Frank J. Kruse v. City of Birmingham, Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/28/2011 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 2091131 Frank J . Kruse v. C i t y o f Birmingham Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-09-900248) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Frank J. Kruse f i l e d a complaint C o u r t ("the City"), i n the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t t r i a l court") a g a i n s t the C i t y o f Birmingham alleging claims of unjust ("the e n r i c h m e n t , money h a d a n d r e c e i v e d , and v i o l a t i o n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Kruse a l s o sought 2091131 certain declaratory Kruse's claims fines and i s the injunctive City's for parking-violation attempts from this seeking prosecute action, to his claims situated plaintiffs, The but that the on the fines. behalf the The of payment obtain basis of were i s s u e d to a A f t e r paying those f i n e s , Kruse arguing collect to c i t a t i o n s that v e h i c l e r e g i s t e r e d to Kruse. brought relief. of c l a s s was C i t y was time-barred Kruse a purported class 1 of not to similarly certified. C i t y removed t h e a c t i o n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s District Court f o r the N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t of Alabama, Southern D i v i s i o n ("the federal court"). The federal court i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y on K r u s e ' s § 1983 action court to the trial court. e n t e r e d a judgment c l a i m and Kruse d i d not remanded appeal the the federal judgment. We c o n c l u d e t h a t K r u s e ' s a c t i o n i s n o t b a r r e d by the n o t i c e - o f - c l a i m r e q u i r e m e n t i n § 11-47-23, A l a . Code 1975, b e c a u s e t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d w i t h i n s i x months o f K r u s e ' s payment o f t h e amounts a t i s s u e t o t h e C i t y . See D i e m e r t v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , 474 So. 2d 663, 665 ( A l a . 1985) ("'"If a s u i t on a c l a i m a g a i n s t a c i t y i s commenced w i t h i n t h e s i x - m o n t h period prescribed i n [§ 11-47-23], i t i s a sufficient p r e s e n t a t i o n of the c l a i m under the s t a t u t e . " ' " ) (quoting C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e v. D a v i s , 456 So. 2d 69, 70-71 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B r o w n i n g v. C i t y o f Gadsden , 359 So. 2d 361, 364 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ) ) . 1 2 2091131 Before the t r i a l c o u r t , b o t h p a r t i e s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on K r u s e ' s s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s . trial and On J u l y 13, 2010, c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e denied Kruse's summary-judgment motion. Kruse the City timely a p p e a l e d , and o u r supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. A m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R. C i v . P.; 1988). Bussey v. John Deere Co., "When t h e movant makes t h o s e two 531 a prima c o n d i t i o n s are s a t i s f i e d , R u l e 56, A l a . So. facie the burden 2d 860 (Ala. showing that s h i f t s to the nonmovant t o p r e s e n t ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' c r e a t i n g a g e n u i n e issue 742 of m a t e r i a l So. 2d 182, fact." 184 Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. ( A l a . 1999) Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 (citing So. 2d 794, Gen. Bass 797-98 v. Ins. Co., SouthTrust (Ala. 1989)). " S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r proved." the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t sought to West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989). I n r e v i e w i n g a summary 3 be 547 judgment, 2091131 t h i s c o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the nonmovant concerning and resolve a l l reasonable doubts the e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l a g a i n s t t h e movant. 2d 412 must fact H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. ( A l a . 