Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Roy Harbin started working as a police officer for the City in 1972. At that time, he started mandatory participation in the Policemen's and Firemen's Retirement Fund of the City of Gadsden ("the PFRF"). In 1975, the PFRF was modified by the Legislature, and a "sliding scale provision" was eliminated. The PFRF was modified again in 1980. In 2002, all PFRF funds were transferred to the Employees Retirement System of Alabama ("the ERS"), which then administered the retirement program for the City's police officers. Harbin retired in 2012 and received pension payments under the ERS. In 2007, Harbin sued the City, alleging breach of contract under the 1972 PFRF. He amended his complaint five time, with the last amendment in 2011. He eventually won on his breach of contract claim against the City. The City appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Harbin had no presented sufficient evidence to establish that Harbin had a contract with the city. The Court therefore concluded the City was entitled to summary judgment. View "City of Gadsden v. Harbin " on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., d/b/a Bob Tyler Toyota ("BTT"), one of two named defendants, appealed in case no. 1110840 a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Daphne Automotive, LLC, d/b/a Eastern Shore Toyota ("EST"), and Shawn Esfahani, on plaintiffs' claims seeking damages for slander. In case no. 1110857, Fred Keener, an employee of BTT and a codefendant, similarly appealed the judgment against him and in favor of EST and Esfahani. Esfahani ultimately learned of slanderous statements made about him and/or EST by employees of BTT, including, in an apparent effort to discourage potential customers from purchasing from EST, BTT's agents' purportedly informing customers that Esfahani and/or EST "are engaged in illegal activity, are terrorists, or otherwise support terrorist organizations." More specifically, BTT and its employees purportedly referred to EST as "Middle Eastern Shore [Toyota]" or "Taliban Toyota." At the conclusion of the four-day trial, the jury found for Esfahani and EST against both BTT and Keener on the remaining slander claims. Specifically, as to his slander per se charge against both BTT and Keener, the jury awarded Esfahani $1,250,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages; as to the slander per se and slander per quod claims of EST against both BTT and Keener, the jury awarded EST $1,250,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages. The trial court entered judgment accordingly. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Automotive, LLC " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Patricia Working, Rick Erdemir, and Floyd McGinnis appealed a circuit court judgment that held that the Jefferson County Election Commission ("the JCEC"), Probate Judge Alan King, Circuit Clerk Anne-Marie Adams, and Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale were immune from liability as to the plaintiffs' attorney fees. In "Working I," the Supreme Court held that a February special election was invalid on state-law grounds, and that the Governor's appointment of George Bowman to fill a vacancy on the Election Commission was lawful. On remand to the circuit court, as the "prevailing parties," plaintiffs moved for attorney fees. The trial court denied their motion, and plaintiffs appealed. In "Working II," the Supreme Court addressed plaintiffs' that the trial court erred in denying their motion for mediation, and vacated the trial court's order denying the motion for an award of attorney fees and remanded the case. On remand, the trial court concluded that the JCEC defendants had not waived their immunity defense and that plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees against defendants was precluded by the Alabama Constitution as to plaintiffs' state-law claims. Plaintiffs then filed this third, appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded the case once again to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the issue of immunity and state-law claims, but remanded remand the case with instructions on the issue concerning section 6–6–20 and the federal-law claims. View "Working v. Jefferson County Election Commission" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, defendants the Alabama Department of Corrections, various department officials, and Governor Robert Bentley, appealed in case no. 1111588, the trial court's determination limiting certain deductions from work-release earnings for inmates. In case no. 1120264, Jerry Mack Merritt (as sole representative of the plaintiff class) cross-appealed, raising numerous challenges to the trial court's final judgment. After its review, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in case no. 1120264 as untimely filed; in case no. 1111588, the Court reversed and remanded. The Court found that the department's interpretation of section 14-8-6 as permitting its collection of charges, which were not incident to the inmate's confinement, in excess of a 40% withholding cap established by that statute was both reasonable and consistent with the statutory language. View "Thomas v. Merritt" on Justia Law

The Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT") and its director, John Cooper, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss all claims filed against them by Asphalt Contractors, Inc. ("ACI"). Trichloroethylene ('TCE') and other chemicals were used by ALDOT since the early 1970s. TCE was used extensively by ALDOT as a degreaser and/or cleaning agent and/or as a solvent. TCE is now contained in shallow groundwater in North Montgomery. Since at least April 2009, ALDOT has pumped groundwater into a Dewatering Pond and from there onto a Transfer Pond and then to the South Pond. A portion of the South Pond and wetland area used in ALDOT's remedial efforts is being discharged onto ACI's property. In 2010, ACI demanded that ALDOT immediately cease all dumping of contaminated water on ACI's property. However, the dumping of TCE-laden water onto ACI's property continued to the date of ACI filing its lawsuit. The complaint asserted trespass to realty and inverse condemnation and made claims for injunctive relief. ACI requested damages for the full fair-market value of its property, consequential and incidental damages, compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages, expenses, costs, interest, and attorney fees. ALDOT and Cooper filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing qualified immunity. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss ALDOT as a party to this action. Conversely, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss as to ACI's inverse-condemnation claim against Cooper in his official capacity. Further, the trial court properly refused to dismiss ACI's claim for injunctive relief against Cooper. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus in part and denied it in part. View "Asphalt Contractors, Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of Transportation " on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute entered into a common-law marriage in 2006. They lived together as husband and wife in Alabama with their minor children, L.F. and M.F, until 2009. Siderius moved with L.F. and M.F. to Oregon to begin her new job. Fordham thereafter joined the family in Portland. The family lived in Oregon until March 2010. Siderius sought a transfer her company's Spokane, Washington office; following the transfer, the entire family moved to Washington. In May 2011, the parties retained a court-approved mediator to assist with the dissolution of their marriage and custody of the minor children. With the mediator's assistance, the parties developed parenting plans and a visitation schedule. Fordham did not dispute that the parties agreed that the children would be in Alabama for the summer of 2011, and would then return to Washington. Siderius purchased a plane ticket for the children's return to Washington at the end of summer, but Fordham transferred the school registration of both children, who had remained in Alabama, from Spokane to schools in Mobile. Fordham then filed a child-custody petition and complaint for divorce in Alabama. He also filed an emergency motion seeking immediate custody of the children. The Alabama court signed an order granting Fordham's emergency motion and awarding him custody of the children pendente lite. Siderius filed a petition in Washington seeking dissolution of the marriage and custody of the minor children. The Washington court issued an ex parte restraining order ordering Fordham to return the minor children to Washington. The Washington court also scheduled initial divorce, custody, contempt hearings, and a telephone conference with the Alabama court pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Alabama court issued an order finding that it had jurisdiction over Siderius on the basis of her minimum contacts with Alabama. The court did not rule on the applicability of the UCCJEA to the proceeding. Siderius thereafter filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals denied Siderius's petition without an opinion. In early 2012, the Washington court issued an order awarding custody of the children to Siderius and finding, among other things, that Washington had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The Washington court also found Fordham in contempt for failing to return the children to Washington as the court had ordered in its restraining order. Siderius registered the Washington court's custody determination and a motion for enforcement with the Alabama court. When the Alabama court denied her motion, Siderius petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for mandamus relief. Upon review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded the Alabama trial court erred in denying Siderius's motion to dismiss based on the irrelevant fact that Siderius had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama to subject her to personal jurisdiction. Siderius's petition for a writ of mandamus was granted and the Alabama trial court was directed to dismiss Fordham's child custody proceeding. View "Fordham v. Siderius" on Justia Law

Wausau Development Corporation ("WDC") appeals a circuit court judgment in favor of Natural Gas & Oil, Inc. ("NGO"). NGO filed a complaint seeking a judgment determining the validity of certain oil and gas leases held by WDC to particular wells located in Lamar County. NGO alleged: WDC was a Mississippi corporation with a principal office located in Mississippi and that WDC was not authorized to conduct business in Alabama because WDC was not registered as a foreign entity; that WDC had obtained leases to the wells but that, by their terms, WDC's leases had expired and had not been held open by production; and it had obtained new and current leases on the wells. WDC argued on appeal that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by granting NGO's motion for a judgment on the pleadings because, it said, the undisputed facts in the pleadings did not support the circuit court's judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the circuit court's judgment. View "Wausau Development Corporation v. Natural Gas & Oil, Inc. " on Justia Law

