Town of Westover v. James Bynum and J&F Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a The 51 Country Store

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/31/2012 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110682 Town o f Westover v. James Bynum and J&F E n t e r p r i s e s , LLC, d/b/a The 51 Country Store Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900053) THOMAS, J u d g e . The Town o f W e s t o v e r ("the determining and Town") a p p e a l s that i t i s estopped business-license fees from a judgment from c o l l e c t i n g from James sales Bynum taxes a n d J&F 2110682 Enterprises, Store"). before 840 L L C , d/b/a The 51 C o u n t r y This this Store ("the C o u n t r y i s t h e s e c o n d t i m e t h e p a r t i e s have court. See Town o f W e s t o v e r v . Bynum, 68 So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . The f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g b e t w e e n t h e Town a n d Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e in that appeared the dispute are s e t out opinion: "The p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d a j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The C o u n t r y Store is a retail business located i n an unincorporated area of Shelby County; i n other words, i t i s n o t w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e b o u n d a r i e s o f any m u n i c i p a l i t y . The C o u n t r y S t o r e i s , h o w e v e r , l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e Town's p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n . "Revenue D i s c o v e r y S y s t e m s ('RDS'), w o r k i n g on behalf o f t h e Town, c o n d u c t e d an a u d i t o f t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e . The a u d i t r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e C o u n t r y Store had never paid any sales taxes or b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s t o t h e Town a n d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e no. 2 0 0 5 - 1 0 - 0 4 - 0 6 1 , w h i c h t h e Town h a d a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t o §§ 11-51-200 a n d -206, A l a . Code 1975, a n d t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e no. 2007-11-6-147, w h i c h t h e Town h a d a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t o § 11-51-91, A l a . Code 1975, t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e owed the Town $47,011.44 in sales taxes, business-license fees, interest, and p e n a l t i e s d a t i n g b a c k t o December 1, 2005. "On J a n u a r y 20, 2010, Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e Town s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f r e g a r d i n g the Country Store's alleged sales-tax and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e - f e e o b l i g a t i o n . The Town a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t on F e b r u a r y 18, 2010. 2 2110682 "On June 24, 2010, t h e p a r t i e s f i l e d a j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n of facts. At the request of the t r i a l c o u r t , t h e Town f i l e d a t r i a l b r i e f on A u g u s t 4, 2010, a n d Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e r e s p o n d e d on A u g u s t 24, 2010. " F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 30, 2010, a t w h i c h no e v i d e n c e was t a k e n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment on S e p t e m b e r 20, 2010, s t a t i n g , i n pertinent part: " ' 1 . B a s e d on t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d t o the Court, t h i s Court determines t h a t there was no a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e g i v e n t o [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] c o n c e r n i n g [their] duty t o c o l l e c t sales t a x w i t h i n t h e [Town's] P o l i c e J u r i s d i c t i o n , p r i o r t o December 1 1 , 2009. T h e r e f o r e , p r i o r t o t h i s date [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e a r e ] a b s o l v e d f r o m any p r e v i o u s l y c a l c u l a t e d t a x l i a b i l i t y due a n d p a y a b l e t o t h e [Town] t h r o u g h t h e [RDS]. "'2. S u b s e q u e n t t o t h e d a t e o f n o t i c e , [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] d o [ ] owe sales t a x pursuant to the [Town's] O r d i n a n c e No. 2 0 0 5 - 1 0 - 0 4 - 0 6 0 1 . S a i d t a x s h a l l be computed b y [Bynum], b a s e d on s a l e s f r o m t h a t d a t e g o i n g f o r w a r d and t h e t a x due f r o m December 1 1 , 2009 t h r o u g h A u g u s t 3 1 , 2010 s h a l l be p a i d t o [Town] w i t h i n n i n e t y (90) d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s Order. " ' 3 . G o i n g f o r w a r d , [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s o f t h e [Town] ... concerning c o l l e c t i o n o f s a l e s t a x and requirement of business l i c e n s e w i t h i n i t s police jurisdiction, so l o n g as [ t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] remains l o c a t e d t h e r e i n and i s n o t a p a r t o f any o t h e r i n c o r p o r a t e d 3 2110682 municipality, or there i s no other m u n i c i p a l i t y , more c l o s e l y l o c a t e d t o [ t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] , t h a t c o l l e c t s s a l e s t a x and business