REL:
11/04/2011
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r .
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
2100721
Jim
Harris
v.
C i t y o f Birmingham
Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court
(CV-09-903825)
MOORE, J u d g e .
Jim H a r r i s appeals
Jefferson
arising
Circuit
from
Birmingham
f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d
Court
("the t r i a l
the demolition
("the C i t y " ) .
court")
o f h i s house
by the
on h i s c l a i m s
by theCity o f
2100721
Facts
On N o v e m b e r
complaint
been
by
the
alleging,
negligent
owned
30, 2009,
against
defendants,
History
Harris filed
City
and
of the C i t y .
that
was
He r e q u e s t e d
of a
located
that
a
named
the C i t y
i t sdemolition
that
court
fictitiously
things,
with
("the house")
i n the t r i a l
several
among o t h e r
i n connection
Harris
jurisdiction
and P r o c e d u r a l
had
house
within
the t r i a l
the
court
i s s u e a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t the C i t y had v i o l a t e d h i s dueprocess rights
On D e c e m b e r
complaint,
in
5,
22, 2009,
the C i t y
filed
i t s answer
to Harris's
with H a r r i s ' s f i l i n g of h i s complaint.
The
City
a n a m e n d e d a n s w e r a n d a n a m e n d e d c o u n t e r c l a i m on J a n u a r y
2010.
On
counterclaim,
On
January
as
November
summary j u d g m e n t .
among o t h e r
of
with the demolition of the house.
as w e l l as a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g abuse o f p r o c e s s
connection
filed
i n connection
2010,
Harris
answered
the C i t y ' s
amended.
16,
2010,
the
I n support
motion
for a
of i t s motion, the City
filed,
t h i n g s , an a f f i d a v i t
condemnation
Engineering,
29,
for
the
and P e r m i t s .
City
filed
a
of C u r t i s Faggard, the c h i e f
City's
Department
of
Planning,
Faggard stated i n h i s a f f i d a v i t :
" I am t h e C h i e f o f C o n d e m n a t i o n f o r t h e C i t y o f
Birmingham Department o f P l a n n i n g , E n g i n e e r i n g , and
2
2100721
P e r m i t s . I have been t h e C h i e f of Condemnation f o r
2 ^ y e a r s . P r i o r t o t h a t , I was an I n s p e c t o r f o r 1 2 ^
years
f o r the C i t y
of Birmingham
Department
of
Planning,
Engineering,
and
Permits.
My
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e t o c o o r d i n a t e , d e t e r m i n e and
advise
on
the d e m o l i t i o n
of p r o p e r t i e s
located
w i t h i n the C i t y of Birmingham. I have r e v i e w e d the
c o n d e m n a t i o n f i l e s a n d am f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y
"The
C i t y has been
d e a l i n g w i t h Mr.
Harris
concerning
the s t a t e of h i s p r o p e r t y
f o r about
e l e v e n ( 1 1 ) y e a r s . Mr. H a r r i s p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y
on F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 . On A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 , M r . H a r r i s
a p p l i e d f o r a condemnation r e p a i r permit.
He
was
granted a condemnation r e p a i r permit.
"On J u l y 3, 2 0 0 1 , a f t e r an i n s p e c t i o n b y t h e
City's
inspectors,
the
City's
Department
of
Planning,
Engineering
and
Permits
forwarded
Mr.
Harris
a certified
letter
to h i s address [in]
Ensley.
Linda Harris signed
f o r the l e t t e r .
The
l e t t e r i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y ... was
in
a dangerous
s t a t e of d i s r e p a i r
and a p u b l i c
nuisance.
The l e t t e r
f u r t h e r informed
Mr.
Harris
t h a t t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n r e p a i r p e r m i t was v o i d e d
on
J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 due t o t h e f a c t t h a t r e p a i r s h a d n o t
b e e n made t o t h e p r o p e r t y a n d t h a t t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n
process
[was] b e i n g
r e i n s t a t e d . The p r o p e r t y
was
p l a c e d b a c k on t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n p r o c e s s
list.
"On S e p t e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 , t h e C i t y f o r w a r d e d ... a
c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r t o Mr. H a r r i s
The l e t t e r was
signed
[ f o r ] by
Mr.
Larry
Johnson.
The
letter
i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y ... was i n a
dangerous s t a t e of d i s r e p a i r , unsafe
and a p u b l i c
n u i s a n c e . The l e t t e r f u r t h e r ... i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s
t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y w o u l d be d e m o l i s h e d i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 )
days.
"On O c t o b e r 2,
City's
condemnation
2 0 0 2 , M r . H a r r i s came
office
and r e q u e s t e d
3
to the
another
2100721
c o n d e m n a t i o n r e p a i r p e r m i t . The c o n d e m n a t i o n r e p a i r
p e r m i t was i s s u e d . The C i t y c o n t i n u e d t o m o n i t o r t h e
... p r o p e r t y . H o w e v e r , a g a i n , o v e r t i m e , M r . H a r r i s
d i d n o t make a n y r e p a i r s t o t h e p r o p e r t y .
