Jim Harris v. City of Birmingham

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/04/2011 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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, 2011-2012 2100721 Jim Harris 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 Court (CV-09-903825) MOORE, J u d g e . Jim H a r r i s appeals Jefferson arising Circuit from Birmingham f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d Court ("the t r i a l the demolition ("the C i t y " ) . court") o f h i s house by the on h i s c l a i m s by theCity o f 2100721 Facts On N o v e m b e r complaint been by the alleging, negligent owned 30, 2009, against defendants, History Harris filed City and of the C i t y . that was He r e q u e s t e d of a located that a named the C i t y i t sdemolition that court fictitiously things, with ("the house") i n the t r i a l several among o t h e r i n connection Harris jurisdiction and P r o c e d u r a l had house within the t r i a l the court i s s u e a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t the C i t y had v i o l a t e d h i s dueprocess rights On D e c e m b e r complaint, in 5, 22, 2009, the C i t y filed i t s answer to Harris's with H a r r i s ' s f i l i n g of h i s complaint. The City a n a m e n d e d a n s w e r a n d a n a m e n d e d c o u n t e r c l a i m on J a n u a r y 2010. On counterclaim, On January as November summary j u d g m e n t . among o t h e r of with the demolition of the house. as w e l l as a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g abuse o f p r o c e s s connection filed i n connection 2010, Harris answered the C i t y ' s amended. 16, 2010, the I n support motion for a of i t s motion, the City filed, t h i n g s , an a f f i d a v i t condemnation Engineering, 29, for the and P e r m i t s . City filed a of C u r t i s Faggard, the c h i e f City's Department of Planning, Faggard stated i n h i s a f f i d a v i t : " I am t h e C h i e f o f C o n d e m n a t i o n f o r t h e C i t y o f Birmingham Department o f P l a n n i n g , E n g i n e e r i n g , and 2 2100721 P e r m i t s . I have been t h e C h i e f of Condemnation f o r 2 ^ y e a r s . P r i o r t o t h a t , I was an I n s p e c t o r f o r 1 2 ^ years f o r the C i t y of Birmingham Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits. My r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e t o c o o r d i n a t e , d e t e r m i n e and advise on the d e m o l i t i o n of p r o p e r t i e s located w i t h i n the C i t y of Birmingham. I have r e v i e w e d the c o n d e m n a t i o n f i l e s a n d am f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y "The C i t y has been d e a l i n g w i t h Mr. Harris concerning the s t a t e of h i s p r o p e r t y f o r about e l e v e n ( 1 1 ) y e a r s . Mr. H a r r i s p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y on F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 . On A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 , M r . H a r r i s a p p l i e d f o r a condemnation r e p a i r permit. He was granted a condemnation r e p a i r permit. "On J u l y 3, 2 0 0 1 , a f t e r an i n s p e c t i o n b y t h e City's inspectors, the City's Department of Planning, Engineering and Permits forwarded Mr. Harris a certified letter to h i s address [in] Ensley. Linda Harris signed f o r the l e t t e r . The l e t t e r i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y ... was in a dangerous s t a t e of d i s r e p a i r and a p u b l i c nuisance. The l e t t e r f u r t h e r informed Mr. Harris t h a t t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n r e p a i r p e r m i t was v o i d e d on J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 due t o t h e f a c t t h a t r e p a i r s h a d n o t b e e n made t o t h e p r o p e r t y a n d t h a t t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n process [was] b e i n g r e i n s t a t e d . The p r o p e r t y was p l a c e d b a c k on t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n p r o c e s s list. "On S e p t e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 , t h e C i t y f o r w a r d e d ... a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r t o Mr. H a r r i s The l e t t e r was signed [ f o r ] by Mr. Larry Johnson. The letter i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y ... was i n a dangerous s t a t e of d i s r e p a i r , unsafe and a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e . The l e t t e r f u r t h e r ... i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y w o u l d be d e m o l i s h e d i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) days. "On O c t o b e r 2, City's condemnation 2 0 0 2 , M r . H a r r i s came office and r e q u e s t e d 3 to the another 2100721 c o n d e m n a t i o n r e p