Williams v. Alabama Power Co.
| Citation | 698 So.2d 134 |
| Parties | Velpeau WILLIAMS, Jr. v. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY v. Velpeau WILLIAMS, Jr. 2950742. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1996 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
John H. Lavette, Birmingham; and Powell Lipscomb, Bessemer, for Velpeau Williams, Jr.
Cavender C. Kimble and Tom S. Roper of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham; and Jon B. Terry of Bains & Terry, Bessemer, for Alabama Power Company.
RICHARD L. HOLMES, Retired Appellate Judge.
In August 1988 Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) filed in the probate court a complaint for condemnation against numerous landowners, including Velpeau Williams, Jr.
In September 1988 the probate court condemned the various parcels to the use of Alabama Power, including the parcel owned by Williams. The probate court also appointed commissioners to assess the damages and compensation due the landowners for the right-of-way sought to be taken by Alabama Power. In October 1988 the commissioners fixed the amount of compensation due Williams at $22,950.
In November 1988 Alabama Power appealed several of the commissioners' findings to the circuit court, including the finding on the Williams parcel. Williams demanded a jury trial.
In December 1988 Alabama Power paid into the probate court $608,759.23, the amount of damages and compensation ascertained and assessed by the commissioners on the various parcels, plus interest.
In April 1989 Alabama Power made a motion to place the funds on deposit in some type of interest-bearing account. The court granted the motion.
In October 1989 the parties filed a motion for partial distribution of the funds paid into the court. The motion requested that the court direct the clerk to distribute to Williams $7,800, which was the original amount offered to Williams prior to the institution of the present proceedings. The court ordered the funds to be paid to Williams, pending the outcome of the appeal.
The only issue for trial in the circuit court was the amount of just compensation due Williams. On September 29, 1995, a jury determined the "just compensation to be paid by Alabama Power to [Williams] in relation to the easement across his land to be $44,000."
On November 17, 1995, the court entered a judgment on that verdict. The circuit court calculated the interest and the amount due Williams. The order stated the following, in pertinent part:
Williams filed a motion to alter, amend, or correct the November 17, 1995, order. Williams maintained that the interest due him had been incorrectly calculated. He contended that $39,399.03, not $33,244.40, was the net amount due him.
Alabama Power also filed a motion to alter, amend, or correct the November 17, 1995, order. Alabama Power maintained that the interest "was improperly calculated under [Ala.Code 1975,] § 18-1A-211, as it stood prior to amendment [effective July 28, 1995]."
On February 13, 1996, the circuit court issued an order, which stated the following:
Thereafter, Williams filed another post-judgment motion, which was denied.
Williams appeals. Alabama Power cross-appeals. This case is before this court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6).
Alabama Power contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it calculated the amount due from Alabama Power to Williams under Ala.Code 1975, § 18-1A-211, as it read prior to the amendment effective July 28, 1995.
The pre-amendment version of § 18-1A-211(a) provided the following:
Section 18-1A-211(a) now reads as follows:
As noted above, the 1995 amendment changed both the rate of interest to be awarded on judgments in condemnation proceedings and the time period during which such interest accrues.
Alabama Power maintains that the amended version of § 18-1A211(a) should apply in the present case because, it says, Williams had no vested right to interest until after the judgment was rendered and because the judgment in Williams's favor was not rendered until after the effective date of the 1995 amendment.
Williams argues that the amended version of § 18-1A-211(a) cannot be retroactively applied to the present condemnation proceeding because, he says, the right to interest is an essential part of "just compensation," which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Alabama Power Co.
...of the taking. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court should have applied the amended § 18-1A-211. Williams v. Alabama Power Co., 698 So.2d 134 (Ala.Civ.App.1996). It reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to recalculate the judgment. Thi......
-
Ex Parte Marble City Plaza, Inc.
...reversed the circuit court's first determination as to the amount of interest to which Williams was entitled (Williams v. Alabama Power Co., 698 So.2d 134 (Ala.Civ. App.1996)), the circuit court, on remand, held that Williams was not entitled to any prejudgment interest on the award because......
-
State v. Marble City Plaza, Inc.
...reversed the circuit court's first determination as to the amount of interest to which Williams was entitled (Williams v. Alabama Power Co., 698 So.2d 134 (Ala.Civ.App.1996)), the circuit court, on remand, held that Williams was not entitled to any prejudgment interest on the award because ......