"On J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e C i t y w r o t e a n d f o r w a r d e d
[Harris] a c e r t i f i e d letter
I t was s i g n e d [ f o r ]
b y L e n o r n G i l c h r i s t . The l e t t e r i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s
t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was i n a d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n ,
u n s a f e a n d c o n s t i t u t e d a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e . The l e t t e r
f u r t h e r i n f o r m e d Mr. H a r r i s t o g e t a p e r m i t b y J u l y
21,
2 0 0 9 [ , ] o r h i s p r o p e r t y w o u l d be s u b j e c t t o
condemnation and d e m o l i t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e
Birmingham
City
Council.
A l l demolitions
are
approved by a v o t e by t h e Birmingham C i t y C o u n c i l .
Mr. H a r r i s d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e c e r t i f i e d
letter
o r come t o C i t y H a l l .
"On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e B i r m i n g h a m C i t y C o u n c i l
c o n s i d e r e d t h e condemnation and d e m o l i t i o n o f t h e
... p r o p e r t y . The m a t t e r was a g e n d a i t e m #50. The
agenda
i t e m was c a l l e d up f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d
debated.
M r . H a r r i s was n o t p r e s e n t .
Seeing
no
o b j e c t i o n s , t h e C i t y C o u n c i l v o t e d and o r d e r e d t h a t
[ t h e ] p r o p e r t y be condemned a n d d e m o l i s h e d .
"On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ,
I forwarded
[Harris] a
c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r to h i s residence
[in]Ensley. I t
was s i g n e d [ f o r ] b y M r . H a r r i s . The l e t t e r
informed
Mr. H a r r i s t h a t t h e B i r m i n g h a m C i t y C o u n c i l on J u l y
21,
2009 h a d v o t e d
on t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o [ f ] h i s
property
and o r d e r e d
the D i r e c t o r of Planning,
Engineering
and P e r m i t s
to take bids t o demolish
[ t h e ] p r o p e r t y . The l e t t e r a l s o i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t
all
p r o p e r t y w o u l d be removed
by t h e c o n t r a c t o r
demolishing
the property
i f n o t removed
within
fifteen
(15) d a y s . M r . H a r r i s d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e
t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r o r come t o C i t y H a l l .
"On o r a f t e r O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 0 9 , f o l l o w i n g t h e
mandate by t h e Birmingham C i t y C o u n c i l , t h e C i t y ' s
P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t w e n t t o t h e ... p r o p e r t y ...
4
2100721
capped t h e sewer and then d e m o l i s h e d t h e p r o p e r t y .
The
property
was v a c a n t
and u n i n h a b i t a b l e .
The
property
was d e m o l i s h e d
pursuant
to the City's
condemnation process."
On
December
summary-judgment
affidavit
the
by
15, 2010, H a r r i s
motion.
He
responded
attached
to the City's
to h i s response h i s
i n w h i c h he d e t a i l e d t h e r e p a i r s t h a t h e h a d made t o
house and s t a t e d t h a t
e a r l y 2006.
Harris
a l l n e c e s s a r y r e p a i r s h a d b e e n made
further
stated:
"A f e w w e e k s b e f o r e
t h e h o u s e was d e m o l i s h e d , I
c a l l e d M r . C u r t i s F a g g a r d o n t h e t e l e p h o n e ; i t i s my
understanding
t h a t M r . F a g g a r d i s a) a n e m p l o y e e o f
t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m ; b) i s ' i n c h a r g e ' o f t h e
d e m o l i t i o n e f f o r t b y t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , a n d ; c)
was
s o a c t i n g d u r i n g my c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h h i m . The
reason f o r the noted conversation
was t h a t I h a d
received
an e a r l i e r
call
from
my
sister
Linda
H a r r i s , who t o l d me t h a t s h e h a d s e e n a d e m o l i t i o n
n o t i c e on t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m
and t h a t I n e e d e d t o c a l l Mr. F a g g a r d . I w i s h t o
point out that I never received the n o t i c e of J u l y
2 1 , 2 0 0 9 w h i c h c o n t a i n s my name on t h e r e c e i p t c a r d ,
but which I never signed f o r . A c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n
of t h e r e c e i p t c a r d f o r t h e J u l y 2 1 s t n o t i c e shows:
a)
t h a t t h e name ' J i m H a r r i s ' t h e r e o n c o u l d n o t
r e a s o n a b l y b e c a l l e d a s i g n a t u r e , a n d ; b) i t b e a r s
a b s o l u t e l y no r e s e m b l a n c e t o a n y o f t h e n u m e r o u s
e x a m p l e s o f my s i g n a t u r e a p p e a r i n g on d o c u m e n t s t h a t
the C i t y of Birmingham uses i n support of t h e Motion
for
Summary
Judgment.
