Henry Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & a M of Alabama, Inc.

Summary

The court held that the Lodge had standing and that Penick failed to establish a capacity-to-sue defect or a pleading deficiency under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. It also held that the modification agreement unambiguously allowed the Lodge to demand a deed in lieu of foreclosure upon default without first following the original mortgage's notice and cure procedures, and that Penick had not shown entitlement to reinstatement or relief based on estoppel, duress, or the alleged cotenancy. The court reversed the summary judgment on ejectment because the Lodge lacked possession or legal title when the action was filed, while affirming the deed-in-lieu judgment and remanding. Justice Murdock, concurring specially, agreed with the result but would not decide whether a defendant who properly challenges capacity bears the burden of disproving the opposing party's legal existence.