State ex rel. Williams-Scott v. Penny
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.
The State of Alabama, on the relation of Shirley Williams-Scott, appealed a circuit court order denying Williams-Scott's petition for a writ of quo warranto seeking to declare that Eddie Penny did not hold office as the mayor of the City of Fairfield. The 2010 federal census indicated that the population of Fairfield had dropped below 12,000. A statutory provision stated that, "[i]n all towns or cities, a majority of the whole number of members to which such corporation is entitled, including the mayor in towns and cities of less than 12,000 population, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum." In the 2016 election cycle, Ed May II was elected to the position of mayor of Fairfield, and Penny was elected to the position of council president. It is undisputed that May did not attend any council meetings for 90 consecutive days, beginning October 1, 2018. During its January 22, 2019 meeting, the city council approved a resolution providing that May was removed from office of mayor as a matter of law. Penny was subsequently proclaimed mayor by a vote of the council. The Alabama Supreme Court determined the trial court did not err in denying Williams-Scott's petition for a writ of quo warranto seeking to declare Penny was not mayor of Fairfield.
Download PDF
REL: December 20, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020 ____________________ 1180700 ____________________ State ex rel. Shirley Williams-Scott v. Eddie Penny Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division (CV-19-900226) SELLERS, Justice. The State of Alabama, on the relation of Shirley Williams-Scott, appeals from an order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court denying Williams-Scott's petition for a writ of 1180700 quo warranto seeking to declare that Eddie Penny does not hold office as the mayor of the City of Fairfield. Pursuant Fairfield, to which Act No. before 1991-699 the 2010 ("the federal We affirm. local act"), census had a population of over 12,000, has operated under a mayor-council form of government; the mayor and council president are elected at large, and 6 council members are elected from single-member districts. It appears undisputed that, before the most recent federal census in 2010, the population of Fairfield was more than 12,000. Section 11-43-2(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides: "[I]n all cities and towns at the general election to be held on the fourth Tuesday in August, 1984, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a mayor, who, in cities having a population of 12,000 or more according to the last or any subsequent federal census, shall not sit with the council nor have a vote in its proceedings, and he or she shall have the power and duties conferred in this chapter." (Emphasis added.) The 2010 federal census indicated that the population of Fairfield had dropped below 12,000. Section 11-43-2(b), Ala. Code 1975, provides: "In all cities and towns having a population of less than 12,000 inhabitants according to the last or any 2 1180700 subsequent federal census, the legislative functions shall be exercised by the mayor and five aldermen. The mayor shall preside over all deliberations of the council. At his or her discretion he or she may vote as a member of the council on any question coming to a vote, except in case of a tie, in which event he or she must vote." (Emphasis added.) Another statutory provision states that, "[i]n all towns or cities, a majority of the whole number of members to which such corporation is entitled, including the mayor in towns and cities of less than 12,000 population, shall be necessary to constitute a quorum." § 11-43-48, Ala. Code 1975. In the 2016 election cycle, Ed May II was elected to the position of mayor of Fairfield, and Penny was elected to the position of council president. It is undisputed that May did not attend any council meetings for 90 consecutive days, beginning October 1, 2018.1 Section § 11-40-25(b), Ala. Code 1975, provides that "[a]ny elected municipal official who misses all regular and special called council or commission 1 The trial court noted that both May and the council had received notice of the applicability of § 11-43-2(a) and (b) via an order in a previous case, dated September 24, 2018, in which the Jefferson Circuit Court ruled that the council's ordinance changing the structure of the governing body of Fairfield to a manager-council form of government was invalid because then mayor May had not been given an opportunity to vote on the ordinance as mandated by § 11-43-2(b). 