Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County v. Monica L. Thomas

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/11/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , 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, 2012-2013 2110728 Board o f School Commissioners o f Mobile County v. Monica L. Thomas Monica L. Thomas v. Board o f School Commissioners o f Mobile County e t a l . Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-11-901011) Court 2110728 MOORE, J u d g e . The Board") Court Board of School Commissioners of Mobile appeals ("the from trial a judgment of the County Montgomery c o u r t " ) a f f i r m i n g M o n i c a L. ("the Circuit Thomas's right to a h e a r i n g f o l l o w i n g the nonrenewal of her t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t w i t h the Board. Thomas c r o s s - a p p e a l s from the t r i a l d i s m i s s a l of her counterclaim seeking redress from the dismiss the and other individual the defendants. Board cross-appeal. F a c t s and In was the a l e t t e r d a t e d May superintendent Thomas t h a t h e r nonrenewed at of We court's end of and Procedural History 6, 2 0 0 8 , Roy the Board at D. N i c h o l s , J r . , who that employment c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e the appeal the 2007-2008 time, notified Board would school year. letter provided, in pertinent part: "You a r e b e i n g n o t i f i e d by t h i s l e t t e r t h a t d u r i n g t h e May 5, 2008, m e e t i n g o f t h e B o a r d o f S c h o o l C o m m i s s i o n e r s , t h e B o a r d by m a j o r i t y v o t e , a p p r o v e d t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s m o t i o n t o non-renew c o n t r a c t s o f employment f o r some o f t h e n o n - t e n u r e d t e a c h e r s . Y o u r name was on t h e l i s t t o be n o n - r e n e w e d . I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, S e c t i o n 16-24-12, t h i s i s y o u r o f f i c i a l n o t i c e t h a t y o u r c o n t r a c t o f employment w i l l n o t be r e n e w e d f o r t h e 2008-2009 s c h o o l y e a r . " 2 be That 2110728 In a letter dated September 29, 2008, Thomas's attorney a s s e r t e d t o N i c h o l s t h a t , b a s e d on Thomas's employment h i s t o r y as she a teacher had w i t h i n the Mobile County P u b l i c School acquired continuing-service requested that Nichols recognize status, System, or tenure, Thomas's s t a t u s , and reinstate h e r s a l a r y and b e n e f i t s and p a y h e r any sums due f o r t h e 2 0 0 8 ¬ 2009 s c h o o l y e a r , and r e t u r n h e r t o h e r l a s t t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n or another p o s i t i o n a c c e p t a b l e indicated that, i f Thomas t o Thomas. was not That l e t t e r accorded the requested r e l i e f w i t h i n 15 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e l e t t e r , h e r would file employment On General had appeal of the decision not to attorney renew her contract. October dismissal Division an further with 14, the 2008, Chief of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Thomas filed a Administrative Hearings, Law Judge O f f i c e of the ("the A L J " ) ; she r e q u e s t e d an o r d e r been d i s m i s s e d contest of her of the Attorney finding that she i n v i o l a t i o n o f the former Alabama Teacher T e n u r e A c t ("the A T T A " ) , f o r m e r § 16-24-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, and r e s c i n d i n g h e r d i s m i s s a l . B o a r d f i l e d an answer t o Thomas's 3 On November 3, 2008, t h e contest. 2110728 Both p a r t i e s submitted b r i e f s t o the ALJ. facts submitted to the ALJ reveal that The u n d i s p u t e d Thomas had e m p l o y e d b y t h e B o a r d as a t e a c h e r a t Howard E l e m e n t a r y for t h e e n t i r e 2003-2004 s c h o o l y e a r ; a t Meadowlake School f o r the e n t i r e 2004-2005 been School Elementary s c h o o l y e a r ; and a t I n d i a n S p r i n g s E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 2005-2006 school year until January 30, v o l u n t a r i l y resigned her p o s i t i o n . 2006, 1 at which time she Thomas was r e h i r e d b y t h e B o a r d as a t e a c h e r a t C r a i g h e a d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l on September 14, for 2006, f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r the e n t i r e 2007-2008 o f t h e 2006-2007 school year, s c h o o l year and when she r e c e i v e d N i c h o l s ' s May 6, 2008, l e t t e r r e g a r d i n g t h e n o n r e n e w a l o f h e r employment c o n t r a c t . On J u l y 8, 2 0 1 1 , t h e A L J e n t e r e d a f i n a l o r d e r , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t Thomas h a d a t t a i n e d t e n u r e a n d t h a t t h e B o a r d was r e q u i r e d t o a f f o r d h e r a h e a r i n g p u r s u a n t t o f o r m e r § 1 6 - 2 4 - 2 1 , A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f t h e ATTA. On A u g u s t 5, 2 0 1 1 , t h e B o a r d f i l e d a p e t i t i o n of certiorari i n the t r i a l court, requesting that the t r i a l court reverse the decision of the ALJ. Thomas 1 filed a response fora writ On S e p t e m b e r 15, 2 0 1 1 , t o the Board's p e t i t i o n ; The Board a c c e p t e d h e r r e s i g n a t i o n i n F e b r u a r y 4 she also 2006. 