Case Title: McInnish v. Bentley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1110321

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 08/24/12 
N o t i c e : 
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) 
2 2 9 - 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 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1110321 
Ex parte Robert Bentley, as Governor of the 
State of 
Alabama, e t a l . 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In re: Hugh McInnish 
v. 
Governor Robert Bentley e t a l . ) 
1110325 
Robert Bentley, as Governor of 
the 
State of 
Alabama, 
and Young Boozer I I I , as State Treasurer 
v. 
Hugh McInnish 
1110330 
Marquita Davis, as State Finance Director, 
and Tom White, as State Comptroller 
v. 
Hugh McInnish 
1110506 
J o i n t F i s c a l Committee 
v. 
Hugh McInnish 
Appellate Proceedings from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-04-1402) 
WOODALL, 
J u s t i c e . 
These p r o c e e d i n g s 
(one 
p e t i t i o n f o r 
t h e 
w r i t o f 
mandamus 
and t h r e e a p p e a l s ) were b r o u g h t i n t h i s C o u r t t o c h a l l e n g e a 
judgment o f t h e Montgomery 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
a w a r d i n g 
Hugh 
M c I n n i s h $196,625 i n a t t o r n e y 
f e e s and c o s t s i n 
h i s a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t (1) t h e Governor o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, (2) 
t h e 
S t a t e f i n a n c e d i r e c t o r , (3) 
t h e S t a t e c o m p t r o l l e r , and (4) t h e 
S t a t e t r e a s u r e r , a l l 
i n 
t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ( r e f e r r e d 
t o 
2 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s " ) , 
i n w h i c h t h e J o i n t 
F i s c a l Committee of t h e Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e ("the committee") 
i n t e r v e n e d . 
As t o cases no. 1110325, no. 1110330, and no. 
1110506, we r e v e r s e ; as t o case no. 1110321, we d i s m i s s the 
p e t i t i o n as moot. 
T h i s case has p r e v i o u s l y been b e f o r e 
t h i s C o u r t . 
See 
M c I n n i s h v. R i l e y , 
925 So. 2d 174 
( A l a . 2005) 
. 
M c I n n i s h 
i n v o l v e d 
a 
c h a l l e n g e 
t o 
t h e 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y 
o f 
t h e 
c o m m u n i t y - s e r v i c e s g r a n t - m a k i n g p r o c e s s s e t f o r t h i n 
A l a . Code 
1975, § 29-2-123. 
There, we h e l d t h a t "§ 29-2-123, which 
a u t h o r i z e s a permanent j o i n t 
l e g i s l a t i v e committee t o award 
c o m m u n i t y - s e r v i c e s g r a n t s , [ a s w e l l as t h a t p o r t i o n o f the 
a n n u a l e d u c a t i o n - a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c t ] by w h i c h those g r a n t s a r e 
f u n d e d , " v i o l a t e d t h e s e p a r a t i o n - o f - p o w e r s 
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e 
Alabama 
C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, 925 So. 2d a t 188, and we 
r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment and remanded t h e case. 
S u b s e q u e n t l y , M c I n n i s h f i l e d a s e r i e s o f m o t i o n s i n t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t , s e e k i n g "an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s , 
r e a s o n a b l e 
expenses, and c o s t s a g a i n s t t h e [ S t a t e o f f i c i a l s ] . " 
He a l s o 
sought an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g 
t h a t he was "a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , 
t h a t 
t h i s 
l i t i g a t i o n 
p r o v i d e d 
a common 
b e n e f i t 
t o a l l 
3 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
t a x p a y e r s 
of the s t a t e of Alabama, and t h a t the amount t h a t 
was p r o h i b i t e d from b e i n g d i s b u r s e d i l l e g a l l y was i n an amount 
of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
$13.4 
m i l l i o n . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
The 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
opposed M c I n n i s h ' s m o t i o n s , 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t 
" [ t ] h e 
c l e a r h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e Town of Lowndesboro[, 950 
So. 
2d 
1203 
( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , ] i s t h a t § 14 of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n 
p r o h i b i t s the awarding of a t t o r n e y f e e s and expenses i n 
any 
s t a t e c o u r t a c t i o n a g a i n s t the S t a t e of Alabama or 
a g a i n s t 
s t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t i e s . " 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
On 
December 
8, 
2011, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
a 
judgment a w a r d i n g " c o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f M c I n n i s h a judgment 
f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s i n the amount of $196,625.00 t o 
be p a i d by the 
[ S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s ] . " 
These a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s 
f o l l o w e d the e n t r y of 
t h a t 
judgment. 
