Clay Cnty. Comm'n v. Clay Cnty. Animal Shelter, Inc.
Decision Date | 05 April 2019 |
Docket Number | 1170795 |
Citation | 283 So.3d 1218 |
Parties | CLAY COUNTY COMMISSION v. CLAY COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER, INC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gregory M. Varner, Ashland, for appellant.
Katherine S. Elmore, Huntsville, for appellee.
The Clay County Commission ("the county commission") appeals from a judgment of the Clay Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of Clay County Animal Shelter, Inc. ("the animal shelter"). We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.
In March 2017, the legislature enacted Act No. 2017-65, Ala. Acts 2017, which provides, in pertinent part:2
In July 2017, the county commission and three individuals (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the plaintiffs")3 initiated an action in the trial court against the animal shelter and certain state officials.4 In their complaint, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and a judgment, pursuant to § 6-6-220 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, declaring that part of Act No. 2017-65 directing an expenditure of a portion of Clay County's tobacco-tax proceeds to the animal shelter to be unconstitutional.5
The plaintiffs asserted that Act No. 2017-65 was improperly enacted without a sufficient number of legislative votes in violation of Article IV, § 73, Ala. Const. 1901, which provides:
"No appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational institution not under the absolute control of the state, other than normal schools established by law for the professional training of teachers for the public schools of the state, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house."
The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily restrain distribution of Clay County's tobacco-tax receipts to the animal shelter. The animal shelter moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.6
The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the county commission's motion for a preliminary injunction. On October 26, 2017, the trial court entered an order requiring the portion of Clay County's tobacco-tax receipts that would be distributed to the Clay County General Fund to be disbursed as an expenditure to the animal shelter under Act No. 2017-65 to be paid into the trial-court clerk's office and held in an escrow account pending the entry of a final judgment. On January 16, 2018, the trial court conducted a bench trial, at which only documentary evidence was admitted.
At the trial, the county commission argued that Act No. 2017-65 appropriated public funds to the animal shelter and that, because the animal shelter is a charitable organization not under the absolute control of the state, the appropriation was subject to the requirements of § 73, instead of the ordinary requirements for the passage of bills by the legislature. As noted above, § 73 requires that applicable appropriations be approved "by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house." It was undisputed that Act No. 2017-65 did not receive the vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house. The county commission argued that that portion of Act No. 2017-65 purporting to distribute funds to the Clay County General Fund to be disbursed to the animal shelter is, therefore, unconstitutional.
In March 2018, the legislature enacted Act No. 2018-432, Ala. Acts 2018, "to amend Section 2 of Act 2017–65 of the 2017 Regular Session, now appearing as Section 45–14–244.07 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to further provide for the distribution of the local tobacco tax; and to provide for retroactive effect." In relevant part, Act No. 2018-432 purports to amend § 45-14-244.07 to increase the share of Clay County's tobacco-tax revenue to be distributed to the Clay County General Fund to be disbursed to the animal shelter from 18% to 20%.
On April 13, 2018, the trial court entered a final judgment declaring that the county commission had failed to meet its burden of proving that the challenged portion of Act No. 2017-65 is unconstitutional. The trial court also ordered "that the distribution of the proceeds from the tobacco tax authorized in Clay County be immediately distributed in accordance with Act [No.] 2017-65, or any law superseding or replacing said Act." The plaintiffs filed a motion to stay execution of the trial court's judgment, asserting, among other things:
The trial court conducted a hearing regarding the plaintiffs' motion and entered an order providing as follows:
(Capitalization in original.) The county commission appealed.
On appeal, the county commission argues that the trial court erred in determining that it failed to meet its burden of proving that the provision of Act No. 2017-65 directing that a portion of Clay County's tobacco-tax proceeds be distributed to the Clay County General Fund to be disbursed to the animal shelter received a sufficient number of legislative votes to become law.7 Specifically, the county commission asserts that the legislature's enactment, as to that part of Act No. 2017-65, was an appropriation of funds by the legislature without a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house and was, therefore, a violation of § 73. Before addressing the county commission's substantive argument, we must first address certain preliminary procedural considerations.
In response to the county commission's argument, the animal shelter, with the assistance of counsel on appeal, first argues that the question presented by the county commission became moot with the enactment of Act No. 2018-432, which, the animal shelter says, "effectively repealed and replaced" Act No. 2017-65. In other words, the animal shelter contends that the issue no longer presents a justiciable controversy. See Underwood v. State Bd. of Educ., 39 So.3d 120, 127 (Ala. 2009) . Alternatively, the animal shelter also argues that "the constitutionality of Act No. 2017-65 ... raises a nonjusticiable political question." The animal shelter's brief, at 3. See, e.g., Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Auth. v. City of Birmingham, 912 So.2d 204 (Ala. 2005) (" BJCCA").
Chapman, 974 So.2d at 983-84. Therefore, we must first determine whether the issue presented is justiciable before considering the merits of the county commission's substantive argument.
In support of its mootness argument, the animal shelter quotes from Jefferson County Commission v. Edwards, 32 So.3d 572 (Ala. 2009), and argues that, because Act No. 2018-432 "effectively repealed and replaced" Act ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glass v. City of Montgomery
... ... laws].'" '" Clay Cnty. Comm'n v ... Clay Cnty. Animal er, Inc. , 283 So.3d 1218, 1229 ... (Ala. 2019) ... ...
-
Clay Cnty. Animal Shelter, Inc. v. Clay Cnty. Comm'n
...The parties to this appeal have previously been before this Court in a related appeal. See Clay Cnty. Comm'n v. Clay Cnty. Animal Shelter, Inc., 283 So. 3d 1218 (Ala. 2019) (" Clay County").Facts and Procedural History The animal shelter is a nonprofit organization that provides food, water......
-
Clay Cnty. Animal Shelter, Inc. v. Clay Cnty. Comm'n
...to this appeal have previously been before this Court in a related appeal. See Clay Cnty. Comm'n v. Clay Cnty. Animal Shelter, Inc., 283 So. 3d 1218 (Ala. 2019) ("Clay County").Facts and Procedural History The animal shelter is a nonprofit organization that provides food, water, medical car......
-
Shores v. Mackey
... ... for the erection of a suitable county animal ... pound as provided in Section 3-7-7, ... 2000)(quoting Ex parte Pfizer, Inc. , 746 ... So.2d 960, 964 (Ala. 1999)) ... See Wright ... v. Cleburne Cnty. Hosp. Bd., Inc. , 255 So.3d ... 186, 192 ... constitutional if reasonably possible, see Clay Cnty ... Comm'n v. Clay Cnty. Animal ... ...