Case Title: Fort Morgan Civic Association, Inc. v. City of Gulf Shores

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1101440

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2012-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 04/27/2012 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s 
may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 
1101440 
Fort Morgan C i v i c Association, Inc., 
and Charles A. Browdy 
v. 
C i t y of 
Gulf Shores et a l . 
Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-03-556) 
PER CURIAM. 
The 
F o r t 
Morgan 
C i v i c 
A s s o c i a t i o n , 
I n c . 
("the 
A s s o c i a t i o n " ) , and C h a r l e s A. Browdy, a r e s i d e n t o f 
t h e 
u n i n c o r p o r a t e d F o r t Morgan a r e a o f 
B a l d w i n County and 
a 
member 
of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as 
1101440 
"the FMCA"), sued t h e C i t y o f G u l f Shores and i t s mayor and 
c i t y 
c o u n c i l 
( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as 
" t h e 
C i t y " ) i n t h e B a l d w i n 
C i r c u i t C o u r t s e e k i n g a c o u r t 
o r d e r 
d e c l a r i n g t h e 
C i t y ' s a n n e x a t i o n o f 
a 19.3-mile segment o f t h e 
l a n d on which F o r t Morgan Road i s l o c a t e d and t h e a d j a c e n t 
l a n d ("the F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n " ) t o 
be i n v a l i d .
1 
F o l l o w i n g 
a n o n j u r y 
t r i a l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e 
FMCA had f a i l e d 
t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n was i n v a l i d ; i t 
a c c o r d i n g l y e n t e r e d a judgment i n 
f a v o r o f 
t h e 
C i t y . The FMCA 
a p p e a l s . 
We r e v e r s e and remand. 
I . 
Sometime i n l a t e 
2002 o r e a r l y 2003, N o e l Hand, a 
s u r v e y o r f o r 
V o l k e r t & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , 
an e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m , 
c o n t a c t e d 
D a v i d Bodenhamer, 
t h e n mayor o f G u l f S h o r e s , on 
b e h a l f o f V o l k e r t ' s c l i e n t , r e a l - e s t a t e d e v e l o p e r D a v i d Head, 
t o d i s c u s s t h e 
p o s s i b i l i t y o f 
G u l f Shores a n n e x i n g p r o p e r t y t o 
i t s west and e x t e n d i n g 
i t s c i t y l i m i t s f u r t h e r down t h e F o r t 
Morgan p e n i n s u l a . 
Presumably, Hand and Head were i n t e r e s t e d 
i n p u r s u i n g 
t h i s a n n e x a t i o n because p r o p e r t y annexed i n t o 
t h e 
C i t y o f G u l f Shores would have a c c e s s t o c i t y s e r v i c e s and 
be 
1 F o r t Morgan Road i s a l s o known as F o r t Morgan Parkway, 
D i x i e - G r a v e s 
Parkway, and S t a t e Highway 180. 
2 
1101440 
s u b j e c t t o G u l f S h o r e s ' z o n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s 
as opposed t o the 
more 
r e s t r i c t i v e 
z o n i n g 
r e q u i r e m e n t s 
B a l d w i n 
County 
had 
adopted f o r the F o r t Morgan a r e a . 
G u l f Shores had 
c o n s i d e r e d 
the p o s s i b i l i t y of e x p a n d i n g westward on p r e v i o u s 
o c c a s i o n s ; 
however, i t was 
a p p a r e n t l y a f t e r m e e t i n g w i t h Hand and Head 
t h a t G u l f Shores d e c i d e d t o pursue the s p e c i f i c e x p a n s i o n 
p l a n 
now b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d — 
the a n n e x a t i o n of a p i e c e of p r o p e r t y 
19.3 m i l e s l o n g and 330 
f e e t wide e x t e n d i n g from the w e s t e r n 
l i m i t of the m u n i c i p a l 
l i m i t s of G u l f Shores t o the 
e a s t e r n 
edge 
of 
the 
F o r t Morgan 
h i s t o r i c 
s i t e . 
The 
predominant 
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s p r o p e r t y was 
F o r t Morgan Road and i t s 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 0 - f o o t - w i d e 
r i g h t - o f - w a y ; however, the annexed 
p r o p e r t y a l s o i n c l u d e d unimproved p r o p e r t y a d j a c e n t t o F o r t 
Morgan 
Road, 
as 
w e l l 
as 
s i d e w a l k s 
and 
s e v e r a l 
p u b l i c -
r e c r e a t i o n 
a r e a s . 
Once 
the 
F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n 
was 
completed, i t was 
e x p e c t e d 
t h a t o t h e r p r o p e r t y on the 
F o r t 
Morgan p e n i n s u l a c o n t i g u o u s t o the annexed p r o p e r t y would a l s o 
seek t o be annexed i n t o G u l f S h o r e s .
2 
The r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o the e x a c t c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
t h a t 
f o l l o w e d 
G u l f 
Shores' 
d e c i s i o n t o pursue 
the 
F o r t Morgan 
2 F o l l o w i n g the a n n e x a t i o n , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 80 o t h e r p a r c e l s 
of l a n d i n the F o r t Morgan a r e a were annexed i n t o G u l f Shores. 
3 
1101440 
a n n e x a t i o n ; 
however, 
under t h e b e l i e f 
t h a t t h e 
s u b j e c t 
p r o p e r t y was owned by t h e S t a t e , 
G u l f 
Shores 
a p p a r e n t l y 
communicated i t s i n t e r e s t i n a n n e x i n g t h e p r o p e r t y t o s t a t e 
government 
o f f i c i a l s . 
On March 25, 2003, Bob R i l e y , 
then 
g o v e r n o r o f 
Alabama, and B a r n e t t Lawley, then commissioner o f 
the Alabama Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n and N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , 
s u b m i t t e d 
a p e t i t i o n 
on b e h a l f o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama 
f o r m a l l y r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be annexed i n t o 
G u l f 
Shores p u r s u a n t t o § 11-42-21, A l a . Code 1975. On A p r i l 14, 
2003, t h e c i t y c o u n c i l o f G u l f Shores adopted an 
o r d i n a n c e 
a p p r o v i n g 
t h e 
a n n e x a t i o n 
r e q u e s t , 
which 
o r d i n a n c e 
was 
s u b s e q u e n t l y 
s i g n e d by t h e 
mayor and p u b l i s h e d i n t o law. 
F o l l o w i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n , 
r e s i d e n t s o f t h e F o r t Morgan p e n i n s u l a began p r o t e s t i n g 
t h e 
f a c t t h a t t h e r e had been no p u b l i c h e a r i n g on t h e a n n e x a t i o n 
p e t i t i o n 
and v o i c i n g 
t h e i r 
g e n e r a l 
d i s p l e a s u r e 
w i t h t h e 
a n n e x a t i o n . 
E n t r e a t i e s were a p p a r e n t l y made t o s t a t e and 
l o c a l government o f f i c i a l s , and, 
i n response, Governor R i l e y 
t h e r e a f t e r 
asked Mayor Bodenhamer t o deannex t h e r e c e n t l y 
annexed p r o p e r t y . 
B r a d l e y Byrne and Steve M c M i l l a n , 
s t a t e 
l e g i s l a t o r s from B a l d w i n County, a l s o made s i m i l a r r e q u e s t s t o 
4 
1101440 
c i t y 
o f f i c i a l s o f G u l f Shores. 
However, b e l i e v i n g t h e F o r t 
Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n 
t o be b e n e f i c i a l t o G u l f 
Shores, Mayor 
Bodenhamer and 
t h e c i t y c o u n c i l r e f u s e d t h e r e q u e s t s . 
On May 
13, 
2003, t h e FMCA sued t h e C i t y , 
s e e k i n g a c o u r t 
o r d e r 
d e c l a r i n g v o i d t h e F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n and a l l subsequent 
a n n e x a t i o n s 
by G u l f 
Shores o f p r o p e r t y 
c o n t i g u o u s 
t o 
t h e 
annexed p r o p e r t y . 
Over t h e s u c c e e d i n g 
y e a r s , t h e 
FMCA and t h e C i t y 
f i l e d 
v a r i o u s 
m o t i o n s , 
e.g., motions 
t o d i s m i s s 
and motions 
r e q u e s t i n g a summary judgment, a l l 
o f w h i c h were d e n i e d . 
A t 
one p o i n t i n 
November 2007, t h e 
FMCA and 
t h e 
C i t y appeared t o 
have reached a s e t t l e m e n t t h a t would have ended t h e d i s p u t e ; 
however, 
t h e 
g e n e r a l 
membership 
o f 
t h e 
A s s o c i a t i o n 
s u b s e q u e n t l y r e j e c t e d t h a t p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t when i t 
was p u t 
t o a v o t e . A two-day n o n j u r y 
t r i a l was f i n a l l y c o n d u c t e d on 
A p r i l 27-28, 2011, and, on J u l y 22, 2011, t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y . 
The FMCA now 
a p p e a l s . 
I I . 
"Because 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
h e a r d 
o r e tenus 
e v i d e n c e 
d u r i n g t h e bench 
t r i a l , 
t h e o r e tenus 
s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i e s . Our o r e tenus 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
r e v i e w i s w e l l s e t t l e d . 
'"When a judge i n a 
5 
1101440 
n o n j u r y case h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y , a judgment based 
on f i n d i n g s o f f a c t based on t h a t t e s t i m o n y 
w i l l be 
presumed c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t 
be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l 
e x c e p t f o r 
a p l a i n and p a l p a b l e e r r o r . " ' 
Smith v.  
Muchia, 854 So. 2d 85, 92 ( A l a . 
2003) 
( q u o t i n g 
A l l s t a t e I n s . 
Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377, 379 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 6 ) ) . 
"'"The o r e tenus r u l e i s 
grounded upon t h e 
p r i n c i p l e t h a t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s 
o r a l 
t e s t i m o n y 
i t 
has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o 
