McInnish v. Bentley
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
One petition for the writ of mandamus and three appeals were brought before the Supreme Court to challenge a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court awarding Hugh McInnish $196,625 in attorney fees and costs in his action against: (1) the Governor of the State of Alabama, (2) the State finance director, (3) the State comptroller, and (4) the State treasurer, all in their official capacities. The underlying case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the community-services grant-making process set forth in Ala. Code 1975, section 29-2-123. There, the Court held that "section 29-2-123, which authorizes a permanent joint legislative committee to award community-services grants, [as well as that portion of the annual education-appropriations act] by which those grants are funded," violated the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, 925 So. 2d at 188, and the Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case. Subsequently, McInnish filed a series of motions in the trial court, seeking "an award of attorney fees, reasonable expenses, and costs against the [State officials]." He also sought an order declaring that he was "a prevailing party, that this litigation provided a common benefit to all taxpayers of the state of Alabama, and that the amount that was prohibited from being disbursed illegally was in an amount of approximately $13.4 million." The State officials opposed McInnish's motions, arguing that "[t]he clear holding in Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro[, 950 So. 2d 1203 (Ala. 2006),] is that section 14 of the Alabama Constitution prohibits the awarding of attorney fees and expenses in any state court action against the State of Alabama or against state officials in their official capacities." The trial court entered a judgment awarding "counsel for Plaintiff McInnish a judgment for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $196,625.00 to be paid by the [State officials]." Upon review, the Supreme Court held that section 14 bars an award of attorney fees and costs even if a plaintiff has prevailed on a claim against State officials in their official capacities for a violation of the State constitution that results in preservation of significant funds in the State treasury. The trial court lacked authority to award such attorney fees and costs. Consequently, the judgment was reversed.
Download PDF
REL: 08/24/12 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1110321 Ex p a r t e Robert Bentley, as Governor o f the S t a t e o f Alabama, e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Hugh McInnish v. Governor Robert Bentley e t a l . ) 1110325 Robert Bentley, as Governor o f the S t a t e o f Alabama, and Young Boozer I I I , as S t a t e Treasurer v. Hugh McInnish 1110330 Marquita Davis, as S t a t e Finance D i r e c t o r , and Tom White, as S t a t e Comptroller v. Hugh McInnish 1110506 J o i n t F i s c a l Committee v. Hugh McInnish A p p e l l a t e Proceedings from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-04-1402) WOODALL, Justice. These p r o c e e d i n g s and Court (one p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus t h r e e a p p e a l s ) were b r o u g h t i n t h i s C o u r t t o c h a l l e n g e a judgment McInnish against of t h e Montgomery $196,625 Circuit i n attorney (1) t h e G o v e r n o r State finance director, fees Court and c o s t s of the State awarding Hugh i n h i s action o f Alabama, (2) t h e (3) t h e S t a t e c o m p t r o l l e r , a n d (4) t h e State treasurer, a l l i ntheir o f f i c i a l capacities (referredto 2 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and collectively as " t h e S t a t e 1110506 officials"), i n which the J o i n t F i s c a l C o m m i t t e e o f t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e ("the c o m m i t t e e " ) intervened. As t o c a s e s and no. r e v e r s e ; as t o c a s e no. 1110321, we d i s m i s s 1110506, we no. 1110325, no. 1110330, the p e t i t i o n as moot. This c a s e has p r e v i o u s l y b e e n b e f o r e McInnish v. involved Riley, a 925 So. to challenge 2d 174 the 29-2-123. authorizes There, we a permanent j o i n t community-services grants, reversed C o n s t i t u t i o n of that legislative "§ the t r i a l court, 29-2-123, p o r t i o n of the 925 So. p r o v i s i o n s of the 2d at 188, c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and remanded t h e seeking "an award o f a t t o r n e y that this declaring litigation fees, 3 we case. reasonable t h a t he was " a p r e v a i l i n g provided and a s e r i e s of motions i n the e x p e n s e s , and c o s t s a g a i n s t t h e [ S t a t e o f f i c i a l s ] . " s o u g h t an o r d e r which a c t ] by w h i c h t h o s e g r a n t s a r e Subsequently, McInnish f i l e d trial the committee t o award [ a s w e l l as t h a t 1901, of s e t f o r t h i n A l a . Code funded," v i o l a t e d the separation-of-powers Alabama See McInnish constitutionality held annual education-appropriations Court. ( A l a . 