Preview:

REL: 11/25/2009

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010

APPEALS

2080697 P a t r i c k Watson, as the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the e s t a t e o f Ted Watson v. Gina Bowden Appeal from C o f f e e C i r c u i t (CV-07-32) MOORE, Judge. Watson, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the estate o f Ted Court

Patrick

Watson ("the e s t a t e " ) , a p p e a l s f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by the Coffee C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l court") holding that

2080697 Ted Watson We r e v e r s e ("Watson") a n d G i n a Bowden were common-law a n d remand. Facts On February 2, and P r o c e d u r a l 2007, Bowden History filed a "petition for married.

p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r o f j o i n t m a r i t a l e s t a t e o f common l a w s p o u s e " in she the t r i a l court. I n that p e t i t i o n , Bowden a s s e r t e d that

h a d b e e n t h e common-law s p o u s e o f Watson, who h a d d i e d on joint

J a n u a r y 25, 2007, a n d t h a t she a n d Watson h a d a c q u i r e d marital property during t h e pendency of t h e i r

common-law

m a r r i a g e , and s h e r e q u e s t e d

that the court issue a p r o t e c t i v e

o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e a s s e t s o f h e r m a r i t a l u n i o n w i t h Watson. The t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a temporary ex p a r t e order on M a r c h 5,

2007, i n w h i c h i t r e s t r a i n e d a n d e n j o i n e d

a l l persons making

a c l a i m t o be an h e i r o f t h e e s t a t e f r o m r e m o v i n g o r u s i n g any assets of the estate and from transferring, concealing, or

s e l l i n g any p r o p e r t y the trial court.

of the estate pending f u r t h e r orders of

On May 2, 2007, P a t r i c k Watson, as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the estate (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the

administrator")

f i l e d a " m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s / a n s w e r " i n w h i c h he without

a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was

2

2080697 j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t h e p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r r e q u e s t e d b y Bowden because, he s a i d , the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the e s t a t e had n o t o r when

been i n i t i a t e d when Bowden's p e t i t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d the temporary the motion ex p a r t e o r d e r had been e n t e r e d . to dismiss was a copy of a

Attached to for

"petition

a d m i n i s t r a t o r a d l i t e m " t h a t h a d been f i l e d b y P a t r i c k Watson in the Coffee Probate Court, indicating that Watson was

unmarried

a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h ; a c o p y o f an o r d e r e n t e r e d Probate Court on J a n u a r y 26, 2007, a p p o i n t i n g f o r the e s t a t e ; a

by t h e C o f f e e Patrick Watson

as a d m i n i s t r a t o r a d l i t e m

copy o f a p e t i t i o n f o r l e t t e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h a t had been filed by Patrick Watson i n the Coffee Probate Court on

February Coffee

23, 2 0 0 7 ; a n d a c o p y Court on M a r c h

o f an o r d e r

entered

by t h e of

Probate

7, 2007, g r a n t i n g l e t t e r s The

administration

f o r t h e e s t a t e t o P a t r i c k Watson.

trial

c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on J u l y 1 9 , 2007, f i n d i n g t h a t l e t t e r s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had been issued to Patrick Watson and

g r a n t i n g the motion Bowden f i l e d

to dismiss. c o u r t on A u g u s t 8,

a complaint i n the t r i a l

2007, s e e k i n g a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t she h a d b e e n Watson's common-law w i f e . On M a r c h 5, 2008, Bowden f i l e d a motion t o

3

2080697 remove the administration of the estate The t r i a l from the Coffee an

Probate Court t o the t r i a l

court.

court entered

o r d e r on M a r c h 27, 2008, g r a n t i n g Bowden's m o t i o n a n d r e m o v i n g the administration 6, 2008, of the estate the to the t r i a l filed an court. answer On to that

November

administrator

Bowden's c o m p l a i n t

f o r a declaratory

judgment, d e n y i n g

Bowden h a d been t h e common-law w i f e The trial court entered

o f Watson. on F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2009, On M a r c h 11, 2009, Attached to asserted, common-law

an o r d e r

moving t h e case t o t h e c i v i l j u r y docket. Bowden filed a motion f o r a summary

judgment.