e v a l u a t e t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y o f 
w i t n e s s e s . " 
H a l l v. Mazzone, 486 So. 2d 
408, 410 ( A l a . 1986). 
The r u l e a p p l i e s t o 
" d i s p u t e d 
i s s u e s o f 
f a c t , " 
whether t h e 
d i s p u t e 
i s based 
e n t i r e l y 
upon 
o r a l 
t e s t i m o n y 
o r upon a c o m b i n a t i o n 
o f 
o r a l 
t e s t i m o n y and documentary e v i d e n c e . 
Born 
v. C l a r k , 662 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . 1995). 
The 
ore 
tenus 
s t a n d a r d 
o f 
r e v i e w , 
s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d , i s 
as f o l l o w s : 
"'"[W]here t h e e v i d e n c e has been 
[presented] 
o r e 
t e n u s , 
a 
p r e s u m p t i o n 
o f 
c o r r e c t n e s s 
a t t e n d s 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
c o n c l u s i o n on i s s u e s o f f a c t , and 
t h i s C o u r t 
w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
c o n c l u s i o n 
u n l e s s 
i t 
i s 
c l e a r l y 
e r r o n e o u s 
and 
a g a i n s t t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e 
e v i d e n c e , 
b u t 
w i l l 
a f f i r m t h e 
judgment i f , under any r e a s o n a b l e 
a s p e c t , 
i t i s 
s u p p o r t e d 
by 
c r e d i b l e 
e v i d e n c e . " ' 
"Reed v. Board o f T r s . f o r 
Alabama S t a t e U n i v . , 
7 
78 
So. 2d 791, 795 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g R a i d t v. Crane, 
342 
So. 2d 358, 360 
( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ) . 
However, 
' t h a t 
p r e s u m p t i o n [of 
c o r r e c t n e s s ] has no a p p l i c a t i o n 
when 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t i s 
shown t o have i m p r o p e r l y 
a p p l i e d 
the law t o t h e f a c t s . ' 
Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f Zoning 
6 
1101440 
A d j u s t m e n t o f M o b i l e , 
636 So. 2d 415, 417 ( A l a . 
1994)." 
Kennedy v. B o l e s I n v s . , I n c . , 53 So. 
3d 60, 67-68 ( A l a . 2010). 
I I I . 
On a p p e a l , t h e 
FMCA makes e s s e n t i a l l y two arguments: (1) 
t h a t t h e F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a " l o n g - l a s s o " 
a n n e x a t i o n , 
a method o f a n n e x a t i o n 
p r o h i b i t e d 
s i n c e 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n 
C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e v. C i t y o f Birmingham, 
507 So. 2d 489, 490-91 
( A l a . 1987); and (2) t h a t t h e F o r t 
Morgan a n n e x a t i o n i s 
i n v a l i d because t h e 
S t a t e d i d n o t 
own 
a l l 
the annexed p r o p e r t y , 
c o n t r a r y t o t h e S t a t e ' s 
c l a i m i n 
t h e 
p e t i t i o n f o r a n n e x a t i o n . 
We c o n s i d e r t h e s e arguments i n 
t u r n . 
Because t h e annexed p r o p e r t y 
c o n s i s t s o f a 19.3-mile 
s t r i p o f l a n d e s s e n t i a l l y t r a c k i n g F o r t Morgan Road, t h e 
FMCA 
argues 
t h a t 
t h e a n n e x a t i o n 
i s a 
p r o h i b i t e d 
l o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n . 
I n C i t y o f S p a n i s h F o r t v. C i t y o f Daphne, 774 
So. 
2d 567, 574-75 
( A l a . 2000), we 
d e s c r i b e d 
l o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n s as f o l l o w s : 
"Under [the l o n g - l a s s o ] method, a c i t y would p u r p o r t 
t o annex a p u b l i c roadway o f some l e n g t h i n an 
e f f o r t t o c r e a t e c o n t i g u i t y w i t h an o u t l y i n g p a r c e l 
of p r o p e r t y 
t h a t would n o t o t h e r w i s e be c o n t i g u o u s 
w i t h 
t h e e x i s t i n g 
m u n i c i p a l 
l i m i t s . 
C i t y o f  
F u l t o n d a l e v. C i t y o f Birmingham, 507 So. 2d 
489, 
491 
( A l a . 1987). 
I n C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e , t h i s C o u r t 
7 
1101440 
e x p l i c i t l y o v e r r u l e d C i t y o f Tuskegee v. Lacey, 486 
So. 2d 393 ( A l a . 1985). 
I n C i t y o f Tuskegee, t h e 
C i t y o f Tuskegee had annexed 14 m i l e s o f a p u b l i c 
roadway, w i t h o u t 
a n n e x i n g any p r o p e r t y 
l y i n g 
a l o n g 
t h a t roadway, i n o r d e r t o c r e a t e c o n t i g u i t y w i t h an 
o u t l y i n g p a r c e l o f p r o p e r t y . 
A l t h o u g h 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
u p h e l d 
t h a t a n n e x a t i o n i n C i t y o f Tuskegee, 
t h i s 
C o u r t o v e r r u l e d t h a t d e c i s i o n i n 
C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e . 
In 
C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
e x p l a i n e d i t s 
r e a s o n s 
f o r r e j e c t i n g t h e l o n g - l a s s o 
method o f 
a n n e x a t i o n : 
" ' A l t h o u g h 
Alabama 
law 
does 
n o t 
r e q u i r e t h a t m u n i c i p a l 
b o u n d a r i e s form a 
r e g u l a r shape, t h e l e g a l and p o p u l a r 
i d e a 
of a m u n i c i p a l i t y i n t h i s c o u n t r y i s " t h a t 
of oneness, community, l o c a l i t y , 
v i c i n i t y ; 
a 
c o l l e c t i v e body, n o t s e v e r a l b o d i e s ; a 
c o l l e c t i v e body o f i n h a b i t a n t s — 
t h a t i s , 
a body o f p e o p l e c o l l e c t e d o r g a t h e r e d i n 
one 
mass, n o t s e p a r a t e d 
i n t o 
d i s t i n c t 
masses, and h a v i n g a community o f i n t e r e s t 
because r e s i d e n t s o f t h e same p l a c e , not 
d i f f e r e n t 
p l a c e s . " 
56 Am. 
J u r . 2d 
M u n i c i p a l C o r p o r a t i o n s § 69 a t 125 
(1971); 
C i t y o f Dothan [v. B o a r d o f 
Comm'rs o f Dale  
Cnty., 
295 A l a . 131, 324 So. 2d 772 
( 1 9 7 5 ) ] . ' 
"507 So. 2d a t 491." 
A l t h o u g h a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t t h e 
annexed p r o p e r t y 
c o n t a i n s 
a 
p u b l i c 
roadway, t h e C i t y argues 
t h a t t h e F o r t 
Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n was not 
a l o n g - l a s s o a n n e x a t i o n because t h e s t r i p 
of annexed p r o p e r t y was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
330 f e e t wide and 
t h e 
p u b l i c r i g h t - o f - w a y a c c o u n t e d f o r o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
80 f e e t 
of t h a t w i d t h , t h e r e s t b e i n g made up o f unimproved p r o p e r t y , 
8 
1101440 
s i d e w a l k s , 
and 
r e c r e a t i o n a l 
a r e a s . 
I n s u p p o r t o f 
i t s 
argument, t h e C i t y 
c i t e s 
C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e v. C i t y o f  
M i l l b r o o k , 
621 So. 2d 267 ( A l a . 1993), i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t 
u p h e l d t h e C i t y o f M i l l b r o o k ' s 
a n n e x a t i o n o f a 
county-owned 
abandoned r a i l r o a d bed v a r y i n g from 75 t o 100 f e e t wide and 
c o n t a i n i n g 
a c o u n t y r o a d i n t h e c e n t e r . 
I n d o i n g so, we 
e x p l i c i t l y adopted t h e o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n 
w h i c h 
i t 
r e a s o n e d t h a t " [ t ] h e r a i l r o a d bed ... i s 
s u b s t a n t i a l l y 
l a r g e r 
t h a n t h e roadway," 621 So. 2d a t 273, and n o t e d t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t had, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g C i t y 
o f F u l t o n d a l e , 
approved 
a n n e x a t i o n s 
i n v o l v i n g 
l o n g , 
r e l a t i v e l y 
t h i n 
s t r i p s o f 
p r o p e r t y , o r c o r r i d o r s , 
so l o n g as t h e c o r r i d o r d i d 
n o t 
c o n s i s t 
s o l e l y o f a p u b l i c r i g h t - o f - w a y . See, 
e.g., C i t y o f  
Birmingham v. W i l k i n s o n , 516 So. 2d 585 ( A l a . 1987), and C i t y  
of Dothan v. Board o f 
Comm'rs o f Dale Cnty., 295 A l a . 131, 
324 
So. 2d 772 (1975). 
The FMCA, however, argues t h a t C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e i s n o t 
a p p l i c a b l e and argues t h a t c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n s such as t h o s e 
condoned 
i n C i t y o f Dothan a r e p e r m i s s i b l e 
o n l y when t h e 
a n n e x a t i o n 
i n v o l v e s 
a t l e a s t some " p r i v a t e " p r o p e r t y .
3 I n 
3The FMCA has n o t asked t h i s C o u r t t o o v e r r u l e C i t y o f  
Dothan o r made t h e argument 
t h a t 
a l l c o r r i d o r 
a n n e x a t i o n s 
9 
1101440 
s u p p o r t o f t h i s argument, t h e 
FMCA c i t e s Town o f 
Vance v. C i t y  
of T u s c a l o o s a , 661 So. 2d 739, 744 ( A l a . 1995), i n 
w h i c h t h i s 
C o u r t 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
" ' [ c ] o r r i d o r ' a n n e x a t i o n s 
i n v o l v e t h e 
a n n e x a t i o n o f a s m a l l s t r i p o f p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y ; 
'long l a s s o ' 
a n n e x a t i o n s 
i n v o l v e 
t h e 
a n n e x a t i o n 
o f 
a 
p u b l i c 
r o a d 
r i g h t - o f - w a y . " 
However, upon a r e v i e w o f our c a s e l a w , i t i s 
a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n o f f e r e d 
i n 
s h o u l d 
be 
p r o h i b i t e d . 
To 
t h e 
c o n t r a r y , 
i t e x p r e s s l y 
r e c o g n i z e s t h e v a l i d i t y o f c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n s under Alabama 
law i n i t s b r i e f f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t . 
FMCA's b r i e f , pp. 37¬
39. 
Even as i t 
was a u t h o r i z i n g l o n g - l a s s o a n n e x a t i o n s i n C i t y 
 
