Ex parte Alabama Department of Labor (formerly the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations). PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Alabama Department of Labor (formerly the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations) v. Charter HR, Inc.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL 09/06/13 Notice: This 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120551 Ex p a r t e Alabama Department o f Labor (formerly the Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Alabama Department o f Labor (formerly the Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s ) v. Charter HR, Inc.) (Tallapoosa C i r c u i t Court, CV-13-900004) 2120551 DONALDSON, J u d g e . The court Alabama Department o f Labor f o r the writ C i r c u i t Court the appeal o f mandamus ("ADOL") p e t i t i o n s directing this the Tallapoosa ( " t r i a l court") t o grant i t s motion t o dismiss filed by C h a r t e r HR, I n c . ( " C h a r t e r " ) , seeking r e v i e w o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d f i n a l a s s e s s m e n t finding Charter t o be a "successor corporation," which o b l i g a t e d C h a r t e r t o pay unemployment-compensation taxes a t a h i g h e r r a t e t h a n i t w o u l d be o b l i g a t e d t o p a y i f i t was a "new corporation." right B e c a u s e ADOL f a i l s t o d e m o n s t r a t e a c l e a r to the r e l i e f i t seeks, we d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n legal f o r the w r i t o f mandamus. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y The relevant facts before us a r e l i m i t e d . A e x i s t e d b e t w e e n ADOL a n d C h a r t e r a s t o t h e p r o p e r that should be imposed against compensation t a x purposes; Charter annual i s considered out assessment f o r unemployment- that dispute centered a new c o r p o r a t i o n , t a x e d wages, o r a s u c c e s s o r a n n u a l wages. Charter dispute corporation, taxed on w h e t h e r a t 2.70% o f a t 4.7% o f See g e n e r a l l y § 25-4-8, A l a . Code 1975 ( s e t t i n g the provisions f o r determining 2 whether an employer 2120551 qualifies as a successor corporation). An administrative d e t e r m i n a t i o n and f i n a l a s s e s s m e n t was e n t e r e d f i n d i n g to be a successor corporation and calculating u n e m p l o y m e n t - c o m p e n s a t i o n t a x r a t e as a s u c c e s s o r a t 4.7% o f a n n u a l wages. Charter Charter's corporation On J a n u a r y 18, 2013, C h a r t e r filed a n o t i c e of appeal t o the t r i a l court, seeking j u d i c i a l review of 25-4- the administrative determination 1 3 4 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. pursuant to § Along with i t s n o t i c e of Charter filed bond"). The capacity as a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r t h e 3175 C h i l d r e n ' s a " S u p e r s e d e a s B o n d and Bond f o r C o s t s " b o n d was which described i t s e l f Inc." pay appeal, e x e c u t e d by C r y s t a l Walters ("the i n her Trust, as " t h e p r i n c i p a l owner o f C h a r t e r HR, The b o n d a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e s i g n a t o r y i s bound t o t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f C h a r t e r up t o d o u b l e t h e amount o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t p l u s c o s t s s h o u l d t h e a p p e a l be u n s u c c e s s f u l . b o n d shows t h a t t h e t r i a l court c l e r k approved The i t on J a n u a r y 18, 2013. On F e b r u a r y 8, 2013, ADOL f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s Charter's appeal Charter on the basis that t h e bond submitted by was n o t s u f f i c i e n t and f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h § 25-4- 134(c)(3)b. and that, thereafter, subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . the trial court lacked Charter responded t o t h a t motion 3 2120551 on February sufficient, 15, 2013, by and t h e t r i a l d i s m i s s on F e b r u a r y asserting court that denied t h e bond ADOL's motion to 22, 2013. ADOL p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus on A p r i l Standard 5, 2013. o f Review "The d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f jurisdiction i s reviewable upon a t i m e l y filed p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. Ex p a r t e Flint C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d 805, 808 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Drummond Co. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 937 So. 2d 56, 57 ( A l a . 