t h a t m o t i o n , Bowden s u b m i t t e d h e r a f f i d a v i t , among wife, other that things, that she h a d b e e n

which

Watson's

she a n d Watson h a d l i v e d

together

as h u s b a n d and that

w i f e a n d h a d p r e s e n t e d t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e p u b l i c as s u c h , Watson and had s i g n e d many documents relating

t o h i s employment

had l i s t e d

Bowden as h i s s p o u s e on t h o s e d o c u m e n t s , a n d p o l i c y t h a t had a number o f including an

t h a t Bowden h a d h e l d an a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r a n c e listed other Watson as h e r s p o u s e . i n support

Bowden s u b m i t t e d of her motion,

documents

" a f f i d a v i t o f common-law m a r r i a g e " s i g n e d b y Bowden a n d Watson on O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2005, f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e n r o l l i n g Bowden, as

4

2080697 Watson's s p o u s e , Watson's i n a group at least insurance plan provided through two other i n s u r a n c e documents J a n u a r y 4, 2007, named

employer;

s i g n e d by Watson on November 15, the first of which l i s t e d

2005, and

Watson as b e i n g m a r r i e d and

Bowden as h i s s p o u s e and as h i s b e n e f i c i a r y f o r l i f e i n s u r a n c e and p e r s o n a l - a c c i d e n t i n s u r a n c e and t h e l a t t e r of which listed

Watson's m a r i t a l s t a t u s as "common-law" and i d e n t i f i e d Bowden as his dependent for by medical-insurance Bowden for a purposes; an

application listing

submitted as

automobile statement

insurance of current

Watson

Bowden's

spouse;

eligibility

f r o m Watson's i n s u r a n c e company d a t e d J a n u a r y 3 0 , of

2007, l i s t i n g Bowden as Watson's s p o u s e ; and a s t a t e m e n t p a t i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r "Southern Sleep C l i n i c s " Bowden on spouse. June 5, 2006, i n which she listed and

c o m p l e t e d by as her

Watson 2007

Bowden s u b m i t t e d h e r

2004,

2005,

federal

i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n s , w h i c h l i s t e d Bowden as h e a d o f h o u s e h o l d , r a t h e r t h a n m a r r i e d and f i l i n g either jointly or separately.

Her 2006 f e d e r a l i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n , however, l i s t e d Bowden as m a r r i e d and f i l i n g The s e p a r a t e l y from her husband, filed a reply to Watson. summary-

administrator

Bowden's

j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A p r i l

2, 2 0 0 9 ; a t t a c h e d t o t h a t r e p l y were

5

2080697 the affidavits of Karen Eads, Kim Hutchinson, and the

administrator. Watson's Watson

E a d s s t a t e d i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t she h a d b e e n f r o m 2003 u n t i l her husband in his death; 2004 that that his that that

next-door neighbor had told her and

girlfriend, Bowden's

Bowden, may be l i v i n g w i t h h i m f o r a w h i l e ; had rarely been a t Watson's house;

children

Bowden h a d moved i n and o u t o f Watson's house f o r a few weeks a t a t i m e on m u l t i p l e 2006; t h a t , permanent occasions b e t w e e n 2004 and t h e end o f there had n e v e r been a Bowden and

from Eads's o b s e r v a t i o n , or continuous

relationship

between

Watson; t h a t Watson h a d i n f o r m e d Eads t h a t Bowden's " s i t u a t i o n was n o t g o o d and t h a t he was t r y i n g t o h e l p h e r as much as he could"; died; t h a t Bowden h a d moved o u t o f Watson's house b e f o r e that Watson had not stated that he and Bowden he had

m a r r i e d o r were m a r r i e d and t h a t Watson h a d n e v e r r e f e r r e d t o Bowden as h i s s p o u s e ; t h a t Watson h a d "made t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t he and [ B o w d e n ] h a d n o t g o t t e n m a r r i e d " ; considered and t h a t Eads h a d n o t Hutchinson stated

