Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. AHI Linden Lumber, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/11/2011 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, 2010-2011 2090891 Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s v. AHI Linden Lumber, LLC Appeal from Marengo C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900043) MOORE, J u d g e . The A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s appeals ("the from a judgment e n t e r e d trial ("AHI"), court") i n favor on F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 . ("ADIR") b y t h e Marengo C i r c u i t o f AHI L i n d e n Court Lumber, L L C Because t h e t r i a l court's 2090891 judgment recalculated AHI's unemployment-compensation c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e and t h e b e n e f i t r a t i o u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e f o r t h e y e a r 2009 b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t AHI was n o t a s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t to Linden Lumber determination Company, the t r i a l Ltd. Lumber") -- a c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o make -- we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l cause w i t h ("Linden c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and remand t h e instructions. Facts According operation to i n the Eventually, Hugh Hugh 1950s and Overmeyer, and was his Linden owned father, by Don Lumber his began grandfather. Overmeyer, gained o w n e r s h i p o f L i n d e n Lumber, w h i c h b e g a n t o e n c o u n t e r e c o n o m i c difficulties i n 2006 and 2007. e m p l o y e d 700 t o 800 p e o p l e , had been reduced A t one b u t , by l a t e t o between 200 time, Linden 2007, t h e and 400 Lumber workforce employees. t e s t i f i e d t h a t L i n d e n Lumber owned a p p r o x i m a t e l y Hugh 800 a c r e s o f l a n d i n L i n d e n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a s a w m i l l and f l o o r i n g p l a n t s , as w e l l as a f l o o r i n g p l a n t t h a t s a t on 60 a c r e s Thomasville, a wood yard that s a t on 20 acres of land i n of land i n M i s s i s s i p p i , and t i m b e r l a n d i n v a r i o u s A l a b a m a c o u n t i e s . 2 The 2090891 primary was l e n d e r on loans s e c u r e d by Linden F e d e r a l L a n d Bank; W a c h o v i a Bank was Lumber's p r o p e r t y the secondary lender. Hugh t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t a m e e t i n g i n 2007 w i t h e m p l o y e e s f r o m Federal Land Bank and Wachovia Bank, c e r t i f i e d appraisals r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e v a l u e o f L i n d e n Lumber e x c e e d e d $30 F e d e r a l L a n d Bank commenced f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g s Lumber's p r o p e r t y avoid closure, sawmill and testified the that i n 2007. Linden i n Linden; sought plants Capital a c q u i r e d some o f t h e sawmill Lumber flooring HIG According and took Hugh, a purchaser on Linden i n order Ted Rossy formed to for l o c a t e d i n Linden. a s s e t s of Linden that sale to million. the Hugh AHI and Lumber, i n c l u d i n g place on M a r c h 31, the 2008, and, a c c o r d i n g t o Hugh, AHI p a i d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $10 m i l l i o n f o r the a s s e t s i t purchased f r o m L i n d e n Lumber. Hugh s t a t e d t h a t he and h i s f a t h e r had had e q u i t y i n L i n d e n Lumber a t t h e of the s a l e and time t h a t t h e y l o s t t h a t e q u i t y upon t h e s a l e to AHI. Hugh t e s t i f i e d t h a t AHI a c q u i r e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 153 acres o f l a n d owned b y L i n d e n Lumber, i n c l u d i n g t h e s a w m i l l , l o c a t e d i n Linden. AHI d i d not a c q u i r e the other a p p r o x i m a t e l y 650 a c r e s o f l a n d i n L i n d e n , t h e 20 a c r e s l o c a t e d i n M i s s i s s i p p i , 3 2090891 t h e 60 acres located i n Thomasville, o r any l o c a t e d i n v a r i o u s Alabama c o u n t i e s . he nor h i s f a t h e r h e l d an Hugh c o n t i n u e d president a successor and i t had before the sale number on continued the as vice s t a t e d t h a t AHI March According a AHI independent the Internal 2008. 