separately from his other cross-claims.
Because the issues presented by Richard's cross-claims in this case
are so closely intertwined, we conclude that the circuit court exceeded its
discretion in certifying its partial summary judgment in favor of Randy
as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). Further, because a "nonfinal judgment
will not support an appeal," Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892
So. 2d 354, 363 (Ala. 2004), we must dismiss this appeal. We, therefore,
pretermit discussion of Richard's remaining claims on appeal.
Appeal No. SC-2022-0526 --
Summary Judgment in Favor of Leslie 1
1Because the circuit court's ruling on Leslie's summary-judgment
motion effectively disposed of all of her claims against Richard and
Morgan, the trustee of Richard's trust, we can consider her appeal. See,
e.g., Hamilton v. Guardian Tax AL, LLC, 342 So. 3d 172 (Ala. 2021)
(recognizing that an appeal is generally final when all claims or the rights
or liabilities of all of the parties have been decided).
16
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
In appeal no. SC-2022-0526, Leslie contends that Richard violated
the provisions of the AFTA 2 when he purported to transfer assets from
Dedrick's estate to his trust without first disclosing the transfer to her.
According to Leslie, because Richard had no creditors other than her, it
is clear that he made the purported transfer to avoid his obligation to her
under the judgment entered in the child-support action.
Section 8-9A-4, Ala. Code 1975, which is part of the AFTA, applies
to transfers made to avoid obligations to present and future creditors; §
8-9A-5, Ala. Code 1975, applies only to transfers made to avoid
obligations to present creditors. At the time the purported transfer was
made, Leslie was a present creditor; both sections are therefore
applicable here.
Section 8-9A-4 provides:
"(a) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a
creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the
transfer was made, if the debtor made the transfer with actual
intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.
"(b) In determining actual intent under subsection (a),
2We note briefly that the current law applicable to fraudulent
transactions is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act ("the UVTA"), §
8-9B-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, which became effective on January 1,
2019. Because Richard's trust was created on May 22, 2018, however, the
UVTA does not apply in this case. See § 8-9B-16, Ala. Code 1975.
17
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:
"(1) The transfer was to an insider;
"(2) The debtor retained possession or control
of the property transferred after the transfer;
"(3) The transfer was disclosed or concealed;
"(4) Before the transfer was made the debtor
had been sued or threatened with suit;
"(5) The transfer was of substantially all the
debtor's assets;
"(6) The debtor absconded;
"(7) The debtor removed or concealed assets;
"(8) The value of the consideration received
by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the
value of the asset transferred;
"(9) The debtor was insolvent or became
insolvent shortly after the transfer was made;
"(10) The transfer occurred shortly before or
shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and
"(11) The debtor transferred the essential
assets of the business to a lienor who transferred
the assets to an insider of the debtor.
"(c) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a
creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the
transfer was made, if the debtor made the transfer without
receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the
transfer and the debtor:
18
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
"(1) Was engaged or was about to engage in
a business or a transaction for which the
remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably
small in relation to the business or transaction; or
"(2) Intended to incur, or believed or
reasonably should have believed that he or she
would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay
as they became due."
(Emphasis added.)
Section 8-9A-5 provides:
"(a) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a
creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the
debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably
equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor
was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as
a result of the transfer.
"(b) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a
creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the
transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt and
the debtor was insolvent at that time and the insider had
reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent."
Before determining whether Richard's purported transfer of the assets
violated the above provisions, we first address whether Richard's actions
constituted a "transfer" as that term is used in the AFTA.
Section 8-9A-1(13), Ala. Code 1975, defines a "transfer" as follows:
"Every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or
involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an
19
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and the creation of
a lien or other encumbrance." Richard's trust document states:
"[Richard] hereby transfers, conveys and delivers to
[Morgan] the property and rights described below, the receipt
of which property is acknowledged by [Morgan], which
property and rights, together with any other property that
may later become subject to this trust, shall constitute the
trust estate, and shall be held, administered and distributed
by [Morgan] as provided herein:
"1) A 2003 Corvette ….
"2) Any and all assets of any nature
obtained as a result of the settlement of the Estate
of Dedrick William Bentley, [Richard's] father."
Based on the foregoing, it is evident to this Court that the terms of
Richard's trust called for a "transfer" of assets and property within the
provisions of the AFTA.
However, Richard argues that Leslie did not prove that he had the
"actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor" required by § 8-
9A-4(a) of the AFTA when he created the trust or that he transferred any
asset to the trust, despite the clear terms of the trust document quoted
above. Accordingly, Richard maintains, Leslie was not entitled to a
summary judgment.
We note, however, as did Leslie, that the record contains a plethora
20
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
of evidence indicating that Richard had an actual intent to "hinder, delay,
or defraud" Leslie, as provided in § 8-9A-4 of the AFTA. First, the record
indicates that Richard never transferred the 2003 Corvette to the trust
or the trustee, notwithstanding that the trust document itself
acknowledges the trust's receipt of the Corvette. Additionally, Morgan
admitted in his deposition that Richard has had possession of the
Corvette since the trust was created. We note, too, that Richard testified
in his deposition that he still has physical possession of the Corvette and
pays for its insurance, tags, and maintenance. Richard concealed the
trust document from Leslie. At the time Richard executed the trust
document, Leslie had already commenced the child-support action,
Richard had been served and had answered in that action, and the action
was still pending.
The record further indicates that, at the time Richard created the
trust, he had no money. Additionally, the record also indicates that, when
Richard purportedly transferred his assets to the trust, he had not been
employed since "like '90 something," he had no bank account, and he
owned nothing but a guitar, the Corvette, and an old van. Finally, when
Richard was asked at a deposition about the purpose of the trust, he
21
SC-2022-0522 and SC-2022-0526
answered: "I'm really hiding a lot man. This is a hider."
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that no genuine issue of
material fact existed as to whether Richard had the actual intent to hide
his assets from Leslie when he created his trust and purported to transfer
assets to the trust as prohibited by §§ 8-9A-4 and 8-9A-5 of the AFTA.
Therefore, the circuit court properly entered a summary judgment in
Leslie's favor, and that judgment is due to be affirmed.
Conclusion
Because the circuit court's Rule 54(b) certification of the partial
summary judgment in favor of Randy in the estate action was improper,
we dismiss appeal no. SC-2022-0522. In appeal no. SC-2022-0526, we
affirm the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Leslie in the
fraudulent-transfer action.
SC-2022-0522 -- APPEAL DISMISSED.
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
SC-2022-0526 -- AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Wise and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., concurs in the result, without opinion.
22