Town of Westover v. James Bynum and J&F Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a the 51 Country Store

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/11/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2100048 Town o f Westover v. James Bynum and J&F E n t e r p r i s e s , LLC, d/b/a the 51 Country Store Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900053) THOMAS, J u d g e . The Town o f W e s t o v e r ("the Town"), a p p e a l s court's judgment e n t e r e d from the t r i a l i n a declaratory-judgment action f i l e d b y James Bynum a n d J&F E n t e r p r i s e s , L L C , d/b/a The 51 2100048 C o u n t r y S t o r e ("the C o u n t r y S t o r e " ) ; Bynum i s t h e s o l e member of the Country Store. We r e v e r s e a n d remand. The p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d a j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t facts to the t r i a l court. The C o u n t r y Store is a retail b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d i n an u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a r e a o f S h e l b y C o u n t y ; in any o t h e r words, i t i s n o t w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e b o u n d a r i e s o f municipality. The C o u n t r y w i t h i n t h e Town's p o l i c e i s , however, located jurisdiction. Revenue D i s c o v e r y S y s t e m s the Store ("RDS"), w o r k i n g on b e h a l f o f Town, c o n d u c t e d an a u d i t o f t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e . The a u d i t r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e h a d n e v e r p a i d any s a l e s t a x e s o r b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s t o t h e Town a n d t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e Town's ordinance no. 2005-10-04-061, which t h e Town had a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t o §§ 11-51-200 a n d -206, A l a . Code 1975, a n d the Town's o r d i n a n c e no. 2007-11-6-147, which t h e Town h a d a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t o § 11-51-91, A l a . Code 1975, t h e C o u n t r y Store owed t h e Town $47,011.44 i n sales taxes, business- l i c e n s e f e e s , i n t e r e s t , a n d p e n a l t i e s d a t i n g b a c k t o December 1, 2005. On J a n u a r y 20, 2010, Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e Town 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 a n d 2 2100048 i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f regarding the Country Store's a l l e g e d s a l e s tax and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e - f e e obligation. The Town a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t on F e b r u a r y 18, 2010. On June 24, 2010, t h e p a r t i e s of a facts. trial filed At the request of the t r i a l brief Store responded Following on A u g u s t a joint court, stipulation t h e Town filed 4, 2010, a n d Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y on A u g u s t 24, 2010. a hearing on A u g u s t e v i d e n c e was t a k e n , t h e t r i a l 30, 2010, a t which court entered a f i n a l on S e p t e m b e r 20, 2010, s t a t i n g , i n pertinent judgment part: "1. B a s e d on t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t , t h i s C o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e was no a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e g i v e n t o [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] concerning [ t h e i r ] duty t o c o l l e c t s a l e s t a x w i t h i n the [Town's] P o l i c e J u r i s d i c t i o n , p r i o r t o December 11, 2009. T h e r e f o r e , p r i o r t o t h i s d a t e [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e a r e ] a b s o l v e d f r o m any p r e v i o u s l y c a l c u l a t e d t a x l i a b i l i t y due a n d p a y a b l e to t h e [Town] through t h e [RDS]. "2. S u b s e q u e n t t o t h e d a t e o f n o t i c e , [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] d o [ ] owe s a l e s t a x p u r s u a n t t o t h e [ T o w n ' s ] O r d i n a n c e No. 2 0 0 5 - 1 0 - 0 4 - 0 6 0 1 . S a i d t a x s h a l l be computed b y [ B y n u m ] , b a s e d on s a l e s f r o m t h a t d a t e g o i n g f o r w a r d a n d t h e t a x due f r o m December 11, 2009 t h r o u g h A u g u s t 3 1 , 2010 s h a l l be p a i d t o [ T o w n ] w i t h i n n i n e t y (90) d a y s o f t h e d a t e of t h i s Order. "3. G o i n g f o r w a r d , [Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s o f t h e [ T o w n ] ... c o n c e r n i n g c o l l e c t i o n o f s a l e s t a x a n d 3 no 2100048 requirement of business l i c e n s e w i t h i n i t s p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n , so l o n g as [ t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] r