Jefferson County v. Suzanne Birchfield

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/17/11 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 be 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, 2010-2011 2090257 J e f f e r s o n County v. Suzanne Birchfield Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-06-913) BRYAN, J u d g e . 1 Jefferson County, the defendant below, j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d , 1 this Court, This appeal court. was p r e v i o u s l y a s s i g n e d appeals the p l a i n t i f f from a below. t o another judge of 2090257 We r e v e r s e a n d remand. Procedural History On J u l y 26, 2006, B i r c h f i e l d complaint, s u e d J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y . Her as u l t i m a t e l y amended, a l l e g e d t h a t she h a d s e r v e d as t h e a p p o i n t e d c h i e f d e p u t y t a x a s s e s s o r f o r t h e Bessemer D i v i s i o n o f J e f f e r s o n County ("the c h i e f deputy t a x a s s e s s o r Bessemer") f r o m September 29, 1987, u n t i l October 15, 2006; t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o c o s t - o f - l i v i n g a d j u s t m e n t s ("COLAs") to her salary while assessor-Bessemer; she that a s s i s t a n t t a x assessor served John as Scott, the c h i e f who was deputy t a x the elected f o r t h e Bessemer D i v i s i o n o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ( " t h e a s s i s t a n t t a x a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r " ) when she was appointed represented the chief deputy tax t o h e r i n September assessor-Bessemer, had 1987 t h a t s h e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o COLAs b e c a u s e COLAs w o u l d c a u s e h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n t o e x c e e d 90% o f h i s compensation, w h i c h would v i o l a t e a p p l i c a b l e l a w ; that that representation constituted a misrepresentation of m a t e r i a l f a c t ; a n d t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o t h e COLAs t h a t h a d not been September paid to 3 0 , 2002. her from Based September 29, 1987, on t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s , through Birchfield s o u g h t a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o COLAs f o r 2 2090257 t h e p e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 29, 1987 t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2002, a n d damages based on misrepresentation. theories of Answering, breach Jefferson of contract and denied that County B i r c h f i e l d was e n t i t l e d t o COLAs w h i l e s h e s e r v e d deputy t a x assessor-Bessemer and denied that as t h e c h i e f Scott had m i s r e p r e s e n t e d a m a t e r i a l f a c t t o B i r c h f i e l d . J e f f e r s o n County also asserted various affirmative defenses including the applicable statutes of l i m i t a t i o n s . F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l a t which i t r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, the t r i a l court entered t h e f o l l o w i n g judgment: " T h i s c a u s e came on t o be h e a r d on P l a i n t i f f , Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d ' s C o m p l a i n t f o r payment o f C o s t o f L i v i n g A d j u s t m e n t B e n e f i t s due f r o m J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y . The C o u r t t o o k t e s t i m o n y on J u n e 3 0 t h and J u l y 6 t h , 2009. A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g s a i d t e s t i m o n y and the e x h i b i t s r e c e i v e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , t h i s Court f i n d s t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r i s due t o be e n t e r e d : " 1 . On J u l y 14, 1987, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e enacted Act 87-421 which provided f o r the appointment o f a C h i e f Deputy Tax A s s e s s o r by t h e E l e c t e d J e f f e r s o n County Tax A s s e s s o r and by t h e E l e c t e d J e f f e r s o n County A s s i s t a n t Tax Assessor, Bessemer D i v i s i o n . S a i d a c t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e Deputy Tax A s s e s s o r w o u l d be ' c o m p e n s a t e d a t a r a t e e q u a l t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y M e r i t S y s t e m C l a s s T h i r t y ... ' and t h a t ' S a i d C h i e f D e p u t i e s s h a l l r e c e i v e any a n d a l l b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e r e c e i v e d by M e r i t System E m p l o y e e s , i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y payments ' "2. One o f t h e b e n e f i t s System Employees o f J e f f e r s o n 3 t o which the M e r i t C o u n t y were a n d a r e 2090257 e n t i t l e d i s a y e a r l y C o s t o f L i v i n g A d j u s t m e n t . The amount o f t h e b e n e f i t i s a d j u s t e d i n t h e f a l l o f each year by t h e J e f f e r s o n County Commission. "3. Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d was a p p o i n t e d as C h i e f Deputy Tax A s s e s s o r f o r t h e Bessemer D i v i s i o n o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a on September 29, 1987 and h e l d t h a t p o s i t i o n u n t i l O c t o b e r 15, 2006. "4. Jefferson County by and through i t s employees and agents represented to Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d t h a t she was n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e C o s t o f L i v i n g A d j u s t m e n t B e n e f i t f r o m 1987 u n t i l J u l y o f 2004. "5. Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d l e a r n e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o t h e C o s t o f L i v i n g Adjustment B e n e f i t i n A u g u s t o f 2004 when she r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f an o p i n i o n i s s u e d on J u l y 27, 2004, b y t h e O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h e State o f Alabama. This opinion, designated as Opinion 2004-189[,] provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "'The acts state that the "Chief D e p u t y " s h a l l r e c e i v e any and a l l b e n e f i t s that are received by Merit System Employees, i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y payments " ( C i t a t i o n s omitted). I t i s the opinion of t h i s O f f i c e that c o s t - o f - l i v i n g increases q u a l i f y as such a benefit. Therefore, i f the Jefferson County Commission g r a n t s m e r i t system employees i n J e f f e r s o n County a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e , t h e c h i e f d e p u t i e s w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o t h e same c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e . ' "The opinion further provided: "'The c h i e f d e p u t i e s a r e e n t i t l e d t o a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e , however, b e c a u s e A c t s 87-421, 88-936, and 88-946 s t a t e t h a t the c h i e f d e p u t i e s are e n t i t l e d t o a l l of 4 2090257 the benefits of county merit system employees. When the Jefferson County Commission g r a n t s a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e to m e r i t system employees, the deputies should receive the same cost-of-living increase.' "6. Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d c o n t a c t e d t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e on A u g u s t 2, i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r she l e a r n e d o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s o p i n i o n and requested payment of the Cost of Living Adjustment B e n e f i t s . "7. On t h e 1 5 t h day o f S e p t e m b e r , 2004, Ms. B i r c h f i e l d r e c e i v e d f r o m J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y t h e sum o f $1,640.76, which Jefferson County claimed was payment o f t h e C o s t o f L i v i n g A d j u s t m e n t B e n e f i t f o r t h e p e r i o d O c t o b e r 1, 2003 t h r o u g h [ S e p t e m b e r ] 4, 2004. "8. On t h e 2 8 t h day o f F e b r u a r y , 2005, Ms. B i r c h f i e l d r e c e i v e d f r o m J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y t h e sum o f $1,352.40 w h i c h J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y c l a i m e d was payment of the Cost of L i v i n g Adjustment B e n e f i t f o r the p e r i o d O c t o b e r 1, 2002 t h r o u g h September 30, 2003. "9. Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d s u b m i t t e d a c l a i m t o J e f f e r s o n County f o r the Cost of L i v i n g Adjustment B e n e f i t s w h i c h had b e e n w r o n g f u l l y d e n i e d t o h e r f o r the time period September 29, 1987 through [ S e p t e m b e r 30, 2 0 0 2 ] . "10. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y r e f u s e d t o pay the claim. "11. Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d f i l e d s u i t i n t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n two y e a r s o f t h e t i m e t h a t she f i r s t l e a r n e d t h a t she, as t h e C h i e f D e p u t y Tax A s s e s s o r o f [ t h e B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n o f ] J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , was e n t i t l e d t o t h e C o s t o f L i v i n g A d j u s t m e n t B e n e f i t r e c e i v e d by the M e r i t System Employees of J e f f e r s o n County. "12. At trial, Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d s u b m i t t e d 5 an 2090257 amended c l a i m t o t h i s C o u r t f o r t h e u n p a i d C o s t o f Living Adjustment Benefits i n t h e amount o f [$]141,542.24. "13. provides: Section 6-5-101 o f t h e Code o f Alabama "'Misrepresentations of a material fact made w i l f u l l y t o d e c e i v e , or recklessly w i t h o u t knowledge and a c t e d on b y t h e opposite party, o r i f made b y m i s t a k e i n n o c e n t l y a n d a c t e d on b y t h e o p p o s i t e party constitute legal fraud.' "14. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , t h r o u g h i t s o f f i c i a l s , agents and employees represented to Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d t h a t s h e was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a b e n e f i t w h i c h s h e was, b y l a w , e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e . T h e s e f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were c o n t i n u i n g i n n a t u r e a n d were made t o Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d w i t h t h e i n t e n t t h a t she s h o u l d r e l y on them. Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d r e l i e d the false representations made b y J e f f e r s o n on C o u n t y a n d s h e was damaged. "15. D e f e n d a n t , J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y f a i l e d t o p a y Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d , t h e C o s t o f L i v i n g A d j u s t m e n t to b e n e f i t w h i c h was due t o h e r , as m a n d a t e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e of the State o f Alabama. Jefferson C o u n t y owes t o Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d t h e sum o f $141,542.24. "Judgment i s h e r e b y r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a n d i n f a v o r o f Suzanne B i r c h f i e l d i n t h e amount o f $141,542.24 t o g e t h e r Jefferson the County t i m e l y supreme c o u r t with costs." a p p e a l e d t o t h e supreme then t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Facts 6 court; court 2090257 The A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d A c t No. 1987, in July 1987. In pertinent 87-421, A l a . part, Act No. Acts 87-421 provided: " S e c t i o n 1. The E l e c t e d J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Tax A s s e s s o r and t h e E l e c t e d J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y A s s i s t a n t Tax A s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , a r e empowered t o e a c h a p p o i n t one p e r s o n t o s e r v e as C h i e f D e p u t y . "Section 3. Said Chief Deputies shall be compensated at a r a t e e q u a l to J e f f e r s o n County M e r i t S y s t e m C l a s s T h i r t y , h o w e v e r , i n no event s h a l l such compensation exceed n i n e t y p e r c e n t of the c o m p e n s a t i o n r e c e i v e d by t h e A p p o i n t i n g A u t h o r i t y . " S e c t i o n 4. S a i d C h i e f D e p u t i e s s h a l l r e c e i v e any and a l l b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e r e c e i v e d by Merit System Employees, i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y payments ...." (Emphasis added.) B i r c h f i e l d t e s t i f i e d t h a t S c o t t had bill No. t h a t was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and 87-421 and that employee i n S c o t t ' s She she had office when he wrote the opinion" that, she merit-system proposed applied bill. told his before a Act p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f d e p u t y t a x a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r , S c o t t had " i t was that, as e n a c t e d as the that testified been w o r k i n g proposed for her further w r i t t e n the i f she were d e p u t y c h i e f t a x a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r , she w o u l d n o t be 7 appointed entitled 2090257 t o COLAs b e c a u s e COLAs w o u l d c a u s e h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n t o e x c e e d 90% o f h i s c o m p e n s a t i o n . ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) B i r c h f i e l d testified chief her that she n o n e t h e l e s s applied deputy t a x assessor-Bessemer further f o r the p o s i t i o n of and t h a t Scott appointed t o t h a t p o s i t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 29, 1987. Birchfield receiving an approximately testified automobile that Scott allowance $5,200 p e r y e a r and t h a t subsequently in the began amount she h a d a s k e d of Scott w h e t h e r she c o u l d r e c e i v e a COLA b e c a u s e he was r e c e i v i n g t h a t automobile allowance. According to Birchfield, "[t]hat [ h e r ] s a l a r y was "[e]ven t h o u g h he was g e t t i n g more money, t h e r e that capped Scott t o l d her a t 90% [ o f h i s ] " and that was no way [she] c o u l d g e t more money." I n 1989, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d A c t No. 89-1009, Ala. Acts 1989. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , A c t No. 89-1009 provided: " S e c t i o n 1. E f f e c t i v e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e J n e x t t e r m o f o f f i c e , O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 9 1 , t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y t a x a s s e s s o r ... s h a l l r e c e i v e a s a l a r y o f $55,800.00 p e r annum " S e c t i o n 2. E f f e c t i v e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e n e x t t e r m o f o f f i c e , O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 9 1 , t h e e l e c t e d a s s i s t a n t t a x a s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , ... s h a l l r e c e i v e a s a l a r y o f 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y of t h e J e f f e r s o n County t a x a s s e s s o r "Section 3. E f f e c t i v e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g 8 of the 2090257 n e x t t e r m o f o f f i c e , O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 9 1 , ... t h e c h i e f d e p u t y t a x a s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , ... s h a l l r e c e i v e an a n n u a l s a l a r y e q u a l t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y m e r i t s y s t e m c l a s s 30, s t e p 5, b u t i n no e v e n t s h a l l s u c h s a l a r y e x c e e d 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y r e c e i v e d by t h e a p p o i n t i n g official. ... I t i s f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Alabama A c t [ N o . ] 87-421 ... s h a l l be e x t e n d e d by t h e e n a c t m e n t of t h i s b i l l . " (Emphasis added.) Birchfield testified that, i n 1992, a q u e s t i o n arose r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r s h e w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o a l o n g e v i t y payment and that Payroll the J e a n n e E d w a r d s , who was t h e n Manager, t o l d longevity compensation Birchfield payment exceeding that the Jefferson she c o u l d because i t would 90% the of County not receive result i n her compensation of the a s s i s t a n t t a x assessor-Bessemer. B i r c h f i e l d f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d that she s u b s e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d August 5, Jefferson 1992, t h a t County Andy Attorney, a c o p y o f a memorandum Strickland, had sent who was t o Edwards. memorandum, S t r i c k l a n d o p i n e d t h a t , b e c a u s e S e c t i o n No. 87-421 expressly provided that the chief a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r was e n t i t l e d t o " a l l b e n e f i t s longevity Section payments" a n d A c t No. 89-1009 dated then the In that 4 of Act deputy t a x ... i n c l u d i n g had not repealed 4 o f A c t No. 87-421, t h e c h i e f d e p u t y t a x a s s e s s o r - 9 2090257 B e s s e m e r was e n t i t l e d t o l o n g e v i t y b e n e f i t s " r e g a r d l e s s s t a t u t o r y 90% cap on h e r s a l a r y " c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n No. of the 3 of Act 89-1009. I n 1996, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d A c t No. 96-541, A l a . A c t s 1996. T h a t a c t p r o v i d e d : " S e c t i o n 1. S e c t i o n 3 o f A c t No. amended t o r e a d as f o l l o w s : 89-1009 ... i s "'Section 3. Effective at the b e g i n n i n g of the next term of office, O c t o b e r 1, 1991, ... t h e c h i e f d e p u t y t a x assessor, Bessemer Division . .. shall r e c e i v e an a n n u a l s a l a r y e q u a l t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y m e r i t s y s t e m c l a s s 30, b u t i n no e v e n t s h a l l s u c h s a l a r y e x c e e d 90 p e r c e n t of the annual s a l a r y received by the appointing official. ... I t i s further p r o v i d e d t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s of Act [No.] 87-421 ... shall be extended by the enactment (Emphasis In of t h i s bill.'" added.) 1996, Scott died, and Karen Tucker became the a s s i s t a n t t a x a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r . T u c k e r renewed B i r c h f i e l d ' s appointment I n 1999, as c h i e f d e p u t y t a x a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r . t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d A c t No. 99-647, A l a . A c t s 1999. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t a c t p r o v i d e d : " S e c t i o n 2. ( a ) Commencing i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the effective date of this a c t , the elected Assistant Tax Assessor, Bessemer Division, of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o an a d d i t i o n a l 10 2090257 e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e i n t h e amount o f e l e v e n t h o u s a n d t w e n t y d o l l a r s ( $ 1 1 , 0 2 0 ) p e r annum, w h i c h s h a l l be in addition to a l l o t h e r expense allowances, c o m p e n s a t i o n , o r s a l a r y p r o v i d e d by l a w . ... " ( b ) B e g i n n i n g w i t h the e x p i r a t i o n of the term o f t h e i n c u m b e n t e l e c t e d A s s i s t a n t Tax A s s e s s o r , Bessemer D i v i s i o n , the a n n u a l s a l a r y f o r the e l e c t e d A s s i s t a n t Tax A s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , s h a l l be sixty-six thousand four hundred twenty dollars ( $ 6 6 , 4 2 0 ) p e r annum ... and a t t h a t t i m e , s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) s h a l l become n u l l and v o i d . II " S e c t i o n 4. (a) Commencing on t h e f i r s t day o f t h e month i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s a c t , t h e C h i e f Deputy Tax A s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o an a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e i n t h e amount o f nine thousand seven hundred twenty d o l l a r s ($9,720) p e r annum w h i c h s h a l l be i n a d d i t i o n t o a l l o t h e r expense a l l o w a n c e s , compensation, or s a l a r y p r o v i d e d by l a w . ... "(b) B e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e t e r m o f t h e i n c u m b e n t C h i e f Deputy Tax A s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y f o r t h e C h i e f D e p u t y Tax A s s e s s o r , B e s s e m e r D i v i s i o n , s h a l l be fifty-nine thousand seven hundred seventy-eight dollars ($59, 778) p e r annum ... and a t t h a t t i m e , s u b s e c t i o n (a) s h a l l become n u l l and On May 2, 2003, S t r i c k l a n d void." s e n t a memorandum t o Tucker and a number o f o t h e r J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y o f f i c i a l s i n w h i c h he o p i n e d t h a t A c t No. 2000-108, A l a . A c t s 2000, t h e Omnibus Compensation A c t , e n t i t l e d c e r t a i n J e f f e r s o n County i n c l u d i n g the officials, a s s i s t a n t t a x a s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r , t o a COLA i n 11 2090257 an amount e q u a l t o 3% o f t h e i r b a s e c o m p e n s a t i o n . officials who S t r i c k l a n d opined virtue the Omnibus C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t of c h i e f deputy tax Birchfield then entitled to d i d not that Jefferson t h a t she s u b s e q u e n t l y r e c e i v e d by the she received a copy County o f f i c i a l s of Tucker regarding testified a c o p y o f an e - m a i l t h a t Doug h a d become t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y P a y r o l l M a n a g e r , had S t r i c k l a n d on responding to a May 6, telephone 2003. Hand n o t e d call in he was Strickland which that had i n f o r m e d Hand t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f S t r i c k l a n d ' s May memorandum appointed they COLAs include w h e t h e r B i r c h f i e l d was e n t i t l e d t o COLAs. B i r c h f i e l d written of 2, 2003, memorandum and t h a t she and began q u e s t i o n i n g Hand, who list assessor-Bessemer. testified S t r i c k l a n d ' s May were The also regarding employees were COLAs, of Birchfield Jefferson entitled to and C o u n t y were COLAs. Hand's 2, three 2003, other claiming e-mail further stated: "My i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w s i s t h a t none o f t h e s e p o s i t i o n s i s due an i n c r e a s e a t t h i s t i m e as a r e s u l t o f y o u r COLA o p i n i o n . A c t No. 96-541 s t a t e s t h a t t h e s e p o s i t i o n s ' s h a l l r e c e i v e an annual s a l a r y e q u a l t o J e f f e r s o n County m e r i t system c l a s s 30, b u t i n no e v e n t s h a l l s u c h s a l a r y e x c e e d 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y r e c e i v e d by t h e a p p o i n t i n g o f f i c i a l . ' A l l of these p o s i t i o n s reached 12 that 2090257 t h e 90% maximum s e v e r a l y e a r s ago and y o u r r e c e n t o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g COLA's has r e s u l t e d i n a p r e s e n t i n c r e a s e i n expense a l l o w a n c e s f o r the a p p o i n t i n g officials, but not a p r e s e n t i n c r e a s e i n t h e i r s a l a r y amounts. "None o f t h e s e f o u r a p p o i n t e d p o s i t i o n s i n q u e s t i o n r e c e i v e d an e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e p r i o r t o t h e p a s s a g e o f A c t s No. 99-647 and 2000-359 which established expense a l l o w a n c e s of fixed dollar amounts f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h i s c u r r e n t t e r m o f o f f i c e . These expense a l l o w a n c e s are not t i e d t o the s a l a r y o r e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e amount b e i n g p a i d t o t h e appointing o f f i c i a l s . " I hope t h i s e x p l a i n s why none o f t h e s e f o u r a p p o i n t e d p o s i t i o n s i s due an i n c r e a s e i n s a l a r y o r e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e a t t h i s t i m e . ... " (Emphasis added.) On May mail to letter Tucker 9, 2003, S t r i c k l a n d f o r w a r d e d a c o p y o f Hand's e¬ Tucker. and an That e-mail. expressed assessor-Bessemer Tucker official and at her was least same In day, both Tucker her belief that entitled to one other sent S t r i c k l a n d a l e t t e r wrote letter the Strickland and her chief COLAs. On elected e-mail, deputy May 27, Jefferson r e q u e s t i n g t h a t he tax assessor-Bessemer J e f f e r s o n County o f f i c i a l s On September 25, and certain other tax 2003, County seek o p i n i o n from the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l r e g a r d i n g whether the deputy a an chief appointed were e n t i t l e d t o COLAs. 