author: LYONS, Justice. MURDOCK, Justice

text:
    Martha A. NIX and Charles E. Upham v. Skip WICK, Christie Wick, and James Robert Oldfield.
    1090687.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Dec. 30, 2010.

      Stephen P. Brown, Birmingham, for appellants.
    Michael B. Odom and Michael B. Beers, Jr., of Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, for appellees.
   LYONS, Justice.

Martha A. Nix and Charles E. Upham appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court against them and in favor of Skip Wick, Christie Wick, and James Robert Oldfield. We affirm.

Factual Baclcground and Procedural History

Skip Wick and his wife Christie Wick (“the Wicks”) owned a house with approximately 4 1/2 acres of land at 296 West Shugart Ridge in Gardendale. Christie Wick, jointly with her brother, James Robert Oldfield, owned several acres of land adjacent to and surrounding the Wicks’ property. On April 2, 2008, the Wicks signed an agreement to sell their house and 4 1/2 acres (“the April 2 contract”) to Charles Upham and Martha Nix, a married couple (“the Uphams”). On the same day, the Wicks and the Uphams signed an addendum (“the addendum”) to the April 2 contract. The addendum stated:

“... This agreement is for the additional at least 5 acres at a price of ... $32,500 per acre.
“This is an option for the [Uphams] to purchase this adjoining acreage. [The Wicks] to have property surveyed and do county zoning requirements in a timely manner (not to exceed three months) at [the Wicks’] expense. Survey to be approved and acceptable to [the Uphams].”

The Wicks and the Uphams closed on the April 2 contract on April 16, 2008, and the Wicks deeded their house and 4 1/2 acres to the Uphams on that date.

Subsequently, on April 22, 2008, the Wicks and the Uphams signed an agreement (“the April 22 contract”) stating:

“The [Uphams] hereby agree to purchase and the [Wicks] hereby agree to sell the following described lot or other unimproved land and appurtenances thereto (‘the Property’) situated in the City of Gardendale, County of Jefferson, Alabama on the terms stated below: Address: adjacent to 296 West Shugart Ridge and legally described as Lot_, Block _ Survey _ Map Book _ Page_
“1A. THE PURCHASE PRICE Shall be $32,500 per acre (at least 5 acres)....
“This contract is per agreement written on Addendum sheet on 4/2/08.”

(Emphasis added.) The April 22 contract stated that the addendum was attached to it; however, none of the copies of that contract in the record included the addendum.

Skip Wick testified that “prior to the [April 16, 2008,] closing, but after the [April 2] contract had been written,” the Wicks and the Uphams met on the Wicks’ property and discussed the Uphams’ purchase of 5 adjacent acres. Wick testified that they “discussed that the potential property lines would run forty feet to the left of the mailbox [along a road] as you are facing the house, and then would run' back to the right corner of the property.” In her testimony, Martha Nix confirmed Skip Wick’s description of the potential property lines. That description, however, was not included in either the addendum or the April 22 contract. The following exchange occurred at Martha Nix’s deposition:

“Q. ... Tell me, looking at this April 22 contract, tell me how I can look at it and go out there and locate the five acres that’s supposed to be the subject of this April 22 contract.
“A. There’s no way you can.
“Q. ... [Y]ou testified earlier that you can’t look at the April 22, 2008, contract and determine where that five acres is; correct?
“A. Well, that’s because there was no legal description to the five acres that we were told.
“Q. Okay.
“A. And there’s no legal description without a survey.
“Q. Okay. But there’s no dispute that there’s not a legal description attached to that April 22, 2008, contract?
“A. That’s right. Because there’s no survey.
“Q. Right. And so there’s no way that you can just look at that April 22 contract and determine where the five acres is; correct?
“A. Right.
“Q. But you had a verbal understanding of where you thought the five acres was supposed to be; correct?
“A. Well, we had an understanding of where we were told the five acres would be.”

It is undisputed that Skip Wick did not own the five acres to the left of the mailbox that he had described to the Uphams (hereinafter “the left five acres”). He testified that he told the Uphams that “all that” — presumably his description of the left five acres and the Uphams’ purchase of those acres — “was contingent on [Oldfield] as being the partial owner of the property.” The Uphams deny that Wick told them that Oldfield was joint owner of the left five acres. At his deposition, Skip Wick testified that he could understand how his statements to the Uphams along with his execution of the April 22 contract may have been misleading; however, he denied any intent to mislead the Uphams.

Ultimately, Oldfield refused to sell the left five acres, and the Wicks did not obtain a survey of them. The Wicks instead submitted to the Uphams a survey of other land adjacent to 296 West Shugart Ridge, which, they contend, satisfied the descriptions in the addendum and the April 22 contract. The Uphams rejected that land as noncompliant with their oral agreement with the Wicks. They also contend that they would not have purchased the Wicks’ house and 4 1/2 acres at 296 West Shugart Ridge if they had known that they could not also purchase the left five acres. Skip Wick conceded at his deposition that he knew that the Uphams purchased his house and land, in part, because of the availability of the left five acres.

On March .23, 2009, the Uphams sued the Wicks and Oldfield seeking specific performance of the addendum and the April 22 contract. Alternatively, the Up-hams sought rescission of the April 2 contract. The Uphams also stated claims against the Wicks and Oldfield alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, suppression, and fraudulent inducement; against Oldfield alleging tortious interference with the April 22 contract; and against “any defendant” for negligence and wantonness.

The Wicks and Oldfield answered the complaint, raising as a defense § 8 — 9—2(5), Ala.Code 1975, the Statute of Frauds. The Wicks and Oldfield subsequently moved for a summary judgment as to all the Uphams’ claims. They argued that the April 22 contract was void under the Statute of Frauds because it did not sufficiently describe the land to be purchased, that the Uphams’ tort claims failed because they were based on the void April 22 contract, and, alternatively, that the Up-hams’ tort claims were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Uphams responded and, on January 11, 2010, the trial court entered an order stating:

“The April 22, 2008, contract is void under the Statute of Frauds because the real property which is the subject of said contract is insufficiently described. The [Uphams’] claims, being dependant upon the April 22, 2008, document, must fail. See, DeFriece v. McCorguodale, 998 So.2d 465 (Ala.2008); Bruce v. Cole, 854 so.2d [So.2d] 47 (Ala.2003); and Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc., 852 So.2d 691 (Ala.2002). Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted.”

The Uphams appealed.

Analysis

“ ‘The standard of review applicable to a summary judgment is the same as the standard for granting the motion.... ’ McClendon v. Mountain Top Indoor Flea Market, Inc., 601 So.2d 957, 958 (Ala.1992).

“ ‘A summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. The burden is on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the movant has carried that burden, the court is to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. To defeat a properly supported summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must present “substantial evidence” creating a genuine issue of material fact — “evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.” Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).’
“Capital Alliance Ins. Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc., 639 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala.1994). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So.2d 337, 342 (Ala.2004).”

Alabama Elec. Coop. v. Bailey’s Constr. Co., 950 So.2d 280, 283 (Ala.2006).