e m a i n s l o c a t e d t h e r e i n and i s n o t a p a r t o f any o t h e r i n c o r p o r a t e d m u n i c i p a l i t y , o r t h e r e i s no o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t y , more c l o s e l y l o c a t e d t o [ t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ] , t h a t c o l l e c t s s a l e s t a x and b u s i n e s s l i c e n s e fees, within i t s p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n . " The Town a p p e a l e d . The trial court i n this case applied the law t o u n d i s p u t e d , s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s . Our r e v i e w t h e r e f o r e i s de n o v o . "'When r e v i e w i n g a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t s a t w i t h o u t a j u r y and h e a r d e v i d e n c e i n t h e form o f stipulations, briefs, and t h e w r i t i n g s of the parties, this Court sits i n judgment o f t h e e v i d e n c e ; t h e r e i s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . Old S o u t h e r n L i f e I n s . Co. v. W i l l i a m s , 544 So. 2d 941, 942 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; C r a i g C o n s t r . Co. v . H e n d r i x , 568 So. 2 d 752, 756 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . When t h i s C o u r t must d e t e r m i n e i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i s a p p l i e d t h e l a w to t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de n o v o , a n d no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s i s g i v e n the d e c i s i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue v. G a r n e r , 812 So. 2 d 380, 382 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2 d 1215 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n t h i s c a s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d its decision upon the s t i p u l a t i o n s , briefs, w r i t i n g s , and arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s ' a t t o r n e y s . No t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d . T h e r e f o r e , we must s i t i n judgment o f t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g c a r r i e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' " American R e s . I n s . Co. v. H & H S t e p h e n s C o n s t r . , I n c . , 93 9 So. 2d 868, 872-73 v. Alabama Dep't ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g Bean D r e d g i n g , L.L.C. o f Revenue, 855 So. 2d 513, 516-17 ( A l a . 2003)). 4 2100048 In i t s judgment, t h e t r i a l court concluded that was no a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e g i v e n Country Store] ... p r i o r t o [Bynum a n d t h e concerning [ t h e i r ] duty to c o l l e c t t o December 11, 2 0 0 9 . " 1 "there As a r e s u l t , c o u r t h e l d t h a t Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ' s sales tax the liability trial under t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e s d i d n o t a c c r u e u n t i l December 11, 2009. However, t h e r e trial not court's i s no e v i d e n c e conclusion have n o t i c e 2009. notice to support the t h a t Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e d i d o f t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e s u n t i l The p a r t i e s f i l e d made no m e n t i o n i n the record December 11, a j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n of f a c t s , o f w h e t h e r Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y o f t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e s . Further, Store the t r i a l which had court J u d g e Moore, i n h i s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g , f a u l t s t h e m a j o r i t y f o r f a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h e o r d i n a n c e s were v a l i d l y p u b l i s h e d a n d / o r e n a c t e d . J u d g e Moore a p p e a r s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g t h a t Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e d i d n o t have c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e o r d i n a n c e s , c o u p l e d w i t h t h e Town's a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l t h a t Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e d i d have c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e o r d i n a n c e s , sufficiently demonstrates t h a t the i s s u e o f v a l i d p u b l i c a t i o n and/or e n a c t m e n t was r a i s e d a n d t r i e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . However, Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e n e v e r r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f v a l i d p u b l i c a t i o n a n d / o r e n a c t m e n t b e l o w Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e p r e s e n t e d n e i t h e r an a r g u m e n t n o r e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e i s s u e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s an i s s u e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . See G e o r g e v . G e o r g e , 14 So. 3d 180, 183 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (citing Andrews v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . 1 5 2100048 r e c e i v e d no e v i d e n c e Bynum and ordinances in which from the at t r i a l . Country The o n l y m e n t i o n o f w h e t h e r Store had notice was i n Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y they a l l e g e d that they of the Town's Store's t r i a l brief, had "never received notice [ t h e Town] r e g a r d i n g t h e O r d i n a n c e upon w h i c h i t r e l i e s regarding the c o l l e c t i o n Police Jurisdiction." Store's t r i a l brief o f S a l e s Tax a n d L i c e n s e w i t h i n i t s The s t a t e m e n t i n Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y i s an u n s w o r n s t a t e m e n t made b y c o u n s e l , which i s not considered evidence. S i n g l e y v . B e n t l e y , 782 So. 2d 799, 803 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) ( c i t i n g A m e r i c a n N a t ' l Bank & T r u s t Co. v . L o n g , 281 A l a . 654, 207 So. 2d 129 T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e court's finding that Bynum and t h e Country r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e Town's o r d i n a n c e s 2009, we reverse the t r i a l t o support court's a b s o l v e s Bynum a n d t h e C o u n t r y Store (1968)). the t r i a l had n o t b e f o r e December 11, judgment insofar as i t S t o r e from l i a b i l i t y f o r s a l e s t a x e s a n d b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s a c c r u i n g b e f o r e December 11, 2009, a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r p r o c e e d i n g s this consistent with opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n 6 and Bryan, J J . , concur. 2100048 Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h 7 writing. 2100048 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I concur w i t h be reversed, contained i n the r e s u l t . t h e main o p i n i o n t h a t t h e judgment b u t I do so f o r r e a s o n s i n t h e main different than should those opinion. In i t s f i n a l judgment, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e Town o f W e s t o v e r ' s o r d i n a n c e n o s . 2005-10-04-061 a n d 2 0 0 7 - 1 1 ¬ 6-147 ("the o r d i n a n c e s " ) a p p l i e d t o t h e 51 C o u n t r y S t o r e ("the Country Store"), a business LLC, t h a t i s owned b y J&F E n t e r p r i s e s , a n d t h a t i s c u r r e n t l y l o c a t e d i n an u n i n c o r p o r a t e d of Shelby County jurisdictions taxes i s within the overlapping o f t h e Town o f W e s t o v e r C i t y of Chelsea, sales but ("the Town") a n d t h e fees. J&F E n t e r p r i s e s a n d James Bynum, t h e s o l e member o f J&F E n t e r p r i s e s (hereinafter r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " J & F " ) , do n o t d i s p u t e w h i c h i s now t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e . U.S.A., I n c . v. G r a b e n , 2009) to address than 18 So. 3d 405, 410 ( f a i l u r e of appellee r u l i n g of t r i a l to f i l e that of that legal See N o r a n d a l made a d v e r s e Hence, I f i n d no n e e d legal conclusion, i t seems c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 8 that ( A l a . C i v . App. cross-appeal court law of the case). the correctness t o note police t h e l a t t e r o f w h i c h does n o t l e v y o r c o l l e c t or business-license conclusion, part other our d e c i s i o n i n 2100048 Town o f K i l l e n 2007) v . Clemmons, 963 So. 2d 670 (Ala. C i v . ( c o n s t r u i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 11-51-91, as a u t h o r i z i n g a m u n i c i p a l i t y t o l e v y and c o l l e c t b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e a business located the nearest Ala. Code collect i n an o v e r l a p p i n g 1975, § 11-51-206 taxes from i t s conclusion Country Store, enforced the t r i a l against such t a x e s ) , and businesses located outside i t s jurisdiction). that the ordinances a p p l i e d tothe court determined that they could not J&F as t o a n y d a t e b e f o r e December 11, 2009, b e c a u s e J&F d i d n o t have a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e of i t s duty t o pay the fees o r c o l l e c t On a p p e a l , from (authorizing a municipality to l i m i t s but within i t s police Despite fees police jurisdiction i f m u n i c i p a l i t y does n o t c o l l e c t sales corporate be App. taxes before notice that date. t h e Town p r i m a r i l y a r g u e