of 
Tuskegee, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
e x p l i c i t l y 
r e c o g n i z e d 
t h a t t h e 
m a j o r i t y o f c o u r t s i n o t h e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n s 
t r e a t 
c o r r i d o r 
a n n e x a t i o n s w i t h d i s f a v o r . 
486 So. 2d a t 396. 
L o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n s have s i n c e been p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s C o u r t ; however, 
we have 
c o n t i n u e d 
t o r e c o g n i z e 
t h e v a l i d i t y 
o f c o r r i d o r 
a n n e x a t i o n s , 
n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g some J u s t i c e s ' s t a t e d r e l u c t a n c e 
t o do so. See, e.g., C i t y o f Madison v. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 
555 
So. 2d 755, 763 ( A l a . 1989) ( S t e a g a l l , J . , c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y ) 
( r e c o g n i z i n g 
t h e r u l e o f s t a r e 
d e c i s i s b u t 
e x p r e s s i n g r e s e r v a t i o n s about a l l o w i n g c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n s ) , 
and 
C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e , 
507 So. 2d a t 492 
(Houston, J . , 
d i s s e n t i n g ) 
( s t a t i n g t h a t he would o v e r r u l e C i t y o f Dothan and 
" a b o l i s h s t r i p o r c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n i n 
Alabama, and r e q u i r e 
a s u b s t a n t i a l common boundary f o r 
m u n i c i p a l a n n e x a t i o n as 
i s 
r e q u i r e d by a s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y o f t h e s t a t e s " ) . However, 
no p a r t y i n t h i s case has asked us t o o v e r r u l e C i t y o f Dothan, 
and we a c c o r d i n g l y l e a v e any r e e x a m i n a t i o n 
o f our h o l d i n g i n 
t h a t 
case 
f o r a n o t h e r 
day. 
See Moore 
v. 
P r u d e n t i a l 
 
R e s i d e n t i a l 
S e r v s . L t d . P ' s h i p , 
849 So. 2d 914, 926 
( A l a . 
2002) 
("Stare d e c i s i s commands, a t a minimum, a degree o f 
r e s p e c t from t h i s C o u r t t h a t makes i t d i s i n c l i n e d t o o v e r r u l e 
c o n t r o l l i n g p r e c e d e n t when i t 
i s 
n o t i n v i t e d t o do s o . " ) . 
10 
1101440 
Town o f Vance i s 
u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d and i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 
the r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e .
4 
A n n e x a t i o n by p e t i t i o n i s governed by § 11-42-21, 
A l a . 
Code 1975, which 
r e q u i r e s 
o n l y 
t h a t t h e annexed 
l a n d be 
" c o n t i g u o u s 
t o t h e 
c o r p o r a t e 
l i m i t s " 
o f t h e 
a n n e x i n g 
m u n i c i p a l i t y . 
A l t h o u g h C i t y o f Tuskegee v. Lacey, 486 So. 2d 
393, 396 ( A l a . 1985), was o v e r r u l e d by C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e , t h e 
C i t y o f Tuskegee C o u r t p r o p e r l y n o t e d t h a t 
" [ t ] h e r e i s no 
s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e l a n d be p r i v a t e r a t h e r 
than 
p u b l i c , and we f i n d no b a s i s f o r 
r e a d i n g t h i s l i m i t a t i o n i n t o 
the s t a t u t e . " 
I n C i t y o f P r a t t v i l l e , 
t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d an 
a n n e x a t i o n o f a s t r i p o f county-owned p r o p e r t y , and, i n C i t y 
 
of Dothan, we a f f i r m e d t h e a n n e x a t i o n o f a s t r i p o f p r o p e r t y 
owned by a q u a s i - g o v e r n m e n t a l a i r p o r t a u t h o r i t y . See C i t y o f 
 
F u l t o n d a l e , 
507 So. 2d a t 492 
(Houston, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) 
( d e s c r i b i n g t h e owner o f t h e annexed p r o p e r t y 
i n C i t y o f 
4Moreover, t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n s i n 
Town 
 
of Vance was d i c t a inasmuch as t h e C o u r t u l t i m a t e l y h e l d t h a t 
i t was u n n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r whether t h e a n n e x a t i o n 
b e f o r e 
i t c o n s t i t u t e d a p e r m i s s i b l e c o r r i d o r a n n e x a t i o n o r 
an i n v a l i d 
l o n g - l a s s o a n n e x a t i o n because t h a t case i n v o l v e d an a n n e x a t i o n 
by 
l e g i s l a t i o n , 
and t h e C o u r t 
n o t e d 
t h a t 
"the [Alabama] 
C o n s t i t u t i o n i s t h e o n l y 
l i m i t a t i o n on t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s 
a u t h o r i t y t o annex, w h i l e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , on t h e o t h e r hand, 
are l i m i t e d by t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f 
t h e 
g e n e r a l laws, i n c l u d i n g 
the r e q u i r e m e n t o f c o n t i g u i t y . " 661 So. 2d a t 
744. 
11 
1101440 
Dothan 
as 
a 
"tax-exempt, 
n o n - e l e c t o r , 
q u a s i - m u n i c i p a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n " 
and 
making 
the 
p o i n t 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
was 
no 
d i s t i n c t i o n 
between 
i t 
and 
a 
g o v e r n m e n t a l 
e n t i t y ) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
we 
h o l d 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
i s no 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
t h a t 
a 
c o r r i d o r 
a n n e x a t i o n must 
i n c l u d e 
p r i v a t e , 
as 
opposed 
t o 
p u b l i c , p r o p e r t y 
t o a v o i d b e i n g 
c a t e g o r i z e d as a 
l o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n . 
We 
t h e r e f o r e agree w i t h 
the 
C i t y t h a t the 
F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n i s analogous t o the C i t y of M i l l b r o o k ' s a n n e x a t i o n 
of 
the 
county-owned 
abandoned 
r a i l r o a d 
bed 
i n 
C i t y 
of 
 