Section 8-9-2, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in part:

“In the following cases, every agreement is void unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized in writing:
“(5) Every contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any interest therein, except leases for a term not longer than one year, unless the purchase money, or a portion thereof is paid and the purchaser is put in possession of the land by the seller.”

This Court has stated “that a contract for sale of land, to satisfy the statute of frauds, must describe the land with such certainty that it can be identified without resort to oral evidence.” Goodwyn v. Jones, 288 Ala. 71, 75, 257 So.2d 320, 323 (1971).

It is undisputed that the Uphams had not yet paid any purchase money and were not in possession of any land contemplated under the April 22 contract. Accordingly, the exclusion described in § 8-9-2(5) does not apply. The April 22 contract is, therefore, void unless it describes the land to be sold “with such certainty that it can be identified without resort to oral evidence.” Goodwyn, 288 Ala. at 75, 257 So.2d at 323. The April 22 contract identifies the land to be sold only as “at least 5 acres” “adjacent to 296 West Shu-gart Ridge.” At her deposition, Martha Nix admitted that, from this language, “there’s no way you can” locate the land to be sold under the April 22 contract. Instead, she referenced “an understanding of where [the Uphams] were told the five acres would be.” (Emphasis added.) The Statute of Frauds, however, requires that the land be identified in writing. The April 22 contract does not “describe the land with such certainty that it can be identified without resort to oral evidence.” Goodwyn, 288 Ala. at 75, 257 So.2d at 323. As a result, it is void unless some exception to the Statute of Frauds applies.

On appeal, the Uphams argue that two exceptions to the Statute of Frauds apply. They argue that the April 22 contract is not subject to the Statute of Frauds because, they allege, the April 22 contract was fraudulently induced and because, they say, the April 22 contract provides a key to or a means of identifying the land. We will consider the second exception first.

In Goodwyn, supra, this Court stated: “[A] general description may be made specific and certain by parol evidence and concurrent facts and circumstances sufficient to that end.” 288 Ala. at 75, 257 So.2d at 323. As to the “test for sufficiency,” this Court, quoting Annotation, Statute of Frauds-Description of Land, 23 A.L.R.2d 6, 12-13 (1952), stated: “ ‘[D]oes the writing furnish the means of identification, or, as some cases have it, does it provide the ‘key1 to the identification, the applicable principle being that that is certain which can be made certain...' " 288 Ala. at 76, 257 So.2d at 323. This Court applied this exception to the facts in Go-odwyn, stating:

“In the instant case, each complainant was occupying a certain area of land within the 31 acres. The lines of the occupancy were impressed by cleared land and improvements. Respondent elected by adoption of an instrument prepared by L & N to offer each complainant the opportunity to purchase this occupied area upon payment of a sum set forth in the offer. Each complainant was in possession of only one occupied area within the 3U acres. Respondent designated the area to be purchased, namely the occupied area. We think it was permissible to identify the occupied area by competent evidence, and that the respondent, having elected to designate the area by a general term, cannot now complain against evidence to establish by metes and bounds, or other description, the occupied area.”

288 Ala. at 77, 257 So.2d at 325 (emphasis added).

In Mullinax v. Galen-Marshall, Inc., 642 So.2d 431 (Ala.1994), this Court applied the same exception but with a different result. Quoting the trial court’s factual findings, this Court stated:

“ ‘It is undisputed from the documents filed, and the testimony presented, that the alleged contract or contracts do not contain any legal description. The only reference in either written document is “see legal description.” There is revealed in the depositions, the fact that the parties had not been able to settle on a legal description.’ ”

642 So.2d at 432. In fact, the parties had considered two different legal descriptions that did not correspond. Based on those facts, this Court in Mullinax distinguished Goodwyn, stating:

“[In Goodwyn, the Court] concluded that the description, although stated in general terms, was sufficient, where each purchaser was offered the area on which he resided — an area that was well demarcated and recognized....
“The instruments involved in this case, however, are not so directly linked to clearly established facts and circumstances that the description of the property can be ‘made certain.’ ...
“It is undisputed that the instruments involved in this case do not describe the property to which they refer. More significantly, the ‘legal description’ referenced in the instruments could refer to either of two parcels of significantly different dimensions.... ”

642 So.2d at 433-34 (emphasis omitted; emphasis added). This Court, therefore, concluded: “The instruments, themselves, do not ‘provide the key5 to identification of the subject property.” 642 So.2d at 435.

In this case, the Uphams contend, based on the language in the addendum, that the survey contemplated by the addendum “is the key” that satisfies the exception stated in Goodwyn and Mullinax. Specifically, they argue that the Wicks and Oldfield “admitted at their depositions that a surveyor could go out and fulfill the contractual requirements of surveying and rezoning the acreage to the left of the house, including the 40 feet of road frontage, and sell the land to” the Uphams. (Uphams’ principal brief, at 20 (emphasis added).) The Wicks and Oldfield, however, correctly note that the survey relied on by the Uphams does not yet exist and did not exist at the time the April 22 contract was executed. The exception stated in Goodwyn and Mullinax allows a general description to be made certain by “concurrent facts and circumstances.” Goodwyn, 288 Ala. at 75, 257 So.2d at 323 (emphasis added). The general description of the property referenced must be capable of being made certain at the time the parties contracted. Reference to a description not yet in existence cannot bring the April 22 contract within the exception.

Additionally, as in Mullinax, the language of the April 22 contract does not sufficiently identify the land to be sold; indeed, the April 22 contract does not describe the land to be sold. The only identification of the land in the contract could refer to any number of “at least” five-acre configurations of the land adjacent to the property located at 296 West Shugart Ridge. Furthermore, from the deposition testimony of Skip Wick and Martha Nix, it is apparent that the land discussed by the Wicks and the Uphams was described in terms of potential boundary lines; the parties had not settled on any “area that was well demarcated and recognized.” Mullinax, 642 So.2d at 433-34. Therefore, unlike the instrument in Goodwyn, the April 22 contract is “not so directly linked to clearly established facts and circumstances that the description of the property can be ‘made certain.’ ” Mullinax, 642 So.2d at 433. Accordingly, the April 22 contract does not “furnish the means of identification,” Goodwyn, 288 Ala. at 75, 257 So.2d at 323, of the land to be sold, and the Uphams have not shown that the April 22 contract falls within this exception to the Statute of Frauds.

To support their argument that the April 22 contract falls within an exception to the Statute of Frauds relating to fraud in the inducement, the Uphams rely on the following language from Darby v. Johnson, 477 So.2d 322, 325 (Ala.1985):

‘““It is a most important principle, thoroughly established in equity, and applying in every transaction where the statute is invoked, that the statute of frauds, having been enacted for the purpose of preventing fraud, shall not be made the instrument of shielding, protecting, or aiding the party who relies upon it in the perpetration of a fraud, or in the consummation of a fraudulent scheme.” 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 921, p. 1658.’
“Deming [v. Lee], 174 Ala. [410,] 414, 56 So. [921,] 922 [ (1911) ]. Furthermore, ‘[e]quity will not permit a party to retain property, obtained on the faith of a verbal contract, to consummate a fraud by retaining the property and refusing to perform the contract.’ (Emphasis in original.) (Citations omitted.) 174 Ala. at 419, 56 So. at 924.”

