Jeanetta C. Scott, etc. v. Scott, [Ms. SC-2024-0246, Jan. 17, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Wise, J.; Parker, C.J., and Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur; Shaw, J., dissents; Sellers, J., dissents) reverses the Pike Circuit Court’s summary judgment in favor of Kimmy Scott against Jeanetta C. Scott, as administratrix of the Estate of Willie C. Scott, deceased, for breach of a promissory note.
The Court notes that Willie’s widow, Jeanetta, and Willie’s former secretary submitted affidavits that countered Jimmy’s original motion for a summary judgment and stated that the signature on the promissory note was not Willie’s and despite this evidence the trial court found “[Jeanetta] failed to provide substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.” Ms. *9. In reversing the Court holds
To make such findings, the circuit court would have had to have made the decision that Jimmy and his two witnesses were credible and that Jeanetta and her witness were not credible.
However, “[i]t is well established that neither the trial court nor this Court may undertake credibility assessments in reviewing testimonial evidence submitted in favor of, and in opposition to, a motion for a summary judgment, whereas making such credibility assessments is one of the key functions of the trial jury. See, e.g., Scott v. Farnell, 775 So. 2d 789, 793 (Ala. 2000), and Camp v. Yeager, 601 So. 2d 924, 929 (Ala. 1992).” Lyons v. Walker Reg’l Med. Ctr., 868 So. 2d 1071, 1077 (Ala. 2003). Also,
“[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Adickes [v. S.H. Kress & Co.], 398 U.S. [144,] at 158-159 [(1970)].”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Ms. **10-11.