a i r p e r m i t . The c o n d e m n a t i o n r e p a i r p e r m i t was i s s u e d . The C i t y c o n t i n u e d t o m o n i t o r t h e ... p r o p e r t y . H o w e v e r , a g a i n , o v e r t i m e , M r . H a r r i s d i d n o t make a n y r e p a i r s t o t h e p r o p e r t y . "On J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e C i t y w r o t e a n d f o r w a r d e d [Harris] a c e r t i f i e d letter I t was s i g n e d [ f o r ] b y L e n o r n G i l c h r i s t . The l e t t e r i n f o r m e d M r . H a r r i s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y was i n a d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n , u n s a f e a n d c o n s t i t u t e d a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e . The l e t t e r f u r t h e r i n f o r m e d Mr. H a r r i s t o g e t a p e r m i t b y J u l y 21, 2 0 0 9 [ , ] o r h i s p r o p e r t y w o u l d be s u b j e c t t o condemnation and d e m o l i t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e Birmingham City Council. A l l demolitions are approved by a v o t e by t h e Birmingham C i t y C o u n c i l . Mr. H a r r i s d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e c e r t i f i e d letter o r come t o C i t y H a l l . "On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e B i r m i n g h a m C i t y C o u n c i l c o n s i d e r e d t h e condemnation and d e m o l i t i o n o f t h e ... p r o p e r t y . The m a t t e r was a g e n d a i t e m #50. The agenda i t e m was c a l l e d up f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d debated. M r . H a r r i s was n o t p r e s e n t . Seeing no o b j e c t i o n s , t h e C i t y C o u n c i l v o t e d and o r d e r e d t h a t [ t h e ] p r o p e r t y be condemned a n d d e m o l i s h e d . "On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , I forwarded [Harris] a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r to h i s residence [in]Ensley. I t was s i g n e d [ f o r ] b y M r . H a r r i s . The l e t t e r informed Mr. H a r r i s t h a t t h e B i r m i n g h a m C i t y C o u n c i l on J u l y 21, 2009 h a d v o t e d on t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o [ f ] h i s property and o r d e r e d the D i r e c t o r of Planning, Engineering and P e r m i t s to take bids t o demolish [ t h e ] p r o p e r t y . The l e t t e r a l s o i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t all p r o p e r t y w o u l d be removed by t h e c o n t r a c t o r demolishing the property i f n o t removed within fifteen (15) d a y s . M r . H a r r i s d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r o r come t o C i t y H a l l . "On o r a f t e r O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 0 9 , f o l l o w i n g t h e mandate by t h e Birmingham C i t y C o u n c i l , t h e C i t y ' s P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t w e n t t o t h e ... p r o p e r t y ... 4 2100721 capped t h e sewer and then d e m o l i s h e d t h e p r o p e r t y . The property was v a c a n t and u n i n h a b i t a b l e . The property was d e m o l i s h e d pursuant to the City's condemnation process." On December summary-judgment affidavit the by 15, 2010, H a r r i s motion. He responded attached to the City's to h i s response h i s i n w h i c h he d e t a i l e d t h e r e p a i r s t h a t h e h a d made t o house and s t a t e d t h a t e a r l y 2006. Harris a l l n e c e s s a r y r e p a i r s h a d b e e n made further stated: "A f e w w e e k s b e f o r e t h e h o u s e was d e m o l i s h e d , I c a l l e d M r . C u r t i s F a g g a r d o n t h e t e l e p h o n e ; i t i s my understanding t h a t M r . F a g g a r d i s a) a n e m p l o y e e o f t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m ; b) i s ' i n c h a r g e ' o f t h e d e m o l i t i o n e f f o r t b y t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , a n d ; c) was s o a c t i n g d u r i n g my c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h h i m . The reason f o r the noted conversation was t h a t I h a d received an e a r l i e r call from my sister Linda H a r r i s , who t o l d me t h a t s h e h a d s e e n a d e m o l i t i o n n o t i c e on t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m and t h a t I n e e d e d t o c a l l Mr. F a g g a r d . I w i s h t o point out that I never received the n o t i c e of J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 w h i c h c o n t a i n s my name on t h e r e c e i p t c a r d , but which I never signed f o r . A c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e c e i p t c a r d f o r t h e J u l y 2 1 s t n o t i c e shows: a) t h a t t h e name ' J i m H a r r i s ' t h e r e o n c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y b e c a l l e d a s i g n a t u r e , a n