Ex parte State of Alabama. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: State of Alabama v. William D. Cornelius III and Billy W. Thompson, Colbert County Revenue Commisioner.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:10/23/2009 N o t i c e : This 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 Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080927 Ex p a r t e S t a t e o f Alabama PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: S t a t e o f Alabama v. W i l l i a m D. C o r n e l i u s I I I and B i l l y W. Thompson, C o l b e r t County Revenue C o m m i s s i o n e r ) (Colbert C i r c u i t BOLIN, Court, CV-08-137) Justice. The mandamus State o f Alabama directing petitions the Colbert this Circuit Court Court f o r a writ of to enter an 1080927 order dismissing, counterclaim on the basis f o r inverse of sovereign condemnation filed immunity, by William the D. Cornelius I I I . I. Background On J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e S t a t e , Alabama Department Probate Court property a answer. Colbert court by lien condemning Circuit to on taxes. Colbert the property. i n the of a which 1 portion Colbert Cornelius Probate Colbert County filed an entered Court Cornelius of a appealed to the Court. February Circuit and f o r ad v a l o r e m the filed f o r condemnation Cornelius Ultimately, judgment On of Transportation, petition owned claimed Colbert a a c t i n g by and t h r o u g h t h e 23, 2009, Cornelius filed a motion C o u r t t o amend h i s a n s w e r f i l e d assert a counterclaim inverse condemnation. against i n the i n the probate the State The S t a t e m o v e d t o d i s m i s s alleging the inverse- c o n d e m n a t i o n c l a i m b a s e d on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m m u n i t y o f t h e State. made See A l a . a defendant conducting Const. 1 9 0 1 , § 14 ( " t h e S t a t e i n any c o u r t a hearing, shall of law or e q u i t y " ) . the Colbert Circuit Court never be Without denied the C o l b e r t C o u n t y ' s R e v e n u e C o m m i s s i o n e r , B i l l y W. T h o m p s o n , was named a s a d e f e n d a n t . 1 2 1080927 State's claim, motion Cornelius's allowing the claim to stand. petition an to dismiss f o r a w r i t o f mandamus order, directing Cornelius's inverse-condemnation The S t a t e requesting the Colbert inverse-condemnation then f i l e d t h i s Court to enter Circuit Court claim. This to dismiss Court ordered the p a r t i e s t o l i m i t t h e i r arguments t o the i s s u e of immunity. the p e t i t i o n We grant II. Standard this and i s s u e sovereign writ. of Review "A w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , and i t ' w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e United S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 501 , 503 ( A l a . 19 9 3 ) . " Ex parte has Butts, held that appropriate claim 775 S o . 2 d 1 7 3 , 176 "a means petition f o r seeking of immunity." on Ex p a r t e 17 ( A l a . 2007) to this Alabama writ review of This mandamus o f an o r d e r Court i s an denying a 775 S o . 2 d a t 1 7 6 . III. In i t s b r i e f for a (Ala. 2000). Discussion Court, Department the State, of Transportation, ("Good H o p e " ) , a r g u e s t h a t 3 relying primarily 978 S o . 2 d the Colbert Circuit 1080927 Court had no condemnation State. alternative claim See Ex because parte 1980)(actions for against officials In Hope State regard to the Carter, inverse suing but claim 395 dismiss was So. condemnation in their a to State the solely 2d are against 65, to inverse- be 68 (Ala. "brought representative capacity"). agency, this Court in stated: " T h i s C o u r t has l o n g h e l d t h a t ' " ' t h e circuit court i s without j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n a s u i t against the State because of Sec. 14 of the Constitution.'"' L a r k i n s v. D e p a r t m e n t o f M e n t a l Health & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , 80 6 So. 2d 358 , 364 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t i n g Alabama S t a t e Docks T e r m i n a l Ry. v . L y l e s , 797 So. 2 d 4 3 2 , 435 (Ala. 2001), quoting i n t u r n A l a n d v . G r a h a m , 287 A l a . 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 , 250 So. 2d 677, 678 (1971)). '[A]n a c t i o n c o n t r a r y to the S t a t e ' s i m m u n i t y i s an a c t i o n o v e r w h i c h t h e c o u r t s of t h i s S t a t e l a c k s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction.' " T h i s C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, ' a f f o r d s t h e S t a t e and i t s a g e n c i e s an " a b s o l u t e " i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t i n any c o u r t . ' Haley v . B a r b o u r C o u n t y , 885 So. 2 d 7 8 3 , 788 (Ala. 2004); s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e M o b i l e C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 815 So. 2 d 5 2 7 , 530 (Ala. 2 001)('Pursuant t o § 14, A l a . C o n s t . of 1901, t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and i t s agencies have a b s o l u t e immunity from s u i t i n any c o u r t . ' ) ; Ex p a r t e T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 796 So. 2d 1100, 1103 ( A l a . 