Case Title: Davis v. Owen

Citation: 461 So. 2d 1300

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1984-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
461 So. 2d 1300 (1984)
James E. DAVIS
v.
James E. OWEN.
83-1134.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 21, 1984.
Rehearing Denied December 21, 1984.
*1301 Edmon L. Rinehart of Patterson & Rinehart, Montgomery, for appellant.
Sydney S. Smith of Smith & Smith, Phenix City, for appellee.
MADDOX, Justice.
This case involves a claim for back pay and benefits due an employee of Chattahoochee Valley Community College.
On September 30, 1981, James E. Davis was terminated from his employment with Chattahoochee Valley Community College (C.V.C.C.). He petitioned for writ of mandamus in Russell County Circuit Court, requesting that C.V.C.C.'s president, James E. Owen, be ordered to reinstate him to his former position and provide him with back pay and other benefits accruing during the period of his termination. The court so ordered. Owen appealed here, and we dismissed for failure to timely file notice of appeal. Owen v. Davis, 436 So. 2d 26 (Ala. 1983) (mem.).
After Davis was reinstated, a dispute arose as to the amount of back pay and benefits due him. Davis contended that he was entitled to $7,369.50 back pay in addition to the $39,593.00 he received, and that he was also entitled to be paid for 22 days' sick leave and 22 days' annual leave accruing during the period of his termination. He also contended that he should be reimbursed for $1,683.55 in medical expenses incurred during the same period.
A second hearing was held to determine the amount of back pay and benefits due Davis. Thereafter, the court issued the following order:
Davis appeals here, contending that the trial court erred in its findings. We find no reversible error and affirm.
As we have countless times stated, where, as here, the trial court's findings are based upon evidence heard ore tenus, those findings are favored with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by evidence or any reasonable inference therefrom, unless plainly and palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust. Chaffin v. Hall, 439 So. 2d 67 (Ala.1983).
Upon reviewing the evidence presented, we cannot say that the trial court's findings were either wrong or unjust. The evidence clearly shows that Davis was dismissed, along with other administrative employees, in an attempt to reduce costs. The evidence also shows that, subsequent to Davis's termination, certain salaries at C.V.C.C. were reduced because of budget proration and decreased enrollment and in accordance with a recommendation made by the post-secondary educational services division of the State Board of Education. The evidence shows that the State Board of Education gave President *1303 Owen authority to make the necessary salary reductions, that he did so solely to reduce costs, and that, upon his reinstatement, Davis's salary was one of those reduced. Because this was within Owen's discretion, we see no error.
The evidence shows that the parties stipulated at trial that, although Davis would not be paid for sick leave accumulating during the period of his termination, he would receive credit for those days. Therefore, this issue is not before us.
As to annual leave, the evidence shows, and the trial court correctly found, that Section 609.08 of the Policies, Procedures and Regulations Governing Alabama State Community, Junior and Technical Colleges/Institutes, 1979, provides that "Full-time noninstitutional personnel," like Davis, may not accumulate more than eighteen days' annual leave. In view of this, we see no error in the court's determination that Davis should be credited with eighteen days' annual leave.
The evidence is also supportive of the court's determination that Davis's claim for medical insurance benefits was too speculative. The evidence shows that, although Davis and his family were insured by C.V.C.C.'s insurance carrier at the time he was terminated, subsequent to that time, employees of the state's 2-year educational institutions voted to make the institutions self-insured, establishing a self-insured trust for this purpose.[1]
The evidence shows that the trust has since become insolvent, and owes the participating employees some $600,000 for insurance claims filed but never paid. Because Davis, but for his termination, would have filed his insurance claim during the pendency of the now insolvent trust, it is uncertain whether he would have been reimbursed for his claim. Therefore, had his claim been timely filed, his status would be identical to that of the other unsatisfied claimants now seeking reimbursement from this trust. Thus, his possibility of recovery would be, at best, speculative.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
[1]  The institutions are presently insured through another insurance carrier. However, this coverage became effective on January 1, 1983, subsequent to Davis's claim.