Based on this language and citing the fact that Skip Wick did not own the property adjacent to 296 West Shugart Ridge, the Uphams argue that the Wicks engaged in fraud by attempting to sell land that they did not own outright. They do not address or cite authority regarding the specific elements of fraud.

Nonetheless, this Court in DeFriece v. McCorquodale, 998 So.2d 465 (Ala.2008), in considering an argument identical to the argument raised by the Uphams, recognized that Darby v. Johnson has been impliedly, though not expressly, overruled. In DeFriece, an opinion authored by Justice Stuart, certain heirs of their father’s estate transferred real property they had inherited from him to their mother to avoid adverse tax consequences of the inheritance. They did so upon the oral agreements of their mother and brother that the property would later be divided equally among the siblings. The mother subsequently died, leaving the bulk of the property to the brother. The remaining siblings sued seeking enforcement of the oral agreement, and the trial court entered a summary judgment against them. On appeal, this Court discussed the siblings’ argument that the Statute of Frauds did not bar their enforcement of the oral agreement because, they maintained, it was based in fraud. This Court stated:

“DeFriece and Durst argue ... that the Statute of Frauds applies only to promises and representations that are part of contractual agreements. De-Friece and Durst argue that the misrepresentations allegedly made by [them brother and mother] were not ‘contractual in nature’; rather, they were simply fraudulent statements that now support claims of promissory fraud. In Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47, 58 (Ala.2003), this Court considered the relationship between breach-of-contraet claims and promissory-fraud claims insofar as the Statute of Frauds is concerned and, after overruling a previous line of cases, held that ‘an oral promise that is void by operation of the Statute of Frauds will not support an action against the promisor for promissory fraud.’ Thus, regardless of whether the misrepresentations allegedly made by [the brother and the mother] are viewed as contractual in nature or as simply fraudulent, they are subject to the Statute of Frauds because they concern the conveyance of an interest in land.
“In a related argument, DeFriece and Durst argue ... that the Statute of Frauds is inapplicable if fraud occurred during the inception of an agreement. In support of this argument, DeFriece and Durst cite the following passage from Leisure American Resorts, Inc. v. Knutilla, 547 So.2d 424, 427 (Ala.1989):
“ ‘It is a well-established principle that equity will intervene and render the Statute of Frauds defense inapplicable in a contract action
“ ‘ “even though the part performance requirement is not met, when fraud operates from the beginning — that is, when the breaching party procured the land ... with no intent to perform the oral agreement admitted to have been made.”
‘Darby v. Johnson, 477 So.2d 322, 326-27 (Ala.1985).’
“We did not, in Bruce, include Leisure American Resorts or Darby v. Johnson, 477 So.2d 322 (Ala.1985), in the list of cases that were being overruled; however, our holding that an oral promise that is void by operation of the Statute of Frauds will not support an action for promissory fraud ultimately had that effect. Bruce stands for the proposition that a party may not avoid the effect of the Statute of Frauds by framing the claim as one alleging promissory fraud or by invoking the historical fraud-in-the-inception exception to the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, DeFriece and Durst’s argument in this regard is foreclosed by our holding in Bruce.
“ ‘[The appellee] argues that a fraud action cannot be based on the breach of an unwritten contract that is void under the Statute of Frauds. As the above-cited authorities show, however, the Statute of Frauds does not bar proof of a fraud committed by means of a promise that ordinarily could not be enforced as a contractual promise because of the Statute of Frauds. Furthermore, “it is well settled in Alabama that fraud may be predicated upon a breach of contract which is void, because not in writing, where the contract was made for the purpose of perpetrating the fraud.” Caron v. Teagle, 408 So.2d 494, 496 (Ala.1981).’
“Among the ‘above-cited authorities’ referred to in this passage is Darby v. Johnson, 477 So.2d 322 (Ala.1985), upon which Leisure American Resorts relied.”

998 So.2d at 470-71 (emphasis added).

In Holman v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc., 852 So.2d 691 (Ala.2002), an opinion authored by Justice Woodall that predates DeFriece, this Court concluded that an oral agreement to release a mortgage lien was void under the Statute of Frauds and then addressed the validity of the plaintiff’s tort claims, stating:

“As a general rule, ‘[i]f the proof of a promise or contract, void under the statute of frauds, is essential to maintain the action, there may be no recovery.’ Pacurib v. Villacruz, 183 Misc.2d 850, 861, 705 N.Y.S.2d 819, 827 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1999) (emphasis added); see also Dwight v. Tobin, 947 F.2d 455, 460 (11th Cir.1991); McDabco, Inc. v. Chet Adams Co., 548 F.Supp. 456, 458 (D.S.C.1982) (it is a ‘well accepted doctrine that one cannot circumvent the Statute of Frauds by bringing an action in tort, when the tort action is based primarily on the unenforceable contract’); Weakly v. East, 900 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Ct.App.1995). This is so, because, ‘[i]f a plaintiff was allowed to recover the benefit of a bargain already barred by the statute of frauds, the statute of frauds would become meaningless.’ Sonnichsen v. Baylor University, 47 S.W.3d 122, 127 (Tex.Ct.App.2001). ‘Thus, the statute of frauds bars a [tort] claim when a plaintiff claims as damages the benefit of the bargain that he would have obtained had the promise been performed.’ Id. (emphasis added).
“In accord with the general rule, we hold that where, as here, an element of a tort claim turns on the existence of an alleged agreement that cannot, consistent with the Statute of Frauds, be proved to support a breach-of-contract claim, the Statute of Frauds also bars proof of that agreement to support the tort claim. Were the rule otherwise, the Statute of Frauds could be effectively avoided by the simple wording of the complaint.”

852 So.2d at 699-701.

Subsequently, in Bruce v. Cole, 854 So.2d 47 (Ala.2003), discussed in DeFriece, above, in an opinion authored by Justice Johnstone, this Court engaged in a lengthy analysis of an oral agreement to transfer stock. Regarding the Statute of Frauds, this Court examined its previous decision in Holman and then stated:

“[T]he Statute of Frauds identifies defined categories of oral promises that are especially subject to fabrication and especially unworthy of reliance or enforcement. Therefore, for the courts, on a theory of promissory fraud, to countenance a plaintiffs claim that he has relied on such a promise and to redress that plaintiffs claim that he has suffered from the breach of such a promise, defies the policy and frustrates the efficacy of the Statute of Frauds.
“Therefore, applying the legal reasoning of Holman, supra, this Court now holds that an oral promise that is void by operation of the Statute of Frauds will not support an action against the promisor for promissory fraud. The cases of US Diagnostic v. Shelby Radiology, P.C., 793 So.2d 714 (Ala.2000), Wilma Corp. v. Fleming Foods of Alabama, Inc., 613 So.2d 359 (Ala.1993), Hinkle v. Cargill, Inc., 613 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1992), Dean v. Myers, 466 So.2d 952 (Ala.1985), and Caron v. Teagle, 408 So.2d 494 (Ala.1981), are overruled to the extent, but only to the extent, that they conflict with this holding.”