d ; b) i t b e a r s a b s o l u t e l y no r e s e m b l a n c e t o a n y o f t h e n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s o f my s i g n a t u r e a p p e a r i n g on d o c u m e n t s t h a t the C i t y of Birmingham uses i n support of t h e Motion for Summary Judgment. I t does however bear a s t r i k i n g resemblance to the 'signature' of Larry J o h n s o n on t h e r e c e i p t c a r d f o r t h e n o t i c e dated S e p t e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 ; I am n o t L a r r y J o h n s o n . " A g a i n , a s a r e s u l t o f my s i s t e r p h o n i n g me I c a l l e d Mr. F a g g a r d and i n f o r m e d h i m o f t h e c o m p l e t e d 5 2100721 renovations/repairs made on, and t o t h e house. During our conversation F a g g a r d seemed satisfied w i t h my e f f o r t s r e l a t i v e t o t h e h o u s e , a n d he t o l d me t o p a i n t t h e e x t e r i o r (so t h a t t h e house w o u l d n o t l o o k l i k e i t was a b a n d o n e d ) a n d i t w o u l d n o t b e d e m o l i s h e d . A g a i n , i t was my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t Mr. F a g g a r d was t h e C i t y e m p l o y e e ' i n c h a r g e ' o f t h e d e m o l i t i o n e f f o r t b y t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , a n d was so a c t i n g d u r i n g my c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h h i m . A l s o , i t was my understanding, based upon Faggard's s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t he h a d t h e authority to enter i n t o an a g r e e m e n t o r g i v e me assurances (on b e h a l f of the C i t y of Birmingham) r e g a r d i n g p o s t p o n i n g o r s e t t i n g a s i d e any d e m o l i t i o n o f a home. I r e c a l l a s k i n g F a g g a r d i f t h e r e was s o m e t h i n g t h a t he c o u l d do t o s t o p t h e d e m o l i t i o n , a n d he s a i d ' y e s . ' I t w a s , a t t h i s p o i n t , t h a t he i n s t r u c t e d me t o p a i n t t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e h o u s e . I n my opinion, my reliance upon Faggard's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s that i f I had the e x t e r i o r of the h o u s e p a i n t e d i t w o u l d n o t be d e m o l i s h e d was, b a s e d upon[] the circumstances, both reasonable and justified. " I n r e l i a n c e on M r . F a g g a r d ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , I had t h e e x t e r i o r o f t h e house p a i n t e d p r i o r t o t h e day o f d e m o l i t i o n . I h a d no r e a s o n s t o t h i n k o r believe that my home, i n light of Faggard's representation, w o u l d be s l a t e d f o r demolition. Alternatively stated, I thought that I h a d an agreement w i t h the City o f B i r m i n g h a m , v i a Mr. Faggard's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and a u t h o r i t y , and t h a t b e c a u s e I h a d l i v e d up t o my e n d o f t h e a g r e e m e n t my home w o u l d n o t b e s l a t e d f o r d e m o l i t i o n . "On t h e d a t e o f t h e d e m o l i t i o n , I was n o t i f i e d , i n p e r s o n , b y a n e i g h b o r , Ms. V e r o n i c a F i e l d s , who i n f o r m e d me t h a t e a r l i e r i n t h e d a y t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m ' s d e m o l i t i o n c r e w : a) h a d come t h e h o u s e ; a n d b) k i c k e d my f r o n t d o o r i n . I t h e r e u p o n w e n t t o t h e h o u s e . U p o n a r r i v i n g , t h e d e m o l i t i o n c r e w was n o t p r e s e n t , b u t I i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i c e d t h a t (1) my 6 2100721 aluminum storm door a t t h e f r o n t o f t h e house had b e e n c a r e f u l l y r e m o v e d f r o m i t s h i n g e s a n d s e t away from the entry door, and (2) my HVAC a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g compressor u n i t that I had placed i n the living r o o m o f t h e h o u s e was m i s s i n g . As I proceeded t o t h e r e a r o f t h e house, I found t h e r e a r d o o r o p e n , a n d my HVAC f u r n a c e l a y i n g o u t s i d e i n t h e b a c k y a r d n e x t t o a l a r g e mound o f d i r t t h a t h a d b e e n g o u g e d o u t o f t h e g r o u n d . Upon s e e i n g a l l o f t h i s , I r a n back t o [the address a t which I r e s i d e ] and a t t e m p t e d t o c a l l t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m t o g e t an e x p l a n a t i o n a s t o why my home was g o i n g t o b e d e m o l i s h e d . H o w e v e r , I was u n a b l e t o r e a c h a n y C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m o f f i c i a l s . T h e n Ms. F i e l d s r e m i n d e d me that, i t being a weekend, the City offices were c l o s e d . I t h e n w e n t b a c k t o t h e ... p r o p e r t y a n d w a i t