I t does
however
bear
a
s t r i k i n g resemblance to the 'signature'
of Larry
J o h n s o n on t h e r e c e i p t c a r d f o r t h e n o t i c e
dated
S e p t e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 ; I am n o t L a r r y J o h n s o n .
" A g a i n , a s a r e s u l t o f my s i s t e r p h o n i n g me I
c a l l e d Mr. F a g g a r d and i n f o r m e d h i m o f t h e c o m p l e t e d
5
2100721
renovations/repairs
made
on, and t o t h e house.
During our conversation
F a g g a r d seemed
satisfied
w i t h my e f f o r t s r e l a t i v e t o t h e h o u s e , a n d he t o l d
me t o p a i n t t h e e x t e r i o r
(so t h a t t h e house w o u l d
n o t l o o k l i k e i t was a b a n d o n e d ) a n d i t w o u l d n o t b e
d e m o l i s h e d . A g a i n , i t was my u n d e r s t a n d i n g
t h a t Mr.
F a g g a r d was t h e C i t y e m p l o y e e ' i n c h a r g e ' o f t h e
d e m o l i t i o n e f f o r t b y t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , a n d was
so a c t i n g d u r i n g my c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h h i m . A l s o , i t
was
my
understanding,
based
upon
Faggard's
s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t he h a d t h e
authority to enter
i n t o an a g r e e m e n t o r g i v e
me
assurances
(on b e h a l f
of the C i t y of Birmingham)
r e g a r d i n g p o s t p o n i n g o r s e t t i n g a s i d e any d e m o l i t i o n
o f a home. I r e c a l l a s k i n g F a g g a r d i f t h e r e
was
s o m e t h i n g t h a t he c o u l d do t o s t o p t h e d e m o l i t i o n ,
a n d he s a i d ' y e s . ' I t w a s , a t t h i s p o i n t , t h a t he
i n s t r u c t e d me t o p a i n t t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e h o u s e . I n
my
opinion,
my
reliance
upon
Faggard's
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s that i f I had the e x t e r i o r of the
h o u s e p a i n t e d i t w o u l d n o t be d e m o l i s h e d was, b a s e d
upon[]
the circumstances,
both
reasonable
and
justified.
" I n r e l i a n c e on M r . F a g g a r d ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , I
had t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e house p a i n t e d p r i o r t o t h e
day o f d e m o l i t i o n .
I h a d no r e a s o n s t o t h i n k o r
believe
that
my
home,
i n light
of
Faggard's
representation,
w o u l d be s l a t e d
f o r demolition.
Alternatively
stated,
I thought
that
I h a d an
agreement w i t h
the City
o f B i r m i n g h a m , v i a Mr.
Faggard's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s
and a u t h o r i t y , and t h a t
b e c a u s e I h a d l i v e d up t o my e n d o f t h e a g r e e m e n t my
home w o u l d n o t b e s l a t e d f o r d e m o l i t i o n .
"On t h e d a t e o f t h e d e m o l i t i o n , I was n o t i f i e d ,
i n p e r s o n , b y a n e i g h b o r , Ms. V e r o n i c a F i e l d s , who
i n f o r m e d me t h a t e a r l i e r i n t h e d a y t h e C i t y o f
B i r m i n g h a m ' s d e m o l i t i o n c r e w : a) h a d come t h e h o u s e ;
a n d b) k i c k e d my f r o n t d o o r i n . I t h e r e u p o n w e n t t o
t h e h o u s e . U p o n a r r i v i n g , t h e d e m o l i t i o n c r e w was
n o t p r e s e n t , b u t I i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i c e d t h a t (1) my
6
2100721
aluminum storm door a t t h e f r o n t o f t h e house had
b e e n c a r e f u l l y r e m o v e d f r o m i t s h i n g e s a n d s e t away
from
the entry
door,
and
(2) my
HVAC a i r
c o n d i t i o n i n g compressor u n i t that I had placed i n
the
living
r o o m o f t h e h o u s e was m i s s i n g .
As I
proceeded t o t h e r e a r o f t h e house, I found t h e r e a r
d o o r o p e n , a n d my HVAC f u r n a c e l a y i n g o u t s i d e i n t h e
b a c k y a r d n e x t t o a l a r g e mound o f d i r t t h a t h a d
b e e n g o u g e d o u t o f t h e g r o u n d . Upon s e e i n g a l l o f
t h i s , I r a n back t o [the address a t which I r e s i d e ]
and a t t e m p t e d t o c a l l t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m t o g e t
an e x p l a n a t i o n a s t o why my home was g o i n g t o b e
d e m o l i s h e d . H o w e v e r , I was u n a b l e t o r e a c h a n y C i t y
o f B i r m i n g h a m o f f i c i a l s . T h e n Ms. F i e l d s r e m i n d e d me
that,
i t being
a weekend,
the City offices
were
c l o s e d . I t h e n w e n t b a c k t o t h e ... p r o p e r t y a n d
w a i t e d f o r t h e d e m o l i t i o n c r e w t o r e t u r n . When t h e y
r e t u r n e d , I a s k e d t h e f o r e m a n t o e x p l a i n t o me why
he k i c k e d i n t h e d o o r o f my h o u s e a n d who a u t h o r i z e d
t h e d e m o l i t i o n o f my h o u s e . A f t e r h e a t t e m p t e d t o
e x p l a i n h i s understanding of h i s orders, I asked him
t o go i n s i d e [ t h e ] h o u s e w i t h me t o o b s e r v e t h e
i n t e r i o r h i m s e l f a n d s a t i s f y h i m s e l f t h a t i t was i n
l i v a b l e , m o v e - i n r e a d y c o n d i t i o n . He, a l s o a t my
request,
g o t on h i s w a l k i e - t a l k i e a n d c a l l e d h i s
s u p e r v i s o r a n d e x p l a i n e d what he h a d o b s e r v e d . I h a d
p r e v i o u s l y t o l d t h e f o r e m a n t h a t I h a d an agreement
with
Mr.