854 So.2d at 58. As quoted above, this Court in DeFriece subsequently concluded, based on Bruce, that the fraud-in-the-inducement argument advanced in Darby was no longer valid. The trial court in this case expressly relied on DeFriece, Bruce, and Holman in entering a summary judgment for the Wicks and Oldfield.

On appeal, the Uphams do not, as they did below, argue that this Court overruled Darby only to the extent that it related to promissory fraud; they have, therefore, abandoned that argument on appeal. The Uphams instead contend that this Court has erred in rejecting the fraud-in-the-inducement exception to the Statute of Frauds. In their principal brief, the Up-hams state:

“To allow the [Wicks and Oldfield] to now hide behind the Statute of Frauds to consummate their fraudulent conduct would be tantamount to state-sponsored fraud. This is why the Alabama Supreme Court had adopted and developed the historic fraud-in-the-inception exception to the Statute of Frauds. The present case illustrates the folly of the Bruce Court for casting aside stare decisis and replacing decades, if not centuries, of sound, nuanced judicial reasoning with an intellectually lazy, blunt and unjust ‘strict constructionist’ interpretation to the Statute of Frauds.”

(Uphams’ principal brief, at 15.) And in their reply brief, the Uphams state: “The [Uphams] respectfully assert that the Court blew it in DeFriece, Bruce, and Holman, by whitewashing with broad brush strokes a tapestry of well-settled laws and decisions that took into account the facts of each individual case and equity.” (Uphams’ reply brief, at 5-6.)

Construing this language broadly as a request to overrule DeFriece, Bruce, and Holman, we decline to do so. This Court’s decisions in those cases were thorough and well reasoned. The Uphams do not discuss the legal reasoning of the decisions; they have not offered any alternative reasoning that this Court could adopt; and they have not shown how the decisions are in error except to state that this Court “blew it” and that the decisions, which they call “intellectually lazy,” encourage fraud and are “unjust.” The Uphams, therefore, have not provided a sufficient basis upon which we could, even if we were so inclined, overrule DeFriece, Bruce, and Holman.

The Uphams alternatively argue that DeFriece, Bruce, and Holman are distinguishable from the present case in that, unlike the agreements in those cases, the April 22 contract they seek to enforce was a written agreement, not an oral agreement; that Skip Wick did not own the land he agreed to sell in the April 22 contract; and that the material facts are undisputed. However, none of these distinguishing characteristics is material. The Statute of Frauds voids both written contracts with insufficient descriptions of land and oral agreements to sell land. See Goodwyn and Mullinax, supra. Additionally, the fact that Skip Wick did not own the property adjacent to 296 West Shugart Ridge is merely the basis for the Uphams’ fraud-in-the-inducement claim. That fact does not remove this case from material holding of DeFriece, Bruce, and Holman: this Court’s abandonment of the fraud-in-the-inducement exception to the Statute of Frauds. Likewise, the Uphams’ assertion that the alleged fraudulent inducement is not disputed does not alter this Court’s abandonment of those facts as an exception to the Statute of Frauds. The Up-hams, therefore, have not shown that this case is materially distinguishable from De-Friece, Bruce, and Holman.

Accordingly, this Court has rejected the fraud-in-the-inducement exception to the Statute of Frauds, and, as in DeFriece, we conclude that the Uphams’ “argument in this regard is foreclosed by our holding in Bruce." 998 So.2d at 471.

The Uphams raise several other arguments in their brief on appeal. Specifically, they contend that their rescission claim did not arise from the April 22 contract; that the Statute of Frauds does not bar their tort claims; that their fraud claims are not based on promissory fraud; and, in the alternative, that they have satisfied the elements of promissory fraud. The Up-hams, however, do not cite authority to support any of these arguments.

This Court has stated:

“Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., requires that arguments in an appellant’s brief contain ‘citations to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and parts of the record relied on.’ Further, ‘it is well settled that a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) requiring citation of authority in support of the arguments presented provides this Court with a basis for disregarding those arguments.’ State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So.2d 806, 822 (Ala.2005) (citing Ex parte Showers, 812 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.2001)). This is so, because “‘it is not the function of this Court to do a party’s legal research or to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.”’ Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So.2d 1, 20 (Ala.2003) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994)).”

Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala.2007). Because the Uphams have not complied with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. Civ. P., as to those issues, we will not consider their arguments related to them.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment because the Uphams have not shown that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment against them on all of their claims against the Wicks and Oldfield.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and WOODALL, STUART, SMITH, BOLIN, PARKER, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK, J., dissents.

MURDOCK, Justice

(dissenting).

In Darby v. Johnson, 477 So.2d 322, 325 (Ala.1985), this Court observed the following time-honored principles of equity:

‘““It is a most important principle, thoroughly established in equity, and applying in every transaction where the statute is invoked, that the statute of frauds, having been enacted for the purpose of preventing fraud, shall not be made the instrument of shielding, protecting, or aiding the party who relies upon it in the perpetration of a fraud, or in the consummation of a fraudulent scheme.” 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 921, p. 1658.’
“Deming [v. Lee ], 174 Ala. [410,] 414, 56 So. [921,] 922 [ (1911) ]. Furthermore, ‘[e]quity will not permit a party to retain property, obtained on the faith of a verbal contract, to consummate a fraud by retaining the property and refusing to perform the contract.’ ... (Citations omitted.) 174 Ala. at 419, 56 So. at 924.”

(Emphasis omitted; emphasis added.)

I am concerned that there are indeed nuances and or distinctions that we have overlooked in some recent decisions, including the decision today, regarding the availability of relief when one has been the subject of a fraud committed by means of a promise to which the Statute of Frauds is applicable. Are we not enabling fraudulent actors to commit fraud so long as they use certain types of oral promises? Are we not writing out of our law the time-honored maxims quoted above?

Clearly, one cannot enforce the contractual promise itself that is made in contravention of the Statute of Frauds. But if that promise is made fraudulently so as to induce another to give for it something of value, why should the promisee not at least be able to retrieve from the dishonest promisor that which has been given in exchange for the promise, or its equivalent? Such an outcome would only put the parties back in their original positions. It would do no violence to the policy underlying the Statute of Frauds, which, as it relates to land, is to guard against a party’s being forced to convey his or her land to another if he or she has not in fact promised to do so.

In this case, if the Uphams can prove that the Wicks defrauded them by making false representations regarding the ownership of land, or false promises to convey it, and thereby induced the Uphams to enter into and consummate a separate agreement to buy the Wicks’ home, why shouldn’t the Uphams at least be able to rescind the home-sale transaction and thereby retrieve that which they gave in reliance upon, or in return for, the fraudulent representations or promises?

