Thomas v. Bullock County Com'n
Decision Date | 02 August 1985 |
Citation | 474 So.2d 1094 |
Parties | Wilbon THOMAS, et al. v. BULLOCK COUNTY COMMISSION, et al. 83-676. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard L. Osborne, York, for appellants.
Louis C. Rutland, Union Springs, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendants in plaintiffs' action for an injunction and damages. The cause was tried ore tenus without a jury. We reverse and remand.
The Department of Corrections of the State of Alabama conveyed by warranty deed 112.29 acres of land in Bullock County to defendant Bullock County Development Authority (Development Authority). This deed contained the following restriction:
The Development Authority applied to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for a grant of funds to develop a park. The Development Authority also employed a landscape architect to draw up plans for the park and had a survey made by the county engineer. The landscape architect and other consultants determined that 70.96 acres of the 112.9 acre tract was feasible for the development of a recreational park. The Development Authority then conveyed 70.96 acres of the tract by warranty deed to the Bullock County Commission (Commission). This conveyance also contained a restriction:
The application to the State of Alabama, for the sum of $50,000, was approved; the Commission, by resolution, agreed to supply up to 50% of the funds needed to develop the park. Before any grant was awarded, however, the Commission and the Development Authority decided to reconvey the property to the Department of Corrections. Accordingly, the Commission reconveyed by warranty deed to the Development Authority the 70.96 acres previously deeded to it, without the restrictions, and the Development Authority in turn reconveyed by warranty deed containing no restrictions the 112.29 acres to the Department of Corrections. The deed from the Development Authority to the Department of Corrections was preceded by a resolution of the same date, January 23, 1984, containing the following language:
However, the deed of the 70.96 acres from the Commission to the Development Authority was not preceded by a resolution of the Commission nor by a referendum election. Following the Commission's deed to the Development Authority, the Commission by resolution adopted February 13, 1984, "ratified and confirmed" the conveyance of the 70.96 acres to the Development Authority. Moreover, on February 13, 1984, the Commission by resolution authorized a referendum election, in conjunction with the presidential preference primary election to be held on March 13, 1984. This election was held on the following issue:
"Do you approve of the Bullock County Commission and the Bullock County Development Authority conveying to the Department of Corrections of the State of Alabama for the sum of One Dollar any and all interest they may have in 112.29 acres of land in the East Half of Section 31, Township 14, Range 24, for use as the site of a State Penal Institution?"
In that referendum, 2,486 "yes" ballots were cast and 1,189 "no" ballots were cast.
Meanwhile, on January 23, 1984, plaintiffs, citizens of Bullock County, instituted this suit to enjoin the Development Authority and the Commission from conveying any of the land previously conveyed for recreational purposes and to recover damages. By amendment to the complaint dated January 26, 1984, plaintiffs sought to have set aside any deeds between the Board of Corrections (added as a party), the Development Authority, and the Commission.
The trial court heard this ore tenus case without a jury and found that the deeds of the Commission and the Development Authority were valid conveyances, and that the Development Authority was authorized and empowered to reconvey the property to the Department of Corrections. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court made the following findings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harper v. City of Birmingham
...or other public recreational facility. See, O'Rorke v. City of Homewood, 286 Ala. 99, 237 So.2d 487 (1970); Thomas v. Bullock County Commission, 474 So.2d 1094 (Ala. 1985). Thus, the question now becomes, what constitutes a "dedication" under said Under the relevant case law of the State of......
-
Hereford v. Gingo-Morgan Park
...law dedication have not been met, and the trial court correctly ruled that Parkview Road was not a public road. See Thomas v. Bullock County Com'n, 474 So.2d 1094 (Ala.1985). Next, the trial court dealt with the question whether any easements existed in favor The elements necessary to estab......
-
Vestavia Hills Bd. of Educ. v. Utz
...§ 28 at p. 25 [1983]; Fairhope Single Tax Corp. v. City of Fairhope, 281 Ala. 576, 206 So.2d 588 (1968); Thomas v. Bullock County Commission, 474 So.2d 1094, 1098 (Ala.1985). "However, the language set forth in the deed is considered merely an offer of dedication by the grantors until such ......
-
Ex parte DCH Regional Medical Center
... ... practicing attorney was called before a grand jury in Covington County and asked the following question: ... "Will you give us the name of the ... ...