1990). I n h i s summary-judgment m o t i o n , K r u s e a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e C i t y sent him a l e t t e r t h r e a t e n i n g t o i n c a r c e r a t e him i f the f i n e s f o r c e r t a i n p a r k i n g c i t a t i o n s i s s u e d t o h i s v e h i c l e were not paid. Kruse paid the f i n e s f o r the parking citations d u r i n g a t i m e when, p u r s u a n t t o two C i t y o r d i n a n c e s , granted who amnesty from p r o s e c u t i o n paid maintained for their outstanding by limitations and f u r t h e r f i n e s t o parking those citations. Kruse t h a t t h e C i t y ' s a t t e m p t s t o make h i m p a y t h e f i n e s improper-parking barred the C i t y what he citations contends f o r such for his vehicle i s the collection applicable attempts. were time- statute In making of that a r g u m e n t , K r u s e i n s i s t e d t h a t an i m p r o p e r - p a r k i n g citation i s a misdemeanor limitations subject t o a one-year p u r s u a n t t o § 15-3-2, A l a . Code the 1975. C i t y ' s r e t e n t i o n of the fine c o n s t i t u t e d unjust enrichment. 4 We statute of Kruse contended he p a i d was that wrongful are r e s o l v i n g t h i s and appeal 2091131 on other grounds; whether Kruse accordingly, is correct misdemeanors s u b j e c t In a City, three of Kruse's check, court copies establishes of parking that testimony Kruse's indicates The subject a 2004 evidence of the to enforceable c i t a t i o n s were limitations. Kruse amnesty from Kruse deposition that, a submitted vehicle was and to indicates the Kruse citations. 5 the citation t i m e s i t was the of portion trial for a parking the daughter had cited the for the in his c i t a t i o n s were l i m i t a t i o n s and paid other on testified parking of court issued Kruse's Chambliss statute time to 14 Birmingham The cited that in his opinion, of the and 2002; i n a d d i t i o n , parking Judge one-year at Chambliss. v e h i c l e at the violations. deposition 2008, the v i o l a t i o n s i x t i m e s b e t w e e n 2001 possession issue o f t h e C i t y ' s two dated August transcript deposition vehicle. parking the f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , C o u r t Judge Raymond P. evidence reach t r a n s c r i p t pages from K r u s e ' s d e p o s i t i o n , the Municipal the not a document e x p l a i n i n g t h e a m n e s t y p r o g r a m , a c o p y canceled pages do to a one-year s t a t u t e of s u b m i t t e d to the t r i a l of that support of h i s motion ordinances, we fines were for not those 2091131 In i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n , the C i t y argued, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t K r u s e ' s c l a i m s were b a r r e d b y t h e d o c t r i n e of c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l ; i t submitted of the f e d e r a l court's the City t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a copy judgment i n i t s f a v o r . argued t h a t , assuming t h a t Kruse's In addition, claims were n o t b a r r e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l , i t had p r o p e r l y sought to enforce violations. and c o l l e c t In support C i t y submitted the fines f o r the parking o f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h e o n l y a copy o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ' s judgment and copies of the C i t y ' s ordinances approving t h e two c o n s e c u t i v e a m n e s t y p e r i o d s , d u r i n g one o f w h i c h K r u s e p a i d t h e f i n e s f o r the p a r k i n g v i o l a t i o n s . In response t o Kruse's motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e C i t y a l s o s u b m i t t e d an attorney general's s t a t e d , among o t h e r a civil ticket opinion i n which the attorney court general t h i n g s , t h a t " [ a ] m u n i c i p a l i t y may b r i n g a c t i o n t o recover a fine that to is to the t r i a l subject the on an a d j u d i c a t e d twenty-year l i m i t a t i o n s on an a c t i o n on a j u d g m e n t . " parking statute of Op. A t t ' y Gen. No. 2007-103. No Thus, other evidence the factual was presented narratives to the t r i a l the p a r t i e s 6 submitted court. to the 2091131 t r i a l court a summary citations court's judgment i n support of or i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the motions f o r judgment to a r e , f o r t h e most p a r t , supporting