31, not t o Hugh, separate from was Hugh Revenue testified t h e b u s i n e s s o f L i n d e n Lumber w i t h o u t operations. Lumber had He discharged some o f testified, t h o s e e m p l o y e e s , some w i t h including additional employees. lower rates Hugh p a r t s o f t h e s a w m i l l upon t h e had Terry that however, e a c h o f i t s e m p l o y e e s and employment stated acted that r e t a i n e d o v e r 90% o f t h e e m p l o y e e s f r o m L i n d e n Lumber stopping t h a t AHI and but t h e s a l e o f L i n d e n Lumber's secured identification t h a t AHI hired e m p l o y e e o f AHI company t o L i n d e n Lumber. employer's t h a t AHI o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n AHI Hugh d e s c r i b e d and timberland Hugh s t a t e d t h a t n e i t h e r as an a s s e t p u r c h a s e and formed Service an o f AHI. a s s e t s t o AHI was as of the stated of that he had the for 4 and of with some shut down had but entirely. credit Linden had terms s a l e b e c a u s e o f t h e economy office worked along AHI Linden t h a t AHI different pay, n e v e r s h u t down o p e r a t i o n s Dunham, that manager Lumber for at 31 AHI, years. 2090891 Dunham t e s t i f i e d that Hugh a n d h i s f a t h e r h a d no o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n AHI, t h a t they d i d n o t r e c e i v e any e q u i t y a t t h e time o f t h e s a l e , and t h a t t h e y had l o s t t h e i r i n v e s t m e n t s i n L i n d e n Lumber. Dunham s t a t e d t h a t t h e v a l u e of the assets of L i n d e n Lumber t h a t were n o t a c q u i r e d b y AHI a t t h e t i m e o f t h e sale was p r o b a b l y testified 2008, AHI, "somewhere around $20 m i l l i o n . " t h a t he h a d w r i t t e n a l e t t e r i n which he r e q u e s t e d s i g n e d b y Hugh on b e h a l f t o ADIR d a t e d May 2, an e m p l o y e r a n d t h a t he h a d e n c l o s e d Dunham a c c o u n t number f o r an a p p l i c a t i o n , w h i c h h a d b e e n o f AHI, t o d e t e r m i n e AHI's liability f o r payment o f u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s . In that letter, of Dunham s t a t e d t h a t "[AHI] p u r c h a s e d a l l o f t h e a s s e t s [Linden Lumber]." Dunham t e s t i f i e d that, a t t h e t i m e he w r o t e t h a t l e t t e r , t h e o t h e r a s s e t s o f L i n d e n Lumber h a d "gone away" o r b e e n b o u g h t b y o t h e r e n t i t i e s a n d t h a t what h a d b e e n s o l d t o AHI was a l l t h a t was l e f t o f L i n d e n Lumber a t t h e t i m e of t h e s a l e . In a document responding t o Dunham's entitled "Official Notification letter"), d a t e d May 13, 2008, ADIR i n f o r m e d AHI t h a t determined AHI t o be of R e g i s t r a t i o n " letter, a ("the n o t i f i c a t i o n "successor-in-interest" 5 to i t had Linden 2090891 Lumber; i t also assigned informed rate. AHI AHI an e m p l o y e r a c c o u n t number and of i t s unemployment-compensation c o n t r i b u t i o n The n o t i f i c a t i o n letter stated, i n pertinent part: "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r y o u r l i a b i l i t y and t a x r a t e i s b a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f u r n i s h e d [to ADIR]. I f i t i s l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d , however, t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was i n c o r r e c t , w h e t h e r o r n o t i t was known to be incorrect when furnished, the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i a b i l i t y a n d / o r t a x r a t e may be adjusted using the c o r r e c t information i f received w i t h i n the p r o t e s t p e r i o d . I f you d i s a g r e e w i t h t h i s determination, a w r i t t e n p r o t e s t must be f i l e d within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter." (Bold typeface inoriginal.) Hugh e x p l a i n e d h i s understanding that, i n determining company's c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e , ADIR w o u l d a s s i g n an rating" based on t h e company's h i s t o r y f o r the preceding understanding i s that, employment three years. i n assigning and a "experience unemployment He t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s a company an experience r a t i n g , ADIR l o o k s a t t h e company's h i s t o r y o f l a y o f f s and t h e number o f e m p l o y e e s t h a t have drawn unemployment. According t o Hugh, b e c a u s e L i n d e n Lumber h a d b e e n i n a downward before spiral t h e s a l e , t h e r e were a l o t o f l a y o f f s t h a t h a d d r i v e n L i n d e n Lumber's unemployment c o n t r i b u t i o n s up d u r i n g i t s l a s t t h r e e y e a r s o f o p e r a t i o n and, as a r e s u l t , h a d r e q u i r e d L i n d e n 6 2090891 Lumber t o pay more contributions. than Hugh i t s usual testified amount that a in unemployment protest d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i n ADIR's May 13, 2008, n o t i f i c a t i o n not been f i l e d b y AHI w i t h i n the appeal l e t t e r b u t t h a t a p r o t e s t was f