Faggard
regarding
holding
o f f on
demolition,
and
that
there
was
apparently
a
misunderstanding/mis communication
regarding
d e m o l i t i o n . The c r e w f o r e m a n r e l a y e d w h a t I h a d t o l d
h i m , a n d w h a t h e saw r e l a t i v e t o t h e g o o d c o n d i t i o n
o f t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e home, t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r . I
overheard t h e s u p e r i o r t e l l t h e foremen t h a t i f I
could not produce the proper permit, to proceed with
the
demolition,
i r r e s p e c t i v e o f : a)
t h e good
c o n d i t i o n o f t h e h o u s e , a n d ; b) a n y a g r e e m e n t t h a t
I d i d o r d i d n o t have, w i t h F a g g a r d . B a s e d upon t h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e crew foreman, and h i s s u p e r v i s o r ,
were B i r m i n g h a m e m p l o y e e s , a c t i n g as s u c h , on t h e
date of the d e m o l i t i o n .
7
2100721
"At t h i s p o i n t I p l e a d e d w i t h t h e f o r e m a n t o t r y
to get h i s s u p e r i o r s t o wait u n t i l the next business
d a y when I c o u l d t a l k t o M r . F a g g a r d , o r some o t h e r
appropriate
official,
and
straighten
out the
q u e s t i o n o f d e m o l i t i o n . However, upon r e c e i v i n g h i s
instructions
from h i s s u p e r i o r ,
he p r o c e e d e d t o
d e m o l i s h t h e h o u s e -- t h e h o u s e I h a d p u t s o much
money, t i m e a n d e f f o r t
i n t o -- w i t h me
standing
t h e r e , h e l p l e s s l y w a t c h i n g . I was s o a g h a s t a n d i n
s h o c k t h a t t h i s was a c t u a l l y h a p p e n i n g , t h a t I d i d
n o t t h i n k t o e v e n go i n t o t h e h o u s e t o r e t r i e v e t h e
records
and r e c e i p t s
nor anything
else.
I n my
o p i n i o n , i n no way was t h e h o u s e i n a c o n d i t i o n t h a t
j u s t i f i e d c o n d e m n a t i o n o r d e m o l i t i o n . I n my o p i n i o n ,
the
demolition
o f my h o u s e was a b r e a c h o f t h e
agreement t h a t I had w i t h t h e C i t y of Birmingham v i a
Mr. F a g g a r d , r e g a r d i n g d e m o l i t i o n o f my h o u s e .
" I n e v e r r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e t h a t was a p p a r e n t l y
s i g n e d f o r by L e n o r n [ G i l c h r i s t ] . Mr. [ G i l c h r i s t ] i s
m e n t a l l y i l l a n d d i d n o t g i v e me a n y d o c u m e n t t h a t
he s i g n e d f o r .
The p h o t o s e t s i n c l u d e d b y t h e C i t y
o f B i r m i n g h a m i n s u p p o r t o f i t s M o t i o n f o r Summary
Judgment
contain
no
substantial
interior,
or
e x t e r i o r v i e w s o f t h e h o u s e : a) a f t e r I p u r c h a s e d
i t , o r ; b) a f t e r I h a d b e g u n a n d / o r c o m p l e t e d w o r k
on
it."
Harris
also
Fields
i n w h i c h she s t a t e d t h a t
On
December
response.
attached
Harris,
a
included
17,
then
affidavit
i n which
supporting
from
Veronica
t h e h o u s e was n o t a
nuisance.
2010, t h e C i t y
Harris
an
a
filed
a
executed
affidavit
filed
a
reply
supplemental
by
Harris's
to
Harris's
response
sister,
she s t a t e d :
"Some w e e k s b e f o r e t h e a c t u a l d e m o l i t i o n , I saw
n o t i c e p o s t e d on t h e h o u s e .