2110728 filed a counterclaim counterdefendants Reginald A. against Board, also adding N i c h o l s and t h e o t h e r members o f t h e Crenshaw, Judy William Foster, i n their In the P. Stout, Levon i n d i v i d u a l and C. Board, Manzie, official as and capacities. h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m , Thomas s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t , a writ o f mandamus, and counterdefendants the Mobile injunction to compel the t o o f f e r Thomas a p o s i t i o n as a t e a c h e r i n County counterdefendants a permanent Public to School recognize her System, to order as a status t e a c h e r , and t o o r d e r t h e c o u n t e r d e f e n d a n t s the tenured t o pay Thomas t h e l i q u i d a t e d amount she w o u l d have e a r n e d had she c o n t i n u e d h e r employment as a t e a c h e r w i t h t h e M o b i l e C o u n t y P u b l i c S y s t e m a t t h e end The Board November 7, o f t h e 2007-2008 s c h o o l y e a r . filed 2011. School a brief On i n support November 11, of 2011, i t s petition the Board and on the remaining counterdefendants f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s Thomas's counterclaim. of In support their motion to dismiss, the counterdefendants a s s e r t e d t h a t Thomas had f a i l e d to state claim relief pursuant upon w h i c h c o u l d be 12(b) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., other equitable r e l i e f granted, to and t h a t h e r c l a i m s f o r b a c k p a y a Rule and were b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e 5 2110728 of l i m i t a t i o n s . On November 16, 2 0 1 1 , Thomas f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the Board's b r i e f supporting i t s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i and i n s u p p o r t B o a r d and t h e r e m a i n i n g of her counterclaim. counterdefendants The filed a reply brief on November 28, 2 0 1 1 . On December 6, 2011, t h e t r i a l denying the affirming Board's the counterclaim. 20, 2011, petition ALJ's court entered for a decision, writ and of a judgment certiorari, dismissing Thomas's Thomas f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on December requesting the trial court to reinstate her counterclaim or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t o c l a r i f y i t s reason f o r dismissing her counterclaim. motion The B o a r d f i l e d on December 27, 2 0 1 1 , r e q u e s t i n g reconsider i t s denial of trial 2012. to court denied the t r i a l i t s petition c e r t i o r a r i ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d a postjudgment for a court to writ on J a n u a r y 3, 2012. of The Thomas's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on M a r c h 12, On A p r i l 18, 2012, t h e B o a r d f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l this court. Thomas filed her cross-appeal 2012. 6 on A p r i l 25, 2110728 Discussion The B o a r d a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n a f f i r m i n g the ALJ's d e c i s i o n because, i t says, Thomas was n o t a tenured teacher following and, t h u s , the nonrenewal was n o t e n t i t l e d of her contract. to a hearing Thomas cross- a p p e a l s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g her counterclaim. because we conclude jurisdiction. So. We cannot address those i s s u e s , that this court lacks however, subject-matter See A l a b a m a Dep't o f Pub. S a f e t y v. B a r b o u r , 5 3d 601 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . The ATTA p r o v i d e d that teachers could attain continuing- s e r v i c e s t a t u s b y s e r v i n g " u n d e r c o n t r a c t as a t e a c h e r i n the same c o u n t y o r c i t y s c h o o l s y s t e m f o r t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e school years F o r m e r § 1 6 - 2 4 - 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. that a t t a i n e d continuing-service status, or tenure, be d i s m i s s e d Teachers could only f o r c e r t a i n g r o u n d s as s t a t e d i n f o r m e r § 16-24¬ 8, A l a . Code 1975, a n d o n l y b y f o l l o w i n g t h e e x a c t n o t i c e and h e a r i n g