      " 2 We did in Bruce expressly overrule Hinkle v. Cargill, Inc., 613 So.2d 1216, 1220 (Ala.1992), in which this Court had stated:

      . In DeFriece v. McCorquodale, 998 So.2d 465 (Ala.2008), for example, it appears that the promise to reconvey the land in question was part of an illegal, sham arrangement to avoid taxes and therefore should not have been actionable in any event.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: BOLIN, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Joseph W. HUTCHINSON III v. STATE of Alabama. (In re State of Alabama v. Medell Banks, Jr.).
    1091018.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Dec. 30, 2010.

      Richard J. Riley, Birmingham, for appellant.
    Troy King, atty. gen., and Kristi 0. Wilkerson, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   BOLIN, Justice.

On August 26, 1999, Joseph W. Hutchinson III, an attorney, was appointed to represent Medell Banks, Jr., an indigent defendant, in a capital-murder case. On May 7, 2001, Banks entered a “best-interest” plea of guilty to manslaughter for the death of his wife’s newborn baby. On June 25, 2001, the trial court sentenced Banks to 15 years’ imprisonment. Banks later moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on newly discovered evidence indicating that his wife could not have been pregnant and bore the child Banks was accused of killing. The trial court denied Banks’s motion to withdraw his plea, and Banks appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. On August 9, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a manifest injustice had occurred after Banks obtained test results that showed that his wife could not have been pregnant when she was allegedly carrying the child Banks was accused of killing, and it reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause for the trial court to grant Banks’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Banks v. State, 845 So.2d 9 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). The facts underlying this case are set out in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion. The capital-murder charges against Banks remained pending after Banks withdrew his guilty plea. Eventually, Banks entered a best-interest plea to tampering with physical evidence, a misdemeanor. The capital-murder charge was dismissed. Banks was sentenced to time served.

On December 16, 2008, Hutchinson, who had represented Banks throughout his trial and appellate proceedings, filed two attorney-fee declarations. The first fee declaration was for work completed in the proceedings in the trial court before the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Hutchinson sought the following in that fee declaration: in-court expenses of $1,635, representing 27.25 hours at $60 an hour; out-of-court expenses of $18,557.60, representing 463.94 hours at $40 an hour; extraordinary expenses approved in advance by the trial court of $3,803.95; and overhead expenses of $17,191.65, representing 491.19 hours at $35 an hour. Hutchinson’s second fee declaration involved work completed after Banks filed his appeal, including: in-court expenses of $2,610, representing 43.50 hours at $60 an hour; out-of-court expenses of $28,046, representing 701.15 hours at $40 an hour; extraordinary expenses approved in advance by the court of $5,143.15; and overhead expenses of $26,062.75, representing 744.65 hours at $35 an hour.

The trial judge who presided over the criminal proceedings against Banks had retired, and a new judge was assigned Hutchinson’s fee declarations. Following a hearing, the trial court reduced Hutchinson’s claims for out-of-court expenses and for overhead expenses for both the trial and appellate proceedings. Hutchinson filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which transferred the case to this Court.

We are first presented with a jurisdictional question in a proceeding arising from a criminal case. A history of cases addressing appellate jurisdiction in such cases is necessary.

In Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000), counsel for several indigent defendants in criminal cases, upon conclusion of counsel’s services, sought attorney fees and reimbursement of certain expenses. At that time, Mobile County had a system for reviewing attorney-fee declarations that provided that the responsibility for reviewing all fee declarations rotated among the judges in the circuit on an annual basis. The judge whose responsibility it was that year to review the fee declarations reduced counsel’s attorney-fee declarations. Counsel then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Criminal Appeals challenging Mobile County’s rotation system and challenging the reduction in his fees. The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered that the judges who presided over the defendants’ trials should review the declarations for the cases over which they presided and that Mobile County should revise its system for reviewing attorney-fee declarations. Seven of the judges who heard criminal cases in Mobile County then filed a de novo petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court, arguing that counsel’s petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals was improper because he had another adequate remedy available to him, i.e., filing a declaratory-judgment action. This Court agreed and held:

“The lack of another adequate remedy is a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Martin, 703 So.2d 883, 884 (Ala.1996). [Counsel] does not deny that a declaratory-judgment proceeding constitutes an available adequate remedy, but argues that had he sought a declaratory judgment and won, the likelihood is that the same issues presented by this mandamus petition would have been presented to this Court in an appeal by the losing party. Had the scenario presented by [counsel] occurred, this Court might have found itself faced with the same legal question; however, a critical difference would have existed: there would have been before this Court a fully developed record from a declaratory-judgment proceeding.
“Section 6-6-223[, Ala.Code 1975,] provides that ‘[a]ny person ... whose rights ... are affected by a statute ... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the ... statute ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.’ We therefore conclude that [counsel] had an ‘adequate legal remedy’ available by a means other than a writ of mandamus, and that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in granting [counsel’s] petition. Although at oral argument of this case counsel for the petitioners informed this Court that Mobile’s indigent-defense system has been revised to remedy the problems that were the basis for [counsel]’s original petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals, we emphasize that § 6-6-223 clearly provides [counsel] with ‘another adequate remedy’ and that remedy is not foreclosed to him by the decision in this case.
“We also note that ‘properly invoked jurisdiction’ — the fifth requisite for obtaining mandamus relief — is absent here. Ala. Const.1901, Amend. No. 328, § 6.03 [now § 141, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.) ], establishes the jurisdiction for Alabama’s Courts of Appeals. That section provides, in pertinent part:
“ ‘(c) The court of criminal appeals and the court of civil appeals shall have no original jurisdiction except the power to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals.
“ ‘(d) The court of criminal appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction. Said court shall have authority to issue writs of injunction, habeas corpus and such other remedial and original writs as are necessary to give it a general superintendence and control of jurisdiction inferior to it and in matters over which it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction; to punish for contempts by the infliction of a fine ..., and to exercise such other powers as may be given to said court by law.’
“Section 12-3-9, Ala.Code 1975, provides that ‘[t]he Court of Criminal Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, including the violation of town and city ordinances, habeas corpus and all felonies, including all post conviction writs in criminal cases.’ Clearly, jurisdiction for [coun-selj’s mandamus petition was not proper in the Court of Criminal Appeals.
“On the other hand, § 12 — 8—10[, Ala. Code 1975,] provides that ‘[t]he Court of Civil Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases where the amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $50,000 ... and all extraordinary writs arising from appeals in said cases.’ Thus, after litigation in the circuit court, a judgment in a declaratory-judgment action may be appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.”

796 So.2d at 392-93.

In Ex parte Smith, 794 So.2d 1089 (Ala.2001), the defendant, who was indigent and charged with capital murder, sought copies of a videotaped confession he had made to police officers at the time of his arrest, a videotape the police had made of the crime scene, and a compact disc on which the police had stored digital photographs of the crime scene. The State granted the defendant’s attorneys unlimited access to the videotapes and the compact disc. The State also agreed to furnish the attorneys with copies of the videotapes and the compact disc on the condition that the attorneys pay the police in advance for the costs of copying them. The defendant’s attorneys moved the circuit court to order the State to furnish them the copies free of charge. The circuit court entered an order directing the police to make copies of the videotapes and the compact disc and to furnish those copies to the defendant’s attorneys together with a statement for the copying charges. The circuit court’s order further stated that, at the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the defendant, the circuit court would order the payment of the copying charges from the Fair Trial Tax Fund. The State then petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus ordering the circuit court to vacate its order and to issue a new order directing the defendant’s attorneys to pay in advance for its costs in copying the videotapes and compact disc and to obtain reimbursement later in accordance with § 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals issued the writ.