P r a t t v i l l e . 
In C i t y of 
F u l t o n d a l e , 
t h i s 
C o u r t s u c c i n c t l y 
s t a t e d 
i t s h o l d i n g 
i n the 
f i n a l 
sentence 
of 
the 
o p i n i o n : 
" [ A ] n n e x a t i o n by use of p u b l i c r o a d r i g h t s - o f - w a y i s i n v a l i d . " 
507 
So. 
2d 
a t 
491. 
The 
annexed 
p r o p e r t y 
i n 
t h i s 
case 
u n d i s p u t e d l y d i d not c o n s i s t s o l e l y of a p u b l i c - r o a d r i g h t - o f -
way. 
R a t h e r , the annexed p r o p e r t y 
c o n s i s t e d of a s t r i p 
of 
l a n d 330 f e e t wide, l e s s than 25% of w h i c h was a p u b l i c r i g h t -
of-way. 
As i n C i t y of P r a t t v i l l e , a d d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y owners 
s u b s e q u e n t l y p e t i t i o n e d t o be annexed i n t o the a n n e x i n g 
c i t y 
based upon t h e i r new 
c o n t i g u i t y w i t h the 
o r i g i n a l l y annexed 
p r o p e r t y ; however, t h a t f a c t does not t r a n s f o r m the a n n e x a t i o n 
12 
1101440 
i n t o a l o n g - l a s s o a n n e x a t i o n t h a t must be h e l d i n v a l i d . 
The 
F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n cannot be v o i d e d on t h e 
b a s i s t h a t 
i t 
was a p r o h i b i t e d l o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n . 
IV. 
The FMCA n e x t argues t h a t t h e F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n i s 
i n v a l i d because, t h e 
FMCA a l l e g e s , t h e S t a t e d i d n o t 
own a l l 
the annexed p r o p e r t y . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e 
FMCA argues t h a t f i v e 
p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y 
i n c l u d e d i n t h e annexed p r o p e r t y 
were 
owned by t h e f e d e r a l government and t h a t two p a r c e l s were 
owned by p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s . 
The FMCA argues t h a t t h i s 
f a c t 
r e q u i r e s t h e e n t i r e 
F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n t o be 
v o i d e d 
because (1) w i t h o u t 
t h e s e 
seven 
p a r c e l s , 
p o r t i o n s o f t h e 
annexed p r o p e r t y would n o t 
be c o n t i g u o u s t o G u l f Shores, and 
(2) n e i t h e r t h e 
a l l e g e d p r i v a t e owners nor 
any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
of t h e 
f e d e r a l government s i g n e d t h e 
a n n e x a t i o n p e t i t i o n . See 
§ 11-42-21 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t a r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a n n e x a t i o n by 
p e t i t i o n i s 
t h a t a l l 
t h e 
owners o f t h e 
p r o p e r t y t o 
be annexed 
s i g n t h e p e t i t i o n ) . 
A t 
t r i a l , t h e FMCA i d e n t i f i e d 
f i v e p a r c e l s i t a l l e g e d 
were owned by t h e f e d e r a l government — 
l o t s 5, 15, 43, 
44, 
and 56. I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s argument, t h e 
FMCA s u b m i t t e d t h e 
13 
1101440 
d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y of Nathan F e l t o n , a l e a d law examiner f o r 
the 
Bureau 
of 
Land 
Management 
w i t h 
the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
Department of the I n t e r i o r . 
F e l t o n 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he had 
r e v i e w e d the t r a c t books m a i n t a i n e d by the f e d e r a l government 
t o r e c o r d a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s o f f e d e r a l p u b l i c - d o m a i n l a n d s and 
t h a t t h o s e r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s e f i v e p a r c e l s had never 
l e f t the p o s s e s s i o n of the f e d e r a l government s i n c e t h e y were 
f i r s t s u r v e y e d i n the e a r l y 1800s. 
He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
the 
f i v e p a r c e l s encompassed the e n t i r e w i d t h of d i f f e r e n t 
s e c t i o n s of F o r t Morgan Road and s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t the f e d e r a l 
government had never conveyed t h e s e 
l o t s t o any e n t i t y 
— 
p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e — 
and t h a t t h e y a c c o r d i n g l y were 
s t i l l 
p u b l i c - d o m a i n l a n d s b e l o n g i n g 
t o t h e f e d e r a l government. 
The 
C i t y 
acknowledges 
t h a t , 
a l t h o u g h 
the 
S t a t e 
had 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 300 deeds r e p r e s e n t i n g p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y 
t h a t 
were i n c l u d e d i n the F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n , the S t a t e d i d not 
have a deed f o r e v e r y p a r c e l of p r o p e r t y t h a t was i n c l u d e d i n 
the 
F o r t 
Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
t h e 
C i t y 
acknowledges t h a t i t had no deed f o r l o t s 43, 44, and 56. 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
the C i t y argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y 
u p h e l d the F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n because, i t a r g u e s : 
(1) 
14 
1101440 
F e l t o n ' s t e s t i m o n y was i n c o n c l u s i v e ; (2) t h e r e was 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the S t a t e of Alabama was 
l i s t e d as the owner 
of 
a l l t h e 
annexed 
p r o p e r t y 
on 
the 
B a l d w i n 
County 
t a x 
a s s e s s o r ' s r e c o r d s ; and (3) the Bureau o f Land Management i n 
a May 
24, 1961, 
l e t t e r t o the Alabama 
S e c r e t a r y 
of 
S t a t e 
l i s t i n g a l l f e d e r a l p u b l i c l a n d s i n Alabama o m i t t e d 
l o t s 15, 
43, 
44, and 56, and c l a i m e d 
o n l y l o t 5 on b e h a l f 
of the 
f e d e r a l government. 
We 
d i s a g r e e 
w i t h 
the 
C i t y ' s 
argument 
t h a t 
F e l t o n ' s 
t e s t i m o n y was i n c o n c l u s i v e . The r e c o r d r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g 
exchange r e g a r d i n g who owned t h e s e 
f i v e p a r c e l s : 
"Q. 
[FMCA's c o u n s e l : ] 
So i s i t the p o s i t i o n of the 
Bureau 
of 
Land Management 
t h a t 
t h e s e 
f i v e 
p a r c e l s t h a t we a r e d i s c u s s i n g here t o d a y a r e 
p u b l i c domain 
l a n d s ? 
"A. 
[ F e l t o n : ] Yes. 
"Q. 
I s i t the Bureau of Land Management's p o s i t i o n 
t h a t t h e s e 
f i v e p a r c e l s do not b e l o n g 
i n any 
manner t o the S t a t e of Alabama? 
"A. 
That's c o r r e c t . " 
The 
C i t y a t t e m p t s t o c o u n t e r 
F e l t o n ' s t e s t i m o n y 
by 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t t h e r e might be o t h e r r e c o r d s F e l t o n d i d not r e v i e w 
and 
t h a t r e c o r d s might have been l o s t and by n o t i n g t h a t F e l t o n 
would not say f o r c e r t a i n t h a t the f e d e r a l government had not 
15 
1101440 
conveyed the l o t s a t i s s u e . However, t h e s e arguments are mere 
s p e c u l a t i o n 
t h a t 
are 
not 
s u p p o r t e d 
by 
F e l t o n ' s 
a c t u a l 
t e s t i m o n y . When c r o s s - e x a m i n e d by the C i t y ' s a t t o r n e y on 
t h i s 
s u b j e c t , F e l t o n t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : 
"Q. 
S i t t i n g here today, 
can 
you 
say 
f o r 
c e r t a i n 
t h a t 
the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
government 
has 
not 
conveyed 
[ l o t 5] 
t o any 
o t h e r 
e n t i t y , whether 
p u b l i c or p r i v a t e ? 
"A. 
I can 
o n l y 
say, based on what I have seen i n 
the r e c o r d s , t h e y have n o t . 
"  
"Q. 
" I s 
i t p o s s i b l e 
t h a t pages 
c o u l d 
be 
m i s s i n g 
f r o m the t r a c t books? 
"A. 
I t i s p o s s i b l e , but I wouldn't say t h a t 
t h e r e 
are pages m i s s i n g f r o m t h i s one. 
But t h a t ' s a 
p o s s i b i l i t y , 
y e s . " 
W h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be o t h e r documents t h a t 
" p e r t a i n 
t o 
t h e s e 
l a n d s " 
i n 
f i e l d 
o f f i c e s , 
F e l t o n 
a l s o 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e were no o t h e r s o u r c e documents m a i n t a i n e d 
by 
the 
Bureau 
o f 
Land Management 
t h a t 
would 
r e f l e c t 
a 
conveyance 
of 
t h e s e 
l a n d s 
o t h e r 
than 
the 
r e c o r d s 
he 
had 
r e v i e w e d . 
C o n s i d e r e d as a whole, t h e r e was no e q u i v o c a t i o n 
i n 
F e l t o n ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t the f e d e r a l government owned the 
f i v e 
l o t s . 
16 
1101440 
The C i t y next argues t h a t the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment 
was 
n e v e r t h e l e s s 
c o r r e c t because t h e r e was 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t the S t a t e of Alabama was 
l i s t e d on the B a l d w i n County t a x 
a s s e s s o r ' s r e c o r d s as the owner of a l l 
the p a r c e l s of p r o p e r t y 
i n c l u d e d i n the F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n . 
S e c t i o n 11-42-20, 
A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e term 'owners,' as used i n 
t h i s 
a r t i c l e 
[ g o v e r n i n g a n n e x a t i o n 
by p e t i t i o n ] , 
s h a l l mean 
the p e r s o n i n whose name the p r o p e r t y 
i s a s s e s s e d 
f o r 
ad 
v a l o r e m t a x purposes i n the absence of p r o o f t o the c o n t r a r y . " 
S e t t i n g a s i d e the i s s u e whether F e l t o n ' s t e s t i m o n y c o n s t i t u t e d 
such " p r o o f t o the c o n t r a r y , " we note t h a t , even though the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s o r d e r t h a t " [ t ] h e C i t y 
p r e s e n t e d 
B a l d w i n County t a x a s s e s s o r ' s 
r e c o r d s t o show the S t a t e 
of 
Alabama i s a s s e s s e d f o r the e n t i r e F o r t Morgan Road t r a c t " 
and 
even though the C i t y r e p e a t e d l y makes the same a s s e r t i o n i n 
i t s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , the r e c o r d , i n f a c t , c o n t a i n s no such 
e v i d e n c e 
of 
t a x - a s s e s s o r 
r e c o r d s . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
the 
p r e s u m p t i o n of § 11-42-20 i s i n a p p l i c a b l e . 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , the May 24, 1961, 
l e t t e r from the Bureau of 
