E. Wayne Russell, Jr. v. State of Alabama and the City of Auburn, Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:06/25/2010 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080426 E. Wayne R u s s e l l , J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama and C i t y Appeal SHAW, from Lee C i r c u i t (CV-04-200) J r . ,appeals Court Justice. E. Wayne Russell, Court's order denying following action o f Auburn an the dismissal i n which the State award from of t h e Lee litigation of the underlying o f Alabama sought Circuit expenses eminent-domain t o condemn a 1080426 portion of Russell's property C i t y of Auburn ("the on appeal award City"). The i s w h e t h e r t h e Lee litigation mandated by § i n Lee Court which, Ala. on behalf of the s o l e i s s u e r a i s e d by R u s s e l l Circuit expenses, 18-1A-232, County erred in f a i l i n g Russell Code 1975. maintains, We to is reverse and remand. The Lee State f i l e d County Probate the u n d e r l y i n g condemnation a c t i o n i n Court. The probate court entered a final order of condemnation p e r m i t t i n g the p r o p o s e d condemnation awarding to the The R u s s e l l $470,000 Lee Circuit p a r t i e s then proceedings as -- a party Mclnnes one -as State for a t r i a l of which director the City, City Alabama a motion to to dismiss, court. the Following a hearing circuit court entered 2 an filed and added against dismiss R u s s e l l i n w h i c h he c h a l l e n g e d t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of the c i r c u i t being Department f o r a summary j u d g m e n t and appealed filings t h i r d - p a r t y complaint the and novo. r e s u l t e d i n the of motions and de Russell engaged i n v a r i o u s p r e t r i a l including a Transportation, the Court i n compensation. the by filed Joe of both by jurisdiction on R u s s e l l ' s m o t i o n order on August 20, 1080426 2008, d i s m i s s i n g the a c t i o n . noted that neither the Specifically, 1 City nor Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , determined were condemnation appeal to concluded, and the formed void. the necessary proceeding, circuit both and were court. basis order for the d i r e c t o r of o f whom t h e indispensable added as Therefore, the p r o b a t e c o u r t had resulting the 2 the the c i r c u i t issued appeal the Alabama circuit parties parties the court court to the until the circuit court never obtained jurisdiction, by court, the to probate the circuit court, which was 3 A l t h o u g h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e x e c u t e d t h e o r d e r on A u g u s t 14, 2 0 0 8 , t h a t o r d e r was n o t e n t e r e d by t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k u n t i l A u g u s t 20, 2008. See R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("An order or a judgment s h a l l be d e e m e d ' e n t e r e d ' within the m e a n i n g o f t h e s e R u l e s a n d t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e as of the a c t u a l date of the i n p u t of the o r d e r or judgment i n t o the State J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System."). 1 S e c t i o n 1 8 - 1 A - 7 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e complaint c o m m e n c i n g an eminent-domain action "shall ... [ d ] e s i g n a t e as a p l a i n t i f f e a c h p e r s o n on w h o s e b e h a l f the property i s s o u g h t t o be t a k e n . " See also Withington v. C l o u d , 522 So. 2 d 2 6 3 , 265 ( A l a . 1988) ("'The a b s e n c e o f a n e c e s s a r y and i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y n e c e s s i t a t e s t h e d i s m i s s a l of the cause w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e or a r e v e r s a l w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o a l l o w t h e c a u s e t o s t a n d o v e r f o r amendment.'" (quoting J . C . J a c o b s B a n k i n g Co. v . C a m p b e l l , 406 So. 2d 8 3 4 , 851 ( A l a . 1981))). 2 The c o r r e c t n e s s of the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l i s not i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l , a n d t h i s C o u r t e x p r e s s e s no o p i n i o n that issue. 