Case Title: Alabama Department of Transportation v. Vistus May

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1060997

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
rel:  11/09/2007
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008
____________________
1060997
____________________
Alabama Department of Transportation
v.
Vistus May
Appeal from Fayette Circuit Court 
(CV-06-68)
SMITH, Justice.
The Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT"), the
defendant below, appeals from a judgment of the trial court
enjoining it from removing or ordering the removal of two
brick flower planters located on the property of the
plaintiff, Vistus May.  Because the trial court lacked
jurisdiction in this case, we reverse and remand.    
1060997
2
In 1992, May constructed two brick flower planters in her
front yard, which is located along Alabama Highway 107.  May
alleges that she was told by her neighbor, an ALDOT employee
at the time, that the planters were permissible under ALDOT's
regulations.  
In May 2006, May received an "Encroachment Removal
Notice" from ALDOT.  This notice advised May that the planters
encroached upon ALDOT's right-of-way along Highway 107.  The
notice advised May that if she did not remove the planters
within 30 days, ALDOT would remove them at her expense.
May filed a complaint in the Fayette Circuit Court
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  Specifically, May
sought a temporary injunction enjoining ALDOT from removing
the planters.  May also sought a declaratory judgment stating
"that the brick planters ... do not constitute an unlawful
encroachment as designated under [Ala. Admin. Code (Department
of Transportation)] Rule 450-3-1-.08, Regulation [No.] 2-63."
Furthermore, May requested that the planters "be permitted to
remain on said property at the sole option of [May]."  The
trial court issued a "Decree of Injunction Pendente Lite" on
June 28, 2006, enjoining ALDOT from removing the planters
1060997
3
pending final determination of the action.
The trial court conducted a hearing and, after taking the
matter under advisement, issued a judgment in favor of May.
The trial court noted in its judgment that there was a
"dispute" as to whether the planters were unlawful under the
Alabama Administrative Code (Department of Transportation),
Rule 450-3-1-.08, which adopts by reference Regulation No. 2-
63.  However, without deciding that issue, the trial court
went on to find that May had "reasonably relied upon the
representations" of an ALDOT employee and that ALDOT was thus
"estopped" from removing the planters.  The trial court
further held that the planters were "hereby permitted"; that
ALDOT and its "agents and assigns" were "enjoined from
removing or altering the existing planters"; and that "May,
her heirs, successors and assigns are permanently restrained
and prohibited from constructing, locating or affixing any
future or further privately owned property upon the publicly
owned right of way ... without the prior written permission of
[ALDOT]."  Finally, the trial court held that May, "her heirs,
successors and assigns, in perpetuity, shall indemnify and
save harmless [ALDOT] from any and all claims, suits, losses,
1060997
ALDOT did not raise the issue of jurisdiction; however,
1
"'this court has said that it will take notice of the question
of jurisdiction at any time or even ex mero motu.'"  Alabama
State Docks Terminal Ry. v. Lyles, 797 So. 2d 432, 435 (Ala.
2001) (quoting Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. 226, 229, 250 So. 2d
677, 678 (1971)).
4
or other expenses arising out of, or based upon or incurred
because of injury to any person or persons, or damage to
property sustained by reason of the now existing brick
planters."  ALDOT appeals.  
On appeal, ALDOT contends that the trial court erred in
interpreting various statutes and regulations that the trial
court said were controlling.  However, before we can address
this issue, we must determine whether the trial court has
jurisdiction in this case.   
1
Article I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901, provides generally
that the State of Alabama is immune from suit: "[T]he State of
Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or
equity."  We have stated: 
"Section 14 has been described as a 'nearly
impregnable' and 'almost invincible' 'wall' that
provides the State an unwaivable, absolute immunity
from suit in any court. Alabama Agric. & Mech. Univ.
v. Jones, 895 So. 2d 867 (Ala. 2004); Patterson v.
Gladwin Corp., 835 So. 2d 137, 142 (Ala. 2002); and
Alabama State Docks v. Saxon, 631 So. 2d 943, 946
(Ala. 1994). When an action is one against the State
or 
a 
State 
agency, 
§ 
14 
wholly 
removes
1060997
5
subject-matter jurisdiction from the courts. Lyons
v. River Road Constr., Inc., 858 So. 2d 257, 261
(Ala. 2003)."
Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Ala.
2006) (emphasis added).  ALDOT is a State agency immune from
suit under § 14.  See Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., 764
So. 2d 1263, 1268 (Ala. 2000).  Therefore, unless May's claims
fall under an exception to § 14 immunity, they are prohibited.
There are several exceptions to immunity under § 14:
"'There are four general categories of actions
which in Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. 226, 250 So. 2d
677 (1971), we stated do not come within the
prohibition of § 14: (1) actions brought to compel
State officials to perform their legal duties; (2)
actions brought to enjoin State officials from
enforcing an unconstitutional law; (3) actions to
compel State officials to perform ministerial acts;
and (4) actions brought under the Declaratory
Judgments Act ... seeking construction of a statute
and its application in a given situation. 287 Ala.
at 229-230, 250 So. 2d 677. Other actions which are
not prohibited by § 14 are: (5) valid inverse
condemnation actions brought against State officials
in their representative capacity; and (6) actions
for injunction or damages brought against State
officials in their representative capacity and
individually where it was alleged that they had
acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their
authority or in a mistaken interpretation of law.