2003, Tucker 13 sent Hand an e-mail in 2090257 which she r e q u e s t e d No. t h a t he " p l e a s e 87-421 a n d compare t o S e c t i o n revisit Section 4 of Act 4 o f A c t No. 2000-108 a n d e x p l a i n why t h e 2003 3% COLA w o u l d n o t a p p l y t o C h i e f D e p u t i e s as 'any and a l l b e n e f i t s Employees.'" B i r c h f i e l d that are received responded System t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was g i v e n a c o p y o f T u c k e r ' s S e p t e m b e r 25, 2003, e - m a i l Hand by M e r i t t o Tucker's t o Hand. e-mail i n an e - m a i l dated S e p t e m b e r 29, 2003, i n w h i c h he s t a t e d : " I have a memo i n my f i l e s d a t e d J u n e 10, 1992 f r o m Andy S t r i c k l a n d g i v i n g h i s o p i n i o n as t o w h e t h e r t h e C h i e f D e p u t y T a x A s s e s s o r was e l i g i b l e f o r l o n g e v i t y p a y m e n t s . I n t h a t memo, Andy s t a t e s , r e g a r d i n g A c t 8 7 - 4 2 1 : 'The c o m p e n s a t i o n limitation of " n i n e t y percent" i n S e c t i o n 3 a p p l i e s o n l y t o " s u c h c o m p e n s a t i o n . " I t does n o t a p p l y to the "benefits ... i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y p a y m e n t s " i n S e c t i o n 4.' A l s o , i n t h e memo's c o n c l u s i o n , Andy w r i t e s : ' S e c t i o n 4 o f A c t No. 87-421 w h i c h awards " a l l b e n e f i t s ... i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y p a y m e n t s " t o s a i d C h i e f D e p u t y i s " e x t e n d e d " b y A c t No. 89-1009 and s u c h b e n e f i t s , i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y p a y m e n t s , a r e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e annual s a l a r y and a r e n o t l i m i t e d by t h e 9 0 % c a p on t h e " s a l a r y " o f t h e C h i e f D e p u t y . ' " I f t h e b e n e f i t s a u t h o r i z e d by S e c t i o n 4 o f A c t No. 87-421 a r e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y , a s Andy s t a t e s , t h e n t h e 3% COLA s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d s u c h a b e n e f i t b e c a u s e t h e COLA i s n o t i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y , b u t becomes a p a r t o f t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y ( i . e . , t h e COLA i s an a d j u s t m e n t t o t h e s a l a r y ; i t i s r e f e r r e d t o as a ' s a l a r y adjustment increase' throughout t h e Commission r e s o l u t i o n w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s i t ) . And i f t h e argument i s now b e i n g made t h a t t h e COLA s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d 14 2090257 a b e n e f i t a u t h o r i z e d b y S e c t i o n 4, t h e n why have we n o t b e e n p a y i n g ( a n d no one, t o my k n o w l e d g e , h a s e v e r a r g u e d t h a t we s h o u l d have p a i d ) t h e COLA t o the C h i e f D e p u t i e s each y e a r i n t h e p a s t s i n c e , i n A n d y ' s o p i n i o n , s u c h b e n e f i t s were n o t l i m i t e d by " U n l e s s i n s t r u c t e d o t h e r w i s e by my s u p e r v i s o r s o r t h e C o u n t y A t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e , we w i l l p r o c e e d w i t h implementing the pay r a t e s f o r the Chief Deputies ( w h i c h do n o t i n c l u d e t h e 3% COLA) as s t a t e d i n t h e e m a i l I s e n t t o y o u l a s t week." Birchfield testified that Tucker gave h e r a c o p y o f Hand's S e p t e m b e r 29, 2003, e - m a i l . Birchfield testified that, on S e p t e m b e r r e c e i v e d an e - m a i l f r o m T u c k e r , w h i c h 30, 2003, she stated: "Ok s o t h e COLA i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d as a ' b e n e f i t . ' So i t becomes ' c o m p e n s a t i o n . ' Now t h e problem i s the s a l a r y i s s e t l e g i s l a t i v e l y a t $59,778 a n d i s no l o n g e r a t 90%. The 90% was u s e d as a c a p o n l y a n d n o t as a minimum s a l a r y . Do y o u want to respond?" Birchfield t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t h e n s e n t Hand an e - m a i l on S e p t e m b e r 30, 2003, w h i c h stated: "Doug -- I t l o o k s l i k e t h e b a s i c p r o b l e m i s i n t e r m i n o l o g y a n d d e f i n i t i o n . When Andy s a i d i n h i s l a s t sentence 'are i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e annual s a l a r y and a r e n o t l i m i t e d b y t h e 90% c a p on t h e " s a l a r y " of t h e C h i e f Deputy,' he s h o u l d h a v e u s e d t h e w o r d i n g f r o m t h e '87 b i l l , S e c t i o n 3, w h i c h s t a t e s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n . ' I was a p p o i n t e d i n 1987 u n d e r t h a t e n a b l i n g a c t a n d was t o l d t h a t my c o m p e n s a t i o n w o u l d e q u a l M e r i t S y s t e m Grade 30 n o t t o e x c e e d 90% o f t h e appointing authorities' compensation. Other 15 2090257 l e g i s l a t i o n p a s s e d i n 89 ( A c t 89-1009) s e t t h e s a l a r y o f t h e a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e c h i e f deputies (the c h i e f deputies' s a l a r y s t i l l d i d not e x c e e d t h e 90% c a p on c o m p e n s a t i o n s e t u n d e r 87-421 b u t i f i t h a d we w o u l d h a v e b e e n l i m i t e d t o 90% o f the compensation of t h e a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t y ) . A c t 96-541 s i m p l y e l i m i n a t e d t h e S t e p 5 w i t h i n C l a s s 30 and h a d no e f f e c t on t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n o f s a i d C h i e f D e p u t i e s . A c t 99-647 gave t h e a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e c h i e f d e p u t i e s an e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e (another form o f compensation) t h a t r o l l e d i n t o s a l a r y and a l s o s e t t h e s a l a r y o f a l l e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 1, 2003. S a l a r y i s j u s t one f o r m o f c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d s h o u l d n o t be r e a d as r e p l a c i n g t h e p r o m i s e o f c o m p e n s a t i o n made t o t h e C h i e f D e p u t i e s i n A c t 87¬ 421. A c t 99-647 w h i c h a l l o w e d e x p e n s e a l l o w a n c e s f o r the Chief Deputies as w e l l as t h e A p p o i n t i n g Authorities clearly shows t h a t other forms o f compensation should [be] a n d a r e a l l o w e d t o t h e Chief Deputies. "The COLA g r a n t e d t o t h e A p p o i n t i n g A u t h o r i t i e s i s d e f i n i t e l y a f o r m o f c o m p e n s a t i o n e v e n when i t t