2000)('Under A l a . Const. of 1901, § 14, t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a h a s absolute immunity from l a w s u i t s . This absolute immunity extends to arms o r a g e n c i e s o f t h e s t a t e ' ) . This absolute i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t a l s o b a r s s u i t s f o r r e l i e f by way 4 the Good 1080927 o f mandamus o r i n j u n c t i o n . E x p a r t e So. 2 d 1 0 5 , 110 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . " Good Hope, This that T r o y U n i v . , 961 978 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 - 2 2 . Court has r e c o g n i z e d are not barred several categories of actions b y § 14: "There a r e f o u r g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f a c t i o n s which ... we stated do n o t come within the p r o h i b i t i o n o f § 1 4 : (1) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t t o c o m p e l S t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o p e r f o r m t h e i r l e g a l d u t i e s ; (2) actions brought to enjoin State officials from e n f o r c i n g a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w ; (3) a c t i o n s t o compel S t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o p e r f o r m m i n i s t e r i a l a c t s ; and (4) a c t i o n s brought under the Declaratory J u d g m e n t s A c t , T i t . 7, § 1 5 6 , e t s e q . , s e e k i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s t a t u t e and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n a given s i t u a t i o n . ... Other actions which are not prohibited by § 14 are: (5) valid inverse condemnation a c t i o n s brought against State o f f i c i a l s in their representative c a p a c i t y ; a n d (6) a c t i o n s for i n j u n c t i o n o r damages b r o u g h t against State officials i n their representative capacity and i n d i v i d u a l l y w h e r e i t was a l l e g e d t h a t they had acted fraudulently, i n bad f a i t h , beyond their authority or i n a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n oflaw." Drummond C o . v . A l a b a m a (Ala. Dep't of Transp., 937 S o . 2 d 5 6 , 58 2006). In o t h e r words, brought capacity. against a Ex p a r t e an i n v e r s e - c o n d e m n a t i o n State Carter, County official supra. Corr. v. Montgomery 2008) (thecategory of actions action i n h i s or her must official See a l s o A l a b a m a Dep't o f Comm'n, 11 S o . 3 d 1 8 9 , 194 that 5 be are not barred (Ala. b y § 14 a r e 1080927 "relevant only as officials in their the agency State In they official or Alabama relate the Department Inc., Court that those clarified barred by sometimes § 14, 990 r e f e r r e d to against as they relate 2d Transportation v. 831 , 840 2008 ), categories (Ala. to "exceptions" Harbert this of a c t i o n s t h a t are inverse-condemnation as State itself"). of So. e.g., claims c a p a c i t i e s , not State International, to to § actions, not are 14: "These actions are sometimes referred to as ' e x c e p t i o n s ' t o § 14; h o w e v e r , i n a c t u a l i t y these actions are simply not considered t o be actions ' " a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e " f o r § 14 p u r p o s e s . ' Patterson v . G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2 d 1 3 7 , 142 (Ala. 2002). T h i s C o u r t has q u a l i f i e d t h o s e ' e x c e p t i o n s , ' noting t h a t ' " [ a ] n a c t i o n i s one a g a i n s t t h e [ S ] t a t e when a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r the p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t or p r o p e r t y r i g h t of the S t a t e , or w o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y o f money f r o m t h e [ S ] t a t e . " ' A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v. Jones, 895 So. 2d 867, 873 (Ala. 2 00 4)(quoting S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2 d 1311, 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 5 ) ) ( e m p h a s i s i n J o n e s ) . " IV. We agree with the counterclaim alleging State defendant, as a subject-mater had no Conclusion State inverse the jurisdiction a l t e r n a t i v e but to to that because condemnation Colbert dismiss 6 i t . named Circuit e n t e r t a i n the "[A] Cornelius's solely Court lacked counterclaim complaint the and filed 1080927 solely and against the State i s v o i d ab i n i t i o . subject-matter action--is o r one o f i t s a g e n c i e s i s a nullity ... A n y a c t i o n t a k e n b y a c o u r t without jurisdiction--other void." than dismissing Montgomery County Commission, the 11 S o . 3 d a t at 192. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , Court does counterclaim not have and t h a t we h o l d jurisdiction i t must be the Colbert over the Circuit asserted dismissed. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Cobb, and that Woodall, C . J . , and Lyons, Stuart, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . , concurs i n the result. 7 Smith, Parker,

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.