judgment. evidence other C i t a t i o n s contained indicate that the unsupported by the federal i n the federal court's parties than submitted numerous evidentiary e x h i b i t s to the federal court. N e i t h e r p a r t y has disputed set forth federal the e s s e n t i a l court's relevant portions findings judgment. of fact Accordingly, we i n the s e t f o r t h the o f t h a t judgment below. " [ K r u s e ] b r i n g s c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C § 1983 and s t a t e l a w c o n c e r n i n g h i s payment o f outstanding parking tickets to the C i t y of Birmingham, Alabama. [Kruse] r e c e i v e d a n o t i c e d a t e d A p r i l 28, 2008, t h a t he owed $1,030 i n p a r k i n g f i n e s . P l a i n t i f f e x h i b i t 1 ( d o c . 1 6 - 2 ) , a t 3. T h a t n o t i c e f u r t h e r i n f o r m e d [ K r u s e ] t h a t he h a d 24 h o u r s t o make payment o r t o make a r r a n g e m e n t f o r p a y m e n t s . Id. I t stated that unless [Kruse] n o t i f i e d t h e s e n d e r t h a t he c o n t e s t e d t h e d e b t w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f r e c e i p t o f t h e l e t t e r , t h e d e b t w o u l d be assumed valid. Id. The e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e p a r k i n g t i c k e t s a r e d a t e d b e t w e e n December 18, 2 0 0 1 , and J u n e 9, 2 0 0 4 . D e f e n d a n t e x h i b i t 5. 1 " M e a n w h i l e , on A p r i l 22, 2008, t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m a p p r o v e d an a m n e s t y p r o g r a m f o r payment of u n p a i d p a r k i n g f i n e s and minor t r a f f i c t i c k e t s , i n w h i c h no a d d i t i o n a l f i n e s o r t h r e a t s o f a r r e s t would i s s u e f o r outstanding fines paid during the month o f J u l y 2008. D e f e n d a n t e x h i b i t 1. This p r o g r a m was so s u c c e s s f u l i t was e x t e n d e d t h r o u g h t h e e n d o f A u g u s t 2008. D e f e n d a n t e x h i b i t 2. 7 2091131 "At h i s d e p o s i t i o n , [ K r u s e ] s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t pay t h e t i c k e t s p r i o r t o 2008 b e c a u s e t h e y were issued to h i s daughter's [ v e h i c l e ] , although the [ v e h i c l e ] was r e g i s t e r e d t o him. P l a i n t i f f depo. a t 12. He assumed h i s d a u g h t e r t o o k c a r e o f the tickets. I d . a t 14, 17. He t h e n l e a r n e d f r o m h i s w i f e a b o u t t h e l e t t e r r e g a r d i n g payment b e c a u s e she was c o n c e r n e d [ K r u s e ] w o u l d g e t i n t r o u b l e . I d . a t 14. [ K r u s e ' s ] w i f e t o l d him t h e r e was an a m n e s t y program f o r paying o u t s t a n d i n g t i c k e t s . I d . a t 10. He p e r s o n a l l y n e v e r saw a n y t h i n g i n t h e p r e s s a b o u t the amnesty p e r i o d . I d . [ K r u s e ] went and p a i d t h e tickets. I d . a t 17-18. He d i d n o t c o n t e s t t h e t i c k e t s , he d i d n o t s a y he was n o t d r i v i n g t h e c a r when t h e t i c k e t s were i s s u e d , he d i d n o t a s k t o see a j u d g e , and he d i d n o t know how many t i c k e t s he was a c t u a l l y paying. I d . a t 18-19, 26. He w r o t e a c h e c k f o r $510 on A u g u s t 25, 2008. Plaintiff e x h i b i t F ( d o c . 1 6 - 2 ) , a t 17. " B a s e d on t h e s e f a c t s , [ K r u s e ] f i l e d s u i t i n t h e C i r c u i t Court of J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, i n a complaint s t y l e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n , f o r u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t ( C o u n t I ) ; money had and r e c e i v e d ( C o u n t I I ) ; v i o l a t i o n s o f 42 U.S.C § 1983 ( C o u n t I I I ) ; and d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f ( C o u n t I V ) . The [ C i t y ] removed t h e c a s e h e r e b a s e d on [Kruse's] a s s e r t i o n of c l a i m s a r i s i n g under the laws of the United States. " The evidence establishes only $125 in o u t s t a n d i n g p a r k i n g f i n e s . No e x p l a n a t i o n as t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h i s amount and t h e amount on t h e April 28, 2008, n o t i c e has been p r o v i d e d , but n e i t h e r s i d e has c o n t e s t e d t h e amount c l a i m e d due by [the City], nor the amount actually paid by [Kruse]." 