2005) . community-services grant-making process 1975, § this a common benefit He also party, to a l l 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and taxpayers was of the t h a t the amount t h a t p r o h i b i t e d f r o m b e i n g d i s b u r s e d i l l e g a l l y was i n an amount of a p p r o x i m a t e l y officials clear 1203 s t a t e o f A l a b a m a , and $13.4 opposed holding million." McInnish's i n Ex parte the court action against state officials On in their December 8, judgment awarding " c o u n s e l attorney's be p a i d by motions, 14 the f e e s and [State the E a c h one fees State and that State "[t]he 950 So. 2d expenses i n of Alabama or capacities." the trial for P l a i n t i f f court any against (Emphasis entered a M c I n n i s h a judgment c o s t s i n t h e amount o f $196,625.00 t o officials]." These a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s judgment. The of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n official 2011, arguing Lowndesboro[, awarding of a t t o r n e y state added.) (Emphasis added.) Town o f (Ala. 2006),] i s that § prohibits for 1110506 presents the followed the entry of that s i n g l e l e g a l q u e s t i o n -- as M c I n n i s h p r e f e r s t o s t a t e i t : " [ W ] h e t h e r an a w a r d o f attorney fees a i s proper when a against state o f f i c i a l s violation of the plaintiff has p r e v a i l e d on claim [in their o f f i c i a l capacities] for a state constitution 4 that results in 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, a n d 1110506 preservation of s i g n i f i c a n t McInnish's b r i e f , I n Ex p a r t e a t 4. a § 14, w h i c h declared (Ala. unequivocally f e e s a n d e x p e n s e s t o be p a i d b y t h e litigant doctrine i n a declaratory-judgment 1901, 950 So. 2d 1203 f o r the f i r s t time, successful treasury." 1 t h a t an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y to i n the state Town o f L o w n d e s b o r o , 2006), t h i s Court, State funds s t a t e s : "That under the common-benefit a c t i o n v i o l a t e d A l a . Const. the State o f Alabama shall n e v e r be made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f l a w o r e q u i t y . " so d o i n g , we n o t e d t h a t " [ t ] h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s o f t h i s In State have g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t an a c t i o n may be b a r r e d b y § 14 i f i t seeks t o recover 950 damages o r f u n d s f r o m t h e S t a t e treasury." So. 2d a t 1206 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . For t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n , we c i t e d , L y o n s v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r u c t i o n , among o t h e r Inc., cases, (1) 858 So. 2d 257, 262 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , as " n o t i n g t h a t a p a r t y c o u l d n o t b r i n g an a c t i o n against a impermissibly State official, an action seeks funds from t h e S t a t e t r e a s u r y , ' " 950 So. 2d a t 1206 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; because '[s]uch (2) A r m o r y C o m m i s s i o n o f A l a b a m a F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s , we w i l l assume t h a t McInnish's a c t i o n a c t u a l l y r e s u l t e d i n the "preservation of s i g n i f i c a n t funds i n t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r y . " 1 5 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, a n d 1110506 v. Staudt, that 388 So. 2d 991, 993-94 ( A l a . 1980), as "stating an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e A r m o r y C o m m i s s i o n o f A l a b a m a was b a r r e d b y § 14 b e c a u s e a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t i t 'would adversely affect (emphasis added); 714, the state treasury,'" 950 So. 2d a t 1206 a n d (3) Moody v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a , 717 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 1 ) , as " n o t i n g t h a t an a c t i o n was barred because ultimately a result "touch" the i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s state disbursement of s t a t e funds,'" added). and treasury by favor 'could r e q u i r i n g the 950 So. 2d a t 1206 (emphasis We t h e n e x p l a i n e d " t h a t an a w a r d o f ... a t t o r n e y expenses impacts the State treasury f u n d s i n t h e v e r y way f o r b i d d e n b y § 14." 