Case Title: Ex Parte Singleton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
475 So. 2d 186 (1985)
Ex parte Inez SINGLETON.
(In re ALABAMA STATE TENURE COMMISSION v. Inez SINGLETON).
84-437.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 2, 1985.
*187 Herbert M. Newell, III, of Ray, Oliver, Ward & Parsons, Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
J.L. Chestnut, Jr., Selma, for Alabama State Tenure Com'n.
BEATTY, Justice.
Petitioner Inez Singleton seeks a writ of mandamus to the Court of Civil Appeals, directing it to dismiss the appeal in the case Alabama State Tenure Commission v. Singleton, 475 So. 2d 185 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), because that court lacked jurisdiction. The writ is denied.
The following facts led to the filing of this petition:
Singleton was employed by the Greene County Board of Education (Board) as an assistant superintendent and as Federal Programs Coordinator. In May 1983, the Board abolished these two positions and transferred her to another position. After a Board hearing affirming the transfer, Singleton appealed to the Alabama State Tenure Commission (Commission), which upheld the Board's decision. Next, Singleton petitioned the Greene County Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to vacate its decision. The circuit court granted the writ on June 5, 1984.
Forty-one days after the entry of judgment by the circuit court, a notice of appeal was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. This notice, filed on July 16, 1984, designated the Board as the appealing party. On August 21, 1984, Singleton filed a motion to strike the notice of appeal or to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the Board was not a party to the judgment of the circuit court and thus could not take an appeal therefrom. In response to Singleton's motion, the Commission filed a motion to correct the notice of appeal, claiming that the designation of the Board as the party appealing resulted from a clerical error.
Singleton filed a reply to the Commission's motion in which she claimed that the notice "clearly and unequivocally" shows that it was the Board, and not the Commission, that intended to appeal. She points to the fact that the chairman of the Board, Carol Zippert, signed the notice, which is part of the security for costs, as the "appellant-principal," whereas the Commission is *188 not required, as a matter of law, to post bond or otherwise give security for costs for an appeal taken by it. Following Singleton's reply to its motion, the Commission filed another motion requesting a suspension of the rules so as to allow a substitution of parties on the notice of appeal.
The Court of Civil Appeals granted the Commission's motion to substitute named appellants and denied Singleton's motion to dismiss the appeal. It was not until after both parties had submitted briefs on the merits and the Court of Civil Appeals had issued an opinion reversing the circuit court's judgment that Singleton filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Civil Appeals. By an order issued February 21, 1985, this Court instructed "[t]hat the respondents, Hon. L. Charles Wright, Hon. Robert P. Bradley, Hon. Richard L. Holmes and the Alabama State Tenure Commission, file with the Clerk of this Court their answers to the said petition on the question of whether or not the Court of Civil Appeals obtained jurisdiction to make a substitution of the parties after 42 days from the entry of judgment, with briefs in support of said answers, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order." These answers, as well as petitioner's reply thereto, were duly filed.
The first issue presented by this petition is whether this Court should grant Singleton's motion to compel discovery of facts which are set out in her brief to this Court in support of her petition but which were not before the Court of Civil Appeals. It is well settled in Alabama that:
The primary issue on this appeal is whether or not the Court of Civil Appeals obtained jurisdiction, allowing that court to permit a substitution of the named appellant more than 42 days from the entry of judgment. Singleton contends that the court never obtained jurisdiction of the appeal because the appealing party, the Board, was not a party to the judgment. She cites Evers v. Link Enterprises, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1177, 1180 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), where that court held that "[o]nly parties to a judgment may appeal from it." Singleton further contends that because the Commission did not act to correct the notice of appeal within the prescribed period for filing, proper notice under Rule 3(c), A.R.A.P., was not filed. Rule 3(c) provides:
Rule 3 further provides:
The Commission concedes that the Board was not the proper party to appeal, but contends, as it did before the Court of Civil Appeals, that the designation of the Board resulted from clerical error. In support of this contention, counsel for the Commission points out that, prior to being appointed to represent the Commission in the circuit court, he had also represented the Board against the petitioner in her appeal to the Commission. He further claims that he instructed a secretary to complete the paperwork necessary to appeal the writ *189 of mandamus issued to the Commission by the circuit court and that the secretary mistakenly appealed in the name of the Board. The Commission argues that despite this clerical error the timely filing of the notice of appeal was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals. We agree.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Court of Civil Appeals filed the following answer to this petition for writ of mandamus, which this Court agrees with and adopts:
We agree with respondents that, in the context and posture of this case, application by analogy of the procedure of Rule 17, A.R.Civ.P., was proper under our Rule 2(b), A.R.A.P., to permit a substitution of the real party appellant more than 42 days from judgment where such substitution or amendment did not in any way change the merits of the appeal. Rule 17 provides in pertinent part:
Rule 2(b), A.R.A.P., provides, in pertinent part:
In Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile v. McDonald, 56 Ala.App. 426, 430-31, 322 So. 2d 717, 721, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 392, 322 So. 2d 722 (1975), the court quoted from 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1501, at 523-24 (1971):
The court then held as follows:
Accord, Manning v. Zapata, 350 So. 2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977).
We find McDonald, supra, to be directly analogous to the case at bar, with one distinguishing factor: the McDonald case involved a change to name the real party plaintiff at trial, whereas here we are concerned with a change to name the real party appellant on appeal. In view of the primary purpose of Rule 2(b), A.R.A.P., as stated in the Committee Comments quoted below, we find this to be a distinction without a difference:
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not be granted unless there is a clear showing of error in the court below clearly and specifically entitling the petitioner to the relief sought. Ex parte Baker, supra; Tuscaloosa City Board of Education v. Roberts, 440 So. 2d 1058 (Ala.1983); Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 435 So. 2d 1235 (Ala.1983). We do not think the Court of Civil Appeals *191 erred in granting the Commission's motion for substitution, nor do we think, in doing so, it abused its discretion. Petitioner has shown no prejudice by the substitution and, therefore, has not met her burden of showing she has a clear right to relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ should be, and it is, hereby denied.
WRIT DENIED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.