Coxe v. Water Works Bd. of City of Birmingham
Decision Date | 13 April 1972 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 909 |
Citation | 261 So.2d 12,288 Ala. 332 |
Parties | , 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,320 Walter F. COXE, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. The WATER WORKS BOARD OF the CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a Public Corporation, et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jerome A. Cooper, William E. Mitch, Birmingham, for appellant.
E. T. Brown, Jr., L. Vastine Stabler, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee Water Works Board of City of Birmingham.
Foster Etheredge, John P. McKleroy, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee Johnson-Rast & Hays Co.
David J. Vann, Birmingham, amicus curiae, for Birmingham Audubon Society, William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., State of Alabama, amicus curiae.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment, injunction, and general equitable relief which comes to us on appeal from a final decree of the Jefferson County circuit court, in equity, denying the relief sought and dismissing the bill of complaint.
Appellant, complainant below, is a citizen and taxpayer of Birmingham, Alabama, who sues on behalf of himself and other members of the public similarly situated. Appellees are the Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham and Johnson-Rast & Hays Company, a real estate development corporation.
The controversy in this case centers around an eighty-acre tract of land owned by the Water Works Board. The land is situated along both sides of the Cahaba River in Jefferson and Shelby Counties, forty acres being located in each county. It has been known as the 'Camp Horner' property. In 1970, the Water Works Board conveyed this tract to appellee Johnson-Rast & Hays Company in consideration of a cash payment and execution of a purchase money mortgage. This suit was then filed.
The bill of complaint, as last amended, alleges as follows:
'* * * that for more than fifty years the said property has been used by the public generally as a park for picnicking, swimming, camping and other outdoor recreation.
'* * * that * * * the attempted sale by the Board to the Developers was part of a scheme or device by which said other private individuals or interests, in concert with respondents are attempting to destroy the common law dedication of said property for use by the public as a park, which destruction is threatened and will be accomplished unless restrained by order of this Court.'
There are two principal issues presented on this appeal. The first is whether the trial court erred in failing to declare the property in question to have been dedicated to the public use as a park by a common law dedication. The second issue is whether the trial court erred in failing to find that the Water Works Board acted beyond its statutory authority in conveying this property in a credit transaction. We have concluded that both rulings were correct and that the decree of the trial court should be affirmed.
The necessary elements of common law dedication are well established in our case law.
'* * * To constitute a dedication there must of course be an Intention of the owner to dedicate the property and an Acceptance by the public or by some authorized person or body of persons acting in its behalf. * * *' (Our emphasis) Smith v. City of Dothan, 211 Ala. 338, 100 So. 501 (1924).
With regard to the requirement of acceptance by the public, the evidence in this case may be somewhat equivocal. However, we do not find it necessary to consider the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to this element as we have concluded that there is clearly a failure of proof with regard to the other necessary element--intention of the owner to dedicate. The record reveals no evidence of such intention on the part of the Water Works Board. To the contrary, there is evidence of numerous acts on the part of the Board which clearly negates any intention on the part of the Board to dedicate this property to the public.
The evidence is undisputed that the Water Works Board leased this property from 1933 to 1952 to the Birmingham Boys Club; leased it from 1960 to 1968 to St. Luke's Episcopal Church; evicted the caretaker of the lessee and removed the lessee's buildings, after cancellation of this lease; paid an annual sum to five surrounding municipalities in lieu of taxes; mortgaged the property, the last mortgage being recorded in 1951; granted a right of way to Jefferson County to put a road through the property; granted an easement for power lines to Alabama Power Company; paid $1,000 to have buildings, left by the Boys Club, removed; sold timber off the land; barricaded some of the roads entering the property; posted the property; and, carried the land as an asset in its annual report. In addition, the undisputed testimony of Mr. Thomas H. Collins, General Manager of the Water Works Board, was that there was nothing in the files of the Board to indicate an intention to dedicate; that he had no personal knowledge of such an intention, and that neither he, nor anyone on the Board, knew the property was being used as a public park.
This court has held that,
'* * * the burden of proving a dedication rests upon the party asserting it. * * *' Witherall v. Strane, 265 Ala. 218, 90 So.2d 251 (1956).
This court has also said that in order to carry this burden the intention of the owner to dedicate must be affirmatively established by unequivocal evidence.
O'Rorke v. City of Homewood, 286 Ala. 99, 237 So.2d 487 (1970).
As we have already indicated, we must conclude that appellant has not borne the burden of proof to show an intention by the Board to dedicate this property.
Appellant, however, asks that we modify the requirements for dedication, as established by the previous decisions of this court, and adopt what he characterizes as being a 'new trend.' Appellant cites to us the California case of Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 84 Cal.Rptr. 162, 465 P.2d 50 (1970), as providing a precedent which this court might follow in relaxing our requirements with regard to the intention of the owner to dedicate. The following is a quotation from that decision:
We will not attempt to discuss at any length the merits of California law with regard to dedication. We think it sufficient to say that the essential elements of common law dedication have been settled in Alabama case law for over 100 years, and we do not find that appellant has presented to us any compelling reason to alter such long existing and well established law. We will say, however, that even if we followed the principles enunciated in Gion, supra, there is a real question as to its applicability to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Water Works Bd. of City of Leeds v. Huffstutler
...Supreme Court upheld the right of a water board to sell real estate to a private concern on credit. Coxe v. Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham, 288 Ala. 332, 261 So.2d 12 (1972). The argument made against the right of the Board to sell its property on credit was that such a transac......
-
Ala. Space Sci. Exhibit Comm'n v. Odysseia Co.
...(1971). ‘A public corporation is a separate entity from the state and from any local political subdivision.’ Coxe v. Water Works Bd. , 288 Ala. 332, 337, 261 So. 2d 12 (1972).").4 Significantly, the Alabama Legislature has provided that these private loans would be backed by ASSEC revenues,......
-
Water Works v. Consolidated Pub., Inc.
...municipalities from the large financial obligations that often accompany such utilities projects. Coxe v. Water Works Bd. of Birmingham, 288 Ala. 332, 337, 261 So.2d 12, 15-16 (1972). Yet public corporations have typically maintained close relationships with the municipalities that create t......
-
LIMESTONE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER v. City of Athens
...public corporation is a separate entity from the state and from any local political subdivision.'" (quoting Coxe v. Water Works Bd., 288 Ala. 332, 337, 261 So.2d 12, 15 (1972))); Smith v. Industrial Dev. Bd. of Andalusia, 455 So.2d 839, 840 (Ala.1984) ("[A] public corporation ... is a separ......