T h o u g h I do n o t
8
and
Linda
2100721
r e c a l l t h e e x a c t w o r d s a n d d i d n o t s a v e i t , my b e s t
recollection
i s that
i t d i d reference
the City
C o u n c i l a n d s a i d t h e h o u s e was c o n d e m n e d . I i n f o r m e d
my b r o t h e r a b o u t t h e n o t i c e . I h a d b e e n i n t h e h a b i t
o f l o o k i n g i n on t h e p r o p e r t y t h r e e o f f o u r t i m e s a
w e e k f o r a n u m b e r o f y e a r s , s i n c e my b r o t h e r
lived
o u t o f t o w n a n d came t o w o r k on t h e h o u s e on t h e
w e e k e n d s . I h a d n e v e r b e f o r e s e e n s u c h a n o t i c e on
t h e h o u s e a n d d i d n o t s e e a s u b s e q u e n t one p r i o r t o
the d e m o l i t i o n . "
The
the
trial
City
Rule
Harris
entered
and c e r t i f i e d
54(b),
dismissed
court
A l a . R.
filed
that
a motion
judgment
judgment
of
to
final,
pursuant
The
trial
court
subsequently
counterclaim.
On
1
to alter,
amend,
c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d
April
i n favor
as
C i v . P.
the City's
a summary
14, 2 0 1 1 , H a r r i s a p p e a l e d
February
or vacate
17, 2 0 1 1 ,
the
trial
on M a r c h 7, 2 0 1 1 .
t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme
On
Court;
On J a n u a r y
14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r
e n t i t l e d "Order G r a n t i n g Defendant C i t y of Birmingham's Motion
f o r Summary J u d g m e n t . "
(Emphasis added.)
At the conclusion
of the order,
however, the t r i a l
court
stated: "For the
p r e c e d i n g r e a s o n s , i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED,
t h a t summary j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y DENIED."
(Capitalization i n
original.)
The t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e j u d g m e n t a s f i n a l ,
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.
On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 1 ,
the
trial
court
amended t h e J a n u a r y
14, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r
by
s t a t i n g : "For the preceding reasons,
i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED,
ADJUDGED
and
DECREED,
that
summary
judgment
i s hereby
GRANTED."
(Capitalization i n original.)
On J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 ,
the
trial
court
entered
an o r d e r
dismissing the City's
counterclaim.
1
9
2100721
that
court
12-2-7(6),
t r a n s f e r r e d the
A l a . Code
case
to t h i s
court,
pursuant
to
§
1975.
Standard
of
Review
"'A
summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when
t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t
and
the moving p a r t y
is entitled
to
a
j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) ,
A l a . R. C i v . P. T h e b u r d e n i s o n t h e m o v i n g
p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g
that
t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t
and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a
matter of law. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the
movant has c a r r i e d t h a t burden, the c o u r t
i s t o view the e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most
f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y and
to
draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f
t h a t p a r t y . To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d
summary
judgment
motion,
the
nonmoving
p a r t y must p r e s e n t " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e "
c r e a t i n g a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t
-- " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y
that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of
i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the
e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . "
Ala.
Code
1975,
§
12-21-12;
West
v.
F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7
S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . '
" C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v . T h o r o u g h - C l e a n ,
Inc.,
639 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 9 , 1350
( A l a . 1994). Questions of law
a r e r e v i e w e d de n o v o . A l a b a m a R e p u b l i c a n P a r t y v .
M c G i n l e y , 893 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 342 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . "
Pritchett
(Ala.
v.
ICN
Med.
Alliance,
2006).
10
Inc.,
938
So.
2d
933,
935
2100721
Discussion
Harris
his
raises several
arguments
relating
issues
to
on
appeal.
the
propriety
Ala.
Code
We
of
first
the
address
demolition
order.
Section
11-40-30,
1975,
m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o d e m o l i s h a b u i l d i n g when t h e
body
finds
the
building
to
be
an
unsafe
authorizes
local
public
governing
nuisance.
B e f o r e d e m o l i s h i n g a b u i l d i n g , a m u n i c i p a l i t y must comply
the
notice
provides,
provision
in pertinent
in
§
11-40-31,
Ala.
Code
1975,
with
which
part:
"Whenever the a p p r o p r i a t e m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l o f the
municipality
finds that
any
building,
structure,
part
of
building
or
structure,
party
wall,
or
f o u n d a t i o n s i t u a t e d i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s unsafe to
the
extent
that
i t is
a
public
nuisance,
the
official
s h a l l give the person or persons,
firm,
association,
or
corporation
last
assessing
the
property
for state
taxes
and
a l l mortgagees
of
record,
by
certified
or
registered
mail
to
the
a d d r e s s on f i l e i n t h e t a x c o l l e c t o r ' s o r r e v e n u e
c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s o f f i c e , n o t i c e t o remedy the u n s a f e
or dangerous c o n d i t i o n of the b u i l d i n g or s t r u c t u r e ,
o r t o d e m o l i s h t h e same, w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e
s e t o u t i n t h e n o t i c e , w h i c h t i m e s h a l l n o t be l e s s
t h a n 30 d a y s o r s u f f e r t h e b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e t o
be
d e m o l i s h e d by
the
municipality
and
the
cost
t h e r e o f a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y . The
mailing
of the c e r t i f i e d or r e g i s t e r e d m a i l n o t i c e ,
properly
addressed
and
postage
prepaid,
shall
constitute
n o t i c e as r e q u i r e d h e r e i n . N o t i c e o f t h e o r d e r , o r
a copy t h e r e o f , s h a l l , w i t h i n t h r e e days of the date
o f m a i l i n g , a l s o be p o s t e d a t o r w i t h i n t h r e e f e e t
11
2100721
ing
or s t r u c t u r e .