Robert and Tracy Barrett appealed the grant of two summary judgments in favor of Carlos Roman d/b/a Carlos Roman Roofing ("Roman") and Bobby Beach d/b/a Just Brick Masonry ("Beach") on all of the Barretts' claims against Roman and Beach. The issues before the Supreme Court in this appeal required resolution of the same issues that were in claims pending in the circuit court against a third party. A November 2012 judgment disposed of all of the Barretts' claims against Beach and Roman, but it did not dispose of the Barretts' claims against the third party. Thus, the Court's consideration of the circuit court's summary judgments in favor of Beach and Roman as final would mean that the intertwined claims against the subcontractors named as defendants in this action would have been litigated in piecemeal fashion. "The piecemeal adjudication of the claims against the subcontractors pose[d] an unreasonable risk of inconsistent results. Therefore, we must conclude that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in certifying the summary judgments in favor of Beach and Roman as final." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Barretts' appeal. View "Barrett v. Roman" on Justia Law

In 2010, the State of Kentucky entered an order finding that 74-year-old Shirley Day was in need of a guardian and conservator. The Kentucky court appointed her adult daughter, Rhonda Sears, to serve in both capacities. Subsequently, Sears applied to the Kentucky court to transfer the guardianship and conservatorship to Alabama, where she and Day resided. In early 2012, the Kentucky court issued a provisional order granting the request. Sears then applied to the Montgomery Probate Court for a provisional order accepting the transfer from Kentucky. That same day, the probate judge appointed Valerie Cain as a guardian ad litem to represent Day in the transfer proceeding. Cain later submitted a report to the probate court questioning expenditures from Day's estate and requesting a guardian ad litem fee. Although nothing in the report indicated any inappropriate actions regarding Sears's actions in caring for Day, Cain recommended that both the conservatorship and the guardianship be transferred but that, rather than Sears, "the [Montgomery] county guardian and conservator be appointed." The probate court granted the petition to transfer and appointed James Hampton as guardian of Day and conservator of Day's estate. Day was removed from Sears's home and placed in an apartment home. The probate court also approved Cain's guardian ad litem fee to be paid from Day's estate. Sears appealed the probate court's order on the ground that the probate court's order violated Alabama law. Ultimately, the court denied Sears's requested relief and set the matter for further proceedings. Sears then filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that one of Day's other adult daughters disagreed with Sears's expenditures from Day's estate, and could have objected and the probate court could then have held a hearing to determine whether the transfer to Alabama of Sears's Kentucky guardianship and conservatorship would be in Day's best interests. Here, the probate court would have erred by appointing any new guardian and conservator, most especially a different guardian and conservator than the one previously appointed by the transferring court, when the only matter properly before the court was the issue whether a provisional order of transfer would be approved. "This was clearly beyond the scope of the statute, and the probate court acted without authority in doing so." As a result of the erroneous appointment of the Montgomery County guardian and conservator, Day was subjected to removal from Sears's home and Day's estate was subjected to unnecessary fees in this jurisdiction when the Alabama law safeguards the protected person and his or her resources from the transfer of an inappropriate guardianship or conservatorship when it is not in the best interests of the protected person. Because the Court could not ascertain whether the probate court's grant of the transfer petition was dependent upon its erroneous appointment of a new guardian and conservator, the Court felt compelled to reverse both aspects of the court's order. View "Sears v. Hampton" on Justia Law

Jeffery and Allison Rhodes petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to dismiss the ejectment action filed against them by the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"). The Supreme Court found that the defect in the foreclosure process alleged by the Rhodeses did not implicate Fannie Mae's standing to bring the ejectment action against the Rhodeses or, in turn, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain that claim. The only basis upon which the Rhodeses sought interlocutory mandamus relief from the order of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss the complaint against them was an alleged lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the trial court as a result of the alleged lack of standing. Because the problem alleged by the Rhodeses did not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court had no basis on which to consider this petition for a writ of mandamus. View "Federal National Mortgage Association v. Rhodes" on Justia Law