2006) . W i t h r e g a r d t o an a p p e l l a t e court's consideration of a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus, o u r supreme c o u r t h a s s t a t e d : " ' T h i s Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d that the writ of mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y and d r a s t i c w r i t and t h a t a p a r t y s e e k i n g s u c h a w r i t must meet c e r t a i n criteria. We will issue the w r i t of mandamus o n l y when (1) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o the r e l i e f sought; (2) t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y t o p e r f o r m a n d h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o ; (3) the petitioner h a s no o t h e r adequate remedy; a n d (4) t h i s C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d . Ex p a r t e M e r c u r y F i n . C o r p . , 715 So. 2d 196, 198 ( A l a . 1997) . Because mandamus i s an extraordinary remedy, t h e s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s t o determine whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t has c l e a r l y a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . See Ex p a r t e R u d o l p h , 515 So. 2d 704, 706 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . ' "Ex was parte F l i n t Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d a t 808." 4 2120551 Ex p a r t e D i e f e n b a c h , 64 So. 3d 1091, 1093 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) . Discussion ADOL a r g u e s t h a t the t r i a l court lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e a p p e a l because t h e bond f i l e d by C h a r t e r did n o t comply which provides, with the provisions of § 25-4-134(c)(3)b., i n pertinent part: " I f an e m p l o y e r a g a i n s t whom an a s s e s s m e n t i s made by t h e d i r e c t o r i s d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e f i n a l a s s e s s m e n t as f i x e d b y t h e d i r e c t o r u n d e r a n y o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f t h i s s u b s e c t i o n (c) and d u l y p r o t e s t s t h e f i x i n g o f t h e same, he may appeal from s a i d f i n a l assessment t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y , o r t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t of t h e county i n w h i c h t h e employer r e s i d e s o r has h i s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s , i f t h e employer has w i t h i n t h e s t a t e a permanent r e s i d e n c e , at the o p t i o n o f t h e employer, by f i l i n g n o t i c e o f appeal w i t h t h e d i r e c t o r and w i t h t h e r e g i s t e r o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f t h e c o u n t y t o w h i c h a p p e a l s h a l l be t a k e n , 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 f i n a l a s s e s s m e n t made a n d e n t e r e d on t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e department, and i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o by g i v i n g bond c o n d i t i o n e d t o p a y a l l c o s t s , t o be f i l e d w i t h a n d approved by t h e r e g i s t e r o r c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e a p p e a l s h a l l be t a k e n . The e m p l o y e r s h a l l pay t h e a s s e s s m e n t so made b e f o r e t h e a p p e a l i s f i l e d , o r t h e c o u r t s h a l l upon m o t i o n d i s m i s s s u c h appeal, unless a t the time o f t a k i n g the appeal the employer has executed a supersedeas bond with s u f f i c i e n t s u r e t i e s t o be a p p r o v e d b y t h e r e g i s t e r o r c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e a p p e a l s h a l l be taken i n double t h e amount of contributions, i n t e r e s t , and p e n a l t i e s , p a y a b l e t o t h e d i r e c t o r , c o n d i t i o n e d t o pay a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n s , i n t e r e s t , p e n a l t i e s , a n d c o s t s f o u n d t o be due [ADOL] 5 2120551 (Emphasis added.) ADOL does n o t a r g u e t h a t C h a r t e r f a i l e d t o execute a supersedeas bond o r t h a t t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t d i d not a c c e p t t h e bond. R a t h e r , ADOL a r g u e s t h a t t h e b o n d i s n o t valid. 812 ADOL r e l i e s on S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue v . G a r n e r , So. 2d 380 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) : "The Garners sought review of the [ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge's] d e c i s i o n i n the C i r c u i t C o u r t o f M a r i o n C o u n t y . The G a r n e r s d i d n o t , a t t h e t i m e t h e y a p p e a l e d , p a y t h e amount o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t in f u l l ; rather, they attached t o t h e i r n o t i c e of a p p e a l a document e n t i t l e d 'Supersedeas Bond By A p p e l l a n t s , ' w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t i t b o u n d 'R.L. a n d S a u n d r i a Garner, t h e p r i n c i p a l o b l i g o r s , and t h e u n d e r s i g n e d s u r e t i e s . ' The document was e x e c u t e d o n l y b y t h e G a r n e r s . The document was n o t e x e c u t e d by a s u r e t y company l i c e n s e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n Alabama, n o r by any o t h e r t h i r d p a r t y . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e document was f i l e d w i t h , a n d a p p r o v e d b y , t h e Marion County C i r c u i t C l e r k . " Id. a t 382. This court ruled: "The s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d f i l e d w i t h t h e G a r n e r s ' n o t i c e of appeal was signed only by t h e t a x p a y e r s t h e m s e l v e s ; i t d i d n o t comply w i t h § 40-2A-9(g)(1) i t was n o t e x e c u t e d b y a ' s u r e t y company l i c e n s e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a ' as r e q u i r e d b y t h e p l a i n language o f § 4 0 - 2 A - 9 ( g ) ( 1 ) . Because t h e supersedeas bond d i d not comply with the unambiguous requirements of the statute, the c i r c u i t court l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e Garners' appeal." Id. in a t 384. this ADOL a r g u e s t h a t , as i n Garner, case e r r e d i n denying t h e motion 6 the t r i a l to dismiss court because, 2120551 it alleges, Charter filed the bond "signed only by the e m p l o y e r t h e m s e l v e s [ s i c ] " and t h e r e f o r e f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h § 25-4-134(c)(3). However, t h i s argument and ADOL's r e l i a n c e on G a r n e r a r e m i s p l a c e d . on the basis 9(g)(1), of the A l a . Code First, Garners' 1975, G a r n e r was decided e n t i r e l y noncompliance which governs with the a p p e a l s f r o m a d e c i s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e was as e n a c t e d i n 1992 § 40-2A- procedure law judge for which as p a r t o f t h e A l a b a m a T a x p a y e r s ' Bill o f R i g h t s and U n i f o r m Revenue P r o c e d u r e s A c t , A l a . Code 1975, § § 40-2A-1 e t s e q . See A c t No. Garner from deals with an 92-186, A l a . A c t s 1992, a p e r s o n a l - i n c o m e - t a x assessment inheritance. T h i s m a t t e r does n o t p r o c e d u r e s p r o v i d e d by § 4 0 - 2 A - 9 ( g ) ( 1 ) . arise 8. arising under the ADOL c o n c e d e s t h a t i t c i t e s G a r n e r o n l y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a s u r e t y must be a third party. requires surety However, "a s u p e r s e d e a s company l i c e n s e d unlike § bond, w h i c h t o do 40-2A-9(g)(1)b.2., shall be which e x e c u t e d by b u s i n e s s i n Alabama, for a 125 p e r c e n t o f t h e amount s t a t e d as due i n t h e f i n a l o r d e r o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e , " § 2 5 - 4 - 1 3 4 ( c ) ( 3 ) b . r e q u i r e s o n l y "a supersedeas bond w i t h sufficient sureties t o be approved the r e g i s t e r or c l e r k of the c o u r t to which the appeal 7 by shall 2120551 be taken." Section 25-4-134(c)(3)b. makes no additional r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e s u r e t y be i s s u e d b y a t h i r d p a r t y or a l i c e n s e d company a n d t h e amount o f t h e s u r e t y c o n t e m p l a t e d b y § 40-2A-9(g) ( 1 ) b . 2 . smaller than ("double (125% o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t ) i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y t h e amount c o n t e m p l a t e d b y § the amount of 25-4-134(c)(3)b. contributions, interest, and penalties"). Further, even i f we were convinced b y ADOL's argument t h a t a s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d c a n n o t be i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o § 25-4134(c)(3)b. except by a t h i r d p a r t y or a l i c e n s e d , corporate s u r e t y , ADOL h a s n o t shown t h a t t h e s i g n e r o f t h e b o n d , 3175 Children's argued bonds. that Trust, i s t h e same e n t i t y 3175 C h i l d r e n ' s The b o n d i n question Trust i s thep r i n c i p a l does n o t s t a t e t h a t of, that states 3175 C h i l d r e n ' s as, Charter. the supersedeas Trust d i d not provide to issue that "3175 C h i l d r e n ' s owner o f C h a r t e r HR, I n c . " ; h o w e v e r , i t o r t h e same e n t i t y argue n o r has i t i s not licensed Trust as C h a r t e r , bond "sufficient Trust i s the only Further, issued ADOL does n o t b y 3175 Children's s u r e t i e s , " o n l y t h a t i t was n o t v a l i d b e c a u s e i t was n o t i s s u e d b y a t h i r d p a r t y 8 owner surety. 2120551 The plain language of § 25-4-134(c)(3)b. contains no such requirement. The writ, writ a n d , t o be e n t i t l e d demonstrate ADOL o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y to the writ, and d r a s t i c a petitioner i t has a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f h a s f a i l e d t o meet that requirement. must sought. For a l l that appears i n t h e m a t e r i a l s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t , C h a r t e r p r e s e n t e d a "a s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t s u r e t i e s " was "approved b y t h e ... c l e r k appeal shall be t a k e n . " § failed t o demonstrate of the court 25-4-134(c)(3)b. a clear legal right that t o which the Because ADOL to the r e l i e f i t s e e k s , we deny t h e p e t i t i o n . PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Thomas, concur. 9 a n d Moore, 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.