Hobbs v. Mobile County., 1100004.
Decision Date | 22 April 2011 |
Docket Number | 1100004. |
Citation | 72 So.3d 12 |
Parties | Clinton HOBBS and Wanda Hobbsv.MOBILE COUNTY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles J. Potts of Briskman & Binion, P.C., Mobile, for appellants.Jay M. Ross and R. Jason Crane of Ross, Jordan & Gray, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
Clinton Hobbs and Wanda Hobbs appeal from a judgment of the Mobile Circuit Court, granting a motion to dismiss in favor of defendant Mobile County (“the County”). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The Hobbses filed a complaint against the County, Thompson Engineering, Inc., and Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. (“the defendants”). They alleged the following facts in their complaint:
“...
“...
“...
In count I of their complaint, the Hobbses asserted a claim for damages against the defendants as a result of alleged negligence and/or wantonness in the design, construction, and/or maintenance of the drainage system. In count II of their complaint, they asserted a claim for damages based on nuisance and trespass as a result of the alleged negligent design, construction, and/or maintenance of the roadway and drainage system. Finally, in count III of their complaint, the Hobbses asserted a claim for injunctive relief. The County filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and a brief in support of that motion, arguing that it was entitled to a dismissal of the Hobbses' action against it based on the Hobbses' failure to give notice of their claims before filing their complaint, pursuant to § 6–5–20 and § 11–12–8, Ala.Code 1975. The Hobbses filed a response to the motion to dismiss, and the County replied to their response.
After conducting a hearing on the motion, the circuit court on September 17, 2010, entered an order granting the County's motion to dismiss without stating the grounds therefor. On September 29, 2010, the Hobbses filed a notice of appeal to this Court. Because the judgment appealed from did not appear to be a final judgment, this Court on February 4, 2011, remanded the case to the circuit court for that court (1) to certify the interlocutory order of September 17, 2010, as a final judgment under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; (2) to adjudicate the remaining claims relating to Thompson Engineering, Inc., and Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc., thereby making the interlocutory order final and appealable; or (3) to take no action, in which event the appeal would be dismissed as being from a nonfinal judgment. On February 8, 2011, the circuit court certified the interlocutory order of September 17, 2010, as a final judgment under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
The Hobbses raise the following issue on appeal: Whether the circuit court erred in granting the County's Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss based upon the Hobbses' failure to present the County with timely claims pursuant to § 11–12–1 et seq. and § 6–5–20, Ala.Code 1975, when the relief the Hobbses seek is, in part, injunctive relief, which is historically equitable relief, and such equitable claims are not subject to the notice provisions of § 11–12–1 et seq. and § 6–5–20 by virtue of the holding in Ford v. Jefferson County, 774 So.2d 600 (Ala.Civ.App.2000).
In its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., and its brief in support of that motion and again in its brief to this Court, the County, citing § 6–5–20 and § 11–12–8, argues that it was entitled to a dismissal of the Hobbses' claims against it because the Hobbses had not presented notice of their claims against the County to the county commission within 12 months after the claims accrued. In their brief to this Court, the Hobbses concede that they did not provide notice of their claims to the County within that 12–month period. (Hobbses' brief, at p. 10.)
Section 6–5–20(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:
“An action must not be commenced against a county until the claim has been presented to the county commission, disallowed or reduced by the commission and the reduction refused by the claimant.”
Section 11–12–8, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
“All claims against counties must be presented for allowance within 12 months after the time they accrue or become payable or the same are barred, unless it be a claim due to a minor or to a lunatic, who may present such claim within 12 months after the removal of such disability.”
This Court discussed the applicability of § 6–5–20 and § 11–12–8, Ala.Code 1975, to a similar situation in Wheeler v. George, 39 So.3d 1061, 1088 (Ala.2009), and stated:
“
Likewise, in this case, the Hobbses did not comply with the requirement of presentment of their claims to the county commission before filing suit. Consequently, they concede that their claims presented in counts I and II of the complaint alleging negligence and wantonness (count I) and trespass and nuisance (count II)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Cunningham
...law, and that the state law claims against Montgomery County and the County Commission, are due to be dismissed. See Hobbs v. Mobile Cty., 72 So.3d 12, 15 (Ala. 2011) (noting that plaintiffs conceded that negligence and other claims for legal remedies were barred for failure to comply with ......