Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The dispute arose when a property owner obtained a building permit from a city and was required, under the city’s standard procedures, to submit a form containing financial information about subcontractors before the city would conduct necessary inspections and issue a certificate of occupancy. The property owner refused to provide the requested information, leading the city to withhold inspections. As a result, the property owner filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the city lacked authority to require such information and requesting an order compelling the city to perform the inspections. The owner also sought damages for delays allegedly caused by the city’s refusal to inspect.After the property owner settled with the city’s building inspector, the case proceeded in the Baldwin Circuit Court. The jury was asked to decide both the declaratory judgment and damages claims, ultimately finding in favor of the property owner and awarding over $3.5 million in damages. The city appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama, in a prior decision, held that the damages claim was barred by substantive immunity and reversed the damages award, but did not address the declaratory judgment claim, remanding the case for further proceedings.On remand, the Baldwin Circuit Court entered judgment for the property owner on the declaratory judgment claim but did not award damages. The city appealed again. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that, because the inspections had already been completed and all requested relief had been granted or resolved, no justiciable controversy remained. Therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for dismissal. View "City of Orange Beach v. Boles" on Justia Law

A Georgia limited-liability company owned and operated a hotel in Birmingham, Alabama, which was subject to a $10,710,000 loan secured by a mortgage, an assignment of leases and rents, and other collateral. The loan was eventually assigned to a bank acting as trustee for a mortgage trust. After the hotel owner allegedly defaulted on its loan obligations and mismanaged the property, the bank filed a complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court seeking the appointment of a receiver to manage the hotel and ensure payment of operating expenses. The court appointed a receiver and issued orders outlining the receiver’s duties, including managing the hotel and paying its expenses.Following the appointment, disputes arose between the hotel owner, the receiver, and the bank regarding whether the receiver was required to pay expenses incurred before the receivership began (“pre-receivership claims”). The hotel owner sought to compel the receiver to pay these claims, while the receiver and the bank objected, arguing that such payments could harm the receivership estate and improperly prioritize unsecured creditors over the secured lender. The circuit court ultimately issued an order in July 2024 clarifying that the receiver was required to pay pre-receivership expenses, prompting the receiver to appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the July 2024 order was an appealable interlocutory injunction and whether the circuit court erred in requiring the receiver to pay pre-receivership claims without regard to creditor priority. The court held that the order was injunctive in nature and appealable. It further held that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by requiring the receiver to pay all pre-receivership claims unconditionally, as this could harm the receivership estate and the interests of priority creditors. The Supreme Court reversed the July 2024 order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kolessar v. SJP Investment Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

A lessor and two lessees entered into a lease with an option to purchase a residential property in Calhoun County, Alabama. The agreement required the lessees to make monthly rent payments, annual payments, and an initial deposit, with certain payments to be credited toward the purchase price if the option was exercised. Disputes arose near the end of the lease term regarding the timeliness of the lessees’ payments and whether the lessees had complied with all contractual requirements, including providing written notice of their intent to purchase.The Calhoun Circuit Court conducted a bench trial and found that a valid lease-to-purchase contract existed, that the lessees had complied with its terms, and that the lessor still owed a mortgage on the property. The court ordered that all funds held by the parties be paid to the lessor to reduce the mortgage principal, required the lessor to satisfy the mortgage and convey clear title to the lessees by a specified date, and assigned responsibility for property taxes to the lessees. The lessor’s postjudgment motion, which challenged the findings regarding compliance and payment timeliness, was denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the trial court’s factual findings under the ore tenus standard, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the lessees had not breached the lease, concluding that the lessor’s actions had contributed to any payment delays. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment to the extent it credited monthly rent payments toward the purchase price, holding that only the initial deposit and annual payments should be applied, as the contract unambiguously required. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "McCain v. Sneed" on Justia Law