u r n s i n t o s a l a r y a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e term. S a l a r y being only a p a r t o f compensation, the c h i e f D e p u t i e s s h o u l d r e c e i v e an a l l o w a n c e t h a t t a k e s them b a c k up t o 90% o f t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n o f t h e A p p o i n t i n g Authorities. " A c t 99-647 does n o t have a r e p e a l i n g s t a t e m e n t so i t d i d n o t r e p e a l 87-421. A c t s 89-1009 a n d 96-541 w h i c h d e a l w i t h s a l a r y o f t h e C h i e f D e p u t i e s was n o t i n t e n d e d t o r e p e a l S e c t i o n 3 o f 87-421 b e c a u s e s a l a r y i s c l e a r l y shown as a p o r t i o n o f c o m p e n s a t i o n -- t h e r e i s no c o n f l i c t t h e r e . I n f a c t , b o t h o f these laws s t a t e t h a t ' I t i s f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f A c t No. 87-421 a n d 88-946 s h a l l be e x t e n d e d by t h e enactment o f t h i s b i l l , ' i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was no i n t e n t t o r e p e a l a n y t h i n g . "The Statement J e f f e r s o n County o f Compensation 16 Commission p r o v i d e s annually to a l l a i t s 2090257 employees l i s t i n g a l l t h e forms o f compensation g i v e n t o employees and s t r e s s e s t h a t s a l a r y i s j u s t a p a r t of compensation. " P l e a s e c o r r e c t my c o m p e n s a t i o n t o i n c l u d e t h e s a l a r y as s e t u n d e r A c t 99-647 a n d o t h e r a l l o w a n c e s t h a t w o u l d make t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n e q u a l t o Grade 30 s t e p 10 as p r o v i d e d u n d e r A c t 87-421, n o t t o e x c e e d 90% of the compensation o f t h e A s s i s t a n t Tax Assessor, Karen Tucker." T h a t same d a y , Hand s e n t B i r c h f i e l d an e - m a i l stating: " E f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 1, 2003, y o u r s a l a r y i s s e t a t an a n n u a l amount o f $59,778 b y A c t # 98-647. As o f t h a t d a t e , t h e amount y o u a r e p a i d no l o n g e r h a s a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e amount p a i d t o a Grade 30 i n t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y M e r i t System n o r i s i t a f f e c t e d in any way b y t h e amount paid t o t h e Tax A s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r ( i . e . , t h e maximum l i m i t a t i o n o f 90% o f t h e s a l a r y p a i d t o t h e Tax A s s e s s o r - B e s s e m e r i s no l o n g e r i n e f f e c t ) . "You make t h e s t a t e m e n t ... t h a t ' S a l a r y i s j u s t one f o r m o f c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d s h o u l d n o t be r e a d as r e p l a c i n g t h e p r o m i s e o f c o m p e n s a t i o n made t o t h e C h i e f D e p u t i e s i n A c t 87-421.' The i s s u e o f t h e amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n t o be p a i d t o C h i e f D e p u t i e s i s addressed i n the f i r s t sentence of Section 3 of A c t # 87-421 w h i c h r e a d s as f o l l o w s : ' S a i d C h i e f D e p u t i e s s h a l l be c o m p e n s a t e d a t a r a t e e q u a l t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y M e r i t S y s t e m C l a s s T h i r t y , however, i n no e v e n t s h a l l s u c h c o m p e n s a t i o n e x c e e d n i n e t y percent of the compensation received by t h e Appointing Authority.' I don't s e e how this compensation described i n Section 3 could be i n t e r p r e t e d as a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n s a l a r y , p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n was s e t a t a r a t e e q u a l t o a J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y M e r i t S y s t e m C l a s s ( o r Grade) 30 and e a c h Grade i n t h e M e r i t S y s t e m h a s a r a n g e o f s a l a r y amounts a s s i g n e d t o i t . So i f y o u a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e amount p a i d t o a Grade 30 i n t h e s y s t e m , 17 2090257 you a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t a s a l a r y amount. T h e r e i s no o t h e r t y p e o f c o m p e n s a t i o n a s s i g n e d t o a Grade 30 i n the system, o n l y s a l a r y . In f a c t , i n the subsequent a c t s (# 89-1009 and # 96-541) r e l a t e d t o t h e pay o f the C h i e f D e p u t i e s , the term s a l a r y i s used i n S e c t i o n 3 o f t h o s e a c t s when d i s c u s s i n g t h e i s s u e o f t h e amount t o be p a i d b e i n g e q u a l t o t h e amount p a i d t o a Grade 30. " W i t h t h a t b e i n g t h e c a s e , I b e l i e v e i t becomes c l e a r t h a t A c t # 89-1009 s i m p l y c h a n g e d S e c t i o n 3 t o r e a d C l a s s ( i . e . , Grade) 30, S t e p 5 i n s t e a d o f j u s t C l a s s 30; A c t # 96-541 c h a n g e d S e c t i o n 3 t o once a g a i n r e a d j u s t C l a s s 30; and t h e n A c t # 99-647 s e t a new s a l a r y amount e f f e c t i v e O c t o b e r 1, 2003 w h i c h replaces t h e s a l a r y amounts a u t h o r i z e d by these previous acts. "As f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e new pay r a t e s , my p l a n r e m a i n s t h e same as s t a t e d i n t h e l a s t p a r a g r a p h o f my e m a i l s e n t t o K a r e n y e s t e r d a y S u b s e q u e n t l y , B i r c h f i e l d r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f an o p i n i o n the Alabama A t t o r n e y member o f the General, w h i c h had Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e . o p i n i o n , w h i c h was d a t e d J u l y 27, b e e n r e q u e s t e d by In p e r t i n e n t 2004, part, stated: "The a c t s s t a t e t h a t the 'Chief Deputy s h a l l r e c e i v e any and a l l b e n e f i t s t h a t a r e r e c e i v e d by M e r i t S y s t e m E m p l o y e e s , i n c l u d i n g l o n g e v i t y payments ... I t i s the o p i n i o n of t h i s O f f i c e t h a t c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e s q u a l i f y as s u c h a b e n e f i t . Therefore, i f the J e f f e r s o n County Commission g r a n t s merit system employees in Jefferson County a c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e , t h e c h i e f d e p u t i e s w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o t h e same