Alabama Supreme Court Appellate Alert: Decisions from August 29, 2025

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, August 29, which included four opinions of interest to the Alabama business community:

• Myers v. BBH PBMC, LLC, d/b/a Princeton Baptist Medical Center: This opinion reversed a trial court’s order that had dismissed a plaintiff’s case solely because her attorney had missed a status conference. Writing for a four-Justice plurality, Justice McCool concluded that the dismissal was inappropriate because the attorney had actively prosecuted the case and had simply overlooked an email that had transmitted the court’s order setting the conference. Justice Shaw concurred in the result, acknowledging precedent suggesting that even unexcused failures to appear cannot support dismissal but expressing skepticism with the proposition that a party’s failure to attend a hearing could never support a dismissal.
• Englund v. Dauphin Island Property Owners Association: This opinion reversed a trial court’s injunction that would have required builders to remove portions of an already-constructed home because they had violated a setback requirement and did not obtain approval from the local homeowners’ association. Writing for 8 justices, Justice Bryan reasoned that it was inappropriate to require removal of portions of the home because the more than $200,000 it would have cost to rebuild the house was considerably disproportionate to the neighbors’ interests in preserving their views and the association’s interests in enforcing its rules.
• Franklin Structures v.  Williams: This opinion compelled arbitration of warranty claims asserted by owners of a modular home even though the homeowners didn’t sign an arbitration agreement. The warranty contained in the homeowner’s manual did include an arbitration agreement, and writing for a 5-0 Court, Justice Mendheim concluded that because the homeowners accepted the benefits of the warranty by receiving repair services and seeking to enforce the warranty in court, they also assented to the warranty’s arbitration provision.
• Ex parte Spalding: This opinion is noteworthy for reaffirming the Court’s willingness to review claims of a case’s untimeliness via mandamus petitions, in the context of a medical-malpractice claim involving allegations of negligent drug prescription. Because the plaintiff’s complaint showed that she would have first suffered legal injury a year after the Alabama Medical Liability Act’s four-year statute of repose had run, the Court ordered the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to us, or to any other member of Maynard Nexsen’s Appellate Group.