A group of fourteen taxpayers, all out-of-state owners, operators, or lessees of multifamily housing developments in the City of Tuscaloosa, challenged a city ordinance that amended the business-license fee structure. The ordinance, effective April 2022, imposed a 3% business-license fee on rents received from student-oriented housing developments (SOHDs) with more than 200 bedrooms, while other rental properties remained subject to a 1% fee. The SOHD designation is determined by the city’s zoning officer based on a non-exhaustive list of characteristics and factors. The taxpayers alleged that the ordinance unfairly targeted out-of-state owners and was vague in its application.The taxpayers filed suit in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, seeking a declaration that the ordinance was invalid and a refund of taxes paid. They raised claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the dormant Commerce Clause, and argued that the ordinance was essentially a zoning ordinance adopted without following statutory notice requirements. The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the complaint insufficient to state a claim.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive dismissal. The court held that the taxpayers’ claims under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause (vagueness), and dormant Commerce Clause were sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to dismiss, as the allegations, if proven, could entitle the taxpayers to relief. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claim that the ordinance was a zoning ordinance subject to statutory notice requirements, finding the ordinance did not regulate property use in the manner of zoning laws. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Campus Crest at Tuscaloosa LLC v. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

After the death of Arthur L. Bacon, Richard D. Gaynor, acting as the personal representative of Bacon’s estate, filed a lawsuit against Tom L. Larkin and Jerome B. Williams. The complaint alleged that a durable power of attorney in favor of Larkin was recorded shortly after Bacon’s death, though it was purportedly executed in 2019. It further claimed that, just hours before Bacon died, Larkin executed a deed transferring all of Bacon’s real property to Williams. The estate sought to void the conveyance and requested damages.Williams and Larkin each filed motions to dismiss. The Talladega Circuit Court granted Larkin’s motion to dismiss on March 3, 2025, but did not resolve the claims against Williams. On the same day, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint within 30 days to include necessary heirs or real parties in interest. Gaynor requested more time to respond, which both defendants opposed. On April 11, 2025, Gaynor filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama, challenging the dismissal of Larkin. Subsequently, the circuit court entered an order stating that the dismissal of Larkin was a final order for purposes of appeal, referencing Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held that, because the circuit court’s order did not dispose of all claims against all parties and lacked a proper Rule 54(b) certification at the time the notice of appeal was filed, there was no final judgment. The Court declined to remand for possible certification and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. View "Gaynor v. Larkin" on Justia Law

The owners of a lot in the Silver Cay II subdivision on Dauphin Island began constructing a house through their contracting company after obtaining a building permit from the Town of Dauphin Island. However, they did not secure a separate permit from the Dauphin Island Property Owners Association (DIPOA), as required by restrictive covenants applicable to their property. The DIPOA issued a stop-work order, alleging that the construction violated covenants both by lacking DIPOA approval and by extending the house beyond a 90-foot setback from the road. The owners continued some work to avoid material loss and later sought a variance from the DIPOA, obtaining consents from immediate neighbors, but the DIPOA board denied the variance.The DIPOA filed suit in the Mobile Circuit Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt construction and require removal of the portions of the house violating the setback. The owners counterclaimed, seeking to compel the DIPOA to enforce the same covenants against a neighbor, but did not name the neighbor as a party. After a bench trial, the Mobile Circuit Court found the owners in violation, granted a permanent injunction requiring removal of the offending portions of the house, denied the counterclaim, and declined to award attorney fees to either party.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the trial court erred in granting injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that, although the owners had breached unambiguous restrictive covenants, the harm to them from enforcing the injunction was considerably disproportionate to any benefit to the DIPOA. The Court concluded that the trial court’s failure to apply the relative-hardship test was manifestly unjust. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the owners, and dismissed the DIPOA’s cross-appeal regarding attorney fees as moot. View "Englund v. Dauphin Island Property Owners Association" on Justia Law