c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e . T h i s c o s t - o f - l i v i n g i n c r e a s e w i l l n o t be s u b j e c t t o a limitation of 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e cost-of-living 18 of a that 2090257 i n c r e a s e r e c e i v e d by t h e a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s . The o n l y l i m i t a t i o n p l a c e d on t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n o f t h e chief deputies i s that t h e i r s a l a r y should not ' e x c e e d 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e a n n u a l s a l a r y r e c e i v e d by t h e a p p o i n t i n g o f f i c i a l . ' 1996 A l a . A c t s No. 96-541, 757." (Emphasis added.) Birchfield the attorney who was general's then w h e t h e r she testified the t h a t , a f t e r she opinion, a s s i s t a n t county w o u l d be s h o u l d have had testified that she telephoned attorney, e n t i t l e d t o COLAs, and Jeff and of Sewell, asked him that Sewell told opinion " c l e a r l y state[d] her t h a t the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s [she] she r e c e i v e d a copy that [COLAs] s i n c e 1987." B i r c h f i e l d f u r t h e r asked Sewell what course of action she s h o u l d t a k e t o o b t a i n COLAs and t h a t S e w e l l t o l d h e r t o n o t i f y Hand. Birchfield testified w a n t e d t o c l a i m t h e COLAs she and that wanted to testified Sewell file On County a that conversation appointed t o l d her with claim she a chief deputies written she that she s h o u l d have r e c e i v e d s i n c e 1987 to t e l l against the the t o T u c k e r and COLAs 19 Birchfield substance the i n B i r m i n g h a m and for Sewell county. 2004, B i r c h f i e l d claim told the p a y r o l l c l e r k t h a t communicated Sewell September 8, that p e r s o n s who also her were Bessemer. submitted from of she 1987 to Jefferson through August 2090257 2004. Her c l a i m t o t a l e d $98,575.49. B i r c h f i e l d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on S e p t e m b e r 15, 2004, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y p a i d h e r $1,640.76 as a COLA f o r t h e p e r i o d O c t o b e r 1, 2003, t h r o u g h September 15, 2004. On S e p t e m b e r 28, 2004, B i r c h f i e l d claim f o r COLAs f o r t h e p e r i o d s u b m i t t e d an amended September 29, 1987, t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 30, 2003. I n F e b r u a r y 2005, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y p a i d Birchfield $1,352.40, w h i c h r e p r e s e n t e d a COLA f o r t h e p e r i o d O c t o b e r 1, 2002 t h r o u g h September 30, 2003. I n J a n u a r y Birchfield submitted an amended c l a i m $135,333.44. B i r c h f i e l d October later 1, 2005, t h r o u g h f o r COLAs 2006, totaling r e c e i v e d COLAs f o r t h e p e r i o d s September 30, 2006, a n d O c t o b e r 1, 2006, t h r o u g h September 30, 2007. Birchfield information testified from that, Jefferson after County receiving additional regarding the COLAs a u t h o r i z e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n f o r t h e p e r i o d f r o m September 29, 1987, t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 30, 2002, she h a d c a l c u l a t e d t h a t t h e t o t a l COLAs she was due was $141,542.24. Standard o f Review "'"'[W]hen a t r i a l court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t a n d i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 20 2090257 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v . S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented t o the t r i a l court t o s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v . R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v . Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness a t r i a l judge's conclusions of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o t h e f a c t s . ' Waltman v . R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v . E a s t Gadsden G o l f Inc., Club, 985 So. 2d 924, 929 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . Analysis Jefferson trial respect court County erred argues, among o t h e r i n finding i n favor to her misrepresentation County says, claim things, that the of B i r c h f i e l d because, with Jefferson t h e s t a t e m e n t s upon w h i c h B i r c h f i e l d b a s e s h e r misrepresentation Jones v. M c G u f f i n , c l a i m were a l l e x p r e s s i o n s 454 So. 2d 509 ( A l a . of opinion. In 1984), t h e McGuffins c o n d i t i o n e d t h e i r p u r c h a s e o f a home on a f a v o r a b l e r e p o r t b y a structural inspected the walls, excellent engineer. Jones, t h e home a n d , a l t h o u g h stated that structural the structural he n o t e d s e v e r a l c r a c k s i n " i n [his] opinion" condition. 21 engineer, 454 So. t h e home was i n 2d at 510. The 2090257 McGuffins over p u r c h a s e d t h e home and $12,000 McGuffins The to repair the s u e d J o n e s and s o o n t h e r e a f t e r had foundation of s t a t e d a c l a i m of supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t the In 454 the case Birchfield's question until So. now she was legislature (Ala. see, e.g., us, did 2004) presumption question court entitled to of law statutes act COLAs. that an to no t h a t , on So. appellate a of trial 2d 234, court court's correctness to answer expression of opinion. that 2 question Even t h e was attorney 236-37 accords ruling the to on a legal statement necessarily a general's no supreme the c o n c l u s i o n s o f an i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ) , any purporting the Consequently, c e r t i o r a r i review, presumption governing r e s o l v e d by a c o u r t o f l a s t C.L.C., 897 and be s p e c i f i c a l l y answering correctness of f r a u d can s p e c i f i c a l l y address parte (holding accords the not e n a c t e d an Ex are 512. t h a t q u e s t i o n o r t h a t q u e s t i o n was resort, The "mere s t a t e m e n t s o f o p i n i o n before compensation whether the 2d a t home. misrepresentation. n o t m a t e r i a l f a c t s upon w h i c h a c t i o n s f o r l e g a l maintained." t o spend mere opinion B e c a u s e t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l does n o t r e q u i r e us t o r e a c h t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r B i r c h f i e l d was e n t i t l e d t o COLAs f r o m September 29, 1987, t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 30, 2002, we 2 22 2090257 c o n c l u d i n g t h a t B i r c h f i e l d was e n t i t l e d t o COLAs was m e r e l y an advisory (Ala. opinion. 