Moore v. Watson
| Decision Date | 15 April 1983 |
| Citation | 429 So.2d 1036 |
| Parties | June MOORE, et al. v. Jerre P. WATSON, et al. 81-935. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
S. Sanford Holliday, Wedowee, for appellants.
William C. Wood and Gary A. Parker of Norman, Fitzpatrick & Wood, Birmingham, and John S. Casey, Heflin, for appellees.
The plaintiffs, June Moore, Kathleen McCormick, and Travis Balenger, appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant members of the Cleburne County Commission (commission). We affirm.
Section 38-2-7, Ala.Code 1975, creates in each county a board of pensions and security. The board consists of seven persons selected by the county commission for a term of six years, with unexpired terms to be filled by the county commission. The members of the board serve without compensation, but are reimbursed for travel and other expenses associated with attendance at meetings. The statute also provides in part:
"No person holding an elective public office, no person who is a candidate for election to public office, no person who is an employee of the county department of pensions and security, and no person who is related by blood or by marriage to any such officer or employee shall be a member of such county board of welfare."
The principal duty of the board is to appoint a director of the county department of pensions and security, who serves at the pleasure of the board. A secondary duty of the board is to meet from time to time with the director and to advise him concerning matters which might make a more effective public welfare program.
Plaintiff June Moore was appointed to the Cleburne County Board of Pensions and Security (board) on October 1, 1975; plaintiffs Kathleen McCormick and Travis Balenger were appointed to the board on October 1, 1977. In 1978, a relative of Moore was elected tax collector for Cleburne County, and in 1979, a relative of McCormick was elected to the Cleburne County Board of Education. Defendants Rufus Morrow and John Kaylor were elected to the Cleburne County Commission and entered upon the discharge of the duties of their office in January, 1981. When the newly-constituted commission, composed of Morrow, Kaylor, Jerre P. Watson, and Gordon Daniel, took office in January, 1981, it came to the attention of the defendants that Moore and McCormick were disqualified from serving as members of the board because of their relationship to the elected public officials. Since Moore and McCormick were, and had been, serving in violation of state law, the commission voted on January 21, 1981, to remove Moore from the board and voted on February 5, 1981, to remove McCormick from the board. The commission also voted on January 21, 1981, to remove Balenger from the board, either because his employment as a state employee disqualified him or because of his personal conduct, or because of some combination of the two.
Plaintiffs originally filed suit against the defendants in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, seeking both damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Their complaint alleged that the commission's actions had deprived the plaintiffs of property interests without due process of law, in violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' suit ex mero motu, finding that the various state policy questions involved required the federal court to abstain from exercising any further jurisdiction.
Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a similar claim in the Circuit Court of Cleburne County, seeking only monetary damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the parties submitted depositions taken in the federal suit for the trial court's consideration. The trial court treated defendants' motion as one for summary judgment * and granted the summary judgment, finding no property rights existed in membership on the Cleburne County Board of Pensions and Security. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.
Plaintiffs argue that appointment to the board, with its attendant fixed term of service, creates a property right in the form of an implied contract. Plaintiffs contend, therefore, that, as public office holders, the Alabama Constitution will permit their removal only by impeachment for just cause. Ala. Const., Art. VII, §§ 173-175. We disagree. "A public office which the legislature creates is not the property of the office holder within the constitutional provision against depriving a man of property, nor does it ever become a vested right as against the right of the state to remove him." Simpson v. Van Ryzin, 289 Ala. 22, 265 So.2d 569 (1972); Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 (1939).
In order to determine the existence or nonexistence of the property right plaintiffs assert, we must first examine what was involved in membership on the board. The duties of the board as set out in § 38-2-7 require the board to meet from time to time with the county director, and otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Birmingham v. Graffeo
...depriving a man of property, nor does it ever become a vested right as against the right of the state to remove him." Moore v. Watson, 429 So.2d 1036 (Ala.1983) (emphasis added). See also Simpson v. Van Ryzin, 289 Ala. 22, 265 So.2d 569 (1972); Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 It is ......
-
George v. Federal Land Bank of Jackson
...therefore, we will consider the ruling on the counterclaim to be a summary judgment. Rules 12(c) and 56, Ala.R.Civ.P.; Moore v. Watson, 429 So.2d 1036 (Ala.1983). Therefore, we will apply the principles applicable to summary judgment proceedings. Under Rule 56, Ala.R.Civ.P., before granting......
-
City of Dora v. Beavers
...have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.' " Moore v. Watson, 429 So.2d 1036, 1038 (Ala.1983) (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 Ala.Code 1975, § 11-42-21, provides......
-
Zanda v. City of Decatur
...depriving a man of property, nor does it ever become a vested right as against the right of the state to remove him.' Moore v. Watson, 429 So.2d 1036 (Ala.1983) (emphasis added). See also Simpson v. Van Ryzin, 289 Ala. 22, 265 So.2d 569 (1972); Heck v. Hall, 238 Ala. 274, 190 So. 280 Graffe......