license fees, within i t s p o l i c e jurisdiction.' "The Town a p p e a l e d . " Bynum, 68 So. 3d a t 841-42. I n Bynum, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g Town c o u l d under not c o l l e c t i t s ordinance ordinance") and business-license sales no. taxes or business-license 2005-10-04-061 i t s ordinance that the no. ("the fees sales-tax 2007-11-6-147 ordinance") t h a t had accrued before ("the December 11, 2009, was b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Bynum and the Country Store lacked notice of the ordinances. in did both constructive I d . a t 842. and a c t u a l Because t h e evidence the record, which c o n s i s t e d of only s t i p u l a t i o n s of f a c t s , not support Store the conclusion d i d n o t have ordinances, at least we r e v e r s e d Country Store. that Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y constructive notice of the t h e judgment i n f a v o r o f Bynum a n d t h e I d . a t 843. On remand, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g a t w h i c h Bynum, t h e s o l e member o f t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e , t e s t i f i e d . 4 B a s e d on h i s 2110682 t e s t i m o n y and t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e t r i a l entered court t h e f o l l o w i n g judgment: "This cause i s before the court f o r f i n a l e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g p u r s u a n t t o a remand f r o m t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . The gravamen o f t h e remand i s t h a t ' t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e h a d n o t r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e s b e f o r e December 11, 2009....' [Town o f W e s t o v e r v . Bynum, 68 So. 3d 840, 8 4 3 ] ( A l a . C i v . App. F e b r u a r y 11, 2 0 1 1 ) . W h i l e t h i s f a c t was u n d i s p u t e d a n d h a d b e e n agreed t o by t h e p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t , t h a t c o n c l u s i o n c o u l d o n l y have b e e n assumed f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t was b e f o r e t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . Hence, t h e r e v e r s a l a n d t h e n e e d f o r t h i s h e a r i n g t o e s t a b l i s h an a p p r o p r i a t e r e c o r d . "At t h e o u t s e t o f t h e h e a r i n g s t i p u l a t e d to the f o l l o w i n g : the p a r t i e s " 1 . N e i t h e r Bynum n o r t h e ... C o u n t r y S t o r e had r e c e i v e d a c t u a l n o t i c e o f [ t h e Town's] t a x c l a i m p r i o r t o December 2009, when a t a x a u d i t o r [ e m p l o y e d b y Revenue D i s c o v e r y S y s t e m s ('RDS')] a r r i v e d a t t h e s t o r e . "2. Prior mailings t o [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] h a d come o n l y f r o m RDS a n d went u n o p e n e d as Bynum t h o u g h t i t t o be junk m a i l . "3. N e i t h e r [ t h e Town] n o r RDS, as i t s a g e n t , e v e r a t t e m p t e d t o make any d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] b e f o r e December 2009. "4. P r i o r t o t h e [Town's] i n c o r p o r a t i o n , [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] h a d o n g o i n g f i r e a n d p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n , and t h e same s e r v i c e s were p r o v i d e d a f t e r i n c o r p o r a t i o n ; 5 2110682 i.e., [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] h a d neither improvement nor reduction in s e r v i c e s as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e [Town's] incorporation. "5. The validity of the ordinance[s] [are] not a t i s s u e . [Town's] "6. [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ' s ] real property was a n n e x e d i n t o t h e C i t y o f C h e l s e a i n O c t o b e r 2010. "At t h e h e a r i n g ... Bynum t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d have c o l l e c t e d t h e [ s a l e s ] t a x h a d he e v e r known t h a t he was o b l i g a t e d t o do s o . T h e r e i s no evidence to the contrary. I t i s undisputed that the Town w a i t e d some f o u r y e a r s b e f o r e a t t e m p t i n g t o c o l l e c t t h e [ s a l e s ] t a x o r o t h e r w i s e n o t i f y [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] t h a t t h e y s h o u l d have b e e n c o l l e c t i n g the [sales] t a x . Consequently, the burden o f t h e Town's d i l a t o r y c o n d u c t now f a l l s upon [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] , who c a n n o t t u r n b a c k t h e c l o c k t o c o l l e c t the [sales] t a x at the time of sale. " I t i s t h e Town's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e ( t h e validity of which i s uncontested) constitutes n o t i c e , and t h a t ' a c t u a l ' n o t i c e i s n o t r e q u i r e d . While the court recognizes this general legal p r i n c i p l e , i t f i n d s t h a t , b a s e d upon t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e , e q u i t y demands that [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] n o t b e a r t h e b u r d e n o f t h e Town's f a i l u r e to exercise due diligence. This conclusion i s based upon t h e f o l l o w i n g u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s : (1) t h e ... p r e m i s e s [ o f the Country Store were], at a l l times relevant h e r e