1983) entitled effect See O s b o r n e v . B a n k s , ("Although to great an weight, o f law and i s o n l y attorney i t does advisory 439 So. 2d 695, 698 general's n o t have opinion the force i n nature."). is and Birchfield a d m i t t e d t h a t , when S c o t t t o l d h e r i n 1987 t h a t she w o u l d n o t be entitled his t o COLAs u n d e r A c t No. 87-421, he was "opinion." misrepresentation that will not we on representations Accordingly, Birchfield which c l a i m were m e r e l y support therefore, that the t r i a l Birchfield with a respect expressing conclude that bases expressions misrepresentation of the her opinion claim and, court erred i n finding i n favor of to her misrepresentation c l a i m . See Jones. Paragraph 15 o f t h e t r i a l court's judgment appears t o f i n d i n favor of B i r c h f i e l d with respect t o her claim a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t r u l i n g , C o u n t y a r g u e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e t r i a l because, contained J e f f e r s o n County says, the statute of i n § 6-2-38(m), A l a . Code 1975, b a r s e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g that issue. 23 seeking Jefferson court erred limitations Birchfield's 2090257 claim for declaratory relief. Section 6-2-38(m) provides: "(m) A l l a c t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f wages, o v e r t i m e , damages, f e e s , o r p e n a l t i e s a c c r u i n g u n d e r laws r e s p e c t i n g t h e payment o f wages, o v e r t i m e , damages, f e e s , a n d p e n a l t i e s must be b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s . " The parties addressing the have issue not cited whether a any COLAs caselaw specifically constitutes "wages" w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 6-2-38(m); h o w e v e r , "[w]hen i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , t h i s C o u r t i s bound t o l o o k t o t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d s u s e d by the l e g i s l a t u r e . " ' " I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning o f a s t a t u t e , t h i s Court looks to the p l a i n m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d s as w r i t t e n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . As we have s a i d : "'"'Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e is used a court i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f the language of the statute is unambiguous, then t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l construction and t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n effect.' " ' " B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d v. N i e l s e n , 714 So. 2d 293, 296 ( A l a . 1998) ( q u o t i n g IMED C o r p . v. S y s t e m s Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) "' 24 2090257 " T o l a r C o n s t r . , LLC v. 138, 149 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . " Kean E l e c . Co., C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Comm'n v. N o r t o n , 2007). Black's Law Dictionary 979 1610 944 So. 2d (8th ed. So. 766, 2d 773 2004) (Ala. defines "wage" as f o l l o w s : " ( u s u [ a l l y ] p l [ u r a l ] ) Payment f o r l a b o r o r s e r v i c e s , u s u [ a l l y ] b a s e d on t i m e w o r k e d o r q u a n t i t y p r o d u c e d ; s p e c i f [ i c a l l y ] , c o m p e n s a t i o n o f any e m p l o y e e b a s e d on t i m e w o r k e d o r o u t p u t o f p r o d u c t i o n ¢ Wages i n c l u d e every form of remuneration payable f o r a g i v e n p e r i o d t o an i n d i v i d u a l f o r p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s , including salaries, commissions, vacation pay, b o n u s e s , and t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f b o a r d , l o d g i n g , p a y m e n t s i n k i n d , t i p s , and any s i m i l a r a d v a n t a g e r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e e m p l o y e r . An e m p l o y e r u s u [ a l l y ] must w i t h h o l d income t a x e s f r o m wages. ... " (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we conclude that COLAs c o n s t i t u t e "wages" f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-2-38(m). C o n s e q u e n t l y , § COLAs she years before she f i l e d h e r a c t i o n . B e c a u s e she had been p a i d a l l COLAs she may may 6-2-38(m) b a r r e d Birchfield from r e c o v e r i n g have b e e n owed f o r p e r i o d s more t h a n two have been owed f o r p e r i o d s w i t h i n two years any before she filed her a c t i o n , the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g i n her f a v o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c l a i m s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t . See § 6- 2-38(m). I n summary, we reverse the judgment of the trial court i n s o f a r as i t f o u n d i n f a v o r o f B i r c h f i e l d w i t h r e s p e c t t o h e r 25 2090257 claim of misrepresentation judgment, further a n d we proceedings pretermit presented remand discussion and h e r c l a i m s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y t h e cause consistent of the t o the t r i a l with other this issues court f o r opinion. and 3 We arguments by J e f f e r s o n County. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, without w r i t i n g s . J . , concur i n the r e s u l t , The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y found i n f a v o r of J e f f e r s o n County w i t h r e s p e c t t o B i r c h f i e l d ' s breach-ofc o n t r a c t c l a i m , and t h a t h o l d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by Alabama caselaw h o l d i n g that "the s a l a r y of a p u b l i c o f f i c e r i s not b a s e d upon a c o n t r a c t . " C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Comm'n, 979 So. 2d a t 772. N e i t h e r p a r t y has c h a l l e n g e d t h a t r u l i n g o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t on a p p e a l . 3 26

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.