i l e d l a t e r . ADIR r e m i t t e d a document t o AHI entitled time of the l e t t e r had stated i n the He t e s t i f i e d "Experience that Rating C h a r g e s , " w h i c h was m a i l e d on A u g u s t 6, 2008, t h a t l i s t e d t h e unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s t h a t had been p a i d t o AHI's workers i n the calendar quarter document final states, i n pertinent ending part, June 30, 2008. that "[c]harges unless request f o r review i s submitted w i t h i n from the m a i l i n g d a t e . " That become 30 d a y s Jo Doyle, the s e c t i o n s s u p e r v i s o r f o r e x p e r i e n c e r a t i n g i n t h e s t a t u s u n i t o f ADIR, t e s t i f i e d AHI failed to file an appeal from the that experience-rating c h a r g e s w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e m a i l i n g d a t e o f t h e document. Hugh s t a t e d contribution that, rate a l t h o u g h AHI that was s e t by c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e f o r t h e 2009 y e a r . 20, was AHI, late to appeal the i t d i d appeal the In a l e t t e r dated April 2009, ADIR i n f o r m e d AHI t h a t an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w o f AHI's unemployment-compensation calendar year 2009 had been 7 contribution conducted and rate that f o r the i t had 2090891 d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r a t e was pertinent correct. That l e t t e r s t a t e d , i n part: "As t h e i n i t i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t of your account and t h e unemployment t a x r a t e f o r t h e c a l e n d a r y e a r 2008 were n o t t i m e l y p r o t e s t e d , t h e a p p e a l p r o c e s s has ended. However, i f y o u r company c o n t i n u e s to d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e unemployment t a x r a t e f o r c a l e n d a r y e a r 2009, f u r t h e r a p p e a l s h o u l d be made t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e b u s i n e s s i s l o c a t e d o r Montgomery C o u n t y . The r e q u e s t must be s u b m i t t e d w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s l e t t e r as p r o v i d e d f o r i n S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 5 4 ( h ) and i m p l e m e n t e d by S e c t i o n 25-4-134 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a 1975 amended." Hugh t e s t i f i e d t h a t , as f a r as t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n a successor i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber, n o t h i n g b e t w e e n May 13, t h a t AHI and April 20, 2008, when t h e 2009, when t h e notification had was changed l e t t e r was sent, l e t t e r d e n y i n g AHI's a p p e a l was sent. Doyle testified establishment of employers. rating She she establishes o f e m p l o y e r a c c o u n t s and t h e Doyle i s b a s e d on employer. that three stated ongoing business, stated an oversees the experience ratings employer's experience years of p h y s i c a l e x p e r i e n c e of that trade, that or or "[a]n e m p l o y e r who substantially acquires a l l the a n o t h e r company e s t a b l i s h e s t h e i r r a t e b a s e d on t h e o f a n o t h e r company, o r , i f you the assets of experience s t a r t o u t a t a b r a n d new 8 an rate, 2090891 t h e n you s t a r t o u t w i t h an a v e r a g e r a t e w h i c h does n o t r e q u i r e any k i n d o f c a l c u l a t i o n b u t i s a much l o w e r r a t e . " that the contribution rate for a new She s t a t e d employer with no e x p e r i e n c e r a t i n g i s 2.70% o f wages p a i d a n d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e of AHI's acquisition of Linden Lumber, based on Linden Lumber's e x p e r i e n c e r a t i n g , L i n d e n Lumber's c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e was 6.24% o f i t s " t a x a b l e testified that 2008, a l o n g wages a n d b e n e f i t c h a r g e s . " ADIR h a d r e c e i v e d with the l e t t e r a letter f r o m AHI f r o m Dunham, i n f o r m i n g AHI h a d p u r c h a s e d a l l t h e a s s e t s o f L i n d e n Lumber. Doyle i n May ADIR that She s t a t e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e l i a b i l i t y s i g n e d b y Hugh on May 2, 2008, r e f l e c t e d t h a t AHI was t h e s u c c e s s o r to Linden Lumber a n d t h a t Hugh as v i c e p r e s i d e n t then mailed which AHI h a d 200 e m p l o y e e s , o f t h e company. the n o t i f i c a t i o n informed AHI letter that a written protest disagreed with D o y l e s t a t e d t h a t ADIR of i t s contribution i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber; t h a t must be rate, filed i t s employer t r e a t e d as a letter ADIR's d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . 9 including t o AHI on May 13, 2008, a c c o u n t number, a n d t h a t i t was b e i n g in i n interest also within successor i n f o r m e d AHI 30 d a y s According i f i t t o Doyle, 2090891 ADIR's r e c o r d s October t h a t an a p p e a l was n o t f i l e d contribution to rate, an o n g o i n g Doyle, ADIR in looks business determining a t whether continues a a company's company t o conduct whether a s u b s t a n t i a l the predecessor that t h e same t y p e o f o p e r a t i o n t h a t t h e p r e v i o u s company c o n d u c t e d from until 2, 2008. According acquires indicate and a t number o f t h e e m p l o y e e s were a c q u i r e d company b y t h e s u c c e s s o r company. She s t a t e d t h a t , i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , ADIR made t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t AHI was a s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber b a s e d on what AHI h a d s u b m i t t e d t o ADIR. She s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a t i m e l y a p p e a l b y AHI o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e a n d t h e b e n e f i t ratio a s s i g n e d t o AHI b y ADIR f o r t h e c a l e n d a r y e a r 2009. She s t a t e d f u r t h e r , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e 2009 c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e h a d been based 2008. on t h e s u c c e s s o r s h i p t h a t was Doyle successorship final. testified t h a t i t was determination because confirmed too late i t had i n May to appeal already the become She s t a t e d t h a t A H I ' s a p p e a l was d e n i e d b e c a u s e i t was premised on t h e a s s e r t i o n interest to Linden t h a t AHI i s n o t t h e s u c c e s s o r i n Lumber. Doyle testified further that whatever i s l e f t of a b u s i n e s s e n t i t y a t the time of the s a l e 10 2090891 is what is purchasing considered by ADIR in company i s a s u c c e s s o r Procedural AHI determining in whether the interest. History a p p e a l e d ADIR's A p r i l 20, 2009, d e c i s i o n t o t h e court, p u r s u a n t t o § 2 5 - 4 - 5 4 ( h ) , A l a . Code 1975, 2009. AHI a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was not a successor on trial May 11, in interest to L i n d e n Lumber and t h a t t h e b e n e f i t r a t i o and c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e e s t a b l i s h e d by ADIR b a s e d on t h a t p r e m i s e were i n e r r o r . filed an On in answer t o A H I ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on F e b r u a r y 24, which interest 2010, i t determined to Linden the t r i a l that was and that compensation c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e b a s e d on A H I ' s b e i n g a new court entered AHI Lumber June 25, not f o r AHI a the should ADIR filed a successor p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on M a r c h 19, by o p e r a t i o n o f law on June 17, appeal to t h i s court on June 23, 11 59(e), 2010; 2010. 2010. Ala. in unemploymentbe corporation, with that Rule 2009. a judgment calculated calculation not t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the e x p e r i e n c e r a t i n g of Lumber. ADIR R. Civ. t h a t m o t i o n was ADIR f i l e d Linden P., denied a notice of 2090891 Discussion On a p p e a l , ADIR f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n AHI was a s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber was a d e c i s i o n and, t h u s , u n a p p e a l a b l e b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , AHI to f i l e a timely protest of that determination, t o AHI b y ADIR on May that subsections 13, 2008. the a successor trial final failed w h i c h was s e n t Specifically, ADIR asserts ( c ) ( 3 ) a n d (h) o f § 25-4-54, A l a . Code 1975, p r o h i b i t AHI f r o m a p p e a l i n g is that t h e May 2008 d e t e r m i n a t i o n that i t i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber a n d a c t t o d i v e s t court of "jurisdiction" to overturn that determination. "Our review of questions SRE, I n c . , 992 So. 2d 15, 18 25-4-54 p r o v i d e s , o f l a w i s de n o v o . " Dabbs v . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . Section i n pertinent part: "(c) D e t e r m i n a t i o n of employer b e n e f i t charges. " "(3) The d i r e c t o r [ o f ADIR] shall, a f t e r the c l o s e of each calendar quarter, f u r n i s h each employer w i t h a statement of the b e n e f i t s p a i d t o h i s workers, o r former w o r k e r s , w h i c h became h i s b e n e f i t c h a r g e s in that calendar quarter, together with the names o f s u c h w o r k e r s , o r f o r m e r w o r k e r s , and s u c h s t a t e m e n t , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a r e v i s i o n thereof within 30 d a y s o f t h e m a i l i n g o f s u c h s t a t e m e n t t o 12 2090891 t h e e m p l o y e r ' s l a s t known a d d r e s s , s h a l l be c o n c l u s i v e and f i n a l upon t h e e m p l o y e r f o r all purposes and in a l l proceedings w h a t s o e v e r . ... II "(d) D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f e m p l o y e r b e n e f i t r a t i o . E f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1997, and e a c h y e a r t h e r e a f t e r , t h e b e n e f i t r a t i o o f e a c h e m p l o y e r who q u a l i f i e s f o r a rate determination under s u b d i v i s i o n (a)(1) of t h i s s e c t i o n and has b e e n c h a r g e a b l e w i t h b e n e f i t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e t h r e e most r e c e n t p r e c e d i n g f i s c a l y e a r s s h a l l be a p e r c e n t a g e o b t a i n e d by d i v i d i n g t h e t o t a l of h i s b e n e f i t charges f o r such t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d by t h a t p a r t o f h i s t o t a l t a x a b l e p a y r o l l f o r t h e same t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h c o n t r i b u t i o n s have b e e n p a i d on o r b e f o r e J u l y 31, next following such p e r i o d The employers benefit ratio s h a l l be computed t o the fourth d e c i m a l and be u s e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g e a c h e m p l o y e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e as p r e s c r i b e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f t h i s s e c t i o n f o r the next c a l e n d a r year II "(h) Review of c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e , e t c . Any e m p l o y e r may a p p l y t o t h e d i r e c t o r f o r and s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o a r e v i e w as t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s b e n e f i t r a t i o and h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e as f i x e d by his benefit r a t i o , provided such a p p l i c a t i o n i s f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e m a i l i n g by the d i r e c t o r to the employer of the n o t i c e of such determination. ... "(i) Contribution rate, etc., of successor employer. For the purpose of t h i s section, an e m p l o y e r ' s b e n e f i t c h a r g e s and t h a t p a r t o f h i s taxable p a y r o l l with respect to which c o n t r i b u t i o n s have b e e n p a i d , s h a l l be deemed b e n e f i t c h a r g e s and t a x a b l e p a y r o l l s o f a s u c c e s s o r e m p l o y e r and s h a l l be taken into account in determining the 13 2090891 c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e of such s u c c e s s o r employer as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (f) of t h i s s e c t i o n , i f such successor succeeds the employer i n any o f t h e manners s e t o u t i n p a r a g r a p h ( a ) ( 4 ) a o f S e c t i o n 2 5 - 4 - 8 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] ; p r o v i d e d , t h a t an e m p l o y e r s u b j e c t t o t h i s c h a p t e r who becomes s u c h i n any o f t h e manners s e t o u t i n p a r a g r a p h ( a ) ( 4 ) b o f S e c t i o n 25-4-8 may have t h a t p o r t i o n o f h i s p r e d e c e s s o r ' s b e n e f i t c h a r g e s and t h a t p a r t o f h i s p r e d e c e s s o r ' s total taxable payroll, with respect to which c o n t r i b u t i o n s have b e e n p a i d w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e segregable p o r t i o n of the b u s i n e s s assets and p a y r o l l t h e r e o f , a c q u i r e d from h i s p r e d e c e s s o r , deemed t o be h i s b e n e f i t c h a r g e s and h i s p a y r o l l and s u c h s h a l l be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g h i s r a t e s , as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( f ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n I n W e a t h e r s v. C i t y o f O x f o r d , 895 So. 2d 305, 309 App. 2004), t h i s court (Ala. Civ. stated: "The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n quite clear: are "'"The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y construction i s to ascertain and give e f f e c t t o the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . 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 , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , and where p l a i n l a n g u a g e i s u s e d a c o u r t i s b o u n d 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 t h e l a n g u a g e o f the s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, then t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e c l e a r l y expressed i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . " ' "Ex p a r t e M a s t e r B o a t B u i l d e r s , I n c . , 779 So. 2d 192, 196 ( A l a . 2000) ( 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 . 14 2090891 1992)). I t i s a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t the law f a v o r s r a t i o n a l and s e n s i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n . See C r o w l e y v. B a s s , 445 So. 2d 902 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ; 2A Norman J . Singer, S u t h e r l a n d S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n § 45.12 a t 83-85 ( 6 t h ed. 2 0 0 0 ) . M o r e o v e r , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e w i l l n o t be p r e s u m e d t o have done a f u t i l e t h i n g i n e n a c t i n g a statute; there is a presumption that the Legislature intended a just and reasonable c o n s t r u c t i o n and d i d n o t e n a c t a s t a t u t e t h a t has no p r a c t i c a l m e a n i n g . See Ex p a r t e W a t l e y , 708 So. 2d 890 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ex p a r t e Meeks, 682 So. 2d 423 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , ' [ s ] e c t i o n s o f t h e Code o r i g i n a l l y c o n s t i t u t i n g a s i n g l e a c t must be r e a d i n p a r i materia i n order t o "produce a harmonious w h o l e . " ' Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 625 So. 2d 425, 428 ( A l a . 1992) (quoting 2A Norman J . S i n g e r , Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.05 ( 5 t h ed. 1993)) (footnote omitted)." Reading the provisions of § 25-4-54 as c o m p e l l e d t o a g r e e w i t h ADIR t h a t t h e was a successor AHI determination f a i l e d to appeal that determination i t was are that AHI i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber became f i n a l when n o t i f i e d of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r by ADIR i n t h e May 2008, n o t i f i c a t i o n l e t t e r . As a r e s u l t , we determination overturned First, a w h o l e , we c o u l d n o t be § 25-4-54(h) a l l o w s f o r a r e v i e w of the d e t e r m i n a t i o n contribution rate, provided an by conclude that the trial that court. employer to apply t o ADIR o f i t s b e n e f i t r a t i o and i t s such a p p l i c a t i o n i s f i l e d 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e n o t i c e o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 15 13, within ADIR 2090891 m a i l e d the n o t i c e of d e t e r m i n a t i o n of AHI's c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e on May 13, ADIR t h e n 2008. mailed AHI failed t o AHI, on to appeal August 6, that 2008, a s t a t e m e n t b e n e f i t s charged d u r i n g the q u a r t e r ending in accordance w i t h § 25-4-54(c)(3). an application prescribed for a revision 30-day p e r i o d . of determination. AHI on June 30, charges appeal within the 25-4- final." AHI to the procedure i n § 25-4-54(h), attempted to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of i t s b e n e f i t r a t i o c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e f o r the year determination file Thus, i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 5 4 ( c ) ( 3 ) , t h a t s t a t e m e n t became " c o n c l u s i v e and then, pursuant 2008, again f a i l e d to those of t h a t i t was and, thus, i t s 2009, w h i c h were b a s e d on a successor in interest to the Linden Lumber. AHI asserts prohibiting an that employer there (30) no R a t h e r , AHI i n the circuit was within § 25-4-54 a determination argues, court then of a an e m p l o y e r i s i t s rights file within thirty [ADIR] r e j e c t s i t s c o n t e s t o r a p p e a l . " AHI in i t s d i s p u t e or c o n t e s t w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s o f a q u a r t e r l y n o t i c e , and appeal language from a p p e a l i n g b e n e f i t r a t i o a t any t i m e . "simply required to f i l e is to 16 request i t s n o t i c e of (30) days after A l t h o u g h we a g r e e t h a t a review as to the 2090891 determination of i t s benefit ratio f o r the year a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 2 5 - 4 - 5 4 ( h ) , we c o n c l u d e limited appeal t h a t t h a t r e v i e w was t o f a c t o r s t h a t had n o t been p r e v i o u s l y and made f i n a l , process 2009, i n determined, b y ADIR i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 25-4-54 a n d t h e outlined therein. The b e n e