A property dispute arose between 790 Montclair, LLC and The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC, among others, regarding the construction of an entrance by The Station that allegedly violated a reciprocal easement agreement. The property in question, a former hospital campus, had an easement agreement from 2018 that granted non-exclusive easements for access across certain facilities, including private drives and sidewalks. The Station constructed an entrance on Dan Hudson Drive, which 790 Montclair claimed altered the sidewalk in violation of the easement agreement.The Jefferson Circuit Court denied 790 Montclair's request for a preliminary injunction to stop The Station from using the new entrance. The court found that the sidewalk where the entrance was constructed was not an "access facility" as defined in the easement agreement, and thus, the construction did not require prior approval from all property owners. The court also found that 790 Montclair had not demonstrated how the new entrance interfered with its use and enjoyment of the easement.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial court correctly interpreted the easement agreement and found that the sidewalk in question was not depicted as an access facility in the agreement's exhibit. Additionally, the court agreed that 790 Montclair had an adequate remedy at law through damages and that the hardship imposed on The Station by blocking access outweighed any benefit to 790 Montclair. The court concluded that 790 Montclair failed to demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief. View "790 Montclair, LLC v. The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC" on Justia Law

EBSCO Industries, Inc. owned a 5.5-acre parcel of land in Tuscaloosa County, which it leased to Michael R. Ballard for hunting purposes starting in 1990. The lease was renewed annually until February 2022. Ballard purchased adjacent property in 1992 and believed a partial fence marked the boundary between his property and EBSCO's. In 2016, a survey confirmed the boundary, and in 2021, Ballard began constructing a hog farm on the disputed parcel. EBSCO sent cease-and-desist letters, but Ballard claimed ownership through adverse possession.The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court found that EBSCO held legal title to the disputed parcel but ruled that Ballard and his entities had acquired ownership through adverse possession by 2012. The court based its decision on Ballard's actions, such as contracting with Alabama Power Company, harvesting trees, and replacing a gate without providing EBSCO a key. EBSCO's post-judgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the trial court erred in its finding. The court noted that Ballard's use of the land was permissive under the lease, which could not ripen into adverse possession until the lease ended in February 2022. Since Ballard performed no acts on the disputed parcel after the lease ended, the trial court's finding of adverse possession as early as 2012 was incorrect. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "EBSCO Industries, Inc. v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The case involves the Teachers' Retirement System of Alabama and the Employees' Retirement System of Alabama (collectively "RSA"), which received a land-use certificate from the Baldwin County zoning administrator to construct a five-story structure at The Grand Hotel. The Point Clear Property Owners Association, Inc. (PCPOA), representing around 400 members in the district, appealed the issuance of the certificate to the Baldwin County Board of Adjustment. The Board agreed with PCPOA and rescinded the certificate.RSA appealed the Board's decision to the Baldwin Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board's ruling. RSA then appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, arguing that PCPOA was not "aggrieved" by the issuance of the certificate and thus lacked standing to appeal. The Court of Civil Appeals held that RSA had waived this argument by not raising it before the Board and cited the precedent set in City of Mobile v. Lee. The court also noted in a footnote that PCPOA did qualify as a "person aggrieved."The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that whether PCPOA was "aggrieved" was a waivable issue of capacity, not subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, RSA's failure to raise the issue before the Board constituted a waiver. The court did not address whether PCPOA was actually "aggrieved," as it affirmed the lower court's decision based on the waiver. View "Teachers' Retirement System of Alabama and Employees' Retirement System of Alabama v. Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Department" on Justia Law

Sara Pearl Fahrmann filed a complaint against the City of Orange Beach and D.R. Horton, Inc., alleging that the City failed to ensure that Horton's construction of the Cypress Village subdivision complied with the City's zoning ordinance and the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). Fahrmann claimed that this failure led to inadequate parking, which obstructed emergency services and delayed treatment for her husband, resulting in his death. She asserted wrongful-death claims based on wantonness and negligence.The Baldwin Circuit Court denied the City's motion for summary judgment, which argued that the City was entitled to substantive immunity from Fahrmann's claims. The City then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to grant its motion for summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and held that the City was immune from Fahrmann's wrongful-death claim alleging wantonness under § 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975, which limits municipal liability to injuries caused by neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness, and does not include wanton conduct. The Court also held that the City was entitled to substantive immunity from the negligence claim, as the City's failure to enforce its zoning ordinance did not create a legal duty to individual plaintiffs. The Court granted the City's petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to grant summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Ex parte City of Orange Beach" on Justia Law