Jefferson County v. Weissman
Decision Date | 16 March 2011 |
Docket Number | 1100293. |
Citation | 69 So.3d 827 |
Parties | JEFFERSON COUNTYv.Jeffrey WEISSMAN, D.D.S., et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Matthew H. Lembke and Andrew L. Brasher of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham; Robert D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery; and Jeffrey M. Sewell, county atty., Birmingham, for appellant.Wilson F. Green of Fleenor Green & McKinney LLP, Tuscaloosa; E. Clayton Lowe, Jr., of Lowe & Grammas, LLP, Vestavia Hills; and Donald R. Jones, Jr., Montgomery, for appellees.COBB, Chief Justice.
Jefferson County (“the County”) appeals from a summary judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court 1 enjoining the County from collecting taxes under Act No. 2009–811, Ala. Acts 2009 (“the 2009 Act”),2 as of December 1, 2010. The plaintiffs, represented by Dr. Jeffrey Weissman, a Jefferson County dentist, filed the instant action in December 2009, contending that the 2009 Act was unconstitutional on a number of grounds. The action was shaped by the ensuing litigation into a class action the members of which are professionals and businesses subject to the taxes imposed pursuant to the 2009 Act. The plaintiffs' complaint, as finally amended, asserts that the 2009 Act is unconstitutional because (1) it conflicts with Ala. Const. 1901, Art. IV, § 105,3 (2) the notice requirements of Ala. Const. 1901, Art. IV, § 106,4 were violated as to the 2009 Act, (3) it violated Ala. Const. 1901, Art. XI, § 212 ( ), and (4) it violated Ala. Const. 1901, Art. IV, § 45 ( ). After the plaintiffs were certified as a class, a motion that the County did not oppose, the parties filed cross-motions for a summary judgment. The case was thoroughly briefed, and the trial court conducted a hearing on the summary-judgment motions, thereafter denying the County's summary-judgment motion and entering a summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The summary judgment for the plaintiffs included an injunction against further tax collections by the County under the 2009 Act. The trial court also determined that its order would be prospective only and that a retroactive refund of taxes already collected would be “neither appropriate nor justified,” citing Ex parte Coker, 575 So.2d 43 (Ala.1990). In pertinent part, the trial court's order states:
The County appealed; this Court granted its motion to expedite. 5 Consequent with this expedited appeal, this Court ordered the trial court to modify its injunction to permit the County to continue collecting taxes under the 2009 Act during the pendency of the appeal, with the funds so collected to be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account for distribution in accord with this Court's determination of the merits.
Historical Considerations
The history of the litigation involving Jefferson County's occupational taxes is largely set out in this Court's two opinions involving plaintiff Jessica Edwards: Jefferson County Commission v. Edwards, 32 So.3d 572 (Ala.2009) ( “ Edwards I ”), and Jefferson County Commission v. Edwards, 49 So.3d 685 (Ala.2010) (“ Edwards II ”). The case underlying this appeal continues the “exquisitely complex sequence of legislative enactments and related litigation,” Edwards I, 32 So.3d at 575, that was addressed in those opinions. In summary, Edwards I and Edwards II dealt with the application of Act No. 406, Ala. Acts 1967 (“the 1967 Act”), which authorized the County to levy license or privilege taxes upon persons for engaging in businesses but exempted from its provisions licensed professionals who were required to obtain licenses from the State under Ala.Code 1975, § 40–12–1 et seq. Thereafter, under the authority of the 1967 Act, the County imposed a business-license tax on businesses and an occupational tax on individuals.