Bowden a n d Watson t o be m a r r i e d .

i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t she was t h e o f f i c e manager f o r Dobbs Eye Clinic, where Watson had been a patient; that Watson had 2006,

updated h i s records

w i t h Dobbs Eye C l i n i c

on M a r c h 9,

6

2080697 but had n o t l i s t e d records a spouse i n t h a t update; and that the had

clinic's been

indicated

t h a t Watson's m a r i t a l

status

"single." The administrator that stated in his affidavit, among other

things, had

he was W a t s o n ' s nephew; together continuously

t h a t Bowden and Watson between late 2004 and

not l i v e d

2006, a l t h o u g h Bowden h a d s t a y e d a t Watson's h o u s e " o f f an on" during that time; t h a t Watson h a d r e f e r r e d t o Bowden as h i s that he knew he and Bowden w o u l d had never told the that

girlfriend never get

and h a d s t a t e d married; that

Watson

administrator

t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d

Bowden t o be h i s w i f e ;

Watson h a d n o t s h a r e d a b a n k a c c o u n t w i t h Bowden; t h a t Watson had paid f o r h i s house, a u t o m o b i l e s , b o a t s , personal living

e x p e n s e s , and h o u s e h o l d e x p e n s e s f r o m h i s s e p a r a t e a c c o u n t and that the a d m i n i s t r a t o r h a d n o t f o u n d any d e p o s i t s that the a d m i n i s t r a t o r into that no

a c c o u n t made my Bowden; property jointly

had f o u n d

owned b y Bowden a n d W a t s o n ; t h a t Watson h a d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was s i n g l e o r u n m a r r i e d that Watson had represented to the

f i l e d tax returns in 2005 and

2006;

a d m i n i s t r a t o r and o t h e r f a m i l y members t h a t he was s i n g l e ; and that, between 2004 and 2006, Watson and Bowden had not

7

2080697 maintained a continuous permanent relationship to the

exclusion of a l l other The administrator motion

relationships. attached Watson's of which to the reply to Bowden's returns was

summary-judgment from

federal

income-tax

2004 and 2005, b o t h

i n d i c a t e d t h a t Watson

single to

r a t h e r than m a r r i e d .

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r a l s o a t t a c h e d an insurance document which

the reply,

among o t h e r d o c u m e n t s , 15, Watson 2005, was insuring single; an

dated

September that

Watson's

boat,

indicated

automobile-insurance a

a p p l i c a t i o n d a t e d J u l y 30, 2004, l i s t i n g Watson as s i n g l e ; w a r r a n t y deed d a t e d October 1, 2004, i n d i c a t i n g that

Watson

was s i n g l e a t t h a t t i m e ; a d e p o s i t - a c c o u n t a g r e e m e n t s i g n e d by Watson on November 6, 2006, o p e n i n g a s i n g l e - p a r t y a c c o u n t a t Community account until Bank; and checks Bank, written dating by Watson on 5, another 2005,

a t Community

from

September

S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006, l i s t i n g

o n l y Watson as t h e a c c o u n t

holder. The granting pertinent trial court entered a judgment on A p r i l and 7, 2009, in

Bowden's part:

summary-judgment

motion

stating,

" [ T ] h e C o u r t h a v i n g r e v i e w e d and c o n s i d e r e d s a i d summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e [ a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s ] r e p l y
8

2080697 in opposition, and t h e r e s p e c t i v e evidentiary submissions i n support thereof, finds that there i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e , as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and [Bowden] i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the Court finds that [Bowden's] a f f i d a v i t , considered along with the ' A f f i d a v i t o f Common Law M a r r i a g e ' e x e c u t e d b y [Watson] a n d . . . Bowden on O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2005, a n d o t h e r competent p r o o f , i s f u l l y and c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s i t i v e of the issue before the Court." The a d m i n i s t r a t o r f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on 23, 2 0 0 9 . Standard o f Review "We r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t de novo, a n d o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s w e l l settled. "'In reviewing the d i s p o s i t i o n of a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t , "we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d as t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e evidence b e f o r e [ i t ] made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , " B u s s e y v . J o h n Deere Co., 531 So. 2 d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , and whether t h e movant was " e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e burden s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g s u c h an i s s u e . B a s s v . S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1989). Evidence is " s u b s t a n t i a l " i f i t i s o f "such weight and q u a l i t y that f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably i n f e r the existence of the fact
9