t i c e may
be p o s t e d
^ - I - T^-,-, ^ - 1 - - , - ,
o r s t r u c t u r e . II
Following
building
proper
to
be
notice,
demolished
body f o r a h e a r i n g ,
to the
§
maintains
nuisance
of
Ala.
Code
that
should
be
an
interest in
the
local
shows
that
a meeting
house
an
unsafe
demolished.
a certified
t h e J u l y 21,
the
on
body
public
party
c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n 10
city
nuisance
June
unsafe
aggrieved
Code
council
J u l y 21,
and
18,
2009,
may
days
1975.
of
2009,
the
City
that
the
i t should
that
to Faggard's a f f i d a v i t ,
letter
nuisance.
be
his office
to
inform
him
sent
of
2 0 0 9 , c i t y c o u n c i l m e e t i n g , s o t h a t he w o u l d h a v e
opportunity
the
the
have
governing
b u i l d i n g i s an
c o n d u c t e d on
public
According
local
§ 11-40-32(b), A l a .
at
was
the
appropriate
determination.
record
I f the
the
governing
o b j e c t i o n s t h a t p a r t y may
demolished,
determined
attend
having
petition
1975.
i t s position that
and
The
an
may
s t a t i n g any
an a p p e a l i n t h e
Harris
party
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g i s an u n s a f e p u b l i c
11-40-32(a),
file
any
If
at
t o be
meeting,
h e a r d on
the
the
council determined
city
issue.
2
When H a r r i s d i d
that
H a r r i s d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e
or t h a t h i s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d because
G i l c h r i s t signed f o r the c e r t i f i e d m a i l .
2
12
no
not
one
letter
Lenorn
2100721
objected
and
t o the house b e i n g
i t issued
Harris
a demolition
argues
determining
that
However,
§
finding
that
outlined
the
a
determination
the
circuit
1251
( A l a . 1991),
[to]
the
i n s t e a d , was
the
our
court
this
procedure
to
a
public
includes
v.
City
court
finding
n o t be b r o u g h t
erred
nuisance;
the r i g h t
in
nuisance.
challenge
of Mobile,
to
held
that
that
the
578
a
house
in a collateral
f o r ... t h e a p p e a l p r o c e s s "
c a s e , i s § 11-40-32.
finding
that
have
the C i t y ' s
been
the
house
made
decision
a
as
appeal
was
i n an
and
So.
2d
"challenge
should
be
action but,
provided
by
578 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 3 .
challenging
an
unsafe
public
appeal
to the
circuit
cannot
be
considered
on
appeal.
H a r r i s next argues that
§
public
i n the p r e s e n t case, H a r r i s ' s arguments
should
from
council
unsafe
constitutes
supreme
"reserved
City's
nuisance
the
I n Brown
statute, which, i n t h i s
Similarly,
the c i t y
an
procedure
council's
could
nuisance
of the governing body of the m u n i c i p a l i t y to
court.
city
was
provides
above, that
the
that
house
building
an u n s a f e p u b l i c
order.
generally
11-40-32
demolished"
declared
11-40-31
the notice
are unconstitutional
13
provisions
because
they
do
s e t out i n
not
assure
2100721
that
t h e owner
receive
of a building
timely personal
construe
that
as
("To
prevail
constitutionality
745
constitutional
party
has
attorney
See
So. 3d
on
a
challenge
general,
on
the
v . Adams,
[Ms.
(Ala. Crim.
App.
State
,
facial
States
challenge
v. S a l e r n o ,
A c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n
served
attack
We
to
the
e x i s t s under which the [statute] would
(quoting United
(1987))).
facial
will
o f a s t a t u t e , i t must be e s t a b l i s h e d ' t h a t
no s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s
be v a l i d . ' "
a
of the s t a t u t e .
C R - 0 8 - 1 7 2 8 , N o v . 5, 2 0 1 0 ]
2010)
for demolition
service of the demolition order.
argument
constitutionality
scheduled
481 U.S.
to consider
a
739,
facial
to a statute only i f the challenging
notice
pursuant
of
the
challenge
t o § 6-6-227,
" A l a [ b a m a ] Code 1975, § 6-6-227,
on
the
A l a . Code
state's
1975.
requires that,
i n any p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h a ' s t a t u t e , o r d i n a n c e , o r
f r a n c h i s e i s a l l e g e d t o be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h e S t a t e s h a l l a l s o be s e r v e d
w i t h a c o p y o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g a n d be e n t i t l e d t o b e
heard.'