Each one p r e s e n t s the s i n g l e l e g a l q u e s t i o n -- 
as 
M c I n n i s h p r e f e r s t o s t a t e i t : " [ W ] h e t h e r an award of a t t o r n e y 
f e e s 
i s p r o p e r when a 
p l a i n t i f f 
has 
p r e v a i l e d on 
a 
c l a i m 
a g a i n s t s t a t e o f f i c i a l s 
[ i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ] f o r a 
v i o l a t i o n 
of 
the 
s t a t e 
c o n s t i t u t i o n 
t h a t 
r e s u l t s 
i n 
4 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
p r e s e r v a t i o n o f s i g n i f i c a n t 
funds i n t h e s t a t e 
t r e a s u r y . " 
M c I n n i s h ' s b r i e f , a t 4.
1 
In Ex p a r t e Town o f Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d 1203 ( A l a . 
2006), t h i s C o u r t , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , d e c l a r e d 
u n e q u i v o c a l l y 
t h a t an award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and expenses t o 
be p a i d by 
t h e 
S t a t e 
t o a 
s u c c e s s f u l 
l i t i g a n t 
under t h e common-benefit 
d o c t r i n e i n 
a d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t 
a c t i o n v i o l a t e d A l a . Const. 
1901, § 14, w h i c h s t a t e s : "That t h e S t a t e o f Alabama 
s h a l l 
never be made a d e f e n d a n t i n 
any c o u r t o f law o r e q u i t y . " I n 
so d o i n g , we n o t e d t h a t " [ t ] h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s o f t h i s 
S t a t e 
have g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t an a c t i o n may be b a r r e d by § 14 i f i t 
seeks t o r e c o v e r damages o r funds from t h e S t a t e 
t r e a s u r y . " 
950 So. 2d a t 1206 (emphasis added). 
F o r 
t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n , we c i t e d , among o t h e r 
c a s e s , (1) 
Lyons v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r u c t i o n , I n c . , 858 So. 2d 257, 262 
( A l a . 2003), as " n o t i n g t h a t a p a r t y c o u l d n o t b r i n g an a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t 
a 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l , 
because 
' [ s ] u c h 
an 
a c t i o n 
i m p e r m i s s i b l y seeks funds from t h e S t a t e t r e a s u r y , ' " 950 So. 
2d a t 1206 (emphasis added); (2) 
Armory Commission o f Alabama 
1 F o r purposes o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s , 
we w i l l assume t h a t 
M c I n n i s h ' s a c t i o n a c t u a l l y r e s u l t e d i n t h e " p r e s e r v a t i o n o f 
s i g n i f i c a n t funds i n 
t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r y . " 
5 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
v. 
S t a u d t , 388 So. 2d 991, 993-94 
( A l a . 1980), as " s t a t i n g 
t h a t 
an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e Armory Commission o f Alabama was 
b a r r e d by § 14 because a judgment a g a i n s t i t 'would a d v e r s e l y  
a f f e c t t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r y , ' " 950 So. 2d a t 1206 (emphasis 
added); and (3) Moody v. U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama, 405 So. 2d 
714, 717 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1981), as " n o t i n g t h a t an a c t i o n was 
b a r r e d 
because a 
r e s u l t 
i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s 
f a v o r 
' c o u l d 
u l t i m a t e l y 
" t o u c h " 
t h e s t a t e 
t r e a s u r y by 
r e q u i r i n g t h e 
d i s b u r s e m e n t o f s t a t e f u n d s , ' " 950 So. 2d a t 1206 (emphasis 
added). We then e x p l a i n e d " t h a t an award o f ... a t t o r n e y f e e s 
and 
expenses i m p a c t s t h e S t a t e 
t r e a s u r y and d i v e s t s i t 
o f 
 
funds i n 
t h e v e r y way f o r b i d d e n by § 14." 950 So. 2d a t 
1211¬
12 (emphasis added). 
The 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
and t h e committee 
argue 
t h a t 
Lowndesboro c o n t r o l s t h i s case. 
I n r e s p o n s e , M c I n n i s h 
t a k e s 
the p o s i t i o n t h a t t o a p p l y t h e h o l d i n g i n 
Lowndesboro t o t h i s 
case i s 
bad p u b l i c p o l i c y . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , he s t a t e s : 
"While i t 
i s t r u e t h a t a p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t can 
bear 
t h e c o s t s 
o f t h e 
l i t i g a t i o n 
h i m s e l f , t h e 
l o g i c a l 
r e s u l t o f such a r u l e means t h a t o n l y t h e 
w e a l t h y may t a k e up t h e p u b l i c sword and d e f e n d t h e 
C o n s t i t u t i o n where t h e government i t s e l f r e f u s e s t o 
a b i d e by o r d e f e n d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
s h o u l d n o t s t a n d f o r 
such a r e s u l t . " 
6 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
M c I n n i s h ' s b r i e f , a t 
40. 
However, 
p u b l i c 
p o l i c y 
i s 
p r i m a r i l y 
d e c l a r e d 
by 
the 
p e o p l e and 
t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 
i n t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n 
and 
s t a t u t e s . 
See Jensen v. T r a d e r s & G e n e r a l I n s . Co., 
52 
C a l . 
