Case Title: City of Gadsden v. Entrekin

Citation: 387 So. 2d 829

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1980-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
387 So. 2d 829 (1980)
The CITY OF GADSDEN, a Municipal Corp.
v.
Thelma ENTREKIN.
79-382.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 29, 1980.
*830 Roger W. Kirby, Gadsden, for appellant.
James F. Hinton, Gadsden, for appellee.
MADDOX, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Etowah County granting appellee Thelma Entrekin's request for a permanent injunction enjoining appellant City of Gadsden from interfering with the placement of a modular home upon her property. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we reverse and remand.
The appellee owned a vacant lot located in an R-1, single family residential zone in the City of Gadsden, and wanted to place a mobile home on the property as a place of residence. In attempting to obtain a permit authorizing her to locate a mobile structure on the property, appellee was informed that a permit could not be given unless a special exception was first obtained from the Board of Adjustment of the City of Gadsden pursuant to Gadsden City Code, Ordinance No. 1988. That ordinance provides in pertinent part that:
The ordinance lists certain prerequisites which must be met before a special exception for a mobile home can be given. A mobile home is defined under the code as follows:
Pursuant to these provisions, the appellee filed her petition for a special exception on September 7, 1979. The Board of Adjustment denied that petition on September 27, 1979. No appeal from this ruling was ever taken.
On October 1, 1979, the appellee entered into an agreement with Coosa Valley Mobile Homes whereby she agreed to purchase a "modular" home, a structure quite different from the mobile home originally considered by the Board of Adjustment. The record establishes that a "modular" home consists of two prefabricated sections which are joined together on the location of the proposed residence. The structure is pulled to the installation site on wheels and axles attached to the steel beam construction under the floor. It is moved by a tow truck with a tongue attached to the steel beams. After reaching the site, the wheels, axles and tongue are removed and sold back to the manufacturer. Thereafter, the home is placed upon a permanent foundation.
In contemplating the proposed placement of the modular home on the appellee's property, the appellee's attorney approached a Mr. Cary Cooper, Building Official for the City of Gadsden, and asked him whether he would issue a building permit for the construction of the home. Mr. Cooper refused. As a result, Mrs. Entrekin filed suit to enjoin the City's interference with the location of the structure on her property. A *831 trial was held, and the jury found that a "modular" home was not a mobile home and the trial court duly entered judgment in the appellee's favor.
The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the appellee's action and grant the permanent injunction when it is clear from the record that the appellee failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. We hold that it did not.
Code 1975, § 11-52-80, is the enabling section which authorizes corporate municipalities to provide for the appointment of local boards of adjustment. The general purpose of these boards is to administer the zoning ordinances of the city and, where specifically authorized, to make "... special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance in harmony with its general purposes and interests and in accordance with general or specific rules therein contained." Code 1975, § 11-52-80(a). In delineating the specific powers of the board, § 11-52-80 provides:
In turn, Code 1975, § 11-52-81 provides that:
Thus, a very definite remedial scheme has been established whereby an aggrieved party can contest the application or interpretation of a zoning ordinance on an administrative level before entering a court of law.
Acting upon the enabling provisions of § 11-52-80, the City of Gadsden enacted Ordinance No. 2143 which established the Housing and Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The duties of said board are described as follows:
With regard to what types of appeals are available, the ordinance provides that:
Looking to these provisions, we are convinced that administrative remedies were available to the appellee whereby she could have challenged the judgment of the Building Official in denying her request for a building permit. The question remains, however: Was the appellee required to exhaust them?
The application of the exhaustion doctrine to zoning matters is a principle well recognized in the law. As noted by Eugene McQuillin in his treatise on municipal corporations:
McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.283 (2d ed. 1976). Likewise, in Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 24-11 (4th ed. 1979), it is stated that:
See also Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, Vol. I, Chapter IX-e-(2) (2d ed. 1955); 101A C.J.S. Zoning & Land Planning §§ 280-281 (1979); 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning §§ 331-332 (1976); and Annot. 136 A.L.R. 1378.
In addition to these authorities and the cases cited therein, this Court in Watson v. Norris, 283 Ala. 380, 217 So. 2d 246 (1969), applied the exhaustion doctrine in a case involving an attack upon a zoning administrator's denial of a use permit. The plaintiffs in that case sought relief by filing a petition for writ of mandamus ordering the administrator to withdraw his denial. The defendant administrator demurred to the petition, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. This Court, Justice Harwood writing, held:
As observed in Metzenbaum, supra, at page 713:
We are thus led to the inescapable conclusion that one must exhaust his remedies in a zoning matter before entering a court of law. We fully recognize that this rule is not absolute and without exceptions. As noted in 101A C.J.S. Zoning & Land Planning § 281 (1979), these exceptions generally arise where (1) the question raised is one of interpretation of the statute or (2) the action raises questions of law only and not matters requiring administrative findings of fact or an exercise of administrative discretion. In addition, administrative remedies need not be exhausted where doing so would be futile or where the remedies provided are inadequate. Likewise, one need not pursue administrative remedies when irreparable injury is threatened.
None of these possible exceptions exists in the present case. Appellee proceeded to trial alleging that she was wrongfully denied a building permit by the City of Gadsden. That decision was clearly a matter of administrative discretion. If she wished to contest that denial, she should have filed an appeal to the Housing and Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, *834 allowing that board to hear evidence and reach a factual determination on the issue. If that board reached an adverse decision, she could have then appealed to the Circuit Court of Etowah County pursuant to Code 1975, § 11-52-82. Having failed to exhaust these remedies, she was not entitled to enter a court of law.
Because the appellee failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the Circuit Court of Etowah County lacked jurisdiction to entertain her claim; therefore, the judgment of that court granting appellee's prayer for a permanent injunction is due to be reversed and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C. J., and SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
JONES, J., concurs in the result.