3 an on 3 1080426 Russell subsequently f i l e d a motion litigation hearing, expenses. the On circuit October court s e e k i n g the award 31, e n t e r e d an 2008, following order reiterating conclusion that i t lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n appeal, denying " a l lpending August 14, 2008" August order dismissed Plaintiff[s] motions (see s u p r a n o t e filing a 1 ) , and the matter new case filed over the Probate to that i t s "without prejudice i n the a i t s subsequent clarifying of to the of Lee "Motion to Court County." On November Reconsider, 24, Alter 2008, o r Amend Russell Order filed Denying for Award o f C o s t s and O t h e r L i t i g a t i o n the circuit circuit court's court's litigation October denial expenses was 31 in error. Defendant's Expenses" o r d e r and of h i s motion a referencing asserting requesting The circuit Motion that an the award court t h a t m o t i o n b y an o r d e r e n t e r e d D e c e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 8 , a n d of denied Russell appealed. ^Although the subject-matter circuit court jurisdiction concluded over the that i t lacked eminent-domain p r o c e e d i n g , we h o l d t h a t i t n e v e r t h e l e s s h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n Russell's motion for litigation 4 expenses. over Specifically, a 1080426 court's subject-matter jurisdiction " i s derived Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Alabama Code." 946 So. 2d 536, subject-matter court the had 538 ( A l a . 2006). jurisdiction, "we the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and case. Seymour, 94 6 So. ask "[t]he court expenses, if 2d circuit case, added.) even i f the Human R e s . App. regarding the or p a r t l y Section v. Estate by itself of the terms equity.'" (emphasis litigation expenses 538. of the Here, t h a t , i n an trial the plain eminent-domain amounts a u t h o r i z e d by was f o r any thus also fee law, reason." provides "dismissed follows the in this f o r " lack of generally State Dep't So. (Ala. 2d the 818, 820 'American Rule' fee; that rule provides for i f a fee is allowed contract, a added)). was, at o f H a r r i s , 857 attorney court's l i t i g a t i o n expenses o f an a t t o r n e y an a whether dismissed See ("Alabama the award only 18-1A-232(a) jurisdiction. 2002) recovery statute, action determining Seymour, the defendant h i s l i t i g a t i o n c o u r t t h e "power" t o award subject-matter Civ. award i n a d d i t i o n t o any o t h e r the a c t i o n i s wholly (Emphasis of shall Ex p a r t e the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y " to hear language of § 18-1A-232(a) p r o v i d e s action, In from or by a 'special motion seeking Russell's therefore, unaffected 5 by any by l a c k of 1080426 subject-matter and was See Williams 1998) a properly v. (stating condemnation accrue, not jurisdiction and begin to the filed after Deerman, that the eminent-domain dismissal of So. 2d (Ala. Civ. 18, 21 that time that action the a landowner's c l a i m f o r costs action run," 724 over has been and dismissed for ... assertion [of the until the action is dismissed). action. fees does claim] App. in "not d[oes] 4 R u s s e l l ' s m o t i o n f o r l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s and attorney f e e s was n o t a m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend a j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See F o r d v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 989 So. 2d 542, 545 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (concluding that p e t i t i o n f o r a s s e s s m e n t o f a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s was not s u b j e c t t o t h e 3 0 - d a y t i m e l i m i t a t i o n o f R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d o b s e r v i n g t h a t " t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t a r e q u e s t f o r an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s ... i s n o t a ' m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend a j u d g m e n t ' " ( c i t i n g W h i t e v . New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 452 (1982))). See a l s o B u c h a n a n v . S t a n s h i p s , I n c . , 485 U.S. 265, 267-68 (1988) ( r e a s o n i n g t h a t b e c a u s e t h e s t a t u t e a t i s s u e "provides f o r fees independently of the u n d e r l y i n g cause of a c t i o n and o n l y f o r a ' p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , ' a m o t i o n f o r f e e s r e q u i r e d an i n q u i r y ' s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s -- an i n q u i r y t h a t c a n n o t e v e n commence u n t i l one p a r t y has " p r e v a i l e d " ' " and t h a t " [ s ] u c h a m o t i o n t h e r e f o r e '"does n o t i m p l y a c h a n g e i n t h e j u d g m e n t , b u t m e r e l y s e e k s w h a t i s due because of the judgment."'" ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) . Therefore, R u s s e l l ' s motion to " r e c o n s i d e r " the d e n i a l of t h a t request was n o t a s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a n d i t t o l l e d the 4 2 - d a y p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g an a p p e a l . See, e.g., Ex parte K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1 0 1 8 , 1022 ( A l a . 