Land Management t o the Alabama S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e l i s t i n g a l l 
f e d e r a l p u b l i c l a n d s i n Alabama — 
y e t o m i t t i n g l o t s 15, 
43, 
17 
1101440 
44, 
and 
56 
— 
i s e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t 
t h e 
f e d e r a l 
government had d i s c l a i m e d i t s i n t e r e s t i n t h o s e 
l o t s . 
The 
f e d e r a l government, however, a p p a r e n t l y d i d s t i l l c l a i m l o t 
5 
as of t h a t d a t e . 
A t 
t r i a l , 
t h e C i t y 
c a l l e d T e r r y Boyd, a 
s u r v e y o r 
and 
e n g i n e e r 
w i t h 
t h e 
Alabama 
Department 
of 
C o n s e r v a t i o n 
and N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , who 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t l o t 5 
had been conveyed t o t h e S t a t e by deed on August 12, 1936: 
"Q. 
L e t me 
show 
you 
what 
has 
been 
marked 
as 
Defendant's E x h i b i t No. 1 and ask you what t h e 
document i s ? 
"A. 
I t ' s a deed from — 
I don't have my 
r e a d i n g 
g l a s s e s . 
I t ' s 
t o t h e Alabama S t a t e Commission 
of F o r e s t r y f o r $1 from t h e — 
from t h e G u l f 
Beach Land and Development Company. 
I t says 
the 2 1 s t day of A p r i l 1930 a t t h e t o p of t h e 
deed and i t 
was s i g n e d August 12, 1938 
[ s i c ] . 
"Q. 
Now 
— 
"A. 
But i t d e s c r i b e s 
a p a r c e l of l a n d 
c o n t a i n i n g 
185 a c r e s t h a t l i s t s s t a t i o n s a l o n g F o r t Morgan 
or 
D i x i e - G r a v e s 
Parkway 
and 
i t 
l i s t s 
t h e 
s e c t i o n s of l a n d and i t ' s i n Township 9 South, 
Range 2 E a s t i s where i t commences. 
And i t ' s 
got a bunch of c a l l s i n t h i s from, l i k e I say, 
c o n t a i n i n g — 
i t says 185.8 
a c r e s , 
t h e same 
more or l e s s . 
"Q. 
I s t h a t a t r u e and a c c u r a t e 
copy of t h e deed 
m a i n t a i n e d by t h e Department o f 
C o n s e r v a t i o n ? 
"A. 
Yes. 
18 
1101440 
"Q. And 
was 
t h a t 
t h e 
o r i g i n a l 
o f 
t h a t 
deed 
m a i n t a i n e d by your o f f i c e as p a r t o f t h e D i x i e -
Graves Parkway documentation? 
"A. Yes. 
"[The 
C i t y t h e r e a f t e r moved t o admit Defendant's 
e x h i b i t No. 4, a l a r g e r copy o f t h e deed.] 
"Q. Does t h a t appear t o be t h e same? 
"A. Yeah. 
I was wrong. 
I t was t h e 12th day o f 
August 1936. 
"  
"Q. D i d you e v e r d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t t h a t deed 
c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h any o f t h e l o t s t h e f e d e r a l 
government — 
w e l l , I'm s o r r y . 
What, i f 
any, 
l o t s d i d t h a t deed c o r r e s p o n d w i t h ? 
"  
"A. To my r e c o l l e c t i o n back t o 2006, L o t s 5 and 15. 
I mean, 
t h i s 
i s a l o n g 
s t r i p 
o f l a n d 
t h a t 
c o v e r s 185 a c r e s . 
So, I mean, I c o u l d p r o b a b l y 
f i n d i t 
on t h e map and p l o t i t 
up f o r you. 
"Q. 
L o o k i n g a t P l a i n t i f f ' s E x h i b i t No. 16 [a 
map o f 
the 
annexed 
p r o p e r t y ] , 
i s i t — 
w e l l , 
your 
t e s t i m o n y — 
w h i c h l o t s do t h e s e c o n c e r n ? 
"A. I t would be t h o s e two. 
T h a t ' s s e c t i o n 25 and 
26 Township N o r t h — 
5 and 15. 
L i k e I s a i d , 
i t ' s a l o n g s t r i p t h a t c o v e r s a l o t 
o f p a r c e l s 
t h e r e . " 
Thus, Boyd t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d , 
i n f a c t , have a deed 
f o r l o t s 5 and 15. 
19 
1101440 
In 
c o n c l u s i o n , 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
had b e f o r e 
i t 
t h e 
f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g 
f e d e r a l ownership o f t h e f i v e 
d i s p u t e d p a r c e l s : (1) 
F e l t o n ' s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t 
l o t s 5, 15, 43, 44, and 56 were owned by t h e f e d e r a l 
government; (2) t h e 
May 24, 1961, l e t t e r from t h e Bureau o f 
Land Management i n d i c a t i n g t h a t l o t 5 — b u t 
n o t l o t s 15, 
43, 
44, and 56 — was owned by t h e f e d e r a l government; and (3) 
Boyd's 
t e s t i m o n y 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t t h e S t a t e had 
a c q u i r e d 
ownership o f l o t s 5 and 15 v i a a 1936 deed. 
T h i s 
c o n f l i c t i n g 
e v i d e n c e 
r e q u i r e d 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t o make 
a 
f a c t u a l 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 
I t 
d i d , c o n c l u d i n g 
t h a t t h e S t a t e o f Alabama 
owned t h e f i v e d i s p u t e d p a r c e l s o f l a n d . 
Because t h e r e was 
e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t 
t h a t 
c o n c l u s i o n , 
i t i s a f f o r d e d a 
p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s under t h e o r e tenus r u l e , and we 
a c c o r d i n g l y d e c l i n e t o o v e r r u l e i t . 
The FMCA a l s o argues, however, t h a t two p a r c e l s 
i n c l u d e d 
i n 
t h e F o r t 
Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n 
were 
owned 
by 
p r i v a t e 
i n d i v i d u a l s 
who d i d n o t s i g n 
t h e a n n e x a t i o n 
p e t i t i o n . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e 
FMCA s u b m i t t e d 
i n t o e v i d e n c e two 
deeds d a t e d 
March 1924 whereby Carawan N e l s o n and Fanny N e l s o n conveyed 
two a d j a c e n t p a r c e l s o f l a n d t o C i c e r o N e l s o n and Kate Ward. 
20 
1101440 
Coleman B r y a r s , owner of Alabama Land T i t l e , a t i t l e company 
i n B a l d w i n County, t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t F o r t Morgan Road 
t r a v e r s e s b o t h of t h e s e p a r c e l s and t h a t t h e y were i n c l u d e d i n 
the F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n . 
He 
f u r t h e r 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he 
r e s e a r c h e d the t i t l e t o b o t h of t h e s e p a r c e l s by e x a m i n i n g the 
r e c o r d s 
a t 
the 
B a l d w i n 
County 
p r o b a t e 
o f f i c e 
and 
t a x 
a s s e s s o r ' s o f f i c e , from t h e i r p a t e n t up t o the time of h i s 
t e s t i m o n y , and t h a t he c o u l d f i n d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
t h e y had e v e r been conveyed t o the S t a t e o f Alabama. 
The 
C i t y 
argues t h a t B r y a r s ' s t i t l e 
s e a r c h was 
i n c o m p l e t e because he 
d i d not c o n s u l t r e c o r d s a t the Department of C o n s e r v a t i o n and 
N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ; however, t h i s argument l a c k s m e r i t i n l i g h t 
of § 9-2-121(c), A l a . Code 1975, which p r o v i d e s t h a t any S t a t e 
department or agency t h a t h o l d s or a c q u i r e s l e g a l 
t i t l e 
t o 
p r o p e r t y i n the S t a t e must " f i l e or have f i l e d f o r r e c o r d i n 
the c o u n t y w h e r e i n such l a n d l i e s a l l i n s t r u m e n t s and deeds 
c o n v e y i n g 
t i t l e 
t o such 
l a n d out of or 
i n t o the S t a t e of 
Alabama." 
A t t r i a l , the C i t y a l s o s u b m i t t e d the t e s t i m o n y of Becky 
Max, 
an employee of the B a l d w i n County Revenue O f f i c e . 
Max 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had s e a r c h e d the t a x a s s e s s o r ' s r e c o r d s and 
21 
1101440 
found no p r o p e r t y o f f F o r t Morgan Road t h a t was 
a s s e s s e d 
i n 
the name of C i c e r o N e l s o n or Kate Ward. 
She d i d n o t , however, 
s t a t e i n whose name the two p a r c e l s i n q u e s t i o n were a s s e s s e d 
f o r 
t a x p u r p o s e s , whether i t was 
the 
S t a t e 
or some 
o t h e r 
i n d i v i d u a l . 
Moreover, the FMCA argues, she d i d not s t a t e what 
t a x r e c o r d s 
she 
had 
s e a r c h e d 
f o r C i c e r o N e l s o n ' s and 
Kate 
Ward's names 
— 
the 
r e c o r d s 
e x i s t i n g 
i n 
2011 
when 
she 
t e s t i f i e d , the r e c o r d s e x i s t i n g i n 2003 when the F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n o c c u r r e d , or the r e c o r d s from decades e a r l i e r when 
F o r t Morgan Road was 
c o n s t r u c t e d . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t r e s o l v e d the i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e s e 
two 
a l l e g e d l y p r i v a t e l y owned p a r c e l s by 
c o n c l u d i n g 
t h a t , even 
though the S t a t e c o u l d not produce deeds e s t a b l i s h i n g t i t l e t o 
t h e s e p a r c e l s , w h i c h t r a v e r s e d F o r t Morgan Road, t h e r e 
was 
n e v e r t h e l e s s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t the 
S t a t e had a c q u i r e d the p r o p e r t i e s t h r o u g h a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , 
e i t h e r by p r e s c r i p t i o n or by s t a t u t e . 
On 
a p p e a l , 
the FMCA 
argues t h a t no such e v i d e n c e was a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l . 
We 
agree. 
In 
K e r l i n v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 
390 
So. 
2d 
616, 
618 
( A l a . 1980), t h i s C o u r t summarized the elements t h a t must 
be p r o v e n b e f o r e a f i n d i n g of a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n can be made: 
22 
1101440 
"In 
Alabama t h e r e a r e b a s i c a l l y two t y p e s o f 
adverse p o s s e s s i o n , t h e s e two t y p e s b e i n g s t a t u t o r y 
adverse 
p o s s e s s i o n 
and 
adverse 
p o s s e s s i o n 
by 
p r e s c r i p t i o n . 
Adverse p o s s e s s i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n 
r e q u i r e s 
a c t u a l , 
e x c l u s i v e , open, 
n o t o r i o u s and 
h o s t i l e 
p o s s e s s i o n under a c l a i m o f r i g h t f o r a 
p e r i o d o f twenty y e a r s . 
See, F i t t s v. A l e x a n d e r , 
277 A l a . 
372, 170 So. 2d 808 
(1965). 
S t a t u t o r y 
adverse p o s s e s s i o n r e q u i r e s t h e same e l e m e n t s , b u t 
the 
s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s 
f u r t h e r t h a t i f t h e adverse 
p o s s e s s o r h o l d s under c o l o r o f t i t l e , has p a i d t a x e s 
f o r t e n y e a r s , o r d e r i v e s h i s t i t l e by d e s c e n t 
c a s t 
or d e v i s e from a p o s s e s s o r , he may a c q u i r e t i t l e i n 