t o , l o c a t e d i n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d S h e l b y C o u n t y ; (2) [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] r e c e i v e d no a d d i t i o n a l or improved p u b l i c s e r v i c e s by b e i n g l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e Town's p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n ; (3) [Bynum and t h e Country Store] could have t i m e l y c o l l e c t e d the 6 2110682 [sales] t a x at the p o i n t of sale, thereby i n c u r r i n g no p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e t a x ; and (4) t h e Town w a i t e d some f o u r y e a r s b e f o r e m a k i n g an e f f o r t t o c o l l e c t t h e [ s a l e s ] t a x . The c o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , f i n d s that [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y Store] are unduly p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e Town's n e e d l e s s d e l a y , o v e r w h i c h t h e Town h a d c o m p l e t e c o n t r o l . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s , ORDERED t h a t t h e Town[] i s e s t o p p e d f r o m c o l l e c t i n g t a x e s , b u s i n e s s l i c e n s e s and o t h e r f e e s , i n t e r e s t and p e n a l t i e s a s s e s s e d t o [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] p r i o r t o December 2009. " S u b s e q u e n t t o December 2009, and p r i o r t o t h e annexation of [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y Store's] p r o p e r t y i n t o t h e C i t y o f C h e l s e a i n O c t o b e r 2010, amounts due and o w i n g b y [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] t o t h e Town ... t o t a l e d $9, 020.10. A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] h a d b e e n p a y i n g $500.00 p e r month i n t o t h e i r a t t o r n e y ' s t r u s t a c c o u n t t o be a p p l i e d t o [ t h e i r ] o u t s t a n d i n g [ s a l e s ] t a x l i a b i l i t y . The c o u r t i s u n c e r t a i n as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t any o f t h e s e f u n d s have b e e n f o r w a r d e d t o t h e Town. " I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , ORDERED t h a t j u d g m e n t b e , and i t h e r e b y i s , e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e Town ... and a g a i n s t [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] , j o i n t l y and s e v e r a l l y , i n t h e t o t a l amount o f $9,020.10, l e s s c r e d i t f o r any p a y m e n t s t h a t may have b e e n made p r i o r t o the e n t r y of t h i s Order. " I t i s FURTHER ORDERED t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i v e a n d o t h e r r e l i e f s o u g h t b y [Bynum and t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] has b e e n r e n d e r e d moot b y t h i s O r d e r and b y t h e a n n e x a t i o n o f [ t h e i r ] p r o p e r t y i n t o an a d j o i n i n g municipality. Unless addressed hereinabove, a l l other relief requested by either party i s , t h e r e f o r e , DENIED. " T h e r e b e i n g no f u r t h e r i s s u e s p e n d i n g b e f o r e the c o u r t , t h i s case i s d i s m i s s e d and t h e c o s t s o f c o u r t a r e t a x e d as p a i d . " 7 2110682 (Capitalization i n original.) The Town a g a i n a p p e a l s t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l I n i t s b r i e f on a p p e a l , improperly laches t h e Town a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l applied the doctrine of estoppel t o prevent t h e Town Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e from court. court or the doctrine of enforcing d i d not favor its this ordinances. court with a brief. Based on our review of the record and o f t h e trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e doctrine of laches to prevent t h e Town from enforcing i t s o r d i n a n c e s and c o l l e c t i n g i t s s a l e s t a x e s and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e fees. filed We n o t e t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y b y Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y estoppel or laches, both Store of which judgment d i d not assert are a f f i r m a t i v e either defenses u n d e r R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., as a d e f e n s e t o t h e Town's right to collect The original not contain the sales trial taxes briefs filed any r e f e r e n c e s the f a i l u r e Southern United to assert Fire fees. by t h e p a r t i e s l i k e w i s e d i d e i t h e r t o the defense of estoppel or t o t h e defense o f l a c h e s . by and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e Thus, t h o s e d e f e n s e s were w a i v e d them. See R u l e 8(c); Tounzen v. I n s . Co., 701 So. 2d 1148, 1150 8 (Ala. 2110682 Civ. App. 1997) ("[G]enerally, when a party has f a i l e d to p l e a d an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , i t i s deemed t o have b e e n w a i v e d by operation of Rule 8 ( c ) . " ) . However, b e c a u s e for the pleadings at automatic 1 5 [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] amendment of pleadings affirmative pleaded." Rule 1 5 ( b ) i s an e x c e p t i o n defense Tounzen, whether i s waived 701 So. 2d a t 1150. the defense of laches hearing that, allow the p a r t i e s ordinance, specifically Therefore, was tried we must by t h e A l a . R. C i v . P. At s t i p u l a t e d to the f a c t he w o u l d have p a i d w o u l d have p a s s e d on t h e s a l e s the presented h a d Bynum b e e n made aware o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y sales-tax and on remand, provides t o t h e r u l e t h a t an i f i t i s not consent o f t h e p a r t i e s under Rule 15(b), the to t o conform t o t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t has been trial[,] consider "Rule taxes of the the sales taxes due t o h i s customers. 