April

2080697 s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " W r i g h t , 654 So. 2d a t 543 (quoting West v. Founders Life A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant a n d must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant. W i l m a C o r p . v. F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 613 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412, 413 (Ala. 1990).'" Hollingsworth (Ala. 2001) v. C i t y o f R a i n b o w C i t y , (quoting 826 So. 2d 787, Pipe 789 Co.,

Hobson v. A m e r i c a n C a s t I r o n ( A l a . 1997)). Discussion

690 So. 2d 341, 344

On a p p e a l ,

the a d m i n i s t r a t o r argues t h a t the t r i a l

court

e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g Bowden's summary-judgment m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he argues, the t r i a l presented both court ignored the c o n f l i c t s i n the evidence indicated that, at themselves as times, being

by b o t h p a r t i e s , w h i c h ,

Bowden

a n d Watson h a d r e p r e s e n t e d

single.

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d as that that i s

was i n c o n f l i c t ,

t o w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s were common-law m a r r i e d , a question was f o r the j u r y to decide,

a n d , t h u s , summary j u d g m e n t

inappropriate.

10

2080697 "In requires present, Alabama, recognition of a common-law marriage (2)

proof of the f o l l o w i n g elements:

(1) c a p a c i t y ;

mutual agreement t o p e r m a n e n t l y e n t e r

the marriage

r e l a t i o n s h i p to the exclusion of a l l other

r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and

(3) p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e a n d p u b l i c assumption o f m a r i t a l d u t i e s and c o h a b i t a t i o n . " v. B u s h , 835 So. 2d 192, 194 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . Gray

"Courts

o f t h i s s t a t e c l o s e l y s c r u t i n i z e c l a i m s o f common-law m a r r i a g e and require c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g 484 So. 2d 1097, proof thereof." B a k e r v. 1986).

Townsend,

1098

( A l a . C i v . App.

"Whether t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f a common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t is a question o f f a c t . " G r a y , 835 So. 2d a t 194. cited

I n Coleman v. A u b e r t , 531 So. 2d 881 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , by the administrator, court's

t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e of the executrix of court determined, a

trial

summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r because, t h e supreme

Stinson's question been

estate

o f f a c t e x i s t e d as t o w h e t h e r S t i n s o n a n d Coleman h a d married. In doing s o , t h e supreme court

common-law

stated: "The l e g a l c a p a c i t y o f [ S t i n s o n ] a n d Coleman t o marry i s not i n q u e s t i o n . A l t h o u g h some o f t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t s and d e p o s i t i o n testimony ... i s o f q u e s t i o n a b l e admissibility,
11

2080697 there i s admissible evidence that [Stinson] and Coleman agreed to enter into a marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p . There i s a l s o a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f p u b l i c recognition of the existence of the marriage, as w e l l as a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f c o h a b i t a t i o n and a mutual assumption o p e n l y o f t h e m a r i t a l d u t i e s and obligations. I t i s t r u e , as t h e e x e c u t r i x [ o f Stinson's estate] contends, that many of the c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a common-law m a r r i a g e a r e n o t e v i d e n c e d i n t h i s c a s e ; however, t h e r e i s enough e v i d e n c e t o c r e a t e a f a c t q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r Coleman was t h e common-law h u s b a n d o f [Stinson]." I d . a t 885. As i n C o l e m a n , t h e c a p a c i t y o f e i t h e r Bowden o r Watson t o marry i s not i n q u e s t i o n criteria met. B o t h Watson a n d Bowden s i g n e d that they were common-law an a f f i d a v i t on October representing 21, 2005; i n the present case. The r e m a i n i n g be

f o r a common-law m a r r i a g e ,

h o w e v e r , must s t i l l

married

a l t h o u g h t h a t document w o u l d s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t Watson and Bowden were i n m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t a t t h a t t i m e t o enter the marriage relationship, that permanently i s not

document

conclusive. (Ala.