1998 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t "a s u c c e s s i v e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n does not suspend the r u n n i n g of the time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l " ) . 4 6 1080426 On appeal, "[t]he plain an as i n the circuit courts of this language of § 18-1A-232 award o f c o s t s and 'mandatory' and that argument, (Ala. repeatedly is 'unambiguous,' litigation Russell cites f o r fees 2001). and Appeals the statute." Carroll expenses held v. the later that defendant i s In 814 support So. 2d 287 d i s m i s s a l of refiled, " A r t i c l e 13 [ o f t h e E m i n e n t D o m a i n C o d e ] an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n an e m i n e n t p r o c e e d i n g , as s e t o u t i n § 1 8 - 1 A - 2 3 2 : the allows domain "'(a) The court shall award the defendant his litigation expenses, in a d d i t i o n t o any o t h e r amounts a u t h o r i z e d by law, i f the a c t i o n i s w h o l l y or partly d i s m i s s e d f o r any reason. "'(b) I f the scope of the p r o p e r t y to be t a k e n i s r e d u c e d a s t h e r e s u l t o f (1) a p a r t i a l d i s m i s s a l , (2) a d i s m i s s a l o f one o r m o r e p l a i n t i f f s , o r (3) a f i n a l j u d g m e n t d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the p l a i n t i f f cannot take p a r t of the p r o p e r t y o r i g i n a l l y sought to be taken, the court shall award the defendant the p o r t i o n of h i s litigation expenses attributable to the property w i t h i n the scope of the r e d u c t i o n . of with stated: 7 the and also i n connection following w h i c h was Ward, that that ... expenses to the In C a r r o l l , eminent-domain proceeding, of C i v i l have ' r e q u i r e d ' by C i v . App. request state c o u r t , R u s s e l l argues a an Court 1080426 "'(c) Costs and litigation expenses a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n may be claimed, taxed, and awarded under the same procedures t h a t apply to costs i n other c i v i l actions.' "Section 18-1A-3(12) defines 'litigation e x p e n s e s ' as ' [ t ] h e sum o f t h e c o s t s , disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, necessary to prepare f o r a n t i c i p a t e d or p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a c t u a l p r o b a t e or c i r c u i t c o u r t proceedings.' "'"The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give e f f e c t to the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n enacting the s t a t u t e . Words u s e d in a s t a t u t e m u s t be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , and where p l a i n l a n g u a g e i s u s e d a c o u r t i s b o u n d t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f the l a n g u a g e of the s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, then there i s no r o o m f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d the c l e a r l y expressed i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e m u s t be g i v e n e f f e c t . " ' "Swift 2000), Corp., v. Gregory, 78 6 So. 2d 1 0 97 , 1 1 0 0 (Ala. q u o t i n g IMED C o r p . v . S y s t e m s E n g ' g A s s o c s . 602 So. 2d 3 4 4 , 346 ( A l a . 1992). " I n i t s May 2, 2 0 0 0 o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l was w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , so t h a t W a r d a n d B u t t r a m c o u l d r e f i l e t h e i r a c t i o n . The trial court also recognized that 'the law a p p e a r s t o be c l e a r as t o t h e f i x i n g a n d a w a r d i n g o f l i t i g a t i o n c o s t s i n a case where a condemnation i s d i s m i s s e d i n whole or i n p a r t . ' A l t h o u g h the trial court indicated that a strict a p p l i c a t i o n of § 1 8 - 1 A - 2 3 2 w o u l d n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r t h e f a c t s of t h i s case, the law i s unambiguous. A d e f e n d a n t i n a c o n d e m n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g i s e n t i t l e d t o an a w a r d o f 8 1080426 an a t t o r n e y f e e i f t h e p r o c e e d i n g i s d i s m i s s e d ' f o r a n y r e a s o n . ' The f a c t t h a t t h e c a s e was dismissed w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e a n d h a s b e e n r e f i l e d d o e s n o t mean that the C a r r o l l s d i d not i n c u r l i t i g a t i o n expenses i n d e f e n d i n g t h e o r i g i n a l l a w s u i t f i l e d i n 1994." 