e d f o r t h e d e m o l i t i o n c r e w t o r e t u r n . When t h e y r e t u r n e d , I a s k e d t h e f o r e m a n t o e x p l a i n t o me why he k i c k e d i n t h e d o o r o f my h o u s e a n d who a u t h o r i z e d t h e d e m o l i t i o n o f my h o u s e . A f t e r h e a t t e m p t e d t o e x p l a i n h i s understanding of h i s orders, I asked him t o go i n s i d e [ t h e ] h o u s e w i t h me t o o b s e r v e t h e i n t e r i o r h i m s e l f a n d s a t i s f y h i m s e l f t h a t i t was i n l i v a b l e , m o v e - i n r e a d y c o n d i t i o n . He, a l s o a t my request, g o t on h i s w a l k i e - t a l k i e a n d c a l l e d h i s s u p e r v i s o r a n d e x p l a i n e d what he h a d o b s e r v e d . I h a d p r e v i o u s l y t o l d t h e f o r e m a n t h a t I h a d an agreement with Mr. Faggard regarding holding o f f on demolition, and that there was apparently a misunderstanding/mis communication regarding d e m o l i t i o n . The c r e w f o r e m a n r e l a y e d w h a t I h a d t o l d h i m , a n d w h a t h e saw r e l a t i v e t o t h e g o o d c o n d i t i o n o f t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e home, t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r . I overheard t h e s u p e r i o r t e l l t h e foremen t h a t i f I could not produce the proper permit, to proceed with the demolition, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f : a) t h e good c o n d i t i o n o f t h e h o u s e , a n d ; b) a n y a g r e e m e n t t h a t I d i d o r d i d n o t have, w i t h F a g g a r d . B a s e d upon t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e crew foreman, and h i s s u p e r v i s o r , were B i r m i n g h a m e m p l o y e e s , a c t i n g as s u c h , on t h e date of the d e m o l i t i o n . 7 2100721 "At t h i s p o i n t I p l e a d e d w i t h t h e f o r e m a n t o t r y to get h i s s u p e r i o r s t o wait u n t i l the next business d a y when I c o u l d t a l k t o M r . F a g g a r d , o r some o t h e r appropriate official, and straighten out the q u e s t i o n o f d e m o l i t i o n . However, upon r e c e i v i n g h i s instructions from h i s s u p e r i o r , he p r o c e e d e d t o d e m o l i s h t h e h o u s e -- t h e h o u s e I h a d p u t s o much money, t i m e a n d e f f o r t i n t o -- w i t h me standing t h e r e , h e l p l e s s l y w a t c h i n g . I was s o a g h a s t a n d i n s h o c k t h a t t h i s was a c t u a l l y h a p p e n i n g , t h a t I d i d n o t t h i n k t o e v e n go i n t o t h e h o u s e t o r e t r i e v e t h e records and r e c e i p t s nor anything else. I n my o p i n i o n , i n no way was t h e h o u s e i n a c o n d i t i o n t h a t j u s t i f i e d c o n d e m n a t i o n o r d e m o l i t i o n . I n my o p i n i o n , the demolition o f my h o u s e was a b r e a c h o f t h e agreement t h a t I had w i t h t h e C i t y of Birmingham v i a Mr. F a g g a r d , r e g a r d i n g d e m o l i t i o n o f my h o u s e . " I n e v e r r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e t h a t was a p p a r e n t l y s i g n e d f o r by L e n o r n [ G i l c h r i s t ] . Mr. [ G i l c h r i s t ] i s m e n t a l l y i l l a n d d i d n o t g i v e me a n y d o c u m e n t t h a t he s i g n e d f o r . The p h o t o s e t s i n c l u d e d b y t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m i n s u p p o r t o f i t s M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment contain no substantial interior, or e x t e r i o r v i e w s o f t h e h o u s e : a) a f t e r I p u r c h a s e d i t , o r ; b) a f t e r I h a d b e g u n a n d / o r c o m p l e t e d w o r k on it." Harris also Fields i n w h i c h she s t a t e d t h a t On December response. attached Harris, a included 17, then affidavit i n which supporting from Veronica t h e h o u s e was n o t a nuisance. 2010, t h e C i t y Harris an a filed a executed affidavit filed a reply supplemental by Harris's to Harris's response sister, she s t a t e d : "Some w e e k s b e f o r e t h e a c t u a l d e m o l i t i o n , I saw n o t i c e p o s t e d on t h e h o u s e . T h o u g h I do n o t 8 and Linda 2100721 r e c a l l t h e e x a c t w o r d s a n d d i d n o t s a v e i t , my b e s t recollection i s that i t d i d reference the City C o u n c i l a n d s a i d t h e h o u s e was c o n d e m n e d . I i n f o r m e d my b r o t h e r a b o u t t h e n o t i c e . I h a d b e e n i n t h e h a b i t o f l o o k i n g i n on t h e p r o p e r t y t h r e e o f f o u r t i m e s a w e e k f o r a n u m b e r o f y e a r s , s i n c e my b r o t h e r lived o u t o f t o w n a n d came t o w o r k on t h e h o u s e on t h e w e e k e n d s . I h a d n e v e r b e f o r e s e e n s u c h a n o t i c e on t h e h o u s e a