Sanford v. Geer Properties, Inc., No. CL-2025-0477, 2026 WL 845628 (Ala. Civ. App. Mar. 27, 2026). The court (Edwards, J.; Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Bowden, JJ., concur; Friday, J., concurs in the result) reverses summary judgment and remands, holding that Geer Properties, Inc. (“GPI”) failed to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to its liability for continuing trespass and nuisance. Ms. **12–15.
GPI moved for summary judgment relying upon the plaintiffs’ depositions where they admitted that neither Aaron Geer nor Carol Geer (GPI’s alleged principals) had caused the dumping or run off conditions. The court rejects that approach, explaining that GPI, as a separate legal entity, must affirmatively establish that these two individuals were its agents and that their conduct could be attributed to the corporation. Ms. **11–13. GPI failed to present any evidence of its corporate form, directors, or organizational structure. Id. Because GPI offered no evidence linking the actions of Aaron and Carol Geer to the company, the court holds that GPI failed to negate the elements of trespass and nuisance.
The court also rejects GPI’s argument that it lacked notice or a reasonable opportunity to remediate. Although plaintiffs testified that they did not contact the Geers, GPI presented no evidence demonstrating that GPI lacked notice or time to correct the condition. Ms. **13–15. Because GPI’s evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment did not establish that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether GPI’sconduct created or maintained the alleged nuisance or trespass, or whether GPIhad notice of the condition, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment insofar as it was premised on plaintiffs’ testimony relating to the conduct of the Geers. Ms. **12-13. The court emphasizes that statements of counsel do not constitute evidence of agency or corporate responsibility. Ms. **11–12.