1 We n o t e t h a t i n h i s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e h e a r i n g on remand, Bynum d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e t h e b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e fees. I n f a c t , d u r i n g arguments b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h e p a r t i e s almost e x c l u s i v e l y d i s c u s s e d t h e s a l e s t a x e s and d i d n o t d i s c u s s t h e b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s . However, t h e p a r t i e s ' s t i p u l a t i o n s o f f a c t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Town s o u g h t t o c o l l e c t b o t h s a l e s t a x e s a n d b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s f r o m Bynum a n d t h e Country Store under t h e r e s p e c t i v e ordinances and t h a t t h e Town s o u g h t t o r e c o v e r b o t h t h e s a l e s t a x e s a n d t h e b u s i n e s s l i c e n s e fees f o r each year a f t e r t h e enactment o f each ordinance. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment r e f l e c t s t h e c o u r t ' s 1 9 2110682 A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e h e a r i n g on remand, c o u n s e l f o r Bynum a n d the Country S t o r e a r g u e d t h a t t h e Town s h o u l d be e s t o p p e d collecting the Town from t h e s a l e s t a x e s and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s because had w a i t e d over four years after the sales-tax o r d i n a n c e was p a s s e d t o s e e k i t s e n f o r c e m e n t a g a i n s t Bynum a n d the Country separately, Store (and, a l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s do n o t a d d r e s s i t i t appears t h a t t h e Town w a i t e d at least three years t o seek enforcement o f t h e b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e o r d i n a n c e ) ; thus, counsel commented Country that f o r Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y t o apply the ordinances Store t o Bynum Town d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h i s a r g u m e n t , w h i c h , a r e f e r e n c e t o only the defense the estoppel between and t h e S t o r e d e s p i t e t h e Town's d e l a y i n e n f o r c i n g them w o u l d be u n j u s t , i n e q u i t a b l e , a n d u n f a i r t o them. that specifically should t h e enactment Counsel while containing of estoppel, c l e a r l y be b a s e d f o r the on t h e p a s s a g e of the s a l e s - t a x ordinance indicated of time and t h e h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Town's e n f o r c e m e n t o f b o t h o r d i n a n c e s a n d t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e t a x e s o r f e e s due t h e r e u n d e r was b a r r e d b y the d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s . Thus, b e c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t does n o t a w a r d t h e Town any b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s b e f o r e t h e d a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e f i r s t became aware o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f b o t h t h e s a l e s - t a x o r d i n a n c e a n d t h e b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e o r d i n a n c e , we w i l l a d d r e s s b o t h t h e s a l e s t a x e s a n d t h e b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s due u n d e r the ordinances. 10 2110682 attempt to enforce i t . Thus, b e c a u s e Bynum and t h e Country Store r a i s e d the e q u i t a b l e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s b e f o r e the c o u r t w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n , we w i l l been t r i e d by t h e i m p l i e d 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. trial c o n s i d e r t h e d e f e n s e t o have consent of the p a r t i e s under Rule See R u l e 1 5 ( b ) , C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n ("Under t h e r u l e where e v i d e n c e i s i n t r o d u c e d o r an i s s u e r a i s e d w i t h t h e e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o f t h e o t h e r p a r t y , or w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n f r o m him, t h e p l e a d i n g s ' s h a l l ' be deemed amended t o c o n f o r m t o s u c h e v i d e n c e . " ) ; see a l s o , e.g., O. Weaver & S o n s , 1995)(recognizing defense t h a t was I n c . v. Towner, 663 that not Rule raised 2d 892, allows 15(b) So. an Hosea 896 ( A l a . affirmative i n t h e p l e a d i n g s t o be revived u n d e r R u l e 15(b) by i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e f e n s e o r i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e i s s u e w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n by t h e o t h e r p a r t y ) ; T o u n z e n , 701 So. 2d a t 1150 unraised affirmative defense can be (explaining that tried by the an implied c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s u n d e r R u l e 15(b) b u t d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t , i n t h a t c a s e , t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o f r e l e a s e was n o t by t h e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s b e c a u s e the p l a i n t i f f s had o b j e c t e d t o e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g the d e f e n s e ) . 