1 8 2091131 With regard federal court to the m e r i t s of Kruse's f e d e r a l claims, determined, i n p e r t i n e n t part: "The court f i r s t considers [Kruse's] f e d e r a l c l a i m , namely t h a t [the C i t y ' s ] a c t i o n s i n ' c o e r c i n g c o l l e c t i o n o f f i n e s i n e x c e s s o f one y e a r , w i t h t h e t h r e a t o f a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t i e s , w a r r a n t and a r r e s t , when s u c h a c t i o n was t i m e b a r r e d u n d e r A l a . Code § 15-3-2 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , has v i o l a t e d , and continues to v i o l a t e , the r i g h t s , under the C o n s t i t u t i o n , of [Kruse]....' C o m p l a i n t , 5 28. [Kruse] seeks a r e f u n d , w i t h i n t e r e s t , c o s t s and a t t o r n e y ' s fees. C o m p l a i n t , pg. 7. [Kruse] s t y l e s t h i s c l a i m as ' V i o l a t i o n s o f 42 U.S.C. § 1983.' Id. " C o n s i d e r i n g [Kruse's] c l a i m i n the context of a v i o l a t i o n o f h i s p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s r i g h t s , [ K r u s e ] f a i l s t o s e t f o r t h any manner i n w h i c h h i s p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d . W h i l e [ K r u s e ] a s s e r t s t h a t i f t i c k e t s were n o t p a i d w i t h i n t h e a m n e s t y t i m e f r a m e , v i o l a t o r s w o u l d be a r r e s t e d , [ K r u s e ] t e s t i f i e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he had no knowledge of the amnesty program. P l a i n t i f f depo. a t 9-10. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was p r o m p t e d by h i s w i f e t o pay t h e t i c k e t s and t h a t he n e v e r saw or heard a n y t h i n g i n the p r e s s . Id. 3 "To p r e v a i l upon h i s p r o c e d u r a l due process claim, [Kruse] must establish: (1) a constitutionally protected interest i n l i f e , l i b e r t y or p r o p e r t y ; (2) g o v e r n m e n t a l d e p r i v a t i o n o f t h a t i n t e r e s t ; and (3) t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n a d e q u a c y o f procedures accompanying the d e p r i v a t i o n . Bank o f J a c k s o n C o u n t y v. C h e r r y , 980 F.2d 1354, 1357 (11th C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) , c i t i n g L e h r v. R o b e r t s o n , 463 U.S. 248, 256, 103 S. C t . 2985, 2 9 9 0 - 9 1 , 77 L. Ed. 2d 614 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; G r e e n h o l t z v. I n m a t e s o f t h e N e b r a s k a P e n a l and C o r r e c t i o n Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S. Ct 2100, 2103-04, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979); Board of 9 the 2091131 R e g e n t s v. R o t h , 408 U.S. 564, 570-71, 92 S. C t 2701, 2705-06, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Assuming [ K r u s e ] c o u l d s a t i s f y t h e f i r s t two p r o n g s o f t h i s test, he has wholly failed to allege any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l inadequacy of procedures accompanying the d e p r i v a t i o n . P r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s requires o n l y n o t i c e and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . Mathews v. E l d r i d g e , 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S. C t . 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d ( 1 9 7 6 ) . In h i s d e p o s i t i o n , [Kruse] t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t h i n g t o c o n t e s t payment o f t h e p a r k i n g tickets. As such, the court can find no governmental a c t i o n which caused a d e p r i v a t i o n of h i s r i g h t s t o do s o . 4 "In a d d i t i o n to h i s f a i l u r e to a l l e g e any inadequacy of p r e - d e p r i v a t i o n procedures, the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t [Kruse] f u r t h e r f a i l e d to a l l e g e the absence of adequate p o s t - d e p r i v a t i o n s t a t e law remedies. ... I f state courts provide adequate p r o c e d u r e s , t h e n t h e r e i s no f e d e r a l p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r [ K r u s e ] has t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f t h e s t a t e remedy o r a t t e m p t e d t o do s o . See H o r t o n v. B o a r d o f C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f F l a g l e r C o u n t y , 202 F.3d 1297, 1300 (11th C i r . 