p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n f o r m e r § 16-24-9, A l a . Code 1975. who On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e employment c o n t r a c t s o f t e a c h e r s had not attained "nontenured" teachers, continuing-service c o u l d be c a n c e l e d 7 status, i . e . , i f , " i n the opinion 2110728 of the [school] require[d] i t , " cancellation board, the best interests of the school and such a f o r m e r § 16-8-23, A l a . Code 1975, could be e f f e c t u a t e d by simply notifying the t e a c h e r o f t h e n o n r e n e w a l o f h i s o r h e r employment c o n t r a c t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h f o r m e r § 16-24-12, A l a . Code 1975. teachers d i d not have any rights to a employing board or t o a h e a r i n g b e f o r e Nontenured conference with the an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w judge or other h e a r i n g o f f i c e r t o c o n t e s t the s c h o o l board's d e c i s i o n t o c a n c e l h i s o r h e r employment c o n t r a c t . See, N e l s o n v. E t o w a h C n t y . Bd. (Ala. Civ. App. 2d 413 1997). Although the between t e n u r e d any o f E d u c . , 703 So. e.g., mechanism ATTA and for set out a very nontenured teachers, resolving disputes clear distinction i t d i d not regarding provide whether p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r had a t t a i n e d c o n t i n u i n g - s e r v i c e s t a t u s . B o y d v. A l a b a m a S t a t e T e n u r e C o m m i s s i o n , 406 C i v . App. teacher 2d 438 In (Ala. 1 9 8 1 ) , an e m p l o y i n g s c h o o l b o a r d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a had not attained summarily canceled court So. a held that the the board's determination continuing-service teacher's employment c o n t r a c t . teacher could through any 8 status not contest administrative the and This school proceedings 2110728 because t h e Tenure tenured teachers. the teacher Commission could only hear appeals from This court suggested t h a t the i s s u e whether had a t t a i n e d continuing-service status could be d e c i d e d o n l y t h r o u g h an o r i g i n a l l e g a l a c t i o n f i l e d i n c i r c u i t court. 406 So. 2d a t 439. In B e r r y 315 v. P i k e County Board o f Education, 448 So. 2d ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t , r e l y i n g on Boyd, h e l d whether a teacher has attained continuing-service c a n n o t be d e c i d e d i n an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g . noted that, at that Commission the time, authority to hear not t h e T e n u r e C o m m i s s i o n any a u t h o r i t y o v e r The Commission teacher the at lacks supreme court 317. The c o u r t "Since t o render i t lacks issue of the existence, b u t t h a t t h e ATTA d i d stated: jurisdiction i s not tenured, the [Tenure] a decision v e l non, o f t e n u r e . " who c l a i m s a 448 So. 2d t o be t e n u r e d , b u t who agreed w i t h Boyd t h a t 9 that "[n]o administrative i s t r e a t e d b y t h e e m p l o y i n g b o a r d as n o t t e n u r e d . " supreme c o u r t nontenured the a u t h o r i t y t o determine further stated that remedy e x i s t s f o r a t e a c h e r the The c o u r t employment-termination f i l e d o n l y by t e n u r e d t e a c h e r s teachers. status t h e ATTA b e s t o w e d upon t h e T e n u r e contests give that I d . Thus, "the proper place to 2110728 litigate that tenured status,] later, So. tenure status 2d a t It treated i s i n the the question circuit of court." a Id. teacher's Two years ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t c l a r i f i e d t h a t i n Berry resolved, So. i.e., i n A l a b a m a A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c h o o l B o a r d s v. W a l k e r , 2d 1013 holding issue[, applies vel non is i n any case itself the " i n which primary i . e . , w h e t h e r t e n u r e s t a t u s was a 492 its teacher's issue to ever gained." be 492 1015. i s clear Thomas as from the record a nontenured that Nichols teacher. 2 The and the Board May 6, 2008, T h i s case d i f f e r s m a t e r i a l l y from Birmingham C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n v. H a w k i n s , 48 So. 3d 638 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . I n H a w k i n s , i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t H a w k i n s , t h e t e a c h e r , had attained tenured status before allowing her teaching c e r t i f i c a t e to lapse. The l o c a l s c h o o l b o a r d p u r p o r t e d to c a n c e l h e r employment c o n t r a c t w i t h o u t f o l l o w i n g t h e n o t i c e and h e a r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d i n f o r m e r §§ 16-24-9 and -10, A l a . Code 