11 tried 2110682 As a r g u e d by t h e Town, t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f laches against a governmental e n t i t y engaged i n a governmental function i s disfavored. See C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e v. S t o v e House 5, I n c . , 3 So. 3d 186, 192 ( A l a . 2008) . City of H u n t s v i l l e ("the c i t y " ) House 5, I n c . ("Stove H o u s e " ) , that the c i t y services (specifically, sanitary-sewer to and as others, Stove a judgment d e c l a r i n g police certain located within i t s corporate l i m i t s . a t 188. among to continue to provide fire services) sued, seeking was n o t o b l i g a t e d I n S t o v e House 5, t h e city protection and unincorporated land S t o v e House 5, 3 So. 3d Those a r e a s o f u n i n c o r p o r a t e d l a n d were r e f e r r e d t o " t a x i s l a n d s " because, although t h e y were surrounded by l a n d w i t h i n t h e c i t y ' s c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s , t h e y were n o t p a r t o f the Id. city and were t h e r e f o r e Stove judgment. House and I d . a t 189. among o t h e r t h i n g s , the the c i t y ' s prejudiced" city each t o pay c i t y moved for a taxes. summary I n i t s m o t i o n , S t o v e House r e l i e d on, the doctrine c i t y had w a i t e d t o o l o n g that not r e q u i r e d "lengthy S t o v e House. of laches, arguing that the t o seek t o d i s c o n t i n u e delay Id. 12 in filing services the action and ha[d] 2110682 Our supreme c o u r t r e j e c t e d S t o v e House's l a c h e s a r g u m e n t , stating: "We a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t l a c h e s s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d a g a i n s t [ t h e c i t y ] b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n s e s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d a g a i n s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . I n K i n g v. C a m p b e l l , 988 So. 2d 969 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h i s C o u r t q u o t e d f r o m Greenwood v. S t a t e ex r e l . B a i l e s , 230 A l a . 405, 407, 161 So. 498, 499 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , as f o l l o w s : "'"Reduced t o t h e l a s t a n a l y s i s , t h e d e f e n s e s o u g h t t o be i n t e r p o s e d i s i n t h e n a t u r e o f an e s t o p p e l . B u t t h i s c o u r t i n S t a t e ex r e l . L o t t v . B r e w e r , 64 A l a . 287, [298 (1879),] declared that estoppels a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e c a n n o t be f a v o r e d , and that though they may arise i n some i n s t a n c e s , y e t , upon t h e b r o a d g r o u n d o f p u b l i c p o l i c y , they cannot a r i s e , c e r t a i n l y as to the exercise of governmental functions, 'from the laches of i t s officers.'"' " T h i s C o u r t has a p p l i e d t h i s r u l e t o t h e a c t i o n s o f m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l s . See S t a t e v. C i t y o f Gadsden, 216 A l a . 243, 113 So. 6 ( 1 9 2 7 ) . We t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t S t o v e House's d e f e n s e o f l a c h e s . " S t o v e House 5, 3 So. 3d a t 192. B a s e d on S t o v e House collect the sales taxes 5, t h e Town's d e l a y and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s i t s s a l e s - t a x and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e o r d i n a n c e s a b a s i s f o r applying the defense of laches right and t o enforce owing. Id. i n seeking to i t s ordinances c a n n o t s e r v e as t o b a r t h e Town's and c o l l e c t t h e amounts due The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e 13 due u n d e r of laches 2110682 against its a municipality like the Town f o r f a i l i n g ordinances in a more d i s a p p r o v e d by our supreme c o u r t . Town's m u n i c i p a l timely manner Id. ordinances cannot ordinances. Id. court, and The prevent the Accordingly, we remand f e e s due Town's we the reverse cause Town f o r t h e a p p l i c a b l e p e n a l t i e s and J., collect of those the entry sales taxes, of a business- i n t e r e s t due the b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e the under ordinance. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , Bryan, the u n d e r t h e Town's for l i c e n s e f e e s , and s a l e s - t a x o r d i n a n c e and of the judgment of of the REVERSED AND expressly failings enforcement judgment i n f a v o r the been enforce o f f i c e r s t o a c t i n a t i m e l y manner t o t h e s a l e s t a x e s and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e trial has to and concurs P i t t m a n and in the 14 Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . result, without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.