Renter's Realty v. Smith
| Citation | 322 So.3d 1060 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2181042 |
| Parties | RENTER'S REALTY v. Ieisha SMITH |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Michael O. Godwin of Edmondson Godwin, Montgomery, for appellant.
Farahbin Majid and Pamela Jackson of Legal Services Alabama, Inc., Huntsville; and Sara Zampierin of Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, for appellee.
Thomas A. Woodall, Greggory M. Deitsch, Barry A. Ragsdale, and Christian C. Feldman of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Apartment Association, Inc., in support of the appellant.
Judson E. Crump, Mobile, for amici curiae Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Alabama Arise, and National Association of Consumer Advocates, in support of the appellee.
Renter's Realty ("Renter's") appeals from a judgment of the Madison Circuit Court ("the circuit court") discharging a writ of garnishment that had been issued by the Madison District Court ("the district court"). In doing so, the circuit court granted Ieisha Smith's "Declaration and Claim of Exemption" and denied Renter's objection to that claim.
This is the second appeal to this court that has arisen from the writ of garnishment issued in this action. The record from the previous appeal, Smith v. Renter's Realty, 296 So.3d 844 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (" Smith I"), which the parties have asked to be incorporated as the record in the current appeal, indicates the following. In the district court, Renter's prevailed against Smith in its unlawful-detainer action against her, and the district court entered an order of possession in favor of Renter's. Subsequently, on December 22, 2016, the district court entered a judgment ordering Smith to pay damages and costs in the amount of $5,145. Smith did not appeal from the December 22, 2016, judgment.
Nothing in the record indicates that Smith paid the judgment or attempted to arrange a payment schedule with Renter's. Thus, on May 17, 2017, Renter's filed a process of garnishment in the district court, and on May 18, 2017, a writ of garnishment was issued to Smith's employer. On June 12, 2017, Smith filed in the district court a motion to stay the garnishment, a verified declaration, and a claim of exemption. In her claim of exemption, Smith asserted that her biweekly wages were approximately $900 or less and that she used all of her income to pay current expenses for her family and herself. She said that she did not accumulate wages from paycheck to paycheck. Citing Art. 10, § 204, Ala. Const. 1901 ("§ 204"), Smith claimed that her wages were exempt from garnishment.
The district court granted a stay on June 13, 2017. On June 15, 2017, Renter's filed an objection to Smith's claim of exemption, arguing, among other things, that Smith was barred from claiming wages as personal property subject to exemption by application of § 6-10-6.1, Ala. Code 1975, which had become law on June 11, 2015. Approximately one year after the objection was filed, after a number of hearings, the district court entered a judgment on June 27, 2018, denying Smith's claim of exemption and reinstating the writ of garnishment. On July 2, 2018, Smith appealed to the circuit court. The record created in the district court was made a part of the circuit court's record.
On July 17, 2018, Smith filed in the circuit court a "response" to Renter's objection to her claim of exemption. In that response, Smith argued that her wages could be claimed as a personal exemption under § 204 and Alabama caselaw dating to 1884. Smith and Renter's each filed trial briefs in the circuit court regarding the constitutionality of § 6-10-6.1, which provides:
On August 10, 2018, the circuit court held a hearing on Smith's claim of exemption and Renter's objection to the claim of exemption. On August 13, 2018, the circuit court entered a judgment stating that the attorneys for the parties had appeared before it on August 10, 2018, and had "consented to the Court rendering a decision on claim of exemption without further hearing." The circuit court then denied Smith's claim of exemption, citing § 6-10-6.1 and noting that that statute had become law before the writ of garnishment had been issued.
Smith timely appealed the circuit court's August 10, 2018, judgment to this court. This court determined that Smith had served the attorney general with notice of her constitutional challenge to § 6-10-6.1, as required by § 6-6-227, Ala. Code 1975. However, the matter had proceeded to trial before the attorney general's office had had the opportunity to respond. Accordingly, on the authority of Armstrong v. Roger's Outdoor Sports, Inc., 581 So. 2d 414 (Ala. 1990), this court remanded the case to the circuit court to allow the attorney general the opportunity to intervene in the action or to waive any right to intervene. The circuit court was instructed to render a valid judgment on the issue of the constitutionality of § 6-10-6.1. Smith I, 296 So.3d at 850.
On remand, the attorney general's office waived any right to be heard in this matter. The circuit court held a hearing, and on August 12, 2019, it entered a judgment dismissing the garnishment and declaring § 6-10-6.1 unconstitutional. The circuit court stated that the statute " ‘represents an unconstitutional overreach by the legislature and a violation of the separation of powers principles.’ " Smith v. Renter's Realty, 296 So.3d 844, 850 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) ()(" Smith II").
Because Smith had ultimately prevailed in the matter in the circuit court, she did not have an adverse ruling from which to appeal. Smith II, 296 So.3d at ––––. Accordingly, in Smith II, this court dismissed Smith's appeal of the circuit court's judgment.
Upon the entry of the August 12, 2019, judgment, Renter's, which had previously been the prevailing party, had an adverse judgment from which it could appeal. On September 23, 2019, Renter's filed a timely appeal from that judgment. This court granted the parties' request to rely on the arguments set forth in their respective briefs and the submitted record from the previous appeal, i.e., Smith I, regarding the constitutionality of § 6-10-6.1.
Section 204 provides:
"The personal property of any resident of this state to the value of one thousand dollars, to be selected by such resident, shall be exempt from sale or execution, or other process of any court, issued for the collection of any debt contracted since the thirteenth day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight or after the ratification of this Constitution."
Section 204 is the successor to an identical provision in Article X, § 1, Ala. Const. 1875.
"The purpose of the exemption laws is to protect the debtor and his family from being deprived of the items necessary for subsistence, and possibly to prevent them from becoming a burden upon the public." Ex parte Avery, 514 So. 2d 1380, 1382 (Ala. 1987). See also Coffman v. Folds, 216 Ala. 133, 136, 112 So. 911, 913 (1927) (quoting Levens v. State, 3 Ala. App. 45, 50, 57 So. 497, 498-99 (1912), quoting in turn State v. Johnson, 12 Ala. 840, 841 (1848) )( the context of an attempted levy of attachment or execution of exempt items, that " ‘ "articles of prime necessity for the comfort of the family should be kept inviolate for its use" ’ ").
In Enzor v. Hurt, 76 Ala. 595 (1884), our supreme court discussed the meaning of "personal property" as that term was used in the Alabama Constitution of 1875. The Enzor court declared:
Nearly 100 years after Enzor was decided, this court noted that there had been no Alabama decision contrary to Enzor and further observed that our supreme court had held "in Kennedy v. Smith, 99 Ala. 83, [88,] 11 So. 665[, 666 (1892)], that the words ‘personal property,’ in the exemption laws embraced a debt due a defendant in execution, so there is no question that wages due a defendant in a garnishment suit is personal property." Walker v. Williams & Bouler Constr. Co., 46 Ala. App. 337, 340, 241 So. 2d 896, 899 (Civ. 1970).
By any objective standard, "wages, salaries, or other compensation of a resident," § 6-10-6.1(a), constitute personal property. The Alabama Constitution of 1901, building on precedent, explicitly mandates that "[t]he personal property of any resident of this state to the value of one thousand dollars, to be selected by such resident, shall be exempt from sale or execution, or other process of any court, issued for the collection of any debt contracted ...." § 204.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial