U.S. Bank Tr. Nat’l. Assoc. v. Bonilla, No. SC-2025-0433, 2026 WL 1355750 (Ala. 2026). The Court (McCool, J., Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur) affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands, holding that the defendants were liable for conversion where they failed to convey good title to the property that the plaintiff contracted to buy and refused to return the purchase money, but that summary judgment on wantonness and the related punitive damages award were improper because the defendants’ mental state presented a jury question.
This dispute arose from a real-estate transaction following a foreclosure sale in Shelby County. *1. In 2007, Elizabeth Ellison financed the purchase of certain real property with a loan secured by a mortgage. Id. After Ellison defaulted, U.S. Bank purchased property at a foreclosure sale. Id. U.S. Bank later sold the property to Bonilla. Id. However, because of confusion over the property’s address and the lack of a survey, U.S. Bank and its agent believed they were selling Bonilla the Ellison property, a bricked double-wide trailer, when the deed actually conveyed a different and less valuable property. Id. at *1-2. Bonilla discovered the mistake when he attempted to resell the property. Id. at *2. Bonilla brought suit for conversion, breach of contract, negligence, wantonness, and rescission of the special warranty deed. Id.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Bonilla on all claims, rescinded the real-estate transaction, awarded $114,000 in compensatory damages plus interest on the conversion, breach-of-contract, and negligence claims, and awarded $75,000 in punitive damages on the wantonness claim. Id. On appeal, the defendants challenged the judgment on the conversion, breach-of-contract, negligence, and wantonness claims. Id. at *3.
As to the conversion, breach-of-contract, and negligence claims, the Court affirms the compensatory-damages and interest awards. Id. at *7. The Court concludes that the defendants failed to show reversible error on the conversion claim because it was undisputed that U.S. Bank did not convey good title to the property Bonilla contracted to buy and refused to return his $95,000 purchase price. Id. at *4. The Court also notes that the defendants’ argument that money cannot be converted unless the specific money itself can be identified was raised for the first time on appeal and therefore will not be considered. Id. at *3. The Court further holds that any error in entering summary judgment on the breach-of-contract and negligence claims is harmless because those claims resulted in the same compensatory recovery as the conversion claim. Id. at *5.
The Court reverses summary judgment on the wantonness claim and vacates the $75,000 punitive-damages award. Id. at *6. The issue was whether summary judgment was appropriate, which required proof that defendants consciously acted or omitted a duty while knowing injury would likely result. Id. at *6. (citing Motley v. Express Servs., Inc., 386 So. 3d 766, 775 (Ala. 2023)). The Court finds a genuine factual dispute regarding the defendants’ state of mind about the property, explaining that a jury could find that the defendants acted wantonly but could also find that they were merely mistaken as to the property that had been foreclosed. Id.
Lastly, the Defendants argued that the circuit court erred by denying their post-judgment motion without holding a requested hearing. Bonilla, 2026 WL 1355750, at *6. The Court acknowledges that failure to hold such a hearing is error but found it was not reversible error in this case, as it did not “probably injuriously affect the defendants’ substantial rights”, particularly since the wantonness claim was already being remanded. Id. at *7 (citations omitted).