... When a p a r t y s e e k s a d e c l a r a t i o n o f
r i g h t s regarding the v a l i d i t y of a s t a t u t e , 'service
on t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , p u r s u a n t t o § 6 - 6 - 2 2 7 , i s
m a n d a t o r y a n d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . ' B a r g e r v . B a r g e r , 410
So. 2 d 1 7 , 19 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . A l t h o u g h
§ 6-6-227 i s
f o u n d w i t h i n t h e D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t A c t , when t h e
constitutionality
of
a
statute
is
challenged,
service
on
the
attorney
general
is
required
r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e a c t i o n was i n t h e n a t u r e
of a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n . W a l l a c e v. S t a t e ,
507 S o . 2 d 466 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) .
14
2100721
" I f the p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y
o f a s t a t u t e f a i l s t o s e r v e t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , as
r e q u i r e d by A l a . Code 1975,
§ 6-6-227, t h e
trial
court
has
no
jurisdiction
to
decide
the
constitutional
claims.
Guy
v.
Southwest
Alabama
C o u n c i l on A l c o h o l i s m ,
475
So. 2d 1190
(Ala. Civ.
App.
1 9 8 5 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , our Supreme C o u r t has
held
' t h a t f a i l u r e t o s e r v e the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l "goes t o
the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t , " t h a t the "absence of
j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a p p a r e n t on t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d , "
and
t h a t we m u s t t a k e n o t i c e o f o u r own
want of
jurisdiction'
and
dismiss
the
appeal.
Smith
v.
L a n c a s t e r , 267 A l a . 366, 3 6 7 , 102 So. 2d 1, 2 ( A l a .
1958)
(citations
omitted)."
T u c k e r v.
P e r s o n n e l Bd.
App.
1994).
that
Harris
challenges
Harris
further
exists
as
fact
of
Accordingly,
requirements
to
in §
Dothan,
we
the
dismiss
So.
the
2d
that
the
11-40-31.
a
City
8,
9
(Ala.
appeal to
constitutionality
argues
whether
644
genuine
of
§
issue
complied
the
of
of
the
demolition
order.
Harris
3
asserts,
material
the
notice
establishes
t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y s e n t a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r t o H a r r i s
him
extent
11-40-31.
with
Faggard's a f f i d a v i t
Civ.
notifying
however,
that
H a r r i s d i s p u t e s t h a t he r e c e i v e d t h a t c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r ,
m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e on t h e r e c e i p t c a r d was
forged.
However, § 11-40-31 p r o v i d e s
that
"[t]he mailing
of
the
c e r t i f i e d or r e g i s t e r e d m a i l n o t i c e , p r o p e r l y addressed
and
p o s t a g e p r e p a i d , s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e n o t i c e as r e q u i r e d h e r e i n . "
Moreover, H a r r i s does not argue i n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s
court
t h a t t h e C i t y d i d n o t p r o v i d e h i m due p r o c e s s on t h e
basis
t h a t he n e v e r a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r .
"When
a n a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y a r g u e an i s s u e , t h a t i s s u e i s
3
15
2100721
the C i t y d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h i n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n
it
had
posted
required
that
by t h e l a s t
the
motion
City
that
demolition
of
the
two
notice
on
asserted
met
in
a l l the
affixed
issue
to
the
whether
legal
contains
City
that
the
requirement.
notice
the
affidavit
testimony
genuine issue of m a t e r i a l
the
demolition
Harris
Moreover,
properly
Harris
posted
notice.
occurred
attested
only
the
or a f t e r "
that
h o u s e "some w e e k s " b e f o r e
supra.
Linda
s h e saw
Thus,
the posting
Harris
Harris
record
presents
October
shows
4,
the notice
of
contends
f a c t as t o whether t h e C i t y
However,
"on
of
the
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence
the C i t y had not complied with
Pritchett,
for
a photograph
i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n .
indicating
posted
note
requirements
house.
the
We
as
i t s summary-judgment
i t was i n c u m b e n t u p o n H a r r i s t o i n t r o d u c e
that
itself
i n § 11-40-31.
o f t h e house, and t h e r e c o r d
the
t h e house
sentences
generally
i t had
notice
addressed
notice
the required
that
a
properly
that
the
2009.
Linda
posted
on t h e
t h e d e m o l i t i o n ; she d i d n o t t e s t i f y
w a i v e d a n d w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d . B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 418 S o .
2 d 89 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . "
A s a m v . D e v e r e a u x , 686 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 4
(Ala.
C i v . App. 1996).
16
2100721
that
the
of the
n o t i c e was
mailing
of the
11-40-31.