See S t r i n g e r v . S t r i n g e r , 1997) (although both

689 So. 2d 194, 197 parties asserted in

C i v . App.

pleadings other as

t h a t t h e y were common-law m a r r i e d , "husband" and " w i f e , "

r e f e r r e d t o each together, and

had c h i l d r e n

12

2080697 cohabited, trial court was n o t r e q u i r e d t o conclude that a

common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t e d ) .

I n o r d e r f o r t h e r e t o have b e e n there must

a common-law m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n Bowden a n d Watson, also

have b e e n p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a and public assumption of marital duties and

marriage

cohabitation. "'The m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p may be shown i n any way t h a t c a n be known b y o t h e r s , s u c h as l i v i n g t o g e t h e r as man a n d w i f e , r e f e r r i n g t o e a c h o t h e r i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r s as b e i n g i n t h a t r e l a t i o n , d e c l a r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n i n v a r i o u s t y p e s o f documents and transactions, sharing h o u s e h o l d d u t i e s and expenses, and g e n e r a l l y engaging i n " a l l o f t h e numerous a s p e c t s o f d a y - t o - d a y m u t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f married persons."'" Hall v. D u s t e r , 727 So. 2d 834, 837 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999)

( q u o t i n g B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 443, 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. In Cluxton App. 1983),

57 A l a . App. 619, 621, 330 So. 2d 1976)). 431 So. 2d 1296, 1298 ( A l a . C i v . the t r i a l court's judgment

v. C l u x t o n , court

this

affirmed

h o l d i n g t h a t M r s . C l u x t o n h a d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a common-law m a r r i a g e w i t h h e r former husband. This court stated, among

other t h i n g s , t h a t "during t h e i r p e r i o d of c o h a b i t a t i o n Mrs. C l u x t o n and t h e former husband n e v e r h a n d l e d t h e i r f i n a n c e s i n s u c h a manner as t o e v i d e n c e t h e p r e s e n t i n t e n t i o n t o engage

13

2080697 in a marital relationship," accounts, t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had maintained

separate

and t h a t t h e former husband " d i d l i t t l e t o 431 So. 2d a t 1298. Likewise, that

help w i t h household expenses." in the present case,

e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d

indicating

Bowden a n d Watson c o h a b i t e d o n l y " o f f a n d o n , " t h a t Bowden a n d Watson d i d n o t s h a r e a bank a c c o u n t o r h a n d l e t h e i r finances

i n s u c h a manner as t o e v i d e n c e t h e i r i n t e n t i o n t o engage i n a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d t h a t Bowden d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o Watson's Watson household expenses. was and That Bowden cohabited with

only

intermittently affidavits parties

supported also by

by Eads's various Bowden

and t h e

administrator's submitted times, but by

documents had, a t

both

indicating

that

listed

Watson's a d d r e s s i n C h a n c e l l o r times, listed Eads's that another and

as h e r a d d r e s s i n Coffee

had, a t o t h e r as

address

Springs

her address. also indicate

the and

administrator's Watson d i d not

affidavits present

Bowman

themselves t o others

as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e .

As was t h e c a s e i n Coleman, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e contained fact i n the record creates whether Watson a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l a n d Bowden were common-law

regarding

married

and t h a t t h e t r i a l

court's

summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r

14

2080697 of Bowden on t h a t issue was inappropriate. We, therefore, for further

reverse

that

judgment,

a n d we

remand t h e c a u s e opinion.

proceedings consistent with t h i s REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur.

P . J . , and P i t t m a n ,

Bryan,

a n d Thomas, J J . ,

15



Download 2080697.pdf

Alabama Law