Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Highland Rim Investments, LLC, and Monique Dollonne v. Kindra Cooper

Supreme Court of Alabama

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: SC-2025-0599

• Judges: Wise, J.

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (38.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Alisa Kelli Wise](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/3674/alisa-kelli-wise/)

Rel: March 27, 2026

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026

---

SC-2025-0599

---

Highland Rim Investments, LLC, and Monique Dollone

v.

Kindra Cooper

---

SC-2025-0621

---

Highland Rim Investments, LLC

v.

Kindra Cooper

Appeals from Madison Circuit Court
(CV-22-900037)
WISE, Justice.
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

In case number SC-2025-0599, Highland Rim Investments, LLC,

and Monique Dollone appeal from a judgment, based on a jury's verdict,

entered against them and in favor of Kindra Cooper by the Madison

Circuit Court.1 In case number SC-2025-0621, Highland Rim appeals

from the trial court's order appointing a receiver over Highland Rim. We

reverse the trial court's judgment in favor of Cooper and its order

appointing a receiver over Highland Rim.

Facts and Procedural History

This case arose from a May 12, 2021, sales contract pursuant to

which Cooper agreed to purchase a house in Madison County ("the

property") from Highland Rim. At the time, Thomas Rohrbacher was

the sole member of Highland Rim and his wife, Dollone, was the manager

of Highland Rim. The parties entered into three agreements to extend

1The notice of appeal in case number SC-2025-0599 also listed
Thomas Rohrbacher and M International, LLC, as appellants. Cooper
submitted to the jury only claims of misrepresentation and suppression
against Rohrbacher and M International. The jury found in favor of
Rohrbacher and M International as to those claims, and the trial court
entered a judgment in their favor on those claims. The trial court
subsequently granted Cooper's motion to pierce the corporate veil of
Highland Rim as to Rohrbacher. However, Rohrbacher has not presented
any argument challenging the trial court's decision to pierce the
corporate veil. We have changed the style of this appeal accordingly.
2
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

the closing date because Highland Rim was not able to close. However,

the closing never took place.

On January 11, 2022, Cooper filed a "Complaint for Specific

Performance, Declaratory Judgment & Damages" against Highland Rim

and various fictitiously named defendants in the trial court. Cooper

asserted breach-of-contract claims in which she asked the trial court "[t]o

determine and declare the rights and obligations of the parties" under

the sales contract, requested specific performance of the sales contract,

and requested damages. Cooper subsequently amended her complaint

several times. In those amendments, she added Rohrbacher, Dollone, M

International, Inc., and the Rohrbacher Trust dated May 16, 2011 ("the

trust"), as additional defendants. She also added claims of unjust

enrichment, suppression, reckless misrepresentation, fraudulent

misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, and deceptive trade

practices against all the defendants. Cooper also included a count in

which she sought to "pierce the corporate veil of Highland Rim, LLC, and

hold the individual Defendants, Thomas J. Rohrbacher and Monique

Dollone, liable for all acts and omissions attributable to Highland Rim."

3
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

During the course of the litigation, the trial court dismissed

Cooper's claims of unjust enrichment and deceptive trade practices.

A jury trial was conducted on Cooper's claims of breach of contract,

suppression, reckless misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation,

and innocent misrepresentation. At the conclusion of Cooper's case, the

trial court granted the defendants' motion for a judgment as a matter of

law in favor of the trust. The defendants stipulated that Highland Rim

breached the sales contract, and the issue of damages was submitted to

the jury. As to the breach-of-contract claims, the jury awarded Cooper

$7,500 in compensatory damages against Highland Rim. As to the

suppression and the various misrepresentation claims, the jury found in

favor of Rohrbacher and M International and against Cooper (see note 1,

supra); however, the jury found in favor of Cooper and against Highland

Rim and Dollone. It awarded Cooper $300,000 in compensatory damages.

It also found that the "false statement(s) and concealment(s)" by

Highland Rim and Dollone were reckless and awarded Cooper $50,376.47

in punitive damages. The trial court entered a final judgment on the

jury's verdict. It also awarded Cooper $205,984.82 for legal fees and

expenses.

4
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

The defendants filed various postjudgment motions, which the trial

court denied without a hearing. On August 15, 2025, the defendants

filed a notice of appeal, which this Court docketed as case number SC-

2026-0599 (see note 1, supra).

After the trial, Cooper filed her "Plaintiff's Motion to Pierce the

Corporate Veil & Hold Thomas Rohrbacher Individually Liable for the

Judgment Entered Against Highland Rim Investments, LLC," which the

trial court granted. Cooper also filed a motion "to appoint a receiver to

manage, oversee and preserve the fiscal health of Highland Rim

Investments, LLC until the Judgment owed to [Cooper] is satisfied in

full." The defendants filed responses in opposition to Cooper's motion to

appoint a receiver. On August 22, 2025, the trial court entered an order

appointing a receiver "to manage, oversee and preserve the fiscal health

of the Defendant Highland Rim Investment, LLC until the judgment

owed to [Cooper] is satisfied in full." On August 26, 2026, Highland Rim

filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order appointing a receiver,

which this Court docketed as case number SC-2025-0621.

