Sometimes, a fact seems so obvious that it doesn’t warrant further discussion. Humoring a debate in this case is a redundant waste of our time, and we are all better off avoiding them. In a court of law, a conceptually similar instrument exists that allows one side to get its way without having to hold a trial. If the material facts are undisputed such that there is only one conceivable outcome, a court, upon request, can save time and resources by handing down judgment without a full trial. However, because everyone by default has a right to a trial and the chance of even a minor dispute appearing in the facts is high, this remedy is not granted lightly. Even if someone is fortunate enough to have judgment granted in his favor, it can always be reversed if the other side shows even the slightest signs of dispute to the appellate court. Such is the story of Alonso v. Alpha Phi International, Inc.

In an agreement between Jennifer Alonso and the Beta Mu Chapter of Alpha Phi International, Alonso entered Membership and Housing Agreements at the University of Alabama in February 2022, where she was expected to pay membership and housing fees to Alpha Phi as well as meal costs. Both agreements were co-signed by Alonso’s mother, Irasema Ramos Encinas, who assumed joint and several liability for her daughter’s obligations. This meant that any breach of the agreement on their part would result in both Encinas and Alonso being held legally responsible.

When Alonso defaulted on the contract by not making her monthly payments after being prompted to do so, Alpha Phi filed a complaint in the Tuscaloosa District Court, Tuscaloosa Alabama against her and Encinas on August 30, 2023. Alonso left an outstanding balance of $7,344.35, plus an additional $1,836.08 for attorney’s fees, totaling to $9,180.43. The case was then moved to the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court. Alonso and Encinas asserted numerous defenses, including unconscionability, estoppel, waiver, Alpha Phi’s own breach of the contract, and its supposed violation of the Alabama Uniform Landlord & Tenant Act. 

Alpha Phi sought summary judgment in its favor on February 20, 2024. Also known as judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment resolves a suit without having to conduct an actual trial. However, for this motion to be granted, the party who proposes it, called the movant, must show that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts in the case. Theoretically, this means that if even one out of a million reasonable juries finds that a genuine dispute exists in the material facts, summary judgment is inappropriate. When considering summary judgment, courts also must give the nonmoving party the benefit of the doubt by viewing the evidence in a light that favors it the most. 

Despite these obstacles, the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court granted Alpha Phi’s motion for summary judgment on May 17, 2024, awarding it the full $9,180,43, plus costs and interest. It also granted the motion to strike the defendants’ counterclaim that alleged wrongful termination of Alonso’s membership, unlawful ouster from housing without a hearing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as their new defenses were waived by not being included in their first answer. 

In addition, Alonso and Encinas filed a third-party complaint against Waldrop & Associates, P.C. for its agents’ alleged attempt to contact and collect debt from Alonso while she was represented by counsel- a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alpha Phi’s motion to strike this complaint was also granted by the Circuit Court. 

Alonso and Encinas appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals on June 26, 2024, seeking to reverse summary judgment against them and to reverse the striking of their third-party complaint and counterclaim. 

The decision to strike the third-party complaint was upheld by the appellate court. Although non-parties can be added to the suit after the original date of its filing, this option is only available if the non-party’s alleged misconduct arose from the same event that incited the original complaint. As such, because Waldrop’s violation of the FDCPA was a separate incident that occurred independently from the breach of contract, including it in the suit would have been improper.

As for the counterclaim, the Court of Appeals was unable to determine whether the Circuit Court’s decision to strike it was reasonable because the transcript of the hearing that introduced the counterclaim did not appear in Alonso and Encina’s record of appeal. With no evidence to suggest otherwise, the appellate court therefore affirmed the decision to strike, presuming that the Circuit Court’s decision was supported by the evidence. 

However, as is the typical cause of most summary judgment reversals, Alonso and Encinas managed to convince the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals to reverse the summary judgment decision by showing that there was a genuine issue of material fact at play. Specifically, because some of the elements of their answer were not addressed by Alpha Phi in their motion for summary judgment- namely the unconscionability, estoppel, and waiver elements- parts of the answer were not refuted. By not refuting these claims, their materiality remained in question, and as such, the summary judgment decision was reversed. 

The main takeaway in Alonso v. Alpha Phi International, Inc. is that even when the law is mostly on your side, summary judgment is a drastic measure that courts must be convinced to take. Therefore, it behooves those seeking it to double check the record and leave no stone unturned to ensure that there are no elements left unresolved. The point of summary judgment is that there is nothing further to discuss about the facts, so an unanswered question, no matter how minute, is enough to prevent it from proceeding.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.