C & G Development v. Planning Com'n of City of Homewood

• Decision Date: 21 July 1989
• Citation: 548 So.2d 451
• Parties: C & G DEVELOPMENT, a general partnership, and Charles R. Saunders v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF the CITY OF HOMEWOOD, et al. 88-218.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 451

548 So.2d 451

C & G DEVELOPMENT, a general partnership, and Charles R. Saunders v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF the CITY OF HOMEWOOD, et al.

88-218.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 21, 1989.

Jesse P. Evans III and Douglas Corretti of Corretti & Newsom, Birmingham, for appellants.

Michael G. Kendrick of Gorham, Waldrep, Stewart, Kendrick & Bryant, Birmingham, for appellees.

ALMON, Justice.

C & G Development ("C & G"), an Alabama general partnership, and Charles Saunders filed an action against the Planning Commission of the City of Homewood ("Commission") and the Commission members individually, requesting a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to approve a subdivision plat that C & G had submitted to the Commission and claiming damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged deprivation of their right to due process of law. The trial court dismissed the complaint and later denied C & G and Saunders's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment.

In February 1987, Saunders submitted a subdivision development application to the Commission. That application proposed a subdivision of the "parcel of land West of Shadesview Terrace and East of Saulter Road with frontage on Shadesview Terrace." Saunders apparently filed the application on behalf of Shades Valley Land Company, as well as on his own behalf. The briefs (for both parties) indicate that Shades Valley Land Company and C & G had entered into a contract whereby Shades Valley Land Company agreed to sell C & G the land where the proposed subdivision would be and that C & G had agreed to buy the land if the Commission approved Saunders's application.

The Commission discussed Saunders's application in its March 1987 and April 1987 meetings. At the May 5, 1987, meeting, the Commission denied the application. On May 15, 1987, Saunders and C & G filed this action.

The complaint sought the writ of mandamus and also claimed $500,000 in damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the Commission had allegedly denied C & G and Saunders due process in relation to their alleged property rights to the development of the proposed subdivision.

In addition to the Commission, C & G and Saunders named the following people as defendants, individually and in their respective capacities as members of the commission: Mary Frances Farley, Howard E. Fields, J. Steven Dorough, Larry McLeod (chairman), Wade Bradley, William T. Gaskell, Robert G. Waldrop, Cliff Farrell, and Jerry Crowe. The trial court dismissed the complaint and denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. C & G and Saunders no longer have the contractual option to purchase the property they sought to subdivide. This appeal thus principally concerns their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for damages; the appeal concerns the denial of the writ of mandamus only to the extent that a determination concerning the writ of mandamus affects the damages claim.

Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. Barber v. Covington County Comm'n, 466 So.2d 945, 947 (Ala.1985); Martin v. Loeb & Co., 349 So.2d 9 (Ala.1977).

While Alabama's subdivision control statutes, Ala.Code 1975, § 11-52-30 et seq., are but infrequently the subject of litigation, the Court has held that "[t]he authority of the Planning Commission to exercise control over subdivision of lands within the municipality is derived from the legislature.... [The planning commission] is authorized to adopt regulations not inconsistent with the statutes." Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So.2d 305, 307 (Ala.1979), quoting Boulder Corp. v. Vann, 345 So.2d 272, 275 (Ala.1977). "Once a planning commission has properly exercised its authority in drafting ordinances regulating subdivision development, it is bound by those ordinances." Smith, at 307.

The Commission had enacted subdivision regulations, which were in effect during all the times relevant to this appeal. Article 3, Section 22.1, of the subdivision regulations states:

"Street Layout: conformity with a plan for the most advantageous neighborhood...