We
imprecise
nature
considered
not
post
§
p o s t e d on
J u l y 18,
therefore
of
Linda
the
required
also
et
Harris's
notice
seq.,
with
the
agreed to
forgo
demolition
Harris
did.
avoid
demolition
4
The
City
of
City
he
a
the
complied
Faggard
house,
property
only
by
nuisance
31,
appealing
provided
i n § 11-40-32(b).
employee
cannot
enter
into
According
an
remedying the
order
through
to the
informal
the
City, a
agreement
which
can
t h e b u i l d i n g an u n s a f e p u b l i c n u i s a n c e , s e e
demolition
had
owner
rendering
the
promptly
did
negligently
says,
public
be
time.
a
by
and
that
§
the
City
City fully
i f Harris painted
unsafe
the
nevertheless
because,
of
i t cannot
obtaining
or
repair permit
because
required
days
r e q u i r e d by
assertions,
the
counters
an
that,
even i f the
demolition
as
i n d i c a t i n g that
at
the
proceeded
house w i t h i n three
conclude
argues that,
11-40-30
the
2009, l e t t e r ,
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence
Harris
with
not
defects
§
11-40¬
process
municipal
that,
i f a
F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , we m u s t
a s s u m e t h a t F a g g a r d made t h e a g r e e m e n t w i t h H a r r i s a n d
that
H a r r i s performed a l l of h i s o b l i g a t i o n s pursuant to
that
agreement
because
Harris
presented
substantial
evidence
s u p p o r t i n g t h o s e f a c t s . See H a n n e r s v . B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . ,
564 So. 2 d 412
(Ala. 1990).
4
17
2100721
property
owner
municipality
order.
remedies
will
B a s e d on
not
the
be
e s t o p p e d by
of
i t s employees,
2 0 0 0 ) , and
App.
general
see
the
City
principle
the
a
parte
to
Ballew,
that
that
carry
this
out
court,
a
does not
apply
attempting
of
that
the
estoppel
to
assure
demolished.
Harris
i t
case.
Harris
demolition
on
2d
952
not
the
or
§§
the
cannot
statements
dispute
that
estoppel
that
be
of
his
11-40-31 or
11¬
doctrine
he
is
not
the
defense
that
Faggard
agreement and
couched,
his claim unless
18
dispute
resulting in
is
been
agreement.
i s claiming
claim
have
b a s e d on
unauthorized
(Ala.
(Ala. Civ.
not
maintains
i t s performance,
cannot recover
1040
acts
order
rather,
the
2d
generally
that
cannot
So.
does not
comply w i t h
maintains
However
demolition
statements
Faggard's
does
the
or
could
Harris
further
but,
building,
acts
So.
municipality
n e g l i g e n t l y i n making the
failing
being
to h i s
to avoid
equitable
acted
Harris
a
existing
771
or unauthorized
Harris
Instead,
valid,
or unauthorized
agreement w i t h F a g g a r d does not
40-32.
in
r u l e t h a t a g o v e r n i n g body
argues
invalid
employees.
defects
S h e l b y C o u n t y , 985
in failing
e s t o p p e d by
its
Ex
v.
In h i s b r i e f to
basic
execute
invalid
Perkins
2007),
negligent
the
certain
the
the
i t
in
house
remains
City
acted
2100721
unreasonably i n demolishing
agreement.
authority
t o s u p p o r t h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t a m u n i c i p a l i t y w o u l d be
negligent
See
following
Rule
a
28,
not
cited
demolition
Ala.
R.
order
App.
for
Alabaster,
v.
reversal."
901
So.
Geisenhoff,
693
Harris
next
material
fact
contacted
on
halting
to
the
day
the
inspected
489,
whether
of
house
the
and
that
the
city
challenging
set
the
city
collateral
above,
council's
those
a
claims
proceeding.
19
Geisenhoff
supervisor,
who
was
was
to
negligent
be
in
C i t y was
condemn
should
cannot
1997)).
of
conclusion
that
of
issue
demolition-crew
i t
City
genuine
the
that
be
be
a
in
not
foreman
habitable
negligent
property.
those arguments are
unsafe p u b l i c nuisance
out
the
council
v.
(quoting
unnamed
found
note, however, t h a t b o t h of
an
is
demolition,
once
LLP
only
sufficient
( A l a . C i v . App.
there
the
supporting
Props.,
H a r r i s a l s o argues t h a t the
requesting
was
491
circumstances.
constitute a
( A l a . 2004)
that
demolition
the
condition.
2d
argues
as
does not
708
these
"Authority
Beachcroft
2d 703,
So.
specific
under
P.
'general p r o p o s i t i o n s of law'
argument
any
unauthorized
legal
in
H a r r i s has
the house d e s p i t e the
We
tantamount
the
to
property
demolished.
raised
by
in
As
this
2100721
Conclusion
Based
extent
40-31.
on
the
foregoing,
we
that Harris challenges
We
affirm
the
I N PART;
P . J . , and
appeal
the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y
t h e judgment i n a l l o t h e r
APPEAL DISMISSED
Thompson,
dismiss
JUDGMENT
Pittman,
concur.
20
to the
o f § 11¬
respects.
AFFIRMED.
Bryan,
and
Thomas, J J . ,