f i t s c h a r g e d t o AHI f o r t h e q u a r t e r June 30, 2008, w h i c h were n o t a p p e a l e d ending on b y A H I , were b a s e d on c a l c u l a t i o n s made i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s u b s e c t i o n s (d) a n d ( i ) of history of § 25-4-54, u s i n g t h e employment/unemployment L i n d e n Lumber f o r t h e t h r e e p r e c e d i n g years. To a l l o w AHI t o c h a l l e n g e t h e b e n e f i t r a t i o f o r 2009 on t h e b a s i s t h a t ADIR's determination Lumber t h a t AHI was a s u c c e s s o r i s i n c o r r e c t would i n i n t e r e s t t o Linden necessarily call into question ADIR's p r e v i o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f A H I ' s b e n e f i t r a t i o f o r 2008, thereby at a a l l o w i n g AHI a n o t h e r review o f t h e 2008 b i t e a t the apple, determination and, so t o speak, essentially, n u l l i f y i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e 30-day a p p e a l p e r i o d u n d e r subsections ( c ) ( 3 ) a n d (h) o f § 25-4-54 a n d t h e " f i n a l i t y " o f ADIR's d e t e r m i n a t i o n under § 25-4-54(c)(3). n o t presume t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e enacting § 25-4-54, we c o n c l u d e 17 B e c a u s e we h a s done a f u t i l e will thing i n that i t d i d not contemplate 2090891 a l l o w i n g an e m p l o y e r t o s e e k r e v i e w benefit affect ratio the i n a later finality of year of a determination to the extent unappealed that decisions of a i t could from earlier determinations. AHI f a i l e d t o t i m e l y a p p e a l ADIR's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t was a successor with § i n interest 25-4-54(h); determination expiration we became conclude, final o f 30 d a y s after l e t t e r on May 13, 2008. ADIR's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o Linden and ADIR Although Lumber i n accordance therefore, that unappealable sent AHI upon that the the n o t i f i c a t i o n AHI was p e r m i t t e d t o a p p e a l o f i t s 2009 b e n e f i t r a t i o , 1 i t limited A D I R a s s e r t s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r A H I ' s a p p e a l f r o m ADIR's d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e AHI f a i l e d t o t i m e l y f i l e an a p p e a l f r o m ADIR's d e c i s i o n i n 2008 t h a t AHI was a s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber. 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 h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r an a p p e a l b y AHI f r o m ADIR's d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g A H I ' s 2009 b e n e f i t r a t i o a n d c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e , y e t i t was i m p r o p e r f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e v e r s e ADIR's d e c i s i o n b a s e d on i t s f i n d i n g e r r o r w i t h ADIR's e a r l i e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t AHI was a s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e a p p e a l , b u t we r e v e r s e i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e a p p e a l , n o t i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e same. To t h e e x t e n t AHI a r g u e s t h a t ADIR d i d n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o r t h e t r i a l court's inability to reverse based on ADIR's previous d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t AHI was a s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o L i n d e n Lumber b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t , we n o t e t h a t ADIR made s i m i l a r arguments t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t b o t h d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g and i n i t s postjudgment motion. 1 18 2090891 its argument determination Lumber. that i n the t r i a l that court to i t was a s u c c e s s o r challenging ADIR's i n i n t e r e s t t o Linden 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 e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g AHI's benefit ratio and unemployment-compensation c o n t r i b u t i o n r a t e f o r 2009 s h o u l d be r e c a l c u l a t e d b a s e d on i t s conclusion Lumber. t h a t AHI i s n o t a s u c c e s s o r We t h e r e f o r e reverse remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l enter the t r i a l i n i n t e r e s t t o Linden court's judgment and court with i n s t r u c t i o n s that i t a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f ADIR. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 19 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

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.