Case Title: ALA. HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASS'N v. Medders

Citation: 456 So. 2d 284

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1984-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
456 So. 2d 284 (1984)
ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
v.
William Bryant MEDDERS, a minor suing By and Through his next friend, Cleo E. MEDDERS.
Ex parte ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
In re William Bryant MEDDERS, a minor, etc.
v.
ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
83-1160, 83-1161.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 29, 1984.
Oakley Melton, Jr., and James E. Williams of Melton & Espy, Montgomery, for appellant and petitioner.
*285 Jack W. Meigs of Hellums & Meigs, Centreville, for appellee and respondent.
Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Homewood City Bd. of Educ.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal and the related petition arise from a decision rendered by the trial court in which the plaintiff, William Bryant Medders, was declared eligible to play in the 1984-85 high school football season. We reverse.
The trial judge made the following findings of fact:
"The parties stipulated and agreed that for the purposes of this dispute the only part of the foregoing rule [that] would be considered is that portion thereof set forth as follows:
"`(b) A pupil becomes ineligible when he has attended any junior or senior high school eight semesters after completing *286 the eighth grade or entering the ninth grade. He can be eligible only four fall semesters and four spring semesters after completing the eighth grade or entering the ninth grade.'"
The Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) is an association of high schools in the state which is "primarily concerned with proper controls and strict regulations of athletic activities" of member schools. See, Handbook, Alabama High School Athletic Association (1979-1980, p. 9.). As we recently stated, "the burden on the challenger to overcome the presumption favoring the association's absolute authority in the conduct of its own affairs is a heavy one." Alabama High School Athletic Association v. Rose, 446 So. 2d 1 (Ala.1984). Thus, normally a court in this state has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding eligibility under the rules of the AHSAA. The association itself, as the autonomous regulator of high school athletic activities, is the proper authority for resolving such disputes.
We delineated in Scott v. Kilpatrick, 286 Ala. 129, 237 So. 2d 652 (1970), the very narrow grounds on which a court should assume jurisdiction in a case such as this:
286 Ala. at 132-33, 237 So. 2d  at 655.
More recently, in Alabama High School Athletic Association v. Rose, supra, we elaborated on the rule announced in Kilpatrick and again stressed the limited circumstances under which a court may review the actions of the AHSAA. There, the trial court, after a hearing on a complaint alleging fraud and collusion, had made an express finding of collusion on the part of the director of the AHSAA and members of the 6th District. Jurisdiction of the court to intervene was affirmed only because of the express finding of fraud and collusion. The Court stated:
446 So. 2d  at 5.
This student has not carried the burden set out in Rose. He argues, and we agree, that the rule is susceptible of two interpretations, as the trial court observed. However, the evidence showed that it has *287 been in effect for 35 years and has been interpreted the same way for that period of time. This falls far short of fraud, collusion, or arbitrarinessthe prerequisites for court intervention in these matters. In fact, the trial court expressly found that the AHSAA did not act fraudulently or capriciously. That court having so found, the complaint should have been dismissed, since ambiguity in the rule of the AHSAA does not of itself permit court intervention.
We agree, as the Association argues, that the so-called "eight-semester rule" has a laudable purpose:
In this case, the student repeated the eighth grade in 1980-81, after successfully academically completing such grade in the 1979-80 school year. He passed all the eighth grade subjects the first year he took them and took the same subjects the next year and, of course, again passed them. This clearly violated the eight-semester rule as it has been applied by the AHSAA for 35 years. Therefore, the trial court should have dismissed the complaint.
An amicus curiae brief has been filed on behalf of another student, Bryan Hendrix, who has also been declared ineligible under the same rule involved here. He too was "held back" voluntarily and repeated the eighth grade, as did Medders. Therefore, the AHSAA was authorized to declare him ineligible under the eight-semester rule and, absent clear and convincing evidence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, which was not produced, there is no judicial authority to intervene.
In light of our decision as to the appeal in Case 83-1160, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.
83-1160, REVERSED AND RENDERED.
83-1161, PETITION DISMISSED.
All the Justices concur.