n d d i d n o t s e e a s u b s e q u e n t one p r i o r t o the d e m o l i t i o n . " The the trial City Rule Harris entered and c e r t i f i e d 54(b), dismissed court A l a . R. filed that a motion judgment judgment of to final, pursuant The trial court subsequently counterclaim. On 1 to alter, amend, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d April i n favor as C i v . P. the City's a summary 14, 2 0 1 1 , H a r r i s a p p e a l e d February or vacate 17, 2 0 1 1 , the trial on M a r c h 7, 2 0 1 1 . t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme On Court; On J a n u a r y 14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r e n t i t l e d "Order G r a n t i n g Defendant C i t y of Birmingham's Motion f o r Summary J u d g m e n t . " (Emphasis added.) At the conclusion of the order, however, the t r i a l court stated: "For the p r e c e d i n g r e a s o n s , i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED, t h a t summary j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y DENIED." (Capitalization i n original.) The t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h e j u d g m e n t a s f i n a l , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 1 , the trial court amended t h e J a n u a r y 14, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r by s t a t i n g : "For the preceding reasons, i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that summary judgment i s hereby GRANTED." (Capitalization i n original.) On J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 , the trial court entered an o r d e r dismissing the City's counterclaim. 1 9 2100721 that court 12-2-7(6), t r a n s f e r r e d the A l a . Code case to t h i s court, pursuant to § 1975. Standard of Review "'A summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s 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 and the moving p a r t y is entitled to a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. T h e b u r d e n i s o n t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g that t h e r e i s 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 and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a matter of law. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the movant has c a r r i e d t h a t burden, the c o u r t i s t o view the e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y and to draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f t h a t p a r t y . To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary judgment motion, the nonmoving p a r t y must 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 genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t -- " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of 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 the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; 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 , 54 7 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v . T h o r o u g h - C l e a n , Inc., 639 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 9 , 1350 ( A l a . 1994). Questions of law a r e r e v i e w e d de n o v o . A l a b a m a R e p u b l i c a n P a r t y v . M c G i n l e y , 893 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 342 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . " Pritchett (Ala. v. ICN Med. Alliance, 2006). 10 Inc., 938 So. 2d 933, 935 2100721 Discussion Harris his raises several arguments relating issues to on appeal. the propriety Ala. Code We of first the address demolition order. Section 11-40-30, 1975, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t o d e m o l i s h a b u i l d i n g when t h e body finds the building to be an unsafe authorizes local public governing nuisance. B e f o r e d e m o l i s h i n g a b u i l d i n g , a m u n i c i p a l i t y must comply the notice provides, provision in pertinent in § 11-40-31, Ala. Code 1975, with which part: "Whenever the a p p r o p r i a t e m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l o f the municipality finds that any building, structure, part of building or structure, party wall, or f o u n d a t i o n s i t u a t e d i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s unsafe to the extent that i t is a public nuisance, the official s h a l l give the person or persons, firm, association, or corporation last assessing the property for state taxes and a l l mortgagees of record, by certified or registered mail to the a d d r e s s on f i l e i n t h e t a x c o l l e c t o r ' s o r r e v e n u e c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s o f f i c e , n o t i c e t o remedy the u n s a f e or dangerous c o n d i t i o n of the b u i l d i n g or s t r u c t u r e , o r t o d e m o l i s h t h e same, w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s e t o u t i n t h e n o t i c e , w