1975, on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e lapse had e x t i n g u i s h e d H a w k i n s ' s s t a t u s as a t e a c h e r . Hawkins a p p e a l e d t o an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law j u d g e u n d e r f o r m e r § 16-24-21, A l a . Code 1975, who h e l d t h a t , as a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r , H a w k i n s was entitled t o n o t i c e and a hearing before her employment c o n t r a c t c o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d . The l o c a l s c h o o l b o a r d t h e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , w h i c h t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t d e n i e d , p r o m p t i n g an a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t . The i s s u e i n H a w k i n s was n o t w h e t h e r H a w k i n s had a c q u i r e d t e n u r e d s t a t u s , b u t w h e t h e r she was, i n f a c t , s t i l l a t e a c h e r due t o the l a p s e of her t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e . Former § 16-24-21 provided a tenured teacher the right to appeal to an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law j u d g e i f he o r she was d e n i e d h i s o r h e r r i g h t s t o n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g , so H a w k i n s f o l l o w e d the 2 10 2110728 letter from designated Nichols notified h e r as a n o n t e n u r e d t e a c h e r summarily decided under former obviously disputed outlined that the Board had and t h a t t h e Board had t o nonrenew h e r employment c o n t r a c t . l e t t e r d i d not apprise have Thomas The Thomas o f a n y o f t h e r i g h t s she w o u l d § 16-24-9 as a t e n u r e d teacher. Thomas t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e B o a r d a n d N i c h o l s , as i n h e r September 29, 2008, letter i n which she a s s e r t e d t h a t she h a d a t t a i n e d c o n t i n u i n g - s e r v i c e s t a t u s a n d t h a t she was t h u s e n t i t l e d t o t h e f u l l p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e ATTA before h e r employment c o u l d l a w f u l l y be Thomas s u b m i t t e d to the A L J i n October jurisdiction 1986 the dispute when B e r r y d i d not provide as t o t e n u r e regarding 2 0 0 8 ; however, over that d i s p u t e . terminated. her tenure status t h e A L J d i d n o t have As was t h e c a s e i n 1984 a n d a n d W a l k e r were d e c i d e d , as o f 2008 t h e ATTA an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedy t o r e s o l v e a d i s p u t e status. I n 2008, f o r m e r § 16-24-9 a n d f o r m e r § 16-24-10, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e d that hearing the former Tenure Commission) o f f i c e r s (as opposed to were to decide contests r e g a r d i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment c o n t r a c t s o f c o r r e c t procedure i n t h a t case. I n t h i s c a s e , Thomas a n d t h e B o a r d d i s p u t e w h e t h e r Thomas e v e r a t t a i n e d t e n u r e d s t a t u s , w h i c h d i s p u t e c a n n o t be d e c i d e d u n d e r f o r m e r § 1 6 - 2 4 - 2 1 . 11 2110728 tenured teachers, but not of nontenured teachers. 1 6 - 2 4 - 2 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, specifically relied upon w h i c h t h e A L J for i t s jurisdiction, Former in this § case provided: "A teacher who has attained continuing service s t a t u s and has b e e n d e n i e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e the l o c a l b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n as r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 16¬ 24-6, 16-24-9, 16-24-15, o r 1 6 - 2 4 - 1 8 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l d i r e c t l y t o t h e C h i e f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law J u d g e o f t h e O f f i c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e H e a r i n g s , D i v i s i o n of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Judges, O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y General for relief." (Emphasis added.) only for Consistent F o r m e r § 16-24-21 p r o v i d e d tenured teachers, w i t h the reasoning issue could circuit be court, i s v o i d and any without in a legal a c t i o n t a k e n by our certiorari supreme directed action the question status. the A L J That before on the that issue 2d 569 (Ala. effect. I n Ex p a r t e W a r w i c k D e v e l o p m e n t Co., 1996), teachers. to d e c i d e the t h r e s h o l d only rights W a l k e r , and B o y d , attained continuing-service decided and nontenured of B e r r y , A L J d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n w h e t h e r Thomas had not appellate court to W a r w i c k D e v e l o p m e n t Co., denied this 681 i n which t h i s court reversed a So. petition court's So. 681 2d 566 decision for in a writ of R.B.Z. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d 12 1996), by the 2110728 trial court. supreme At the time court indicating did that not i t denied have certiorari the information any review, before i t t h e amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t of t h i s $50,000, On a l a t e r court. exceeded petition f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e supreme c o u r t r e c e i v e d information t h a t t h e amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y h a d e x c e e d e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l limit of t h i s (Ala. 1997). the record court. Ex p a r t e i n R.B.Z. v. W a r w i c k D e v e l o p m e n t Co., matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , In e f f e c t , decided a petition Ex p a r t e t h e supreme for a R.B.Z., 725 So. 2d a t court writ of held that, certiorari case, the Board purported w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i to the t r i a l asserted a p p e a l as i f i t t h a t d e c i s i o n w o u l d have no l e g a l In t h i s at one jurisdiction of point court c o u r t t o t h e supreme c o u r t as i t have b e e n o r i g i n a l l y . 260-61. the i n i t i a l of subject- i t w o u l d t r e a t t h e r e v e r s a l by t h i s had been t r a n s f e r r e d by t h i s decision, 258 681 So. 2d c o u r t had a c t e d w i t h o u t a n u l l i t y and w o u l d c o n s i d e r should So. 2d 257, The supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t , i f upon a r e v i e w 566, i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h i s as R.B.Z., 725 that court. the Board t h e A L J , t h e body 13 to f i l e of i f i t had from void effect. a petition for Although the was a petition contesting the p e t i t i o n the merely 2110728 attacked the l e g a l conclusions drawn b y t h e A L J as t o t h e merits of the contest regarding Thomas's t e n u r e Board d i d not request that the t r i a l status. The c o u r t determine whether the A L J had l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h a t b a s i c issue. See R i l e y v. Hughes, 17 So. 3d 643, 648 ("[S]ubject-matter failure court cannot t o a r g u e i t as an i s s u e . " ) . responded without its jurisdiction first to the issues be ( A l a . 2009) waived Accordingly, the as s e t o u t i n t h e over the B a s e d on Ex p a r t e R.B.Z., we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l of c e r t i o r a r i was that the p e t i t i o n judicial entered review wholly filed without by court's the t r i a l judgment a g a i n s t court the Board. seeking failed to c o u r t were v o i d ab the a u t h o r i t y to enter i t s See B e r n a l s , LLC, 70 So. 3d 315, 321 14 order, and jurisdiction. i n the t r i a l lacked by t h e A L J essentially of a v o i d subject-matter Because t h e proceedings entered for a writ statutory jurisdiction the Board, of the merits the t r i a l Greystone, on a p e t i t i o n the substance of the order that initio, trial i n v e s t i g a t i n g whether the A L J had a c t e d w i t h i n court lacked the a u t h o r i t y t o review invoke the petition, s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y by a s s e r t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n matter. by I n c . v. K e s s l e r - ( A l a . 2011) . Likewise, 2110728 because the Board's p e t i t i o n d i d not invoke the t r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h a t c o u r t l i k e w i s e d i d not o b t a i n o v e r Thomas's c o u n t e r c l a i m s , (Ala. 2010) failed and Office Ctr. to invoke action plaintiff trial was due to be appeal 556, and with 559 the or cross-appeal as i n s t r u c t i o n s to j u d g m e n t and 3d 317, standing, in See being Vann v. Thus, we complaint jurisdiction, toto, Cook, dismiss from a v o i d trial court to 321-23 including 989 support So. 2d the appeal judgment, albeit vacate its void t o remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e A L J w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t the A L J vacate APPEAL AND Pittman See B l e v i n s v. A v o i d judgment w i l l not 2008). the So. subject-matter dismissed a cross-appeal. ( A l a . C i v . App. 51 lacked court's defendant's counterclaims.). an i s also void. Owners' A s s ' n , (Because jurisdiction f i l e d i n t h e same a c t i o n , and i t s d i s m i s s a l of those c o u n t e r c l a i m s Hillwood court's as well. CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. and Thompson, i t s v o i d order Bryan, J J . , concur. P.J., and Thomas, without w r i t i n g s . 15 J., concur i n the result,

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.