Poff v. Hayes
763 So. 2d 234, 2000 WL 127194 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A demand for a jury trial is timely under Rule 38(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., when included in a defendant's answer, as the answer is considered the 'last pleading directed to such issue.' Additionally, a shareholder lacks standing to sue individually for trespass to corporate property, and while briefly removing and copying documents constitutes trespass to chattels, it is not conversion unless it seriously interferes with the owner's possessory rights.
Facts:
- Richard Poff worked as a law clerk for the law firm Roden, Hayes, and Carter, P.C., in which Robert Hayes was a shareholder.
- Suspecting the firm's partners of improperly charging personal expenses to clients, Poff began gathering evidence.
- Poff secretly entered Hayes's office and the bookkeeper's office to photocopy various documents, including checks, credit-card statements, and the firm's ledgers.
- The copied documents included records related to Hayes's personal car-washing business as well as records belonging to the law firm as a corporate entity.
- Poff used the firm's photocopier and returned the original documents to their original locations immediately after copying them.
- Using the copied information, Poff filed an ethics complaint against Hayes with the Alabama State Bar and also gave information to a television news reporter.
- Poff later represented a former client of the firm, Deborah Taylor, in a malpractice lawsuit filed against Hayes.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Hayes sued Richard Poff in an Alabama trial court for trespass, conversion, malicious prosecution, and libel and slander.
- Poff filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the request for a more definite statement.
- After Hayes amended his complaint, Poff filed an answer which included a demand for a jury trial.
- At trial, the trial court granted Hayes's motion to strike Poff's jury demand.
- Following a bench trial, the court entered a judgment for Hayes in the amount of $1,151,501.
- Poff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a demand for a jury trial timely under Rule 38(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., when it is included in the defendant's answer, which is filed after the disposition of a pre-answer motion and is the last pleading directed to the issues in the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Maddox
Yes, a demand for a jury trial is timely when included in the defendant's answer. The trial court erred in striking Poff's jury demand because Rule 38(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., allows a party to demand a jury trial no later than thirty days after the service of the 'last pleading directed to such issue.' An answer is a 'pleading' under Rule 7(a), and since Poff's answer was the last pleading, his included demand was timely. The court also held that Poff was entitled to summary judgment on several of Hayes's claims. Hayes, as a shareholder, could not personally sue for trespass to real or personal property belonging to the corporation. While Poff's brief removal and copying of Hayes's personal documents constituted a trespass to chattels, it was not a sufficiently serious interference with Hayes's possessory rights to constitute conversion. However, Hayes's claims for malicious prosecution and defamation (limited to two specific publications) could proceed to trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial by clarifying the procedural deadline for making such a demand, holding that it runs from the final pleading, which is often the answer. The opinion also provides an important practical distinction between the torts of trespass to chattels and conversion, establishing that conversion requires a 'serious interference' with possessory rights, not just a brief dispossession. Finally, the case strictly upholds the principle of the separate corporate entity, preventing individual shareholders from bringing claims for harms done to corporate property and thereby maintaining orderly corporate litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Poff v. Hayes