h i c h t i m e s h a l l n o t be l e s s t h a n 30 d a y s o r s u f f e r t h e b u i l d i n g o r s t r u c t u r e t o be d e m o l i s h e d by the municipality and the cost t h e r e o f a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y . The mailing of the c e r t i f i e d or r e g i s t e r e d m a i l n o t i c e , properly addressed and postage prepaid, shall constitute n o t i c e as r e q u i r e d h e r e i n . N o t i c e o f t h e o r d e r , o r a copy t h e r e o f , s h a l l , w i t h i n t h r e e days of the date o f m a i l i n g , a l s o be p o s t e d a t o r w i t h i n t h r e e f e e t 11 2100721 ing or s t r u c t u r e . t i c e may be p o s t e d ^ - I - T^-,-, ^ - 1 - - , - , o r s t r u c t u r e . II Following building proper to be notice, demolished body f o r a h e a r i n g , to the § maintains nuisance of Ala. Code that should be an interest in the local shows that a meeting house an unsafe demolished. a certified t h e J u l y 21, the on body public party c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n 10 city nuisance June unsafe aggrieved Code council J u l y 21, and 18, 2009, may days 1975. of 2009, the City that the i t should that to Faggard's a f f i d a v i t , letter nuisance. be his office to inform him sent of 2 0 0 9 , c i t y c o u n c i l m e e t i n g , s o t h a t he w o u l d h a v e opportunity the the have governing b u i l d i n g i s an c o n d u c t e d on public According local § 11-40-32(b), A l a . at was the appropriate determination. record I f the the governing o b j e c t i o n s t h a t p a r t y may demolished, determined attend having petition 1975. i t s position that and The an may s t a t i n g any an a p p e a l i n t h e Harris party f i n d i n g t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g i s an u n s a f e p u b l i c 11-40-32(a), file any If at t o be meeting, h e a r d on the the council determined city issue. 2 When H a r r i s d i d that H a r r i s d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e or t h a t h i s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d because G i l c h r i s t signed f o r the c e r t i f i e d m a i l . 2 12 no not one letter Lenorn 2100721 objected and t o the house b e i n g i t issued Harris a demolition argues determining that However, § finding that outlined the a determination the circuit 1251 ( A l a . 1991), [to] the i n s t e a d , was the our court this procedure to a public includes v. City court finding n o t be b r o u g h t erred nuisance; the r i g h t in nuisance. challenge of Mobile, to held that that the 578 a house in a collateral f o r ... t h e a p p e a l p r o c e s s " c a s e , i s § 11-40-32. finding that have the C i t y ' s been the house made decision a as appeal was i n an and So. 2d "challenge should be action but, provided by 578 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 3 . challenging an unsafe public appeal to the circuit cannot be considered on appeal. H a r r i s next argues that § public i n the p r e s e n t case, H a r r i s ' s arguments should from council unsafe constitutes supreme "reserved City's nuisance the I n Brown statute, which, i n t h i s Similarly, the c i t y an procedure council's could nuisance of the governing body of the m u n i c i p a l i t y to court. city was provides above, that the that house building an u n s a f e p u b l i c order. generally 11-40-32 demolished" declared 11-40-31 the notice are unconstitutional 13 provisions because they do s e t out i n not assure 2100721 that t h e owner receive of a building timely personal construe that as ("To prevail constitutionality 745 constitutional party has attorney See So. 3d on a challenge general, on the v . Adams, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. App. State , facial States challenge v. S a l e r n o , A c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n served attack We to the e x i s t s under which the [statute] would (quoting United (1987))). facial will o f a s t a t u t e , i t must be e s t a b l i s h e d ' t h a t no s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s be v a l i d . ' " a of the s t a t u t e . C R - 0 8 - 1 7 2 8 , N o v . 