Preview:

REL: 10/15/10

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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011

APPEALS

2090307

James F. H i l g e r s , C a r o l y n M. H i l g e r s , and H i l g e r s Real E s t a t e Investments, LLC v. J e f f e r s o n County and the Water Works Board o f the 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-08-2758) On A p p l i c a t i o n THOMAS, J u d g e . The opinion o f August 13, 2 0 1 0 , i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e f o r Rehearing

following i s substituted

therefor.

2090307 James Hilgerses"), (the F. Hilgers and Carolyn M. Hilgers ("the LLC are

along and

with H i l g e r s Real Estate Investments, H i l g e r s R e a l E s t a t e I n v e s t m e n t s , LLC, to collectively as "the

Hilgerses

hereinafter defendants"),

referred appeal

Hilgers by the

f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n favor of

Jefferson Circuit claims against

Court

J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y on i t s and from of WWB") a summary Water on the

the by the

Hilgers the City

defendants court

judgment e n t e r e d Works Board of

circuit of

i n favor ("the

the

Birmingham

claims s t a t e d i n the H i l g e r s d e f e n d a n t s ' t h i r d - p a r t y complaint against matter t h e WWB. We dismiss the a p p e a l f o r want o f subject-

jurisdiction. Facts and Procedural History the

I n A p r i l 2008, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n S m a l l C l a i m s D i v i s i o n of the J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , to enforce owned by its the liens that i t had placed on three

seeking

properties In

the

Hilgerses

for unpaid sewer-service

charges.

complaint,

Jefferson the

County sought to o b t a i n i n the amount o f

a monetary the liens. the The

judgment a g a i n s t The

Hilgerses

H i l g e r s e s d i d n o t o c c u p y any the unpaid sewer-service

of the p r o p e r t i e s d u r i n g charges had accrued.

times

2

2090307 Hilgerses had r e n t e d the properties to various tenants, and

those t e n a n t s had f a i l e d t o pay a l l t h e s e w e r - s e r v i c e owed t o J e f f e r s o n County i n connection with

charges

the p r o p e r t i e s .

I n A u g u s t 2008, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d of Jefferson County appealed on

a judgment i n f a v o r The Hilgerses to the for a

a l l of i t s claims. court's

subsequently circuit court

the d i s t r i c t

judgment

for a trial

de novo a n d made a demand

t r i a l by j u r y . On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2008, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y moved t h e c i r c u i t court f o r a summary judgment. The H i l g e r s e s responded t o

J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d f i l e d a motion to dismiss party -- the action for failure to join an

indispensable

n a m e l y , t h e WWB.

J e f f e r s o n County then Investments,

amended i t s c o m p l a i n t , LLC,

adding H i l g e r s Real Estate

as an a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t a n d c l a i m i n g t h a t i t was t h e on w h i c h charges. Jefferson County had a

owner o f a f o u r t h p r o p e r t y l i e n f o r unpaid sewer-service

On November 20, 2008, t o a d d t h e WWB the c i r c u i t as

the H i l g e r s defendants f i l e d motions seeking an additional party granted. to the a c t i o n , which

court

eventually

3

2090307 On F e b r u a r y motion f o ra 16, 2009, J e f f e r s o n judgment. County filed a renewed defendants

summary

The H i l g e r s

r e s p o n d e d t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment. favor The c i r c u i t court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n 2 5 , 2009, reaffirming owned b y t h e i t s summary filed as t o Real by the

of Jefferson

County

on M a r c h

J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s l i e n s on t h e t h r e e p r o p e r t i e s Hilgerses. judgment Jefferson claim The c i r c u i t i n response County, court later amended

t o a motion

t o reconsider effective

making

t h e judgment

relating

t o the property

owned b y H i l g e r s Jefferson County

Estate

Investments,

LLC, a n d a w a r d i n g

a monetary

judgment a g a i n s t liens

t h e H i l g e r s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e amount o f t h e properties. The c i r c u i t court denied a

on a l l f o u r

motion t o reconsider

f i l e d by the H i l g e r s

defendants. filed a third-

On May 29, 2009, t h e H i l g e r s

defendants

p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e WWB, a l l e g i n g a claim motion and a n e g l i g e n c e t o dismiss claim.

breach-of-contract

The WWB s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a defendants' a hearing third-party on t h e WWB's information

the Hilgers court held

complaint. motion outside

The c i r c u i t

t o dismiss,

and, because treated

i t considered

the pleadings,

t h e WWB's m o t i o n a s a m o t i o n

4

2090307 for a summary j u d g m e n t . The c i r c u i t court entered on O c t o b e r 27, 2009. court. a summary Hilgers

j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e WWB defendants subsequently

The

appealed to t h i s Analysis

None o f t h e p a r t i e s has subject-matter because court jurisdiction

r a i s e d the i s s u e of t h i s over are this of appeal.

court's However, this mero App.

jurisdictional

matters

such magnitude, ex

i s permitted

to n o t i c e a l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n So. 2d 872, 874

motu. See R e e v e s v. S t a t e , 882 2003).

(Ala. Civ.

" J u r i s d i c t i o n i s '[a] c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e a c a s e o r i s s u e a d e c r e e . ' B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 867 (8th ed. 2004). Subject-matter jurisdiction c o n c e r n s a c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e c e r t a i n t y p e s o f c a s e s . W o l f f v. McGaugh, 175 A l a . 299, 303, 57 So. 754, 755 (1911) ('"By jurisdiction over the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s meant t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n and o f t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t . " ' ( q u o t i n g C o o p e r v. R e y n o l d s , 77 U.S. (10 W a l l . ) 308, 316, 19 L.Ed. 931 (1870))). T h a t power i s d e r i v e d f r o m the A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e A l a b a m a Code. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o t t o n , 535 U.S. 625, 630-31, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction r e f e r s to a court's ' s t a t u t o r y or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power' t o a d j u d i c a t e a c a s e ) . " Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 538 ( A l a . 2006).

A l a b a m a C o n s t . 1901,

Download 2090307.pdf

Alabama Law