12 405 So. 2d and d i v e s t s fees i t of 950 So. 2d a t 1 2 1 1 ¬ (emphasis added). The State officials Lowndesboro c o n t r o l s t h i s and case. the committee argue that In response, McInnish takes the p o s i t i o n t h a t t o a p p l y t h e h o l d i n g i n Lowndesboro t o t h i s case i s bad p u b l i c p o l i c y . Specifically, he s t a t e s : "While i t i s t r u e t h a t a p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t can bear the costs of the l i t i g a t i o n himself, the l o g i c a l r e s u l t o f s u c h a r u l e means t h a t o n l y t h e w e a l t h y may t a k e up t h e p u b l i c s w o r d a n d d e f e n d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n where t h e g o v e r n m e n t i t s e l f r e f u s e s t o abide by o r d e f e n d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . This Court should not stand f o r such a r e s u l t . " 6 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and McInnish's b r i e f , at However, people and statutes. 2d 786, public 40. public their See policy J e n s e n v. 345 P.2d policy of their representatives 1, 5 Constitution § 14 i s n e a r l y impregnable.'" So. 2d 867, 872 So. 2d Gladwin C o r p 8 3 5 and the "'The agree. on thereby. 14 constitution first, 52 Cal. determination with and, Co., and the people second, with of as the As by v. ( A l a . 2004) 137, 142 argue grounds." having of the "Public (quoting Patterson (Ala. 2002)). that "[o]nly overturn Reply enshrined The the State people, a p r o v i s i o n of b r i e f , at the v. 11. the We public-policy p e o p l e of Alabama, t h i s C o u r t i s bound policy c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandates." ( A l a . C i v . App. ("The the A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . committee policy Section considerations their by w a l l of immunity e r e c t e d t h r o u g h t h e amendment p r o c e s s , may Constitution declared o f t h e p e o p l e -- t h e s t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e . " ) . often stated: officials in (1959) resides, t h i s C o u r t has J o n e s , 895 primarily Traders & General Ins. states in is representatives 794, expressed 1110506 considerations cannot Camp v. Kenney, 673 So. 1995). 7 override 2d 436, 438 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 M c I n n i s h a l s o a t t e m p t s t o d i s t i n g u i s h L o w n d e s b o r o on t h e ground that alleged this the declaratory-judgment only case "'statutory "involves action and r e g u l a t o r y a claim the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n . " i n Lowndesboro v i o l a t i o n s , ' " while f o r v i o l a t i o n s of p r o v i s i o n s M c I n n i s h ' s b r i e f , a t 18. This i s a d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h o u t a d i f f e r e n c e and i s , i n r e a l i t y , but t h e r e c a s t i n g o f a p o l i c y argument. fees and e x p e n s e s f r o m t h e S t a t e whit whether the constitutional Along action nothing As t o t h e payment o f treasury, was of based i t matters not a on statutory or provisions. similar lines, McInnish asserts that Lowndesboro s h o u l d n o t c o n t r o l t h i s c a s e , b e c a u s e , he a s s e r t s , h i s a c t i o n " r e s u l t e d i n a judgment t h a t b e n e f i t t e d t h e e n t i r e c i t i z e n r y of the State o f Alabama McInnish's b r i e f , State a t 19. i s absolute, 815 So. 2d 527, 530 itself t o the tune However, of over $12 million." the immunity a f f o r d e d the Ex p a r t e M o b i l e C n t y . Dep't o f Human R e s . ^ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , s u c h t h a t i t does n o t r e s o l v e t o a balance-sheet approach. State immunity i s not a r u l e of r e l a t i v i t y . S i m p l y p u t , § 14 b a r s a c c e s s t o t h e S t a t e coffers, regardless o f t h e amounts properly recognized and a p p l i e d i n L o w n d e s b o r o , and i t i s t h e r u l e of t h i s case. 8 involved. This rule was 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, a n d 1110506 In fees short, we h o l d that § 14 b a r s and c o s t s even i f a p l a i n t i f f against State violation officials the State h a s p r e v a i l e d on a c l a i m official constitution capacities for a results in p r e s e r v a t i o n of s i g n i f i c a n t funds i n the S t a t e t r e a s u r y . The trial of i n their an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y that c o u r t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o award such a t t o r n e y costs. f e e s and C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d . 1110321 1110325 1110330 1110506 Stuart, concur. ----- PETITION DISMISSED AS MOOT. REVERSED. REVERSED. REVERSED. Bolin, Parker, Malone, C.J., recuses Murdock, himself. 9 Shaw, and Wise, 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.