The defendant then petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its writ. Quoting Galanos, supra, this Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not have jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s mandamus petition and then stated:

“The Court of Criminal Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear mandamus petitions related to matters not appealable to that court. Galanos. Thus, the State’s petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals was defective because of the absence of a prerequisite for a writ of mandamus: ‘properly invoked jurisdiction.’ Id. (and cases cited therein).”

794 So.2d at 1093. Justice Johnstone issued a special writing, concurring in the judgment but dissenting from the rationale, stating:

“I will summarize my rationale. The production order issued by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County was right, first because the State did not timely oppose it, and second because it followed the constitutional requirements for due process. However, the State’s petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus was the proper vehicle for review of the circuit court order. A declaratory judgment action filed in the circuit court would not have been a valid vehicle to review the circuit court order inasmuch as the circuit court itself would have been the only correctly identifiable entity to name as the defendant: for the order signed by the trial judge was not the order of that judge but was, rather, the order of the circuit court itself. The State could not sue the circuit court in the circuit court.
“Notwithstanding the holding of Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000), in which I could not participate, the Court of Criminal Appeals did have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for writ of mandamus. This jurisdiction was conferred by Amendment 328, § 6.03 [now § 141, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.) ], Alabama Constitution of 1901, which provides, in pertinent part, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has original jurisdiction ‘in the issuance and determination of writs of ... mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction.’ This capital murder case was a ‘matter[] in which said court has appellate jurisdiction,’ and the dispute over this circuit court production order at issue was ‘in relation to’ that very matter. The error of the Court of Criminal Appeals was not in exercising jurisdiction but rather was in issuing the writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its production order, which was, as I have already mentioned, a valid production order. Because the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in this respect, I concur in the judgment of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Court of Criminal Appeals and thereby to direct that court to vacate its writ of mandamus issued to the trial court.”

794 So.2d at 1093-94.

Ex parte McNabb, 879 So.2d 1166 (Ala.2003), involved the question which appellate court was the appropriate court to entertain a mandamus petition asking the appellate court to vacate a circuit court’s order denying a pretrial motion for expenses to allow an indigent defendant to obtain a copy of the transcript in his original trial, which had ended in a mistrial. This Court, distinguishing earlier decisions regarding appellate jurisdiction, held that the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction, stating:

“[T]his Court, in Ex parte Smith, 794 So.2d 1089, 1093 (Ala.2001), applying the rationale of Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390, 393 (Ala.2000), held, under the circumstances presented there, that the Court of Civil Appeals was the proper appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus addressing the payment of a defense counsel’s fees because the matters in issue were not appealable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Smith, 794 So.2d at 1093. In Galanos, counsel for several indigent defendants in criminal cases, upon conclusion of his services, applied for payment of attorney fees and for reimbursement of his expenses; he then challenged the trial court’s award of those fees and expenses as inadequate. In Smith, the State challenged the trial court’s requirement that copies of discovery materials be furnished to the defendant at the expense of the State and contended that counsel should pay in advance and obtain reimbursement later, in accordance with Ala.Code 1975, § 15-12-21. In both Galanos and Smith this Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeals lacked jurisdiction in those cases. Also, in both Galanos and Smith the issues did not implicate the defendants’ right to a fair trial. In Ga-lanos, the criminal cases were concluded. In Smith, the defendant was going to receive a copy of the evidence before trial and the issue was whether counsel would be required to advance the costs of the discovery being turned over before the trial and be reimbursed later or whether the State would pay for the copy of such discovery before it was delivered to the defendant.
“In the posture here presented, the trial court has denied the motion for extraordinary expenses. Presumably, its ruling is simply a refusal to require the State to pay the expense before the trial and does not reach the issue of preapproval of expenses under § 15-12-21(d). Nevertheless, this case differs from Smith in that, unlike in Smith, we cannot say, at this stage of the proceedings, that McNabb will have access to the requested materials before the trial.
“Amendment No. 328, § 6.03(d) [now § 141(d), Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.) ], Ala. Const. 1901, provides:
“ ‘The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction. Said court shall have authority to issue writs of injunction, habeas corpus and such other remedial and original writs as are necessary to give it a general superintendence and control of jurisdiction inferior to it and in matters over which it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.... ’
“Because the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to hear a petition for the writ of mandamus ‘in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction’ (§ 6.03), and because the right of a defendant to a fair trial if the requested transcript is not available is an issue as to which that court has appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to deal with the issue presented in McNabb’s petition filed before it. Whether there is any merit in the petition or whether appeal is an adequate remedy is a matter we do not address.”

879 So.2d at 1168-69.

In State v. Isbell, 985 So.2d 446 (Ala.2007), the defendant pleaded guilty in the district court to driving under the influence and to failing to yield the right of way. Subsequently, he appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo. The defendant filed several discovery motions concerning the device used to test his breath for alcohol content. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the request. The district attorney filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals transferred the petition to the Court of Civil Appeals, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because the defendant’s right to a fair trial was not implicated. The Court of Civil Appeals transferred the petition back to the Court of Criminal Appeals, reasoning that the petition involved a discovery issue within the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals petitioned this Court to accept the transfer of the case to resolve the jurisdictional issue.

In Isbell, we held that the appropriate forum for resolving a question concerning a petition for an extraordinary writ arising from a pending criminal proceeding is the Court of Criminal Appeals. We discussed Galanos, Smith, and McNabb in our analysis. We stated:

“Justice Johnstone [in his special writing in Ex parte Smith ] was correct in that, at the time the petition was pending in Ex parte Smith, there was an ongoing criminal prosecution and any appeal would go to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, Ex parte Smith involved the issuance of a writ of mandamus in relation to a matter as to which the Court of Criminal Appeals had appellate jurisdiction. We therefore expressly overrule Ex parte Smith, and, in so doing, we hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals was the proper forum for resolution of the dispute made the basis of this mandamus proceeding because there is a pending criminal proceeding and any appeal from that proceeding would be to that court.
“Our holding today does not require us to revisit Ex parte Galanos because that case upheld jurisdiction in the Court of Civil Appeals where the dispute related to payment of attorney fees after the criminal proceeding had been concluded. Furthermore, we do not reach a result inconsistent with Ex parte McNabb, which also stemmed from a pending criminal proceeding. McNabb involved the payment of the transcript of the first trial, which had ended in a mistrial. The Court of Criminal Appeals transferred McNabb’s petition to this Court to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus addressing the payment of extraordinary expenses. In McNabb, we recognized jurisdiction in the Court of Criminal Appeals because the right of a defendant to a fair trial if the requested transcript was not made available implicated an issue as to which that court had appellate jurisdiction. 879 So.2d at 1169.”