Discussion

5
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

Highland Rim and Dollone ("the judgment defendants") argue that

"[t]he trial court erred when it failed to ensure that [they] had a jury

venire of at least 24 qualified and competent jurors from which to exercise

their peremptory strikes." Judgment defendants' briefs, p. 41.

Rule 47(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in pertinent part:

"Regular jurors shall be selected from a list containing
the names of at least twenty-four (24) competent jurors and
shall be obtained by the parties or their attorneys alternately
striking one (1) from the list until twelve (12) remain, the
party demanding the jury having the first strike.

"The court may direct that not more than six (6) jurors
in addition to the regular jury be called and impaneled to sit
as alternate jurors. Alternate jurors shall have the same
qualifications, shall be subject to the same examination, shall
take the same oath, and shall have the same functions,
powers, facilities, and privileges as regular jurors. Unless the
parties agree otherwise, the parties shall be entitled to strike
from a list containing the names of three (3) competent jurors
for each alternate juror required in addition to at least
twenty-four (24) competent jurors required for a regular jury."

Section 12-16-76, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

"If, prior to commencement of striking, due to challenges
for cause or for any other reason, the number of names on the
lists from which the parties are to strike is reduced below the
minimums established in Rule 18.4, Alabama Rules of
Criminal Procedure, in criminal cases or Rule 47, Alabama
Rules of Civil Procedure, in civil cases, unless the parties
agree to strike from such lesser number, the court shall fill
the deficiency first from the remaining available petit jurors
sworn. If the number of available petit jurors sworn is
6
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

insufficient to fill the deficiency, the remaining deficiency
shall in the discretion of the court be filled by waiting until
other petit jurors sworn become available or by randomly
drawing or causing to be provided from the master jury list at
least twice the number of names needed to fill the deficiency
remaining. The court shall forthwith cause to be summoned
all prospective jurors thus drawn in any of the manners set
forth in this section. The names of those persons found
competent to hear the case shall be added to the strike list in
at least the number necessary to fill the deficiency."

In this case, the parties were presented with a list of 24 prospective

jurors at the start of the jury-selection proceedings. Initially, the trial

court granted the defendants' challenges for cause regarding two

prospective jurors. While the trial court was still considering the

defendants' challenges for cause regarding two additional prospective

jurors, the following occurred:

"[DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:] … The other issue I
raise at this time, we only had twenty-four people in the pool.
I think by statute, we're guaranteed twenty-four competent
jurors. And being that at least two of them, potentially four,
are not competent, I'm not sure that we've been provided a
competent venire.

"THE COURT: Denied. …"

Subsequently, the trial court removed a third prospective juror for cause

based upon the agreement of the parties, but it denied the defendants'

challenge for cause as to a fourth prospective juror. Ultimately, there

7
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

were 21 remaining prospective jurors at the time the jury was struck.

After the jury was struck, but before the jury was sworn, defendants'

counsel stated:

"I just want to renew and make sure that I am clear about my
objection to the sufficiency of the venire, we object on the basis
that twenty-four competent jurors were not provided for us to
select from, we believe that prejudices our ability to defend
ourselves in the case."

The trial court ultimately overruled that objection.

In this case, there were only 21 prospective jurors remaining at the

commencement of the striking of the jury, which is below the required

minimum set forth in Rule 47.2 This Court addressed a similar situation

in Hall v. Dexter Gas Co., 277 Ala. 360, 170 So. 2d 796 (1964):

"The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in
requiring him to strike from a jury list containing only
twenty-three names. The record contains the following entry:

2We note that the trial court also utilized one alternate juror. Rule
47(b) provides, in pertinent part: "Unless the parties agree otherwise,
the parties shall be entitled to strike from a list containing the names of
three (3) competent jurors for each alternate juror required in addition to
at least twenty-four (24) competent jurors required for a regular jury."
Thus, the parties were entitled to strike from a list of at least 27
competent prospective jurors. However, at trial and on appeal, the
judgment defendants argue only that they were entitled to a list of 24
competent prospective jurors.

8
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

" 'THE COURT: Mr. Reporter, let the Record
show that when the case was ready for trial it
turned out that there were only twenty-three
jurors in Court and counsel for the plaintiff
insisted that there be twenty-four jurors.
Wherepon, counsel for the defendant said there
would be eleven strikes left and that they would
give the plaintiff six strikes and they would take
five and the Court being of the opinion that if there
was another juror the only other strike there
would be, would be six, and he is getting six and
that the motion to summons another juror is
denied, and the plaintiff duly and legally excepts
thereto.'