2d 
786, 
794, 
345 
P.2d 
1, 
5 
(1959) 
("The 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
of 
p u b l i c p o l i c y of 
s t a t e s 
r e s i d e s , 
f i r s t , 
w i t h 
the p e o p l e 
as 
e x p r e s s e d 
i n 
t h e i r 
C o n s t i t u t i o n 
and, 
second, 
w i t h 
the 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 
of the p e o p l e -- the s t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e . " ) . 
As 
t h i s C o u r t has o f t e n s t a t e d : "'The 
w a l l of immunity e r e c t e d 
by 
§ 14 i s n e a r l y i m p r e g n a b l e . ' " Alabama A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v.  
J o n e s , 895 
So. 
2d 867, 
872 
( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g 
P a t t e r s o n 
v. 
 
G l a d w i n C o r p 8 3 5 
So. 
2d 137, 
142 
( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . 
The 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
and 
the committee argue t h a t 
" [ o ] n l y 
the 
p e o p l e , 
t h r o u g h the amendment p r o c e s s , may 
o v e r t u r n 
a p r o v i s i o n of 
the 
C o n s t i t u t i o n 
on 
p o l i c y grounds." 
R e p l y b r i e f , a t 
11. 
We 
agree. 
S e c t i o n 
14 
h a v i n g 
e n s h r i n e d 
the 
p u b l i c - p o l i c y 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s 
of the p e o p l e of Alabama, t h i s C o u r t i s bound 
t h e r e b y . 
" P u b l i c 
p o l i c y 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s 
cannot 
o v e r r i d e 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandates." Camp v. Kenney, 673 So. 2d 436, 
438 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
1995). 
7 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
M c I n n i s h a l s o a t t e m p t s t o d i s t i n g u i s h Lowndesboro on t h e 
ground t h a t t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t 
a c t i o n i n Lowndesboro 
a l l e g e d o n l y 
" ' s t a t u t o r y and r e g u l a t o r y 
v i o l a t i o n s , ' " w h i l e 
t h i s case " i n v o l v e s a c l a i m f o r v i o l a t i o n s of p r o v i s i o n s o f 
the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n . " 
M c I n n i s h ' s b r i e f , a t 18. 
T h i s i s 
a d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h o u t a d i f f e r e n c e and i s , i n r e a l i t y , 
n o t h i n g 
but t h e r e c a s t i n g o f a p o l i c y argument. 
As t o t h e payment of 
f e e s and expenses from t h e S t a t e 
t r e a s u r y , i t 
m a t t e r s not a 
w h i t 
whether 
t h e 
a c t i o n 
was 
based 
on 
s t a t u t o r y 
o r 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
p r o v i s i o n s . 
A l o n g s i m i l a r l i n e s , M c I n n i s h a s s e r t s 
t h a t Lowndesboro 
s h o u l d not c o n t r o l t h i s case, because, he a s s e r t s , h i s a c t i o n 
" r e s u l t e d i n a judgment t h a t b e n e f i t t e d t h e e n t i r e c i t i z e n r y 
of t h e S t a t e of Alabama t o t h e tune o f over $12 
m i l l i o n . " 
M c I n n i s h ' s b r i e f , a t 19. 
However, the immunity a f f o r d e d t h e 
S t a t e i s a b s o l u t e , Ex p a r t e M o b i l e Cnty. Dep't o f Human Res.^ 
815 So. 2d 527, 530 ( A l a . 2001), such t h a t i t 
does not r e s o l v e 
i t s e l f t o a b a l a n c e - s h e e t approach. 
S t a t e immunity i s not a 
r u l e of r e l a t i v i t y . 
S i m p l y p u t , § 14 b a r s a c c e s s t o t h e S t a t e 
c o f f e r s , 
r e g a r d l e s s 
of t h e amounts i n v o l v e d . 
T h i s 
r u l e was 
p r o p e r l y r e c o g n i z e d and a p p l i e d i n Lowndesboro, and i t 
i s the 
r u l e of t h i s case. 
8 
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, and 1110506 
In s h o r t , we h o l d t h a t § 14 b a r s an award o f a t t o r n e y 
f e e s and c o s t s even i f 
a p l a i n t i f f has p r e v a i l e d on a c l a i m 
a g a i n s t S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s f o r 
a 
v i o l a t i o n 
o f 
t h e 
S t a t e 
c o n s t i t u t i o n 
t h a t 
r e s u l t s 
i n 
p r e s e r v a t i o n o f s i g n i f i c a n t funds i n 
t h e S t a t e t r e a s u r y . 
The 
t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o award such a t t o r n e y f e e s and 
c o s t s . 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d . 
1110321 -- PETITION DISMISSED AS MOOT. 
1110325 -- REVERSED. 
1110330 -- REVERSED. 
1110506 -- REVERSED. 
S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , 
Murdock, Shaw, and Wise, 
J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
Malone, C.J., r e c u s e s h i m s e l f . 
9