2000) ('The M c K i n n e y [ v . P a t e , 20 F. 3d 1550 (11th C i r . 1994),] r u l e does n o t l o o k t o t h e a c t u a l i n v o l v e m e n t o f s t a t e c o u r t s o r w h e t h e r t h e y were a s k e d t o p r o v i d e a remedy i n t h e s p e c i f i c c a s e now b e f o r e the f e d e r a l c o u r t . Instead, the McKinney r u l e l o o k s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o p p o r t u n i t y - - t o whether the s t a t e c o u r t s , i f asked, g e n e r a l l y would provide an adequate remedy f o r t h e procedural d e p r i v a t i o n the f e d e r a l c o u r t p l a i n t i f f c l a i m s to have s u f f e r e d . ' ) . " [ K r u s e ] has n o t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e s t a t e l a w procedures are inadequate. The C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m c r e a t e d a p r o g r a m f o r t h e payment o f u n p a i d p a r k i n g t i c k e t s , d u r i n g which the C i t y suspended i t s r i g h t to i s s u e warrants or e f f e c t u a t e a r r e s t s f o r p a r k i n g and o t h e r n o n - m o v i n g v i o l a t i o n s . Under A l a b a m a l a w , [ K r u s e ] had t h e r i g h t t o c o n t e s t t h e payment o f 10 2091131 t h e s e t i c k e t s . [ K r u s e ] has ' f a i l e d t o s t a t e a v a l i d p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s c l a i m b e c a u s e [he h a s ] n o t a l l e g e d t h a t A l a b a m a l a w p r o v i d e d [him] w i t h an i n a d e q u a t e p o s t - d e p r i v a t i o n remedy.' Tinney v. S h o r e s , 77 F.3d 378, 382 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . "Having c o n s i d e r e d the f o r e g o i n g , the c o u r t i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t [the C i t y ' s ] motion for a summary j u d g m e n t i s due t o be g r a n t e d , and [ K r u s e ' s ] m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i s due t o be d e n i e d . Because the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the [ C i t y ] i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r on [ K r u s e ' s ] s o l e f e d e r a l claim, the court declines to exercise i t s supplemental j u r i s d i c t i o n over [Kruse's] s t a t e - l a w claims. See, e.g., P i n t a n d o v. Miami-Dade H o u s i n g A g e n c y , 501 F.3d 1241, 1242 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . " [ K r u s e ] r e l i e s on h i s e x h i b i t s A and D i n s u p p o r t o f h i s argument t h a t he p a i d t h e s e t i c k e t s because of the t h r e a t of a r r e s t . One o f t h o s e was t h e a c t u a l o r d i n a n c e a d o p t e d by t h e [ C i t y ] , t h e o t h e r one i s a p r e s s r e l e a s e . Given [Kruse's] one i s t e s t i m o n y , t h e c o u r t f i n d s [ K r u s e ] c o u l d n o t have f e l t t h r e a t e n e d by t h e c o n t e n t o f e i t h e r o f t h o s e documents. 3 " T h i s f a i l u r e disposes of [Kruse's] c l a i m t h a t he c o u l d n o t be p r o s e c u t e d f o r t h e p a r k i n g t i c k e t s b e c a u s e t h e y h a d been i s s u e d more t h a n t w e l v e months prior. According to [Kruse's] argument, the [ C i t y ' s ] f a i l u r e t o 'prosecute' him w i t h i n twelve months o f r e c e i p t o f t h e t i c k e t b a r r e d t h e [ C i t y ] f r o m e v e r c o l l e c t i n g on t h e t i c k e t , b a s e d on a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r m i s d e m e a n o r s . See, e.g., P l a i n t i f f ' s r e p l y ( d o c . 19) a t 1-2. Under t h i s logic, i f the [City] f a i l s t o i s s u e an arrest w a r r a n t f o r o u t s t a n d i n g p a r k i n g t i c k e t s w i t h i n one year of r e c e i p t of the t i c k e t , i t i s f o r e v e r barred. A s i d e from i g n o r i n g t h e f a c t t h a t r e c e i p t o f the 4 11 2091131 ticket, i n and of itself, would constitute commencement o f a p r o s e c u t i o n , [Kruse] d i d not pursue t h i s theory i n the courts of the s t a t e . " (Footnote 5 i n original omitted.) With regard t o Kruse's state-law claims, the t r i a l in entering i t s summary judgment determined t h a t Kruse d i d not a c t i n favor of court, the