985 So.2d at 449. In response to Justice Murdock’s special writing in Isbell, we noted that if a question as to the continued vitality of Galanos and McNabb came before the Court, then Justice Murdock’s special writing indicated that revisiting those cases should be given serious consideration. 985 So.2d at 449 n. 2.

The facts in the present case place this case squarely within the facts and holdings in Galanos and McNabb and, in accord with Justice Murdock’s special writing in Isbell, we revisit the question of appellate court jurisdiction under this fact situation. In his special writing, Justice Murdock wrote, in pertinent part:

“The constitutional and statutory provisions governing the question before us, as well as Justice Johnstone’s stated rationale in Smith, admit of no distinction between the circumstances presented in each of the three cases referenced in the main opinion—Ex parte Galanos, Ex parte Smith, and Ex parte McNabb, 879 So.2d 1166 (Ala.2003). To the contrary, those provisions and Justice Johnstone’s rationale apply with equal simplicity and force to all of those circumstances.
“Section 12-3-9, Ala.Code 1975, describes the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals: ‘The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, ... habeas corpus and all felonies, including all postconviction writs in criminal cases.’ Section 12-8-10, Ala.Code 1975, describes the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals: ‘The Court of Civil Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all civil eases [falling within certain categories] and all extraordinary writs arising from appeals in said cases.’
“Likewise, the Alabama Constitution and § 12-8-11 give the Court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs ‘in relation to matters’ in which that court has appellate jurisdiction. Amendment No. 328, § 6.03, Constitution of Alabama of 1901 (Art. VI, § 141, Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901), provides, in pertinent part:
“ ‘(c) The court of criminal appeals and the court of civil appeals shall have no original jurisdiction except the power to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals.
“ ‘(d) The court of criminal appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction. Said court shall have authority to issue writs of injunction, habeas corpus, and such other remedial and original writs ... in matters over which it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. ...’
“... Consistent with this constitutional provision, § 12-3-11, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
“ ‘Each of the courts of appeals shall have and exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction. Each court shall have authority to grant injunctions and issue ... remedial and original writs as are necessary to give it a general superintendence and control of jurisdiction inferior to it....’
“Despite the foregoing provisions, and even after quoting from them, the Court in Galanos proceeded to announce what I respectfully submit is a counterintui-tive conclusion: that a mandamus petition seeking review of a trial court’s order setting attorney fees for defense counsel in a criminal case “was not proper in the Court of Criminal Appeals.’ 796 So.2d at 393 (emphasis added). The Court decided that, rather than seeking appellate review in the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Mobile Circuit Court’s order awarding attorney fees ‘in relation to’ a criminal case, defense counsel should have filed a new collateral proceeding asking the same circuit court that had already ruled on his fee request to review its own order by means of a declaratory-judgment proceeding. Galanos, 796 So.2d at 392-93. Then, according to the Galanos Court, if the results of that declaratory-judgment proceeding still are not satisfactory, defense counsel should take an appeal of that decision to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, not to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Galanos, 796 So.2d at 393.
“In Smith, this Court relied on Gala-nos to hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of mandamus relating to a discovery dispute in a criminal case. In a special writing, Justice Johnstone explained why, as to the jurisdiction issue, the Court got it wrong in both Galanos and Smith. Using a simple, straightforward analysis, Justice Johnstone explained (1) why it made no sense to require the petitioner to file a separate declaratory-judgment action in the circuit court in order to obtain a review by the circuit court of its own order, and (2) why he believed the Court of Criminal Appeals clearly did have jurisdiction to entertain the petitions arising out of those criminal cases:
“ ‘A declaratory judgment action filed ■in the circuit court would not have been a valid vehicle to review the circuit court order inasmuch as the circuit court itself would- have been the only correctly identifiable entity to name as the defendant: for the order signed by the trial judge was not the order of that judge but was, rather, the order of the circuit court itself. The State could not sue the circuit court in the circuit court.
“ ‘Notwithstanding the holding of Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000), in which I could not participate, the Court of Criminal Appeals did have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for writ of mandamus. This jurisdiction was conferred by Amendment 328, § 6.03 [now § 141, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.) ], Alabama Constitution of 1901, which provides, in pertinent part, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has original jurisdiction “in the issuance and determination of writs of ... mandamus in relation to matters in which said court has appellate jurisdiction.” This capital murder case was a “matter[ ] in which said court has appellate jurisdiction,” and the dispute over this circuit court production order at issue was “in relation to” that very matter.’

