From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blissett v. Riley

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 11, 1993
667 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. 1993)

Opinion

1911225.

June 11, 1993.

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court, No. CV-91-5060; S. Edward Jackson, Judge.

Thomas D. Motley, Dothan, for appellant.

James S. Lloyd of Lloyd, Bradford, Schreiber Gray, P.C., Birmingham, for Merlene Riley.

James R. Fuqua of Fuqua Kominos, Ozark, for Assur. Title of Dothan, Inc.


This Court heard this case on oral argument on April 12, 1993. It was concerned mainly with whether the restrictive covenants in this case could be legally considered encumbrances running with the land. Although the trial court originally considered this case on a motion to dismiss, the trial judge considered evidence other than the pleadings; therefore, he treated the motion as one for a summary judgment. The question whether a restrictive covenant is an encumbrance is a question of considerable magnitude, and this Court concludes that it must have a further development of the facts before it can issue a definitive opinion. Therefore, this case is remanded for the trial judge to develop the pertinent facts and to include in the record all relevant deeds, contracts, restrictive covenants, and other pertinent evidence bearing on the issue stated. If there are other issues that were not considered, the trial judge should fully develop those issues. The trial judge is to enter a full order specifying his findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the date of this order.

REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, and INGRAM, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blissett v. Riley

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 11, 1993
667 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. 1993)
Case details for

Blissett v. Riley

Case Details

Full title:James M. BLISSETT v. Merlene RILEY, et al

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jun 11, 1993

Citations

667 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. 1993)

Citing Cases

Blissett v. Riley

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. This case is on return from the remand in Blissett v. Riley,…