"Section 54, Title 30, Code 1940,[3] reads:

" 'In all civil actions triable by jury, either
party may demand a struck jury, and must
thereupon be furnished by the clerk with a list of
twenty-four jurors in attendance upon the court,
from which a jury must be obtained by the parties
or their attorneys alternately striking one from the
list until twelve are stricken off, the party
demanding the jury commencing; provided, that in
all judicial circuits having not more than two
judges, the court shall require to be made two lists
of all the jurors in attendance upon the court, who
are competent to try the case, and not engaged in
the trial of some other case, which list shall in no
event contain less than twenty-four jurors, from

3Title 30, § 54, Ala. Code 1940, was the precursor to § 12-16-140,

Ala. Code 1975, which previously governed the selection of jurors. This
court has noted that § 12-16-140 "authorized a method of jury selection
from a list of 24 -- no more and no less" -- and that Rule 47(b) now governs
the selection of jurors. Wallace v. Alabama Power Co., 497 So. 2d 450,
454 (Ala. 1986) .
9
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

which a jury must be obtained by the parties or
their attorneys alternately striking one from the
list until only twelve remain on the list, the party
demanding the jury commencing; and the jury
thus obtained must not be challenged for any
cause, except bias or interest as to the particular
case.'

"In Rosenbush Feed Co. v. Garrison, 251 Ala. 245, 37 So.
2d 106 [(1948)], we observed that the parties in a civil case
cannot be required to strike from a list which does not contain
the names of twenty-four competent jurors. To like effect see
Southern R. Co. v. Milan, 240 Ala. 333, 199 So. 711 [(1940)];
Morris v. McClellan, 169 Ala. 90, 53 So. 155 [(1910)]; Woody
v. Chandler, 37 Ala. App. 238, 66 So. 2d 463 [(1953)]. In
Birmingham Union St. Ry. Co. v. Ralph, 92 Ala. 273, 9 So. 222
[(1891)], we said:

" '… The right to a struck jury, upon the demand of
either party, is clearly secured by statute. If there
should be a less number in attendance than 24, it
is the duty of the court to complete the list of
competent and qualified persons to 24, before the
process of rejection or striking off should
commence. [Kansas City] Railroad Co. v. Smith, 8
[Vol.] South. Rep. [p.] 43 [(Ala. 1890)]. (This case
is reported in 90 Ala. 25, but no facts are stated to
show the application of the principle. These are
stated in the Southern Reporter.) Or if there
should be 24 in attendance, and from any cause the
number is reduced to less than 24, the panel
should be filled up to 24, from which list the jury
should be struck. If the regular jurors in
attendance upon the court should exceed 24, the
panel of 24 should be completed from the regular
jurors. …' (92 Ala. 27 [3], 9 So. 222)

10
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

"True, as the trial court pointed out, the plaintiff had the
same number of strikes, six, as he would have had if the list
had contained twenty-four rather than twenty-three names.
But the twenty-fourth prospective juror might have changed
the entire course of striking, resulting in an entirely different
trial jury. We cannot apply here the doctrine of error without
injury and thereby completely ignore the mandatory
provisions of the statute. The situation here is entirely
different from that presented in Rosenbush Feed Co. v.
Garrison, supra, where we held that the record affirmatively
showed that there was no injury to appellee and the list of
jurors from which the jury was obtained contained the names
of more than twenty-four competent jurors. The Rosenbush
case was tried in the Sixth Judicial Circuit. Tuscaloosa
County was the only county in that circuit. At the time, the
Sixth Judicial Circuit did not have more than two circuit
judges."

277 Ala. 363 -64, 170 So. 2d at 798-99. Accordingly, the trial court erred

when it proceeded to strike the jury without first filling the deficiencies

in the list of prospective jurors. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's

judgment in favor of Cooper.

In case number SC-2025-0621, Highland Rim appeals from the trial

court's order appointing a receiver over it. The trial court appointed the

receiver "to manage, oversee and preserve the fiscal health of the

Defendant Highland Rim Investment[s], LLC until the judgment owed to

[Cooper] is satisfied in full." (Emphasis added.) Because we are

reversing the judgment in favor of Cooper, the trial court's order

11
SC-2025-0599 and SC-2025-0621

appointing the receiver over Highland Rim is due to be set aside.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order appointing the receiver

over Highland Rim. Cf. Willow Lake Residential Ass'n, Inc. v. Juliano,

80 So. 3d 226, 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).4

Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment

in favor of Cooper and its order appointing a receiver over Highland Rim,

and we remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SC-2025-0599 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SC-2025-0621 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, McCool,

and Parker, JJ., concur.

4Based on our decision in this case, we pretermit the remaining

arguments raised by the judgment defendants.
12