3 1180700 meetings for 90 consecutive days, beginning on the date of any absence, shall be removed from office by operation of law." An "elected municipal official" includes "any mayor ... elected or appointed to municipal office whose presence at council or commission meetings is counted towards establishing a quorum." § 11-40-25(a), Ala. Code 1975. During its January 22, 2019, meeting, the council relied on the above-referenced statutes to justify approving a resolution providing that May was removed from the office of mayor as a matter of law. Penny was subsequently proclaimed mayor by a vote of the council. Williams-Scott filed a quo warranto action pursuant to § 6-6-591(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, seeking a declaration that Penny did not hold the office of mayor.2 Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order holding that May had been removed from the office of mayor by operation of law pursuant 2 Section 6-6-591(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, states: "(a) An action may be commenced in the name of the state against the party offending in the following cases: "(1) When any person usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office ... within this state or any office in a corporation created by the authority of this state ...." 4 1180700 to § 11-40-25, that Penny lawfully held the office of mayor, and that a vacancy existed in the office of council president. This appeal followed. The facts of this case are undisputed. Therefore, this Court, applying a de novo standard of review, must determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to those undisputed facts. Kendrick v. Advertiser Co., 213 So. 3d 573 (Ala. 2016). According to Williams-Scott, the local act provides for the composition and election process for the governing body of Fairfield. Williams-Scott appears to argue that the local act requires that the office of mayor be totally independent of the council and that, therefore, the mayor is prohibited from voting at or presiding over council meetings.3 To that extent, Williams-Scott argues that the local act conflicts with § 1143-2 and § 11-43-48. Assuming Williams-Scott is correct that, in the event of a conflict, the local act would control over 3 Williams-Scott also asserts that Fairfield is a Class 6 municipality operating with a mayor-council form of government and that the provisions of § 11-44D-4, Ala. Code 1975, are applicable in this case. The trial court, however, stated in its order that § 11-44D-4 was inapplicable to its analysis because Chapter 44D concerns abandonment of a commission form of government in Class 6 municipalities. Williams-Scott does not sufficiently address that conclusion, so we must accept the trial court's analysis. 5 1180700 the more general statutes, she simply has not demonstrated that anything in the participating in the Williams-Scott cites establishing that local council's only the act one forbids the legislative section mayor-council of form the of mayor from functions. local act government consists of "six single-member districts with one at-large member, to be designated as president of the city council, which shall be in addition to the office of the mayor." Accordingly, Williams-Scott has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in concluding that the local act did not preclude the mayor from participating with the council in its legislative functions pursuant to another applicable law such as § 11-43-2(b).4 Williams-Scott argues alternatively that, to the extent that § 11-43-2 did change the legislative function of the mayor and the council by requiring the mayor to vote at and preside over council meetings, the mayor and the council did not comply with § 11-43-2(c), which, she says, required the 4 The trial court specifically concluded that § 11-43-2 did not purport to change the mayor-council form of government; rather, the trial court concluded, it mandated certain procedures when Fairfield's population fell below 12,000. 6 1180700 mayor and the council together to adopt an ordinance, within 30 days of the 2010 federal census, electing to operate pursuant to § 11-43-2(b). that Williams-Scott's correct, when the Even assuming, without deciding, interpretation 2010 federal of § census 11-43-2(c) was is released, subsection (c) and its subparts were nonexistent; subsection (c) was added effective June 1, 2018. In short, WilliamsScott's argument fails because the revisions made in 2018 could not apply retroactively but are prospective--governing the form of government based on the results from the 2020 federal census and beyond. 5 As alternative relief, Williams-Scott asserts in a single paragraph, without any supporting authority or citations to the record, that any change in the legislative functions of 5 Moreover, it appears from the record that counsel for Williams-Scott conceded at the hearing that subsection (c) was inapplicable: "[The court]: See, you're under (c). "[Counsel for Williams-Scott]: Yes, subsection (c). "[The court]: I think we can all agree that (c) doesn't apply. "[Counsel for Williams-Scott]: Does not apply." 7 1180700 the mayor and the council predicated on § 11-43-2(b) would be barred based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. We decline to consider this argument. See Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.; see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So. 2d 806 (Ala. 2005). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Williams-Scott's petition for a writ of quo warranto seeking to declare that Penny does not hold office as mayor of Fairfield. AFFIRMED. Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, and Stewart, JJ., concur. 8
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.