5, 2 0 1 0 ] 2010) for demolition service of the demolition order. argument constitutionality scheduled 481 U.S. to consider a 739, facial to a statute only i f the challenging notice pursuant of the challenge t o § 6-6-227, " A l a [ b a m a ] Code 1975, § 6-6-227, on the A l a . Code state's 1975. requires that, i n any p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h a ' s t a t u t e , o r d i n a n c e , o r f r a n c h i s e i s a l l e g e d t o be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f t h e S t a t e s h a l l a l s o be s e r v e d w i t h a c o p y o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g a n d be e n t i t l e d t o b e heard.' ... When a p a r t y s e e k s a d e c l a r a t i o n o f r i g h t s regarding the v a l i d i t y of a s t a t u t e , 'service on t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , p u r s u a n t t o § 6 - 6 - 2 2 7 , i s m a n d a t o r y a n d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . ' B a r g e r v . B a r g e r , 410 So. 2 d 1 7 , 19 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . A l t h o u g h § 6-6-227 i s f o u n d w i t h i n t h e D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t A c t , when t h e constitutionality of a statute is challenged, service on the attorney general is required r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e a c t i o n was i n t h e n a t u r e of a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n . W a l l a c e v. S t a t e , 507 S o . 2 d 466 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 14 2100721 " I f the p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a s t a t u t e f a i l s t o s e r v e t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , as r e q u i r e d by A l a . Code 1975, § 6-6-227, t h e trial court has no jurisdiction to decide the constitutional claims. Guy v. Southwest Alabama C o u n c i l on A l c o h o l i s m , 475 So. 2d 1190 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 5 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , our Supreme C o u r t has held ' t h a t f a i l u r e t o s e r v e the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l "goes t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t , " t h a t the "absence of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a p p a r e n t on t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d , " and t h a t we m u s t t a k e n o t i c e o f o u r own want of jurisdiction' and dismiss the appeal. Smith v. L a n c a s t e r , 267 A l a . 366, 3 6 7 , 102 So. 2d 1, 2 ( A l a . 1958) (citations omitted)." T u c k e r v. P e r s o n n e l Bd. App. 1994). that Harris challenges Harris further exists as fact of Accordingly, requirements to in § Dothan, we the dismiss So. the 2d that the 11-40-31. a City 8, 9 (Ala. appeal to constitutionality argues whether 644 genuine of § issue complied the of of the demolition order. Harris 3 asserts, material the notice establishes t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y s e n t a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r t o H a r r i s him extent 11-40-31. with Faggard's a f f i d a v i t Civ. notifying however, that H a r r i s d i s p u t e s t h a t he r e c e i v e d t h a t c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r , m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e on t h e r e c e i p t c a r d was forged. However, § 11-40-31 p r o v i d e s that "[t]he mailing of the c e r t i f i e d or r e g i s t e r e d m a i l n o t i c e , p r o p e r l y addressed and p o s t a g e p r e p a i d , s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e n o t i c e as r e q u i r e d h e r e i n . " Moreover, H a r r i s does not argue i n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s court t h a t t h e C i t y d i d n o t p r o v i d e h i m due p r o c e s s on t h e basis t h a t he n e v e r a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d t h e c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r . "When a n a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o p r o p e r l y a r g u e an i s s u e , t h a t i s s u e i s 3 15 2100721 the C i t y d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h i n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n it had posted required that by t h e l a s t the motion City that demolition of the two notice on asserted met in a l l the affixed issue to the whether legal contains City that the requirement. notice the affidavit testimony genuine issue of m a t e r i a l the demolition Harris Moreover, properly Harris posted notice. occurred attested only the or a f t e r " that h o u s e "some w e e k s " b e f o r e supra. Linda s h e saw Thus, the posting Harris Harris record presents October shows 4, the notice of contends f a c t as t o whether t h e C i t y However, "on of the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence the C i t y had not complied with Pritchett, for a photograph i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n . indicating posted note requirements house. the We as i t s summary-judgment i t was i n c u m b e n t u p o n H a r r i s t o i n t r o d u c e that itself i n § 11-40-31. o f t h e house, and t h e r e c o r d the t h e house sentences generally i t had notice addressed notice the required that a properly that the 2009. Linda posted on t h e t h e d e m o l i t i o n ; she d i d n o t t e s t i f y w a i v e d a n d w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d . B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 418 S o . 