t e n y e a r s , as opposed t o t h e twenty y e a r s r e q u i r e d 
f o r 
adverse p o s s e s s i o n by p r e s c r i p t i o n . § 6-5-200, 
A l a . 
Code 1975. 
See, Long v. Ladd, 273 A l a . 410, 
142 So. 2d 660 
(1962)." 
The S t a t e does n o t 
pay t a x e s on p r o p e r t y i t owns; however, as 
n o t e d 
p r e v i o u s l y , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e 
adduced a t 
t r i a l 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e two p a r c e l s were even a s s e s s e d t o 
t h e 
S t a t e , much l e s s e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e had c o l o r 
of 
t i t l e 
o r a c l a i m t o have o b t a i n e d t h e l a n d t h r o u g h a 
t e s t a m e n t a r y 
d e v i s e . 
Thus, 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d i n 
c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e c o u l d have a c q u i r e d t h e 
two p a r c e l s 
v i a 
s t a t u t o r y adverse 
p o s s e s s i o n . 
The FMCA a l s o argues t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e 
p r e s e n t e d 
at 
t r i a l o f " a c t u a l , e x c l u s i v e , open, n o t o r i o u s and h o s t i l e 
p o s s e s s i o n under a c l a i m o f r i g h t f o r a p e r i o d o f twenty 
y e a r s " so as t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f adverse 
p o s s e s s i o n by 
23 
1101440 
p r e s c r i p t i o n . 
390 So. 2d a t 618. A t most, t h e FMCA a r g u e s , 
t h e r e 
was e v i d e n c e 
o n l y 
t h a t 
F o r t 
Morgan Road, a 
S t a t e 
highway, r a n a c r o s s t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e highway was 
presumably used by t h e p u b l i c . 
T h i s 
e v i d e n c e , 
t h e FMCA 
f u r t h e r a r g u e s , would n o t s u p p o r t even a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e 
S t a t e had a c q u i r e d t h e 
roadway i t s e l f by adverse p o s s e s s i o n 
— 
much l e s s t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e two p a r c e l s — 
because " [ t ] h e 
g e n e r a l 
r u l e i s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e s an 
easement o n l y i n 
t h e highways, t h e f e e 
o f t h e l a n d 
r e m a i n i n g 
i n t h e owner, s u b j e c t t o t h e easement." 
P u r v i s v. Busey, 260 
A l a . 
373, 377, 71 So. 2d 18, 21 (1954). 
See a l s o Town o f  
Elmore v. Town o f Coosada, 957 So. 2d 1096, 1101 ( A l a . 2006) 
("The P u r v i s 
case 
... s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n 
t h a t a 
p r o p e r t y owner o f e i t h e r s i d e o f a roadway r e t a i n s ownership 
of 
t h e roadway up t o t h e c e n t e r 
l i n e 
i n s p i t e o f a 
p r e s c r i p t i v e easement o b t a i n e d by t h e p u b l i c . " ) . 
We agree t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t 
the t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e had a c q u i r e d 
t i t l e 
t o t h e two p a r c e l s a l l e g e d t o be p r i v a t e l y owned v i a a d v e r s e 
p o s s e s s i o n 
by p r e s c r i p t i o n . 
The o n l y e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t r e g a r d i n g ownership o f t h o s e two p a r c e l s i n d i c a t e d 
24 
1101440 
t h a t t h e y were owned by C i c e r o N e l s o n and Kate Ward. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a c c o r d i n g l y e r r e d i n u p h o l d i n g t h e F o r t Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n because t h e S t a t e ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a n n e x a t i o n , 
which 
was n o t s i g n e d by a l l 
owners o f t h e 
annexed p r o p e r t y , d i d n o t 
comply w i t h § 11-42-21. 
V. 
The FMCA sued t h e 
C i t y , a s k i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d e c l a r e 
the 
F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n 
i n v a l i d 
e i t h e r as a p r o h i b i t e d 
l o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n o r because, t h e FMCA 
a l l e g e d , t h e 
annexed p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e d p r o p e r t y not owned by t h e S t a t e 
— 
the p a r t y who i n i t i a t e d and s i g n e d t h e a n n e x a t i o n 
p e t i t i o n . 
F o l l o w i n g a n o n j u r y 
t r i a l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d i n f a v o r o f 
the 
C i t y . 
However, because t h e FMCA s u b m i t t e d 
e v i d e n c e a t 
t h a t t r i a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t two p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e d 
i n 
the F o r t Morgan a n n e x a t i o n were owned by p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s 
and because t h e C i t y f a i l e d t o submit any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t t h o s e same p a r c e l s were owned by t h e S t a t e , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n i n u p h o l d i n g 
t h e a n n e x a t i o n . 
The G u l f Shores o r d i n a n c e g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s 
p e t i t i o n f o r 
a n n e x a t i o n 
and e f f e c t i n g 
t h e F o r t 
Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n i s 
a c c o r d i n g l y v o i d . 
A l l subsequent a n n e x a t i o n s o f p r o p e r t y on 
25 
1101440 
the 
F o r t 
Morgan 
p e n i n s u l a 
by t h e C i t y 
t h a t 
r e l i e d f o r 
c o n t i g u i t y 
upon 
p r o p e r t y 
i n c l u d e d 
i n t h e 
F o r t 
Morgan 
a n n e x a t i o n a r e l i k e w i s e v o i d . 
See Town o f Elmore, 957 So. 2d 
a t 1098 n. 3 ( s t a t i n g t h a t i f 
t h e a n n e x a t i o n o f a p a r c e l o f 
p r o p e r t y i s i n v a l i d , then a l l 
p r o p e r t i e s s u b s e q u e n t l y annexed 
based on c o n t i g u i t y w i t h t h e p a r c e l i n v o l v e d i n 
t h e now v o i d 
a n n e x a t i o n " a r e n o n c o n t i g u o u s and t h e a n n e x a t i o n o f them i s 
i n v a l i d " ) . 
The judgment o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and 
the cause remanded. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Malone, C.J., 
and S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Shaw, Main, and 
Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
W o o d a l l and Murdock, J J . , concur i n t h e r e s u l t . 
26 
1101440 
MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) . 
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d by t h e main o p i n i o n . 
I 
w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o e x p r e s s concerns r e g a r d i n g 
t h i s C o u r t ' s 
j u r i s p r u d e n c e 
as t o s o - c a l l e d " l o n g - l a s s o 
a n n e x a t i o n s " as 
d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I I 
o f the main o p i n i o n and t o comment on 
the use o f t h e ore tenus s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n P a r t IV o f 
t h e 
o p i n i o n . 
Long-Lasso A n n e x a t i o n s 
The main 
o p i n i o n 
reasons 
from 
e x i s t i n g 
p r e c e d e n t t o 
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y 
o f a " l o n g - l a s s o " a n n e x a t i o n 
t u r n s on whether t h e " l a s s o " encompasses more t h a n a p u b l i c 
roadway. The o p i n i o n n o t e s t h a t i n C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e v. C i t y  
of Birmingham, 507 So. 2d 489, 491 ( A l a . 1987), 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
h e l d t h a t " a n n e x a t i o n by use o f p u b l i c r o a d r i g h t s - o f - w a y i s 
i n v a l i d . " 
I t then 
r e l i e s 
on the f a c t 
t h a t 
i n C i t y o f  
P r a t t v i l l e v. C i t y o f M i l l b r o o k , 621 So. 2d 267 ( A l a . 1993), 
t h i s C o u r t p e r m i t t e d a " c o r r i d o r " a n n e x a t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e d a 
roadway t h a t was o n l y p a r t o f a w i d e r 
s t r i p o f l a n d : "'The 
c o r r i d o r i n 
t h e M i l l b r o o k case i s 
a county-owned r a i l r o a d bed 
which has a p u b l i c roadway on p a r t o f i t . 
The r a i l r o a d bed, 
however, 
i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y l a r g e r 
than 
t h e roadway. 
A 
27 
1101440 
s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of the c o r r i d o r , a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e q u a r t e r s 
of a m i l e , has no roadway on i t a t a l l . ' " 621 So. 2d a t 273 
( q u o t i n g and a d o p t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r ) . 
P r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e roadway c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i g n o r e s t h e 
fundamental 
r e a s o n i n g 
u n d e r l y i n g 
t h e 
C i t y 
of 
F u l t o n d a l e 
d e c i s i o n . 
In the c o u r s e of o v e r r u l i n g C i t y of Tuskegee v.  
Lacey, 486 So. 2d 393 
( A l a . 1985), t h e C i t y of 
F u l t o n d a l e 
C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t " [ t ] h e p u b l i c r o a d r i g h t s - o f - w a y annexed 
i n C i t y of Tuskegee were used m e r e l y t o c r e a t e c o n t i g u i t y and, 
i n 
e f f e c t , t o a v o i d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f a t o u c h i n g a t some 
p o i n t . 
We do not b e l i e v e the l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o a l l o w 
a n n e x a t i o n 
i n t h i s manner." 
507 So. 2d a t 491. 
The C o u r t 
n o t e d t h a t "the w h o l e s a l e a l l o w a n c e of 'the l o n g l a s s o method' 
of a n n e x a t i o n 
c o u l d i n v i t e abuse and s u b s t a n t i a l p r o b l e m s . " 
I d . 
I t happened t h a t t h e " l o n g l a s s o " i n C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e 
was i n f a c t a roadway, and, i n d e e d , 
t h i s f a c t was n o t i c e d by 
the 
C o u r t i n r u l i n g 
t h a t the a n n e x a t i o n 
i n t h a t case 
was 
i n v a l i d as a m a t t e r of law. I d . 
N o n e t h e l e s s , 
t h e i n c l u s i o n 
of a p u b l i c roadway i s not t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t makes " l o n g 
l a s s o s " u n a c c e p t a b l e . 
I n s t e a d , as the C o u r t e x p l a i n e d , the 
gravamen o f t h e case a g a i n s t " l o n g l a s s o s " i s as f o l l o w s : 
28 
1101440 
" A l t h o u g h Alabama 
law 
does 
not 
r e q u i r e 
t h a t 
 