s t h a t J&F h a d c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e o r d i n a n c e s and t h a t any a l l e g e d a c t u a l i g n o r a n c e of t h e l a w does n o t e x c u s e J&F's f a i l u r e ordinances. The Town s e c o n d a r i l y evidence supports the t r i a l have a c t u a l n o t i c e o f t h e As court's t o comply w i t h t h e a r g u e s t h a t no admissible f i n d i n g t h a t J&F d i d n o t ordinances. s t a t e d b y t h e Town i n i t s b r i e f matter of law, 9 to this court, as a 2100048 " t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o r p o s t i n g o f an o r d i n a n c e a s r e q u i r e d b y l a w s e r v e s as n o t i c e , a n d no f u r t h e r notice, including t o those affected by the ordinance, i s n e c e s s a r y . 5 MCQUILLIN MUN. CORP. § 16:75 (2010). N o t i c e o f s u c h an o r d i n a n c e i s r e q u i r e d t o be t a k e n b y anyone upon whom i t h a s a b i n d i n g e f f e c t , analogous t o the r u l e t h a t everyone i s p r e s u m e d t o know t h e l a w . I d . § 15:25. ' A l l p e r s o n s upon whom v a l i d o r d i n a n c e s a r e b i n d i n g a r e charged with constructive notice of those o r d i n a n c e s , a n d a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t show t h a t he o r she d i d n o t know o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e o r d i n a n c e . ' Id. Based § 27:65." on t h e f o r e g o i n g ordinance i s immaterial principles, i f a actual citizen knowledge has o f an constructive knowledge o f the o r d i n a n c e t h r o u g h i t s enactment, p u b l i c a t i o n , and/or posting. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t h a t J&F did n o t have c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e finding could ordinances of the ordinances. o n l y be b a s e d on e v i d e n c e h a d n o t been v a l i d l y 2 indicating enacted, published, Such a that the and/or The t r i a l c o u r t e v i d e n t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e was an i s s u e i n t h e c a s e a n d r e s o l v e d t h a t i s s u e a d v e r s e l y t o t h e Town. On a p p e a l , t h e Town does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e was an issue; i t attacks only the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t J&F d i d n o t have c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of t h e ordinances. Therefore, t h i s court cannot decide t h a t c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e was n o t r a i s e d as an i s s u e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e l o w , as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n a s s e r t s . So. 3d a t n.1. 2 10 2100048 posted. In that regard, under Alabama l a w , i t i s presumed that a m u n i c i p a l i t y performed a l l acts necessary to v a l i d a t e an ordinance; however, that evidence to the contrary. 270 Ala. presumption may be r e b u t t e d C h a d w i c k v . Town o f H a m m o n d v i l l e , 618, 622, 120 So. 2d 899, 902 (1960) determined that when a presumption applies that make t h a t city valid ordinance passes the c i t y an ("It has been ordinance, support the claims asserting."). any a n d when a c i t y ordinance i s not of i n v a l i d i t y , disputing the v a l i d i t y their p u b l i c a t i o n or posting. that and i s on facts the party J&F d i d n o t o f f e r a n y e v i d e n c e o r e n t e r stipulation the d i d what was n e c e s s a r y t o i n v a l i d on i t s f a c e , t h e b u r d e n o f a l l e g i n g a n d p r o v i n g to by so into of the ordinances or In f a c t , the p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h e Town was r e l y i n g on o r d i n a n c e n o s . 2005-10-04-0601 2007-11-6-147, w h i c h a u t h o r i z e t h e Town t o c o l l e c t sales t a x e s and b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , from b u s i n e s s e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e Town's p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d t h e p a r t i e s attached trial court's The trial the ordinances to their stipulation f o r the consideration. Town d i d n o t f i l e court joint regarding a postjudgment motion with the the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence to 11 2100048 support received an the t r i a l court's constructive appellate court factual finding that notice cannot J&F h a d n o t of the ordinances. review Ordinarily, the s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a j u d g m e n t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an a d v e r s e r u l i n g on a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l court t o t h e i s s u e ; h o w e v e r , when a t r i a l c o u r t makes s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , an a