City, "under c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s " in v o l u n t a r i l y paying t h e f i n e s f o r t h e p a r k i n g c i t a t i o n s and that payment h i s voluntary constituted o b j e c t i o n t o the i m p o s i t i o n o f those Initially, a waiver of any fines. f o r the purposes of r e s o l v i n g t h i s appeal, we assume t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l does n o t b a r the litigation court. We propriety the of Kruse's turn state-law t o Kruse's of the t r i a l claims arguments court's before the t r i a l pertaining to the summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f City. On a p p e a l , Kruse argues that the t r i a l court erred i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y b e c a u s e , he contends, the C i t y ' s attempts t o c o l l e c t parking violations limitations. enriched He are barred contends by i t s c o l l e c t i o n that by a f i n e s b a s e d on t h e one-year the C i t y statute of has been u n j u s t l y a n d r e t e n t i o n o f t h e amounts he 12 2091131 paid for the parking violations. Our supreme court has stated: "'The r e t e n t i o n of a b e n e f i t i s 'unjust,' f o r p u r p o s e s o f an u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m , i f t h e d o n o r of the b e n e f i t a c t e d under a mistake of f a c t or i n m i s r e l i a n c e on a r i g h t o r d u t y , o r t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e b e n e f i t e n g a g e d i n some u n c o n s c i o n a b l e c o n d u c t , s u c h as f r a u d , c o e r c i o n , o r abuse o f a c o n f i d e n t i a l relationship.'" Wyeth, I n c . v. B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , 42 So. 1216, 1224 n.7 Contracts § 9 (Ala. (quoting e x p l a i n how f i n e s was Kruse alleges, a l l e g e d l y time-barred coercion f o r what he payment of there was the as voluntarily, however, coercion, genuine p a i d the so r e t e n t i o n o f h i s payment that the c o n t e n d s was fines. and allegedly the City's threat fines associated with of the p a r k i n g v i o l a t i o n s amounted t o d u r e s s o r disputing no Implied made p u r s u a n t t o a m i s t a k e o r f r a u d i n c a r c e r a t i o n i f he d i d n o t pay argument C.I.S. h i s payment o f t h e as t o make t h e C i t y ' s c o l l e c t i o n and unjust. 42 (2007)). K r u s e does n o t time-barred 2010) 3d an u n e n f o r c e a b l e demand f o r Accordingly, the trial issue without of court's construe f i n e s i m p o s e d by fact subjected the Kruse's determination material being 13 we City. to that that Kruse duress or 2091131 " ' [ D ] u r e s s i s d e f i n e d as s u b j e c t i n g a p e r s o n t o i m p r o p e r pressure which overcomes h i s w i l l and c o e r c e s h i m t o c o m p l y w i t h demands t o w h i c h he w o u l d n o t y i e l d agent.'" (Ala. B S I R e n t a l s , I n c . v. Wendt, C i v . App. 2004) Bd. , 389 So. 2d 516, 519 to i f a c t i n g as a f r e e 893 So. 2d 1184, ( q u o t i n g Head v. Gadsden C i v i l ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 0 ) ) . 1189 Serv. With regard w h e t h e r t h e t h r e a t o f p r o s e c u t i o n o f l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s may constitute duress pursuant t o which a party may amounts p a i d t o a n o t h e r p a r t y , o u r supreme c o u r t has recover stated: " I t h a s been t h e l a w i n A l a b a m a f o r o v e r 150 y e a r s t h a t where one p a r t y , w i t h f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f a l l t h e f a c t s , v o l u n t a r i l y p a y s money t o s a t i s f y t h e c o l o r a b l e l e g a l demand o f a n o t h e r , no a c t i o n w i l l l i e t o r e c o v e r s u c h a v o l u n t a r y payment, i n t h e absence o f f r a u d , d u r e s s , o r e x t o r t i o n . Weaver [v. A m e r i c a n N a t ' l Bank, 452 So. 2d 469 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] ; H.A. Edwards I n s . A g e n c y v. J o n e s , 242 A l a . 624, 7 So. 2d 567 ( 1 9 4 2 ) ; N a t i o n a l Bank o f Boaz v. M a r s h a l l C o u n t y , 229 A l a . 369, 157 So. 444 ( 1 9 3 4 ) ; Town C o u n c i l o f Cahaba v. B u r n e t t , 34 A l a . 400 ( 1 8 5 9 ) ; J o n e s v. W a t k i n s , 1 Stew. 81 ( A l a . 