794 So.2d at 1093 (Johnstone, J., concurring in the judgment, but dissenting from the rationale).

“The intent of Justice Johnstone’s separate writing in Smith clearly was to explain what he considered to be the errors in the reasoning of the Court in Galanos, as well as in Smith. Justice Johnstone very clearly explained at least one of the reasons why the procedure announced in Galanos — requiring the filing of a declaratory-judgment action in a circuit court to challenge an earlier judgment of that same circuit court— was not a ‘valid vehicle’ by which to review the circuit court’s judgment. Smith, 794 So.2d at 1093. He also took issue with the core premise of Gala-nos — that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not have appellate jurisdiction to consider a trial court’s order arising out of a criminal proceeding. Id.
“Despite Justice Johnstone’s simultaneous criticism of both Galanos and Smith, the main opinion today relies upon a portion of Justice Johnstone’s rationale to overturn only Smith, drawing a distinction between that case and Galanos and McNabb. I cannot see how the disputes at issue in Galanos and McNabb, any less than the disputes in Smith and in the present case, were not disputes ‘ “in relation to” [the] very matter[s]’ — the criminal cases — from which they arose. To put it another way, I do not see how the three cited cases and the present case are analytically distinguishable from each other for purposes of applying Amendment No. 328 [now § 141], the above-quoted statutory provisions, and Justice Johnstone’s analysis in Smith.
“The lack of textual or analytical basis for distinguishing between appellate review of questions arising during a criminal case and questions arising after a criminal case is concluded corresponds with the respective institutional responsibilities, experience, and expertise of the two intermediate courts of appeal. The Court of Civil Appeals is not charged by law with responsibility for, or knowledge of, substantive or procedural criminal law. Its experience is in civil matters and, as an institution, it is ill equipped to assess criminal matters. The Court of Criminal Appeals, on the other hand, is charged by law both with responsibility for and a knowledge of substantive criminal law and criminal proceedings. When it comes to a matter relating to a criminal case, whether it be an issue arising before trial, such as one regarding discovery, or an issue arising only after the entry of a final judgment, such as one regarding a criminal defense counsel’s fee application, it is the Court of Criminal Appeals that, in all common sense and logic, should decide the question. It is the Court of Criminal Appeals that has the experience and expertise in criminal matters to make an informed judgment as to the infinite variety of questions that potentially can arise in relation to criminal proceedings. Cf. Collins v. Alabama Dep’t of Corrections, 911 So.2d 739, 743-44 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (Shaw, J., dissenting) (explaining that the ‘Court of Criminal Appeals is well suited to review’ Department of Corrections decisions regarding reclassification of inmates, regardless of whether those decisions turn on factors other than the inmates’ conduct in prison); Gerthoffer v. Alabama Dep’t of Corrections, 973 So.2d 355, 359 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (citing § 12-3-9, Ala.Code 1975, describing types of cases over which the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction, and § 12-3-10, Ala.Code 1975, describing types of cases over which the Court of Civil Appeals has jurisdiction, and ‘agreeing] with and adopting] the well-reasoned arguments set forth by Judge Shaw in his dissent in Collins ’); Lee v. Layton, 51 Ala.App. 298, 301, 285 So.2d 108, 112 (Ala.Civ.App.1973)(‘On the other hand, had the controversy been about an incarceration on a criminal charge or suspected criminal charge or related to a criminal charge in some manner, we would conclude that the appeal from such a habeas corpus proceeding would be in the jurisdictional sphere of the Court of Criminal Appeals.’ ...)
“Consider for example the following potential questions: Under criminal procedural law, did a trial court err to reversal by not allowing the discovery of certain documents? If so, who should be ordered to pay for their production? Is a criminal defendant entitled to a transcript of a prior proceeding that he contends is necessary to allow him to prepare his defense in a pending proceeding? In regard to a fee application, how much time should a criminal defense attorney reasonably have expended on certain tasks? Was the pursuit of a given tactic in preparation for an arraignment or a sentencing hearing reasonable, or even appropriate? How complex and/or novel was, for example, some Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure question, and how many hours in the research of that question, therefore, might reasonably have been justified? The nature of such potential questions highlight the need, at a practical level, for the Court of Criminal Appeals to address the types of matters at issue in all three cases (Galanos, Smith, and McNabb) referenced in the main opinion. This need certainly is no less with respect to the latter questions, those relating to fee applications in' criminal cases that would arise upon the conclusion of a criminal case (as did the question in Galanos), than with respect to the former questions, those relating to discovery and other matters that would arise during a criminal case (as did the questions in Smith and McNabb ).
“Based on the foregoing, I concur in the analysis of Part II of the main opinion insofar as it embraces Justice John-stone’s rationale in his special writing in Ex parte Smith and, accordingly, overrules that case. I disagree with the analysis of Part II insofar as it suggests that Justice Johnstone’s rationale admits of some distinction as to the circumstances presented in Ex parte Galanos and Ex parte McNabb. To the contrary, his rationale applies with equal simplicity and force to those circumstances. I believe this Court also should overrule Ex parte Galanos and should disavow the reasoning in Ex parte McNabb.

985 So.2d at 454-58 (emphasis omitted).

We agree with Justice Murdock’s reasoning in his well written opinion in Isbell. The Court of Criminal Appeals is the appropriate appellate court to review attorney-fee declarations following a criminal proceeding involving an indigent defendant. Awarding attorney fees “in relation to” a criminal case is a matter for the Court of Criminal Appeals. Art. VI, § 141, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.) (previously Amendment No. 328, § 6.03, Ala. Const. 1901). As Justice Murdock noted, when it comes to a matter relating to a criminal case, whether it be an issue arising before trial, such as one regarding discovery, or an issue arising only after the entry of a final judgment, such as one regarding a criminal defense counsel’s fee application, it is the Court of Criminal Appeals that, in all common sense and logic, should decide the question. It is the Court of Criminal Appeals that has the experience and expertise in criminal matters to make an informed judgment as to the infinite variety of questions that potentially can arise in relation to criminal proceedings. Based on the foregoing, we overrule Ex parte Galanos and Ex parte McNabb to the extent that they conflict with this opinion, and we transfer this appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

APPEAL TRANSFERRED.

COBB, C.J., and LYONS, WOODALL, STUART, SMITH, PARKER, MURDOCK, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

      " 4 As between a mandamus proceeding in the Court of Criminal Appeals and a collateral, declaratory-judgment proceeding in the same circuit court that entered the original fee award, I certainly believe Justice John-stone was correct in his conclusion that a mandamus proceeding in the Court of Criminal Appeals was the only proceeding that could be considered appropriate. I would go a step further, however, and ask whether the appropriate vehicle for appellate review would be an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, rather than a mandamus proceeding.
      "It is well established that an order awarding attorney fees in relation to an underlying case is, itself, an appealable judgment. Niezer v. SouthTrust Bank, 887 So.2d 919, 923 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (‘[A]ttomey-fee matters are separate and distinct from matters going to the merits of a dispute and ... an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to either aspect of a case.'); Hunt v. NationsCredit Fin. Servs. Corp., 902 So.2d 75, 81 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (concluding that Niezer stands for the proposition that 'an order denying an award of attorney fees that is ancillary to an earlier decision and has completely adjudicated all matters in controversy between the parties is immediately appealable’ and is consistent with the United States Supreme Court decision in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988)); Sparks v. Parker, 368 So.2d 528 (Ala.1979) (reviewing a trial court's order establishing and administering Calhoun County's indigent-defense system by way of an appeal); C.A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3915.6 (2d ed.1992); Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d 459 (5th Cir.2002)(holding that an order denying compensation under the federal Criminal Justice Act for services performed before a state clemency board by counsel appointed to represent a state prisoner was final and appealable, despite the fact that the order was separate from the merits of the habeas corpus proceeding). Cf. Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 170, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939)(giving certiorari review to an attorney-fee order appealed to the lower appellate court and observing that a petition for an attorney fee in equity is ‘an independent proceeding supplemental to the original proceeding’). The delegation in § 12 — 3—9[, Ala.Code 1975,] to the Court of Criminal Appeals of jurisdiction over criminal cases involving misdemeanors and felonies necessarily and logically includes jurisdiction to review any appealable order arising out of or relating to such a case.

      "5 The opinion in Ex parte Galanos reasoned that a declaratory-judgment proceeding would have allowed for a fully developed record against which the appellate court could review the trial court’s decision. 796 So.2d at 392. I submit, however, that if the fee-award procedures employed by a trial court do not allow for an evidentiary hearing, and the development of an evidentiary record is reasonably necessary for the proper disposition of the issues raised in a given case, then that fact itself could be the proper subject of either a mandamus review by, or an appeal to, the Court of Criminal Appeals.

      " 6 The main opinion suggests that it is not necessary to revisit Ex parte McNabb because the Court of Criminal Appeals properly exercised jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a defendant's request for a transcript when that dispute implicated the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The rationale used by Justice John-stone, however, would give the Court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction of a dispute ‘in relation to’ a criminal matter, even if the dispute did not implicate the defendant's right to a fair trial.

      "7 I point out this practical need not to argue for what the jurisdictional lines ought to be, but to explain the wisdom of adherence to those lines. The text of Amendment No. 328 [now § 141] and of the jurisdictional statutes discussed above is sufficiently simple and straightforward so as not to admit of ambiguity requiring parol facts to understand their intent.”