p p e l l a t e court can review the s u f f i c i e n c y o f the e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i t h o u t t h e n e c e s s i t y o f an a d v e r s e r u l i n g on a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Civ. the R u l e 5 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. P. ("When f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e made i n a c t i o n s court without a jury, the question t r i e d by of the s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s may t h e r e a f t e r be r a i s e d whether o r n o t t h e p a r t y r a i s i n g the q u e s t i o n court an o b j e c t i o n t o such f i n d i n g s amend them o r a m o t i o n h a s made i n t h e o r h a s made a m o t i o n t o f o r judgment o r a motion f o r a new trial."). "The t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e evidence i s i m p l i c i t i n a decree i n which the t r i a l judge i s t h e t r i e r o f t h e f a c t s . Moreover, by making w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e t r i a l judge has had the additional opportunity to reconsider the evidence and d i s c o v e r and c o r r e c t any e r r o r i n j u d g m e n t w h i c h he o r s h e may have made upon i n i t i a l r e v i e w . Thus, when w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e made, t h e y s e r v e t h e same u s e f u l p u r p o s e as does an o b j e c t i o n t o the t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s , a motion t o 12 2100048 amend them, to dismiss opportunity p e r f e c t the Ex parte trial Vaughn, 495 So.2d 83, 87 court specifically constructive Town's a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , and a m o t i o n ... to permit the t r i a l j u d g e an t o c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e and t o i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w on a p p e a l . " notice argument found ( A l a . 1986). that J&F of the ordinances, that no evidence we Because t h e d i d not may supports receive address the that factual determination. Upon due c o n s i d e r a t i o n , not present any e v i d e n c e o r d i n a n c e s were v a l i d l y trial not to rebut the presumption enacted, published, that the and p o s t e d , t h e c o u r t h a d no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g t h a t J&F h a d received Because its I c o n c l u d e t h a t , b e c a u s e J&F d i d c o n s t r u c t i v e notice of the J&F h a d c o n s t r u c t i v e notice ordinances. of the ordinances, lack of a c t u a l notice of the ordinances i s immaterial their enforcement. Commissioner (1995) 211 Therefore, agree of Taxation, (ignorance Butler, with See Center 211 A.D.2d of sales Tenn. 663, Moriches t a x no 367 Monument Co. to v. 947, 621 N.Y.S.2d 720 excuse); S.W.2d 281 and A l f o r d (1963) v. (same). I f i n d no n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h a t p o i n t , a l t h o u g h I do t h e main opinion that supported a f i n d i n g of lack of actual 13 no admissible notice. evidence 2100048 The trial court t h a t J&F l a c k e d December 1 1 , 2009. judgment December The j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d before and t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o vacate those p o r t i o n s of denying enforcement of the ordinances 1 1 , 2009, a n d t o e n t e r ordinances i n finding constructive notice of the ordinances c a u s e remanded w i t h the committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r t o be e n f o r c e a b l e before a new j u d g m e n t f i n d i n g t h e against the Country Store from t h e d a t e o f t h e i r a d o p t i o n a n d a w a r d i n g t h e Town t h e t a x e s a n d business-license fees due. 3 The Town a d o p t e d o r d i n a n c e no. 2005-10-04-061 on O c t o b e r 4, 2005; i t a d o p t e d o r d i n a n c e no. 2007-11-6-147 on November 6, 2007. The Town a u d i t e d t h e C o u n t r y S t o r e ' s r e c e i p t s f o r t h e p e r i o d December 1, 2005, t h r o u g h September 30, 2009. That a u d i t f o u n d t h a t J&F owed $35,514.61 i n b a c k s a l e s t a x e s , a l o n g w i t h i n t e r e s t o f $3,735.37 a n d p e n a l t i e s o f $7,107.20. The a u d i t a l s o f o u n d t h a t J&F owed $450 i n b u s i n e s s - l i c e n s e f e e s , a l o n g w i t h $89.96 i n i n t e r e s t a n d $112.50 i n p e n a l t i e s . The r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e Town i s a t t e m p t i n g to recover business-license f e e s p r e d a t i n g November 6, 2007; h o w e v e r , J&F h a s n e v e r a r g u e d t h a t p o i n t , so t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d a w a r d t h e Town t h e f u l l a u d i t e d amount. 3 14

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.