Appeal
from Mobile Circuit Court (CV-16-900688)
MITCHELL, Justice.
Chiropractic
Life Center, Inc. ("CLC"), sued Kathryn Naman in
the Mobile District Court alleging that Naman failed to pay
for chiropractic care she had received at CLC. The district
court entered a judgment in favor of Naman, which CLC did not
appeal. Naman thereafter sued CLC and its owner, Dr. Christy
Agren, in the Mobile Circuit Court, alleging that they had
wrongfully brought the collection action against Naman. The
circuit court dismissed the claim against Dr. Agren and
ultimately entered a summary judgment in favor of CLC. Naman
appeals. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Facts
and Procedural History
In
mid-2006, Naman and her former husband, Elias Naman
("Alec"), began receiving chiropractic care from
Dr. Agren at CLC's facility in Mobile.[1] Naman became a
patient of CLC first, but she asserts that, once Alec also
became a CLC patient, they enrolled in a "family
plan" that entitled Alec to receive two treatments a
month and her to receive one treatment a month for a monthly
fee of $72, which was automatically debited from Alec's
checking account. Naman states that her insurer, Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Alabama ("BCBS"), also paid CLC
up to $600 per year for her chiropractic care. CLC denies
that Naman and Alec were enrolled in a family plan with those
terms, and no document has been produced outlining their
enrollment in such a plan. Nevertheless, Naman and Alec
regularly visited CLC for five years, and Naman states that
they were happy with the chiropractic care they received.
Naman states that neither she nor Alec ever received notice
during this time that they owed CLC money or that there was
any problem with their payments.
On
October 20, 2011, Naman was injured in an automobile
accident. She thereafter received chiropractic care at
CLC's facility for her injuries. Naman acknowledges that
she was told that the treatment she received for injuries
related to the automobile accident would be billed separately
from her regularly scheduled visits. It also appears that the
companies providing automobile insurance for both Naman and
the other driver involved in the accident, as well as BCBS,
were involved in the billing and payment process for the
treatment of Naman's injuries. Naman executed agreements
with CLC authorizing it to seek payment directly from those
insurance companies, and she signed an agreement
acknowledging that she was ultimately responsible for paying
the bills associated with the treatment for her injuries.
Naman
last received chiropractic care at CLC's facility on June
27, 2012.[2] Naman received a statement from CLC dated
November 14, 2012, indicating that she had an outstanding
balance of $4, 923 on her account. That statement itemized
charges for visits approximately every week from January 2012
through June 2012, but the largest charge -- $4, 521 -- was
dated June 1, 2012, and was described on the statement only
as "balance forward." Naman states that both she
and Alec sought clarification from CLC over the next few
months regarding the balance-forward charge, but that they
never received it. On February 21, 2013, Naman made what she
calls a "good faith" payment of $2, 000 to CLC,
even though she still did not understand how CLC had
calculated the balance it said she owed.
On
March 7, 2013, Bayside Recovery Service, Inc., sent Naman
notice that it was seeking to collect a debt of $4, 726 on
behalf of CLC.[3] An attorney associated with Bayside
Recovery Service subsequently sent Naman a similar notice
requesting payment of both the $4, 726 debt and attorney fees
of $709. Naman responded to both notices by stating that she
disputed the amount of the debt and wanted an itemization of
the charges. In June 2013, Naman tendered a check for $573.40
to CLC, which she asserted, by noting on the check, was a
full and final payment for her debt. CLC refused the offered
payment and, on August 2, 2013, initiated the collection
action in the district court.
During
the ensuing nonjury trial, the district court heard testimony
from Naman, Alec, and Dr. Agren. That testimony, a transcript
of which is included in the record, indicates that CLC was
unable to explain the debt Naman allegedly owed. Dr. Agren
attributed her difficulty explaining the balance on
Naman's account to the complications associated with
dealing with multiple insurance companies and the fact that
CLC had changed the software system it used for billing.
Naman and Alec, however, asserted that Dr. Agren was unable
to explain the balance because CLC was trying to defraud them
and/or the insurance companies. At any rate, on April 8,
2014, the district court entered a judgment in favor of
Naman, explaining that CLC "failed in its burden of
proof" and that the court was not "reasonably
satisfied of the merits of [CLC's] claim." CLC did
not appeal that judgment.
Almost
two years later, on April 5, 2016, Naman sued Dr. Agren and
CLC for bringing the collection action against
her.[4]The exact cause of action asserted is not
clear on the face of the complaint. Naman generally alleged,
however, that Dr. Agren and CLC had filed the collection
action "without probable cause to believe that the
monies being claimed were owed by [Naman]" and
"with malice, and in a fraudulent effort to obtain
monies that the [defendants were] not entitled to
receive."
Dr.
Agren and CLC thereafter moved the circuit court either to
dismiss Naman's action or to enter a summary judgment in
their favor because, they argued, Naman had failed to
properly assert an abuse-of-process or malicious-prosecution
claim. In her response, Naman clarified that she intended to
assert a malicious-prosecution claim and argued that it was
premature to dismiss or to enter a summary judgment on that
claim before any discovery was conducted.
On
January 3, 2017, the circuit court ruled on Dr. Agren and
CLC's motion asking the court to dismiss Naman's
claims or, in the alternative, to enter a summary judgment in
their favor. To the extent Naman's complaint asserted an
abuse-of-process claim, the circuit court held, that claim
was due to be dismissed. The circuit court also concluded
that Naman had failed to allege facts that would support a
malicious-prosecution claim against Dr. Agren, and it
accordingly dismissed that claim. The circuit court held,
however, that summary judgment would be premature on the
malicious-prosecution claim Naman had asserted against CLC,
and the court allowed discovery on that claim to proceed.
On
April 26, 2018, following discovery, CLC filed a new motion
asking the circuit court to enter a summary judgment on
Naman's malicious-prosecution claim. Naman opposed the
motion. On May 25, 2018, the circuit court granted CLC's
motion and entered a summary judgment in favor of CLC. On
June 29, 2018, Naman filed a notice of appeal to this Court.
Nature
...