m u n i c i p a l b o u n d a r i e s form a r e g u l a r shape, the l e g a l  
and p o p u l a r i d e a of a m u n i c i p a l i t y i n t h i s 
c o u n t r y 
 
i s 
' t h a t of oneness, community, l o c a l i t y , 
v i c i n i t y ; 
 
a c o l l e c t i v e body, not s e v e r a l b o d i e s ; 
a 
c o l l e c t i v e  
body of 
i n h a b i t a n t s 
-- 
t h a t 
i s , a body of 
p e o p l e  
c o l l e c t e d 
or 
g a t h e r e d 
t o g e t h e r 
i n 
one 
mass, 
not 
 
s e p a r a t e d 
i n t o 
d i s t i n c t 
masses, 
and 
h a v i n g 
a 
 
community of i n t e r e s t because r e s i d e n t s of the same  
p l a c e , 
not 
d i f f e r e n t 
p l a c e s . ' 
56 
Am. 
J u r . 
2d 
M u n i c i p a l 
C o r p o r a t i o n s 
§ 69 a t 125 
(1971); C i t y of 
Dothan [v. Dale County Comm'n, 295 A l a . 131, 
324 
So. 
 
2d 
772 
(1975)]. 
The 
a n n e x a t i o n s 
p r o p o s e d 
by 
 
F u l t o n d a l e and T r u s s v i l l e do not c r e a t e a c o l l e c t i v e  
body 
of 
i n h a b i t a n t s , 
b u t , 
r a t h e r , 
s e v e r a l 
b o d i e s  
s c a t t e r e d 
a c r o s s 
an 
a r e a , 
a 
r e s u l t we 
f e e l 
the 
 
l e g i s l a t u r e d i d not 
i n t e n d . " 
507 
So. 
2d a t 491 
(emphasis added). 
C l e a r l y , 
the 
e s s e n t i a l 
r a t i o n a l e 
of 
the 
C i t y 
of 
 
F u l t o n d a l e 
d e c i s i o n i s t h a t a n n e x i n g a l o n g 
s t r i p of l a n d t o 
r e a c h a n o t h e r "community, l o c a l i t y , 
[or] v i c i n i t y , " one 
t h a t 
i s not " c o n t i g u o u s " 
t o the e x i s t i n g b o u n d a r i e s of the a n n e x i n g 
m u n i c i p a l i t y , i s a use 
of the a n n e x a t i o n power t h a t was 
not 
i n t e n d e d 
by the 
l e g i s l a t u r e . 
The 
r a t i o n a l e of the C o u r t 
was 
t h a t a " l o n g l a s s o " -- whether or not c o n s i s t i n g s o l e l y of a 
p u b l i c roadway -- 
i s an 
a r t i f i c e 
t o a c h i e v e the 
a n n e x a t i o n 
i n t o 
a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 
a s e p a r a t e body of 
i n h a b i t a n t s 
and 
landowners who 
do not share w i t h the e x i s t i n g m u n i c i p a l i t y a 
community of i n t e r e s t grounded i n t h e i r p l a c e of 
r e s i d e n c y . 
29 
1101440 
In t h i s case, G u l f Shores annexed the 3 3 0 - f o o t - w i d e s t r i p 
so t h a t i t c o u l d r e a c h 
p r o p e r t y 
l o c a t e d on 
the F o r t Morgan 
p e n i n s u l a . 
The 
f a c t t h a t the 
s t r i p of l a n d annexed i s w i d e r 
than F o r t Morgan Road i s b e s i d e the p o i n t .
5 
The p o i n t i s t h a t 
the a n n e x a t i o n r e s u l t s i n a m u n i c i p a l i t y t h a t i s s p r e a d over 
g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d i s p a r a t e a r e a s 19 m i l e s a p a r t and t h a t t h i s i s 
made p o s s i b l e o n l y t h r o u g h a n n e x a t i o n of a narrow s t r i p 
of 
l a n d 
so 
t h a t 
i t can 
be 
c l a i m e d 
t h a t 
the 
p r o p e r t i e s 
are 
" c o n t i g u o u s . " 
Other j u r i s d i c t i o n s l i k e w i s e do not base t h e i r 
a p p r o v a l 
or d i s a p p r o v a l of t h e s e k i n d s of a n n e x a t i o n s on whether 
the 
a n n e x a t i o n c o n s i s t s s o l e l y of a roadway or something 
s l i g h t l y 
w i d e r . 
"The 
use 
of a t h i n 
s t r i p of l a n d t o connect a 
d i s e m b o d i e d p a r c e l of 
l a n d 
t o 
a m u n i c i p a l i t y 
has 
been v a r i o u s l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as ' c o r r i d o r , ' ' s t r i p , ' 
' s h o e s t r i n g , ' 
or 
'long 
l a s s o ' 
a n n e x a t i o n . 
Those 
d e s c r i p t i o n s are a s h o r t h a n d r e f e r e n c e t o the use 
of 
l o n g , 
r a d i a t i n g s t r i p s 
w h i c h 
i n t e r s e c t 
m u n i c i p a l 
b o u n d a r i e s 
f o r 
o n l y 
a 
r e l a t i v e l y 
narrow, 
s h o r t 
d i s t a n c e , 
as 
a means 
of 
a n n e x i n g 
an 
o t h e r w i s e 
d i s e m b o d i e d , d i s t a n t l y - p l a c e d t e r r i t o r i a l 
a r e a . " 
5 I n d e e d , the main o p i n i o n notes t h a t " [ t ] h e predominant 
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s p r o p e r t y was 
F o r t Morgan Road and i t s 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
8 0 - f o o t - w i d e r i g h t - o f - w a y 
So. 
3d a t 
30 
1101440 
S t a t e ex r e l . 
Dep't o f Transp. v. C i t y o f M i l f o r d , 576 A.2d 
618, 621 ( D e l . Ch. 1989) (emphasis added). 
The f a c t i s 
t h a t 
a s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y o f " c o u r t s a r e 
g e n e r a l l y l o a t h t o f i n d 
one t e r r i t o r y t o 
be c o n t i g u o u s t o a n o t h e r where t h e 
o n l y 
l i n k 
between t h e two i s f o r g e d by a narrow 
c o r r i d o r . " 
I n 
r e 
 
De-Annexation o f 
C e r t a i n R e a l Prop. from C i t y o f 
Seminole, 102 
P.3d 120, 130-31 ( O k l a . 2004) (emphasis a d d e d ) ( c i t i n g C l a r k 
v. 
 