Edwards I and Edwards II were appeals from judgments in the plaintiffs' class action contending that the 1967 Act had been repealed by the enactment of Act No. 99–669, Ala. Acts 1999 (“the 1999 repeal Act”); the trial court agreed, finding that a retroactive refund was not warranted but that collections under the 1967 Act were enjoined prospectively in January 2009. The County asserted that it required immediate enactment of an act to restore comparable taxing authority in order for the County to remain fiscally solvent; the trial court stayed application of the injunction until the end of the regular legislative session in May 2009. However, the legislature failed to pass any legislation during the regular session restoring the County's taxing authority. The County's fiscal position deteriorated rapidly, and it soon began restricting usual services. The summer months saw increasing political pressure for State government to address the situation, and numerous notices regarding proposed local laws were published in local and statewide news media. After the County's legislative delegation reached agreements as to the details of a proposed replacement-taxing plan, Governor Riley, acting pursuant to Ala. Const. 1901, Art. V, § 122,6 called the legislature into an “extraordinary session” to address the situation. The 2009 Act was subsequently enacted during that session. Among other things, the 2009 Act purports to reenact the 1967 Act without the original exemptions, to repeal the 1999 repeal Act, and essentially to reinstate and approve the County's tax collections as they were conducted under the 1967 Act. In addition, the 2009 Act provided for a referendum to be held in June 2012 allowing the voters to approve or to reject the authorization to continue levying the tax. Section 10 of the 2009 Act also provides for the severability of any portion of the 2009 Act found invalid without invalidating the remainder of the 2009 Act.
Soon after the 2009 Act was enacted, this Court in Edwards I affirmed the trial court's judgment holding that the 1999 repeal Act had repealed the 1967 Act. The Court took judicial notice of the passage of the 2009 Act but noted that its validity was not then before the Court. 32 So.3d at 580 n. 5. In Edwards II, the Court did address various aspects of the application of the 2009 Act:
49 So.3d at 688. With respect to a violation of Ala. Const. 1901, Art. IV, § 95, the Court determined that 49 So.3d at 693. After a painstaking analysis, the Court in Edwards II concluded:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Gurley v. M&N Materials, Inc.
...owner enjoys in connection with his property....”). We find the Town's argument persuasive. As this Court stated in Jefferson County v. Weissman, 69 So.3d 827, 834 (Ala.2011): “We are cognizant that the long-settled and fundamental rule binding this Court in construing provisions of the con......
-
Vestavia Plaza, LLC v. City of Vestavia Hills
...the property has been physically disturbed. * * * We find the Town's argument persuasive. As this Court stated in Jefferson County v. Weissman, 69 So. 3d 827, 834 (Ala.2011): "We are cognizant that the long-settled and fundamental rule binding this Court in construing provisions of the cons......
-
Caucus v. State
...County to lose a significant source of revenue. See Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n v. Edwards, 32 So.3d 572 (Ala.2009); Jefferson Cnty. v. Weissman, 69 So.3d 827 (Ala.2011). Although it was clear that new revenue was needed, the county's Local Delegation, which, of course, included legislators whos......
-
Magee v. Boyd
...79 Ill.2d 503, 404 N.E.2d 208, 38 Ill.Dec. 784 (1980))." McInnish, 925 So. 2d at 187 (emphasis omitted). In Jefferson County v. Weissman, 69 So. 3d 827 (Ala. 2011), the issue involved whether published notice of legislation regarding the reenctment of Jefferson County's occupation tax compl......
-
History of Wage Protection Law in Alabama
...So. 3d 481, 483-484 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).8. Opinion of the Justices, 624 So. 2d 107, 110 (Ala. 1993).9. Jefferson County v. Weissman, 69 So. 3d 827 (Ala. 2011).10. Const. of Ala. (1901) Article XVIII, Section 284.11. Roberts v. Carraway Medical Center, 591 So. 2d 870, 871-72 (Ala. Civ. App......
-
Legislative Wrap-up
...in Congress and in other states and we look forward to having his expertise this year. --------Notes:1. Jefferson County v. Weissman, 69 So. 3d 827, 838-839 (Ala. 2011)2. 354 So.2d 808 (Ala. 1978)3. Amendment 375, Alabama Constitution of 19014. Rule 6 of the Alabama House of Representatives......