2 d 89 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . " A s a m v . D e v e r e a u x , 686 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 4 (Ala. C i v . App. 1996). 16 2100721 that the of the n o t i c e was mailing of the 11-40-31. We imprecise nature considered not post § p o s t e d on J u l y 18, therefore of Linda the required also et Harris's notice seq., with the agreed to forgo demolition Harris did. avoid demolition 4 The City of City he a the complied Faggard house, property only by nuisance 31, appealing provided i n § 11-40-32(b). employee cannot enter into According an remedying the order through to the informal the City, a agreement which can t h e b u i l d i n g an u n s a f e p u b l i c n u i s a n c e , s e e demolition had owner rendering the promptly did negligently says, public be time. a by and that § the City City fully i f Harris painted unsafe the nevertheless because, of i t cannot obtaining or repair permit because required days r e q u i r e d by assertions, the counters an that, even i f the demolition as i n d i c a t i n g that at the proceeded house w i t h i n three conclude argues that, 11-40-30 the 2009, l e t t e r , s u b s t a n t i a l evidence Harris with not defects § 11-40¬ process municipal that, i f a F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , we m u s t a s s u m e t h a t F a g g a r d made t h e a g r e e m e n t w i t h H a r r i s a n d that H a r r i s performed a l l of h i s o b l i g a t i o n s pursuant to that agreement because Harris presented substantial evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h o s e f a c t s . See 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. 2 d 412 (Ala. 1990). 4 17 2100721 property owner municipality order. remedies will B a s e d on not the be e s t o p p e d by of i t s employees, 2 0 0 0 ) , and App. general see the City principle the a parte to Ballew, that that carry this out court, a does not apply attempting of that the estoppel to assure demolished. Harris i t case. Harris demolition on 2d 952 not the or §§ the cannot statements dispute that estoppel that be of his 11-40-31 or 11¬ doctrine he is not the defense that Faggard agreement and couched, his claim unless 18 dispute resulting in is been agreement. i s claiming claim have b a s e d on unauthorized (Ala. (Ala. Civ. not maintains i t s performance, cannot recover 1040 acts order rather, the 2d generally that cannot So. does not comply w i t h maintains However demolition statements Faggard's does the or could Harris further but, building, acts So. municipality n e g l i g e n t l y i n making the failing being to h i s to avoid equitable acted Harris a existing 771 or unauthorized Harris Instead, valid, or unauthorized agreement w i t h F a g g a r d does not 40-32. in r u l e t h a t a g o v e r n i n g body argues invalid employees. defects S h e l b y C o u n t y , 985 in failing e s t o p p e d by its Ex v. In h i s b r i e f to basic execute invalid Perkins 2007), negligent the certain the the i t in house remains City acted 2100721 unreasonably i n demolishing agreement. authority t o s u p p o r t h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t a m u n i c i p a l i t y w o u l d be negligent See following Rule a 28, not cited demolition Ala. R. order App. for Alabaster, v. reversal." 901 So. Geisenhoff, 693 Harris next material fact contacted on halting to the day the inspected 489, whether of house the and that the city challenging set the city collateral above, council's those a claims proceeding. 19 Geisenhoff supervisor, who was was to negligent be in C i t y was condemn should cannot 1997)). of conclusion that of issue demolition-crew i t City genuine the that be be a in not foreman habitable negligent property. those arguments are unsafe p u b l i c nuisance out the council v. (quoting unnamed found note, however, t h a t b o t h of an is demolition, once LLP only sufficient ( A l a . C i v . App. there the supporting Props., H a r r i s a l s o argues t h a t the requesting was 491 circumstances. constitute a ( A l a . 2004) that demolition the condition. 2d argues as does not 708 these "Authority Beachcroft 2d 703, So. specific under P. 'general p r o p o s i t i o n s of law' argument any unauthorized legal in H a r r i s has the house d e s p i t e the We tantamount the to property demolished. raised by in As this 2100721 Conclusion Based extent 40-31. on the foregoing, we that Harris challenges We affirm the I N PART; P . J . , and appeal the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y t h e judgment i n a l l o t h e r APPEAL DISMISSED Thompson, dismiss JUDGMENT Pittman, concur. 20 to the o f § 11¬ respects. AFFIRMED. Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

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.