Alabama Dept. of Transp. v. Williams, 1060619.
Citation | 984 So.2d 1092 |
Decision Date | 19 October 2007 |
Docket Number | 1060619. |
Parties | ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. Donald Frank WILLIAMS and James G. Harrell, Jr. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Matthew C. McDonald, deputy atty. gen., and Kenneth A. Watson of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellant.
Warren C. Herlong, J. Casey Pipes, and Christopher T. Conte of Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, Newman & Rouse, P.C., Mobile, for appellees.
The Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT") appeals from a judgment of the Mobile Circuit Court awarding Donald Frank Williams and James G. Harrell, Jr. ("the landowners"), interest of $47,313.92 on a judgment in an eminent domain case. We reverse and remand.
At some time before 2004, ALDOT began eminent domain proceedings to acquire from the landowners certain real property in Mobile County for a right-of-way project. ALDOT offered the landowners $137,400 in compensation; they rejected that offer. On January 14, 2004, ALDOT filed a condemnation action in the Mobile Probate Court to obtain the property. The probate court determined compensatory damages for the property to be $352,346. Both ALDOT and the landowners appealed to the Mobile Circuit Court. ALDOT deposited the amount of the probate court's judgment into the circuit court. The landowners withdrew $137,400 (the amount of ALDOT's original offer for the property); $214,946 remained on deposit with the circuit court. On July 14, 2004, ALDOT obtained the right to possess the property and began construction activity shortly thereafter. The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Mobile Circuit Court. On May 18, 2005, the jury entered a verdict that determined compensatory damages for the property to be $483,000. On June 3, 2005, the circuit court calculated prejudgment interest due on the compensatory damages to be $28,746.35, and entered a judgment of condemnation in favor of ALDOT, with a compensation award of $511,746.35 to the landowners (damages of $483,000 plus prejudgment interest of $28,746.35).
ALDOT appealed the circuit court's judgment to this Court, depositing an additional $159,400.35 into the circuit court for a total principal amount of $374,346.35 on deposit in the circuit court. On July 14, 2006, this Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, without an opinion. Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Williams (No. 1041564, July 14, 2006), ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.2006) (table). On October 19, 2006, the Mobile circuit clerk paid the landowners $389,060.69, representing $374,346 in principal1 (the difference between the circuit court's judgment of $511,746.35 and ALDOT's original offer of $137,400), plus $14,714.69 in accumulated interest actually earned on the funds, which had been deposited in an interest-bearing account.
The landowners then sought postjudgment interest on the circuit court's judgment entered on June 3, 2005, in the amount of $511,746.35, reduced by the amount of the previous disbursement to the landowners in the probate court of $137,400 (hereinafter "the principal amount"). The landowners contended that they were entitled to postjudgment interest at a rate of 12% of the principal amount calculated pursuant to §§ 8-8-10 and 18-1A-30, Ala.Code 1975. ALDOT did not oppose an award of postjudgment interest but argued that the proper interest rate on the principal amount should be that provided in § 18-1A-211(a), Ala.Code 1975.
Section 18-1A-211 states:
ALDOT provided documentation to the circuit court indicating that on June 3, 2005, the date of the judgment, the applicable interest rate determined pursuant to § 18-1A-211(a) was 3.28%.
Both ALDOT and the landowners treated the interest due as subject to an offset in the amount of $14,714.69, the amount of interest earned on the additional money ALDOT had deposited into the circuit court after the entry of the circuit court's judgment that was due and payable to the landowners at the conclusion of the proceedings. Under the landowners' calculation based on a rate of 12%, the net interest due is $47,313.92. Under ALDOT's calculation based on a rate of 3.28%, the net interest due is $2,239.87. The circuit court accepted the landowners' calculation of postjudgment interest and entered a judgment in favor of the landowners for $47,313.92. ALDOT appealed.
Because the issue presented by this appeal concerns only questions of law involving statutory construction, our review is de novo. Whitehurst v. Baker, 959 So.2d 69 (Ala.2006). See also Taylor v. Cox, 710 So.2d 406 (Ala.1998).
We first address the landowners' contention that this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide this appeal. In the statement of jurisdiction in their brief to this Court, without any further discussion or citation to any authority, the landowners state:
Section 18-1A-288, entitled "Appeal from final judgment of circuit court," provides:
(Emphasis added.)
In its response to the landowners' contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000, ALDOT argues only that the statutory language requires that appellate jurisdiction in eminent domain cases be determined by the amount of compensation awarded for the taking. Because the taking here resulted in an award of $483,000 before interest is added, a sum well in excess of $10,000, ALDOT contends that this Court, and not the Court of Civil Appeals, has appellate jurisdiction over this case.
We need not decide whether appellate jurisdiction over this case must be determined by the amount of interest in controversy or by the amount of the compensation awarded the landowners in the original judgment. Upon reviewing the parties' contentions, it becomes readily apparent that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. The landowners contend that the postjudgment-interest award should be $47,313.92. ALDOT contends that the postjudgment-interest award should be $2,239.87. Because the total postjudgment-interest calculation from the landowners' perspective exceeds $10,000, this case is properly within the jurisdiction of this Court. That our rejection of the landowners' contention would result in an award of less than $10,000 does not oust this Court of jurisdiction to decide the merits of the issue before us. See Harper v. Regency Dev. Co., 399 So.2d 248, 260-61 (Ala.1981). Thus, whether appellate jurisdiction is determined by the amount of interest in controversy or by the original judgment that determined the amount of compensation to be awarded to the landowners, this Court has appellate jurisdiction of this case.
ALDOT argues that the circuit court should have calculated postjudgment interest in this eminent domain case pursuant to § 18-1A-211. The landowners argue that the circuit court properly calculated postjudgment interest at 12% pursuant to § 8-8-10, which provides generally for postjudgment interest,2 and § 18-1A-30(b), which provides for interest to be paid on funds deposited into court when an eminent domain case is appealed to the circuit court from the probate court.3
This Court discussed the history of § 18-1A-211 in Williams v. Alabama Power Co., 730 So.2d 172 (Ala. 1999):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Precision Gear Co. v. Cont'l Motors, Inc.
...be characterized must be made in accordance with the laws of the forum State” (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 124 (1971))). 6.Alabama Dep't of Transportation v. Williams, 984 So.2d 1092 (Ala.2007); Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992). 7. Even without......
-
Dcnr v. Exxon
...of law relating to the applicability of §§ 9-17-33(d) and 8-8-10, Ala.Code 1975, our review is de novo. Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Williams, 984 So.2d 1092 (Ala. 2007). Discussion I. Interest under § 9-17-33(d) from November 19, 2003, through January 31, The parties agreed that Exxon owed ......
-
Arlington Props., Inc. v. Brown (Ex parte Brown)
...is de novo. Whitehurst v. Baker, 959 So.2d 69 (Ala.2006). See also Taylor v. Cox, 710 So.2d 406 (Ala.1998).” Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Williams, 984 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2007).Discussion Brown argues that the Court of Civil Appeals misinterpreted §§ 6–6–350 and 35–9A–461, Ala.Code 1975, ......
-
Mays v. Trinity Prop. Consultants, LLC (Ex parte Trinity Prop. Consultants, LLC)
...novo. Whitehurst v. Baker, 959 So. 2d 69 (Ala. 2006). See also Taylor v. Cox, 710 So. 2d 406 (Ala. 1998)." Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Williams, 984 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Ala. 2007).Discussion Section 35-9A-461(c) addresses actions by residential landlords "for eviction, rent, monetary damages......