814 So. 2d a t 289-90 McCarty, that a 855 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 6 i n Carroll phrase 'shall added). See had brought been court dismissing condemnation Court that fact remains original clear de novo o f a judgment appeal here, although from the parties the eminent-domain with that Russell the defense eminent-domain dismissed. and that condemnation by a a circuit probate-court judgment"). Similarly, associated (noting t o § 18-3-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , by t h e e n t r y a v. "concluded that the i n § 1 8 - 1 A - 2 3 2 was u n a m b i g u o u s pursuant terminated Paulk ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) the Court of C i v i l Appeals award' also l i t i g a t i o n - e x p e n s e a w a r d was m a n d a t o r y when a action is (emphasis We agree with and t h a t action has been incurred and represent subsequent which the C a r r o l l court o f any "mandatory." 9 this refiled, the litigation proceeding, t h e award to expenses appeal of the was ultimately that the statute litigation expenses i s 1080426 The State dismissal "Rule the of attempts the Code that the circuit court's b a s e d on Russell's A l a . R. and on grounds 1975, argue e m i n e n t - d o m a i n a c t i o n was 12(b)(1)[, three to which of Civ. P.,] dismissal motion" stated in § not one 18-1A-230, of Ala. provides: "On m o t i o n of d i s m i s s the a c t i o n requires, i f : the defendant, the c o u r t shall i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , as justice "(1) Upon sustaining o b j e c t i o n to the p l a i n t i f f ' s court determines that a required; a preliminary complaint, the dismissal is " ( 2 ) The p l a i n t i f f h a s unjustifiably f a i l e d to e x e r c i s e reasonable d i l i g e n c e i n p r o s e c u t i n g the a c t i o n ; " ( 3 ) The p l a i n t i f f h a s f a i l e d t o pay t h e f u l l amount r e q u i r e d by t h e judgment w i t h i n time allowed." Therefore, i t argues, the does State position, Rule 12(b) plaintiff's nor not does motion 18-1A-232 cite any i t cite is complaint" The S t a t e c i r c u i t court's court indicated h e l d on O c t o b e r o r Res J u d i c a t a 5 § not as does not authority any in apply. However, support of indicating preliminary "a authority objection described in § that that to 18-1A-230(1). a the 5 a l s o c o n t e n d s , r e l y i n g on language i n the O c t o b e r 31, 2008, o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e circuit t h a t " [ i t s ] Order i n regard to the Hearing 30, 2 0 0 8 i s n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d a F i n a l O r d e r i n regard to [ R u s s e l l ' s ] c l a i m f o r a t t o r n e y s ' 10 1080426 We reverse Russell's underlying for motion the order of f o r an a w a r d the of costs eminent-domain proceeding, further proceedings R E V E R S E D AND circuit consistent court and expenses denying i n the a n d we r e m a n d t h i s with this case opinion. REMANDED. Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Smith, and P a r k e r , J J . , concur. f e e s , " t h a t t h e o r d e r i s a n o n f i n a l o r d e r f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l w i l l not l i e . However, i t i s apparent from t h e r e c o r d that t h i s l a n g u a g e was n o t a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e f i n a l i t y o f t h e circuit court's ruling. Instead, i t appears that this l a n g u a g e was i n t e n d e d t o e x p r e s s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s belief t h a t i t d i d n o t have 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 t o award t h e r e q u e s t e d e x p e n s e s b u t t h a t a f u t u r e r e q u e s t o f t h o s e same e x p e n s e s was a v a i l a b l e o n c e t h e m a t t e r was r e f i l e d i n t h e probate court. In fact, i n t h a t same o r d e r , the c i r c u i t court further stated: "[Russell's] attorney may w e l l be e n t i t l e d t o a l l a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a n d c o s t s when t h i s m a t t e r i s r e - f i l e d f o r s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d and expenses i n c u r r e d d u r i n g the f i r s t f i l i n g o f t h i s case." Therefore, the c i r c u i t court c l e a r l y denied R u s s e l l ' s motion f o r the requested expenses i n the u n d e r l y i n g case, and i t s e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t t h e i s s u e c o u l d be r e s o l v e d i n a l a t e r p r o c e e d i n g d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l i t y of i t s a d j u d i c a t i o n . 11

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.