H o l t , 218 A r k . 504, 
237 S.W.2d 483, 484-85 (1951); C i t y o f  
M i l f o r d , 
s u p r a ; P o t v i n v. Chubbuck, 76 Idaho 453, 
284 
P.2d 
414, 417 (1955); C i t y o f C h a r l e s t o n v. Witmer, 304 I l l . App. 
3d 386, 237 I l l . 
Dec. 529, 709 N.E.2d 998, 1000 (1999); 
R i d i n g s v. C i t y o f Owensboro, 383 S.W.2d 510, 511-12 (Ky. 
1964); 
G r i f f i n v. C i t y o f Robards, 990 S.W.2d 634, 
640 
(Ky. 
1999); Owosso Twp. v. C i t y o f Owosso, 385 M i c h . 587, 
189 
N.W.2d 421, 422 (1971); S t a t e ex r e l . D a n i e l s o n v. V i l l a g e o f  
Mound, 234 Minn. 531, 
48 N.W.2d 855, 856 (1951); Johnson v.  
C i t y o f H a s t i n g s , 241 Neb. 291, 488 N.W.2d 20, 24 (1992); 
M i d d l e t o w n v. McGee, 39 Ohio S t . 3d 284, 530 N.E.2d 902, 905 
(1988); Watson v. D o o l i t t l e , 10 Ohio App. 2d 143, 226 N.E.2d 
771, 775 (1967); C i t y o f R a p i d C i t y v. Anderson, 612 N.W.2d 
31 
1101440 
289, 293 (S.D. 
2000); and Town o f Mt. P l e a s a n t v. C i t y o f  
R a c i n e , 24 Wis. 2d 41, 
127 
N.W.2d 757, 760 (1964)). 
L i k e t h i s C o u r t , o t h e r c o u r t s r e p e a t e d l y have emphasized 
the f a c t t h a t a m u n i c i p a l i t y i s 
supposed t o 
be a u n i f i e d body 
of i n h a b i t a n t s as 
t h e 
r e a s o n f o r n o t p e r m i t t i n g t h e s e t y p e s o f 
a n n e x a t i o n s . 
See, e.g., C e r t a i n 
R e a l 
Prop. 
from C i t y o f  
Seminole, 102 
P.3d 
a t 
130 ( o b s e r v i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e b a s i c i d e a o f 
a m u n i c i p a l i t y i s 
t h a t o f 
a u n i f i e d body o f i n h a b i t a n t s h a v i n g 
a community o f i n t e r e s t and g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r i n 
a s i n g l e 
mass, w i t h r e c o g n i z e d and w e l l - d e f i n e d e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r i e s , 
not s e p a r a t e and d i s c o n n e c t e d 
a r e a s " ) ; C i t y o f R a p i d C i t y v.  
Anderson, 612 
N.W.2d a t 
294 ( n o t i n g t h a t " [ t ] o a l l o w t h e use 
of ' c o r r i d o r ' a n n e x a t i o n s would be 
t o 
d e f e a t t h e b a s i c concept 
of a m u n i c i p a l 
c o r p o r a t i o n , t h a t o f u n i t y and compactness"); 
C i t y o f M i l f o r d , 576 
A.2d 
a t 
624 ("[T]he fundamental concept 
of a m u n i c i p a l i t y [ i s ] 'a 
body o f 
p e o p l e c o l l e c t e d o r g a t h e r e d 
t o g e t h e r i n 
one 
mass, n o t 
s e p a r a t e d i n t o d i s t i n c t masses, 
and 
h a v i n g a community o f i n t e r e s t because r e s i d e n t s o f 
t h e 
same 
p l a c e , n o t 
d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s . ' 
C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e v. C i t y o f 
 
Birmingham, 507 So. 2d a t 491. That o b j e c t i v e would n o t 
be 
f u r t h e r e d by a l l o w i n g a n n e x a t i o n methods t h a t 
c r e a t e n o t 
a 
32 
1101440 
c o l l e c t i v e body of i n h a b i t a n t s but, 
r a t h e r , 
' s e v e r a l b o d i e s 
s c a t t e r e d a c r o s s an a r e a , ' I d . , and 
' i s o l a t e d a r e a s c o n n e c t e d 
by 
means 
of 
a 
t e c h n i c a l 
s t r i p 
a 
few 
f e e t 
wide,' 
w i t h 
' c r a z y - q u i l t 
b o u n d a r i e s 
w h i c h 
are 
d i f f i c u l t 
... 
t o 
a d m i n i s t e r . ' 
Town of Mt. 
P l e a s a n t 
v. 
C i t y of R a c i n e , 
127 
N.W.2d a t 760."). 
In sum, 
p r e v i o u s cases from t h i s C o u r t i n d i c a t e t h a t 
the 
a n n e x a t i o n a t i s s u e here i s of the i m p e r m i s s i b l e 
" l o n g - l a s s o " 
v a r i e t y because i t i s c o n t r a r y t o the i d e a of a m u n i c i p a l i t y 
as b e i n g a " c o l l e c t i v e body of i n h a b i t a n t s , " and a s i g n i f i c a n t 
m a j o r i t y of o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s do not approve of t h i s k i n d of 
a n n e x a t i o n , 
whether 
i t 
i s 
r e f e r r e d 
t o 
as 
a 
" s t r i p , " 
" c o r r i d o r , " or " l o n g - l a s s o " a n n e x a t i o n . 
As the M i l f o r d c o u r t 
s u c c i n c t l y o b s e r v e d : 
" [ I ] t would be i l l o g i c a l and unsound t o a t t r i b u t e t o 
the G e n e r a l Assembly, based s o l e l y on i t s use of the 
term 
' c o n t i g u o u s , ' 
an 
i n t e n t i o n 
t o 
p l a c e 
i t s 
i m p r i m a t u r upon the abuses and c a p r i c i o u s 
e x e r c i s e s 
of the a n n e x a t i o n power t h a t the m a j o r i t y of 
c o u r t s 
have so 
w i d e l y 
and 
r e s o u n d i n g l y 
r e j e c t e d . 
In 
the 
absence of more e x p l i c i t s t a t u t o r y g u i d a n c e , i t i s 
f a r more 
l o g i c a l 
and 
s e n s i b l e 
t o assume t h a t 
the 
G e n e r a l Assembly i n t e n d e d 
t h a t the C i t y of M i l f o r d 
s h o u l d 
grow by 
a n n e x i n g 
o u t l y i n g 
t e r r i t o r y 
i n 
a 
manner 
t h a t 
i s 
c o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h 
the 
fundamental 
concept 
of 
a 
m u n i c i p a l i t y , 
t h a t 
i s , 
'a body 
of 
p e o p l e c o l l e c t e d or g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r 
i n one mass, 
not 
s e p a r a t e d 
i n t o d i s t i n c t masses, 
and 
h a v i n g 
a 
33 
1101440 
community o f i n t e r e s t because r e s i d e n t s o f t h e 
same 
p l a c e , n o t d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s . ' C i t y o f F u l t o n d a l e v.  
C i t y o f Birmingham, 507 So. 2d a t 491." 
576 A.2d a t 
624. 
That s a i d , t h e 
argument p r e s e n t e d by t h e 
FMCA i s l i m i t e d 
i n s o f a r as t h e i s s u e s 
d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I I 
o f t h e main 
o p i n i o n a r e concerned. 
The FMCA argues 
t h a t whether an 
a n n e x a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e a t i s s u e i s v a l i d 
s h o u l d 
t u r n on 
whether t h e s t r i p o f l a n d employed i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . 
Because I agree 
w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n 
r e a c h e d by t h e main 
o p i n i o n t h a t t h i s i s 
not 
t h e a p p r o p r i a t e 
c r i t e r i o n upon w h i c h 
t o judge " l o n g - l a s s o " a n n e x a t i o n s , 
and because we g e n e r a l l y 
w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s judgment on a ground n o t 
argued on a p p e a l , Smith v. Mark Dodge, I n c . , 934 So. 2d 
375, 
380 
( A l a . 2006), I concur i n 
t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d by t h e main 
o p i n i o n as t o t h e i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I I t h e r e o f . 
A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e 
Ore Tenus S t a n d a r d 
I am c o n c e r n e d about t h e 
e x t e n t t o 
which t h e 
main o p i n i o n 
s u g g e s t s r e l i a n c e upon t h e 
o r e 
tenus s t a n d a r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o 
the 
i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t IV o f t h e o p i n i o n . 
To t h e 
e x t e n t t h a t some o f t h e " f a c t s " i n t e g r a l t o 
t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n -- e.g., t h a t 
F e l t o n d i d 
i n f a c t 
r e v i e w 
c e r t a i n 
34 
1101440 
r e c o r d s and what he o b s e r v e d i n t h o s e r e c o r d s -- t u r n on o r a l 
t e s t i m o n y by F e l t o n o r o t h e r s , 
t h e ore tenus 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
r e v i e w i s , of c o u r s e , a p p l i c a b l e . 
I t seems, however, t h a t 
t h e r e are i s s u e s i n P a r t IV of t h e o p i n i o n 
t h a t u l t i m a t e l y 
t u r n upon t h e p r e s e n c e or absence o f c e r t a i n 
deeds, t h e 
c o n t e n t o f c e r t a i n p u b l i c r e c o r d s , and t h e l e g a l i m p o r t of t h e 
same. 
To 
t h a t 
e x t e n t , 
I do not b e l i e v e t h e o r e tenus 
s t a n d a r d i s a p p r o p r i a t e . 
35