Wallace v. Board of Education of Montgomery County,
... 280 Ala. [635] at 639, 197 So. 2d 428 [(1967)];
Unzicker v. State, 346 So. 2d 931, 933 (Ala. 1977);
Engelhardt v. Jenkins, 273 Ala. 352, 141 So. 2d 193
(1962).'"
1060997
6
Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 937 So. 2d 56, 58
(Ala. 2006) (quoting Ex parte Carter, 395 So. 2d 65, 68 (Ala.
1980)) (emphasis added in Drummond omitted).
May's action does not seek to compel State officials to
perform their legal duties or to perform ministerial acts, and
there is no allegation that in having May remove the planters
State officials are enforcing an unconstitutional law.  It
also is not an inverse-condemnation action, and there is no
allegation that State officials acted fraudulently, in bad
faith, beyond their authority, or in a mistaken interpretation
of law.  Therefore, it does not appear that this case falls
under any of these exceptions.
May's complaint does appear to some extent to seek
declaratory relief.  It states: "Plaintiff prays ... [t]hat
upon a hearing of this matter, that this Court will render a
declaratory judgment and decree stating that the brick
planters ... do not constitute an unlawful encroachment as
designated 
under 
[Alabama 
Admin. 
Code 
(Department 
of
Transportation)] Rule 450-3-1.08, Regulation [No.] 2-63 ...
and  that said brick planters be permitted to remain on said
property at the sole option of [May]."
1060997
7
The exception under § 14 afforded a declaratory-judgment
action 
generally 
applies 
only 
when 
the 
action 
seeks
"'construction of a statute and how it should be applied in a
given situation,' Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. 226, 230, 250 So.
2d 677, 679 (1971)."  Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d at 1211.  We
have explained this exception to § 14 as follows:
"'[W]e have held that when an officer of the State
is confronted with an uncertain problem of what the
law means which requires certain acts on his part,
or whether the law is valid, and he proposes to
pursue 
a 
certain 
course 
of 
conduct 
in 
that
connection, which would injuriously affect the
interests of others who contend that he has no legal
right thus to act, there is thereby created a
controversy 
between 
them 
and 
the 
Declaratory
Judgments Act furnishes a remedy for either party
against the other to declare the correct status of
the law. The purpose is to settle a controversy
between individuals, though some of them may be
State officers.'"
Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d at 1211 n.5 (quoting State v. Louis
Pizitz Dry Goods Co., 243 Ala. 629, 633, 11 So. 2d 342, 345
(1943), superseded, in part, Ala. Code 1940, tit. 7, § 167
(now Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-221)).  See also Thurlow v. Berry,
247 Ala. 631, 639, 25 So. 2d 726, 733 (1946) ("This court has
declared the rule to be that when a suit against a state
official seeks a declaration of applicable principles of law
to a certain status and direction of the parties in the
1060997
This 
Court 
has 
previously 
treated 
administrative
2
regulations as "statutes" for purposes of the declaratory-
judgment exception and has allowed actions construing such
regulations to proceed.  See Ex parte Walley, 950 So. 2d 1172,
1179 (Ala. 2006).
8
premises, it does not infringe Section 14, Constitution, or
violate 
sovereign 
immunity."). 
However, 
"[t]he
declaratory-judgment exception to sovereign immunity applies
when the declaratory-judgment action seeks no relief other
than the '"construction of a statute and how it should be
applied in a given situation."' Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro,
950 So. 2d at 1211 (quoting Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. at 230,
250 So. 2d at 679)."  Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., [Ms.
1060078, July 20, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007).  It
does not apply when a declaratory-judgment action "seeks other
relief."  Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d at 1211.  
The trial court in this case did not construe a statute
or explain how it is to be applied; although the trial court
stated that a dispute existed as to whether the planters
violated ALDOT's regulations, it did not decide that issue.2
Instead, the trial court, purporting to use its equitable
powers, held that ALDOT was estopped from performing its
duties and enforcing the regulations and enjoined it from
1060997
We 
express 
no 
opinion 
regarding 
whether 
the
3
declaratory-judgment exception allows one to name a State
agency, but not a State official, as a defendant.  See Ex
parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., [Ms. 1060078, July 20, 2007]
___ So. 2d ___, ___ n.3 (Ala. 2007).
Additionally, we note that if the trial court had ruled
that the planters did not violate the applicable ALDOT
regulations, it could be argued that an action for an
injunction allowing the planters to remain would fall under
the exception allowing claims "against State officials in
their representative capacity and individually where it was
alleged that they had acted ... beyond their authority or in
a mistaken interpretation of law."  However, the trial court
never ruled on whether the planters were prohibited by ALDOT's
regulations; therefore, we express no opinion as to whether
that exception could apply to this case. 
9
doing so.  This is not the type of action or relief
contemplated by the exception to § 14 allowing declaratory-
judgment actions.  See Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d at 1211.3
Because the relief sought by May and granted by the trial
court--the judgment enjoining ALDOT from removing or ordering
the removal of the planters--does not fall under an exception
to the immunity afforded the State by § 14, it is barred.
Therefore, the trial court's judgment is reversed and the case
remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, and
Parker, JJ., concur.  
See and Murdock, JJ., concur in the result.