1 8 2 7 ) ; C l i f t o n [v. C u r r y , 30 A l a . App. 584, 10 So. 2d 51 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ] ; T h o r n t o n v. S i n g e r S e w i n g Mach. Co., 34 A l a . App. 162, 37 So. 2d 239 ( 1 9 4 8 ) . A ' v o l u n t a r y payment' has been d e f i n e d as 'a payment made by a p e r s o n o f h i s own m o t i o n , w i t h o u t c o m p u l s i o n ; a payment made without a mistake of fact or fraud, duress, c o e r c i o n , o r e x t o r t i o n , on a demand w h i c h i s n o t enforceable a g a i n s t the payor.' 70 C . J . S . Payment § 100 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . " 14 2091131 Mount A i r y I n s . Co v. Doe (Ala. Law Firm, 668 So. 2d 534, 537-38 1995). I n Mount A i r y , s u p r a , o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t amounts paid by a l i a b i l i t y i n s u r e r were n o t made i n v o l u n t a r i l y or u n d e r d u r e s s when t h e payment was made t o a v o i d t h e t h r e a t o f the insured's supreme c o u r t instituting a legal action against i t . explained: "Alabama l a w r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e mere t h r e a t o f l e g a l proceedings i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e the duress needed t o make t h e payment of money involuntary. N a t i o n a l Bank o f Boaz [ v . M a r s h a l l County], [229 A l a . 369, 157 So. 444 (1934)]; S o u t h e r n Ry. v. C i t y o f F l o r e n c e , 141 A l a . 493, 37 So. 844 ( 1 9 0 4 ) ; C l i f t o n [ v . C u r r y ] , [30 A l a . App. 584, 10 So. 2d 51 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ] . ... No one c a n be h e a r d t o s a y , t h a t he h a d t h e r i g h t and t h e l a w w i t h h i m , b u t he f e a r e d h i s a d v e r s a r y w o u l d c a r r y h i m i n t o c o u r t , and t h a t he w o u l d be u n l a w f u l l y f i n e d and i m p r i s o n e d ; t h a t b e i n g thereby d e p r i v e d o f h i s f r e e w i l l , he y i e l d e d t o t h e w r o n g , and t h e c o u r t s must a s s i s t h i m to a r e c l a m a t i o n . ' "Town C o u n c i l o f Cahaba v. B u r n e t t , 34 A l a . 400, 404 (1859) We a l s o a g r e e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g : " ' I f t h e r e i s i n f a c t a cause of a c t i o n when t h e t h r e a t i s made, t h e p l a i n t i f f , by b r i n g i n g s u i t , would o n l y enforce a l e g a l r i g h t ; i f t h e r e was no c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r [ t h e r e was a] demand f o r more t h a n i s due, the p a r t y t h r e a t e n e d should e x e r c i s e the o r d i n a r y degree o f f i r m n e s s which the law 15 Our 2091131 p r e s u m e s e v e r y man t o p o s s e s s , i s s u e of the u n j u s t s u i t . ' "66 109 Am. J u r . 2d R e s t i t u t i o n (1973)." Mount A i r y , 668 So. and and meet t h e Implied Contracts § 2d a t 538-39 (some e m p h a s i s i n Mount A i r y , some e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The evidence i n the record Kruse v o l u n t a r i l y p a i d the on fines appeal demonstrates f o r the parking that violations d u r i n g a p e r i o d i n w h i c h the C i t y g r a n t e d amnesty from t h r e a t s of i n c a r c e r a t i o n past-due violations. fines i n e x c h a n g e f o r payment o f associated fines or f u r t h e r with parking The federal t h a t Kruse d i d not the time he court's dispute made t h a t or findings his l i a b i l i t y payment. Thus, minor traffic fact indicate of f o r those as the fines trial at court d e t e r m i n e d , i n f a i l i n g t o d i s p u t e h i s l i a b i l i t y a t t h e t i m e he paid the Airy, supra, 668 fines, So. Kruse electing to avoid the those fines. Kruse v o l u n t a r i l y p a i d 2d a t 538-39. may not be voluntarily those Mount Under t h e h o l d i n g o f Mount A i r y , said pay to the have been u n d e r parking t h r e a t of p o s s i b l e imprisonment Accordingly, fines. we fines in i n order to f o r nonpayment conclude t h a t the 16 duress trial of court 2091131 properly entered Kruse's claims. a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r We a f f i r m t h e t r i a l court's of the C i t y judgment. AFFIRMED. Pittman, B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 17 on

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.