State v. Marble City Plaza, Inc.
Citation | 989 So.2d 1059 |
Decision Date | 23 June 2006 |
Docket Number | 2040995. |
Parties | STATE of Alabama v. MARBLE CITY PLAZA, INC., and Harvey Bowlin, Sr., as revenue commissioner of Talladega County. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Timothy Mitchaell and C.E. Isom, deputy atty. gen., of Isom & Stanko, LLC, Anniston, for appellant.
G. Rod Giddens, Sylacauga, for appellees.
The State of Alabama appeals from the judgment of the Talladega Circuit Court awarding prejudgment and postjudgment interest to Marble City Plaza, Inc. ("Marble City"), in the State's condemnation action against Marble City.1 Because the circuit court failed to follow the statutory framework for determining and awarding interest in eminent-domain cases, we reverse and remand.
On July 22, 2002, the State filed in the Talladega Probate Court a petition to condemn certain property owned by Marble City. The probate court appointed three commissioners to fix the amount of compensation due Marble City. On September 27, 2002, following a hearing, the probate court entered an order of condemnation and awarded Marble City $350,000. The record does not indicate when the State took possession of Marble City's property.2
On October 18, 2002, the State filed a notice of appeal to the Talladega Circuit Court. On October 28, 2002, the State deposited $350,000 with the probate court. The circuit court held a jury trial of the matter on October 25, 2004, resulting in a verdict awarding Marble City $153,800 in compensation for the State's condemnation of its property. The circuit court entered a final judgment on February 7, 2005, based on the jury verdict. In pertinent part, the circuit court's judgment stated:
As of February 7, 2005, the date the circuit court entered its judgment, the probate court's investment of the $350,000 had yielded approximately $9,500 in interest.
The circuit court denied the State's postjudgment motion. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this court.
The State contends that the circuit court erred as to the amount of prejudgment and postjudgment interest it awarded. Specifically, the State argues that the circuit court's award of interest should have been limited to a pro rata share of the interest actually earned on the funds deposited into the probate court.
We apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law and the application of law to undisputed facts. See George v. Sims, 888 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Ala.2004); and Fitts v. Stokes, 841 So.2d 229, 231 (Ala. 2002). As a result, we do not presume that the circuit court's rulings with regard to these issues was correct. See Eubanks v. Hale, 752 So.2d 1113, 1144-45 (Ala. 1999).
Condemnation actions by the State under its power of eminent domain commence in the probate court. Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-71. After the probate court has entered a judgment of condemnation and has set the amount of compensation owed to the property owner whose property the State is seeking to condemn, either party may appeal to the circuit court. Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-283. Even if a party appeals to the circuit court, the State may proceed with its taking of the landowner's property if the State deposits into the probate court the amount of compensation that the probate court determined to be due the landowner. Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-284. With respect to the probate court's treatment of funds deposited by the State, Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-111, states:
(Emphasis added.)
Upon an appeal to the circuit court, that court, or a jury if one is requested, considers anew the question of the compensation that the landowner is due from the State because of the State's condemnation of the landowner's property. Ala.Code 1975, §§ 18-1A-151 and -283. Alabama Code 1975, § 18-1A-211(a), provides for an award of postjudgment interest on the amount the circuit court subsequently finds to be owed by the State to the landowner. Prejudgment interest is also due the landowner on the circuit court's judgment.8 The legislature, in enacting Ala. Code 1975, § 18-1A-211(b), placed a limitation on the amount of interest to be awarded to a landowner under certain circumstances:
"Except as provided by Section 18-1A-111, the judgment may not include any interest upon the amount represented by funds deposited into probate court by the plaintiff for the period after the date of deposit."
Thus, the legislature has determined that the interest due the landowner on that portion of the circuit court's judgment represented by funds that the State originally deposited in the probate court should be measured by the amount of interest actually earned on those funds.9
Based on the foregoing, when the State deposits funds in the probate court intended to cover the circuit court's eventual award of compensation and the circuit court subsequently enters a judgment increasing the amount of compensation due the landowner to an amount greater than that awarded by the probate court, the landowner is entitled to interest on the entire amount of the circuit court's award from the date of the State's taking to the date that the State deposits funds in the probate court,10 interest on the difference between the amount deposited with the probate court and the amount of the circuit court's award from the date of the deposit to the date that the State satisfies the circuit court's judgment, and all of the interest that accrued on the funds deposited with the probate court. When the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Surek, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00263-KD-M
..."Prejudgment interest runs until the date of the judgment; postjudgment interest runs thereafter." State v. Marble City Plaza, Inc., 989 So.2d 1059, 1060 at note 4 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). The date of the final judgment was February 8, 2012. (Doc. 26). Assuming Plaintiff's per diem rate, Plai......
-
Dcnr v. Exxon
..."Prejudgment interest runs until the date of the judgment; postjudgment interest runs thereafter." State v. Marble City Plaza, Inc., 989 So.2d 1059, 1060 n. 4 (Ala.Civ.App.2006), aff'd, 989 So.2d 1065 (Ala.2007). Because we have concluded that the interest on unpaid royalties payable pursua......
-
Ex Parte Marble City Plaza, Inc.
...circuit court alternatively referred to the prejudgment interest amount as either $20,958.72 or $20,958.92." State v. Marble City Plaza, Inc., 989 So.2d 1059, ___ (Ala.Civ.App.2006). The Court of Civil Appeals also noted that as of the date the circuit court entered its judgment, February 7......
-
U.S. Auto Purchasing Ctr. v. Hives
... ... See State v. Marble City Plaza, Inc., 989 So.2d ... 1059, 1060 ... ...