Baldwin County Elec. Corp. v. Fairhope

• Decision Date: 01 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1060545.,No. 1060475.,1060475.,1060545.
• Citation: 999 So.2d 448
• Parties: BALDWIN COUNTY ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. CITY OF FAIRHOPE. City of Fairhope v. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

999 So.2d 448

BALDWIN COUNTY ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. CITY OF FAIRHOPE.

City of Fairhope v. Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation.

No. 1060475.

No. 1060545.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 1, 2008.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 13, 2008.

Robert A. Huffaker of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery; and Daniel G. Blackburn of Blackburn & Conner, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellant/cross-appellee Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation.

Caine J. O'Rear III of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellant City of Fairhope.

SEE, Justice.

This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a civil action between two electric suppliers —Baldwin County Electric Membership Corporation ("Baldwin") and the City of Fairhope ("Fairhope"). Baldwin alleges that Fairhope is wrongly supplying electricity to premises Baldwin should be serving under the Service Territories for Electric Suppliers Act, § 37-14-30 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the Act"), and seeks the prescribed statutory damages for Fairhope's alleged wrongful service to these premises. A jury returned a general verdict in favor of Fairhope, and Fairhope was awarded attorney fees, expenses, and costs totaling $295,945.27.

Baldwin appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at trial and by refusing to give certain jury instructions Baldwin requested. In its cross-appeal, Fairhope argues that the trial court erred by denying Fairhope's motions for a judgment as a matter of law because, Fairhope alleges, Baldwin did not provide notice to Fairhope as required by the Act and because Baldwin's claims were untimely. We find no merit in Baldwin's appeal and therefore affirm the decision of the trial court, rendering moot Fairhope's cross-appeal, which we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

Baldwin sued Fairhope on May 28, 1993, alleging that Fairhope was providing electricity to 43 customers in a service area that Baldwin says was assigned to Baldwin under the Act. § 37-14-32, Ala.Code 1975.¹ Baldwin sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, along with recovery of 25% of the gross revenues derived by Fairhope from its alleged wrongful delivery of electricity, as allowed by the Act. See § 37-14-37(b), Ala.Code 1975.² Thirteen years later, Baldwin was granted leave to amend its complaint and add a 44th cause of action, which incorporated hundreds of additional alleged territorial violations by Fairhope that had occurred since the filing of the original complaint.³ In response to Baldwin's original and amended complaints, Fairhope denied the allegations and counterclaimed, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the Act was unconstitutional as it applied to Fairhope. Fairhope alleged that the parties, before the Act became effective, had an oral contract in which Fairhope would supply electricity within the city limits of Fairhope, while Baldwin would supply electricity to customers in Baldwin County outside the municipality. Fairhope argued that the Act, by changing the territory Fairhope and Baldwin each served, unlawfully impaired the obligations of an existing contract in violation of Art. I, § 10, United States Constitution,⁴ and §§ 22 and 95, Alabama Constitution of 1901.⁵

Before trial, Baldwin filed a motion in limine, asking the court to exclude "any evidence of an oral territory service agreement allegedly entered into by the parties prior to passage of [the Act]," and argued that, even if such an agreement existed, it had been abrogated by the enactment of the Act. Similarly, Fairhope filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence of those claims Fairhope argued were time-barred. The trial court denied both motions. The action was tried by a jury, which rendered a general verdict in favor of Fairhope. As the prevailing party, Fairhope sought, and was awarded, attorney fees, costs, and expenses totaling $295,945.27. See § 37-14-37(b), Ala.Code 1975.⁶ Baldwin now appeals from the judgment entered on the jury verdict and asks this Court to set aside the fee award. Fairhope cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying its motions for a judgment as a matter of law because, it says, Baldwin failed to establish that its claims were timely or, alternatively, because, it says, Baldwin failed to prove that it had provided notice to Fairhope that Baldwin believed Fairhope was wrongly providing electric service to customers.

Issues

On appeal, Baldwin argues (1) that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing Fairhope to present evidence of the existence of an oral service-territory agreement between Fairhope and Baldwin that Baldwin alleges was abrogated by the Act and that conflicts with the Act; (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to give Baldwin's requested jury instructions on the requirements that govern contracts entered into by municipalities, as established by § 11-47-5, Ala.Code 1975,⁷ and by refusing to give an instruction informing the jury that Baldwin's board of trustees was required to approve all contracts entered into by Baldwin, as established in § 37-6-3(13), Ala.Code 1975;⁸ and (3) that the trial court's errors warrant a reversal and that the fees awarded to Fairhope should be set aside. Fairhope cross-appeals on the grounds that the trial court should have granted either or both of Fairhope's motions for a judgment as a matter of law because, it alleges, Baldwin's claims are untimely and Baldwin cannot prove every element of its claim.

Analysis

I. Evidentiary Issue

At trial, Fairhope was permitted to present evidence of an alleged oral service-territory agreement between the parties. Baldwin argues that allowing such evidence was reversible error because, it argues, such an agreement is invalid under the Act, the alleged agreement was not in writing or approved by Baldwin's board of trustees as required by law, and the agreement lacked sufficient certainty to be enforceable. Fairhope argues, however, that this issue was not preserved for appeal.

A. Standard of Review

Two fundamental principles govern the standard by which this Court reviews a trial court's rulings on the admission of evidence. Middleton v. Lightfoot, 885 So.2d 111, 113 (Ala.2003). "`"The first grants trial judges wide discretion to exclude or admit evidence."'" 885 So.2d at 113 (quoting Mock v. Allen, 783 So.2d 828, 835 (Ala.2000), quoting in turn Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Thompson, 726 So.2d 651, 655 (Ala.1998)). However, "a trial court exceeds its discretion where it admits prejudicial evidence that has no probative value." 885 So.2d at 113 (citing Powell v. State, 796 So.2d 404, 419 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 796 So.2d 434 (Ala.2001)).

"`"The second principle `is that a judgment cannot be reversed on appeal for an error [in the improper admission of evidence] unless ... it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.'"'" Middleton, 885 So.2d at 113 (quoting Mock, 783 So.2d at 835, quoting in turn Wal-Mart Stores, 726 So.2d at 655). See also Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P. "`The burden of establishing that an erroneous ruling was prejudicial is on the appellant.'" Middleton, 885 So.2d at 113-14 (quoting Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 589 So.2d 165, 167 (Ala.1991)).

B. Baldwin's Motion in Limine

Before trial, Baldwin moved the trial court to "preclud[e] the parties from making any reference to or submitting any evidence concerning the oral service territory agreement which Fairhope contends that it entered into with [Baldwin]." Baldwin argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing Fairhope to present evidence of the alleged oral service-territory agreement between the parties.⁹ Fairhope argues that Baldwin's motion in limine, seeking to exclude any evidence of the alleged oral service-territory agreement, was insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal and that Baldwin's objection to that evidence at trial, which was necessary to perfect Baldwin's appeal on this issue, was untimely. Fairhope further argues that even if the trial court did err by admitting the evidence, Baldwin cannot demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the trial court's ruling. We agree.

A motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence, which is denied by the trial court, is, "unless the court clearly indicates to the contrary, the legal equivalent of an announcement by the court that it reserves the right to rule on the subject evidence when it is offered and is not a final ruling made in a pre-trial context." Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. James, 646 So.2d 669, 673 (Ala.1994) (citing Baxter v. Surgical Clinic of Anniston, P.A., 495 So.2d 652 (Ala.1986)). This Court in Owens-Corning continued, stating as follows:

"An appellant who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion to exclude evidence, made in limine, preserves this adverse ruling for post-judgment and appellate review only if he objects to the introduction of the proffered evidence and assigns specific grounds therefor at the time of the trial, unless he has obtained the express acquiescence of the trial court that subsequent objection to evidence when it is proffered at trial and assignment of grounds therefor are not necessary."

646 So.2d at 669 (citing Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 466 So.2d 935 (Ala. 1985)).

Baldwin argues that the trial court's denial of its motion in limine was "unequivocal ... absolute and unconditional" and that an objection was therefore unnecessary. Baldwin's reply brief at 5. In support of this argument, Baldwin quotes the trial court as saying that "[t]he issue that I think needs to be presented to the jury is, is there a contract, or is there not a contract between the parties. After that it seems to me all of this is just details." Baldwin's reply brief at 6. Although the trial court did make this statement, it was not made in reference to Baldwin's ...