Title: Southern Natural Gas Company v. Ross

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

275 So. 2d 143 (1973)
In re SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, a corporation
v.
Kenneth ROSS et al.
Ex parte Southern Natural Gas Company, a corporation.
SC 46.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 8, 1973.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1973.
Huey, Stone & Patton, Bessemer, for petitioner.
Lee Bains, Bessemer, for respondents.
*144 MERRILL, Justice.
Petitioner, Southern Natural Gas Company, filed a petition to condemn a right of way across the Ross property on April 22, 1965. The probate court ordered the condemnation and both parties appealed to circuit court. More than five years later, the cause was tried to a jury and Ross and his wife were awarded $1,600.00 and interest. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals and the judgment was affirmed, 49 Ala.App. 625, 275 So. 2d 138. We granted the writ of certiorari and the cause was argued and submitted in this court on February 13, 1973.
The two questions raised in the Court of Civil Appeals were whether the condemnees were entitled to interest, and if so, when it began, and secondly, whether the amount of the award was excessive.
The amount of compensation awarded was within the range of the testimony and we agree with the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals on that question. We also agree with that court that the condemnees were entitled to interest, but we disagree with the date in the opinion from which the interest is to be computed.
Both the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals fixed the date for the beginning of interest as June 22, 1965. The opinion we are reviewing does not state what happened on June 22, 1965, but the briefs of all parties and the record show that June 22 was the date of the order of the probate court condemning the property after showing that the amount of the award had been paid into court.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals states:
Title 19, § 16, Code 1940, requires the probate court to "make orders of condemnation in pursuance thereof (the report of the commissioners) upon the payment of the damages and compensation so assessed and reported or the deposit of the same in court."
Here, the amount of the award was paid into court and the probate court properly condemned the property for the right of way and properly entered in its judgment that "the petitioner hereby is given and awarded the right to the immediate possession of the property hereinafter described for the uses and purposes set out in the said petition."
The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals treated this probate court judgment as final and said that the "condemnor obtained the right to possession of the property condemned on June 22, 1965."
The only times such a probate court judgment becomes final are those where the condemnee accepts the award and no appeal is taken by either party within thirty days. When this happens, the condemnation proceeding is ended and there is no interest, and the question of interest does not arise.
We think the import of Chapter 1, Eminent Domain, Tit. 19, §§ 1-31, is that, except for situations described in the preceding paragraph, the judgment in the probate court is not final or absolute. To illustrate, we cite two sections. Section 17 provides:
Either party has the right to appeal and the trial is de novo. On appeal under this section, we have held that the court tries de novo not only the question of damages and compensation but also the right to condemn under Tit. 19, § 7; with the question of damages and compensation being a question for the jury, and the right to condemn to be determined by the court without the aid of the jury. Housing Authority of City of Jasper v. Deason, 284 Ala. 431, 225 So. 2d 838; Cooper v. State, 274 Ala. 683, 151 So. 2d 399; Calhoun County v. Logan, 262 Ala. 586, 80 So. 2d 529; City of Birmingham v. Brown, 241 Ala. 203, 2 So. 2d 305.
Title 19, § 25, provides:
It is apparent that condemnation proceedings may go through the circuit court, but if the award has not been paid into court, perhaps because the condemnor considered the award excessive, then the order of condemnation is no longer effective, nor is the amount of the award payable to the landowner.
In Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Newton, 94 Ala. 443, 10 So. 89, this court, per Coleman, J., the grandfather of Mr. Justice Coleman of the present court, said:
To the same effect are Stout v. Limestone County, 211 Ala. 227, 100 So. 352[1], and State v. Pettis, 275 Ala. 450, 156 So. 2d 137 [2].
We think we have demonstrated that the probate court judgment is not absolute when an appeal is taken, as here, and we have already stated that the award was paid into probate court.
The condemnor appealed from the June 22 judgment on June 29 and the condemnee cross-appealed on July 9, 1965, and this transferred the cause to the circuit court because the appeals were taken within thirty days.
There is no question but that the condemnor went into possession and installed the pipeline long before the hearing in circuit court, and acting pursuant to Tit. 19, § 18, as amended, filed the bond to permit it the right of entry on the land. Section 18, as amended, which is in accord
*146 with Section 235, Constitution of Alabama 1901, provides:
When this bond in double the amount of the award was approved, the condemnor for the first time had the right to enter the land and start to work. That was the first time in this proceeding that the owners lost the right to use the condemned strip as they pleased. This was the first day on which interest could have started, and we think that the interest should have been computed from the day the bond was approved and filed, July 26, 1965.
In Alabama Power Company v. Nichols, 282 Ala. 704, 213 So. 2d 912, the condemnor had made the bond required by § 18, as amended, pending trial in circuit court and had taken possession of the lands and flooded some of it, but then sought to dismiss its appeal in circuit court. This court held that the appeal could not be dismissed and affirmed the judgment secured by the condemnee in that court. The opinion quoted the following from Jefferson County v. Adwell, 267 Ala. 544, 103 So.2d 143:
In Adwell, this court also said:
We think Nichols and Adwell are plain that once the condemnor has taken possession of the condemned land, the condemnor cannot then change its mind and dismiss or abandon the proceeding without the condemnee's consent, and the condemnee has a right to a trial in circuit court.
A second reason for holding the date of the approval and filing of the bond as the date interest begins is that the law has long been in this state that if a party which has the right to condemn property, goes into possession of the property prior to filing condemnation proceedings, the interest begins as of the date of entry. It was so held in Southern Railway Co. v. *147 Cowan, 129 Ala. 577, 29 So. 985, and followed in Hays v. Ingham-Burnett Lumber Co., 217 Ala. 524, 116 So. 689, and Southern Ry. Co. v. Clark, 220 Ala. 555, 126 So. 855, where it was said:
A third reason is that the filing and approval date on the bond required by § 18, as amended, is certain, a matter of public record and is self-proving and does not require additional proof to ascertain the date from which the interest begins.
Petitioner argues that it was held in both Adwell, supra, and McLemore v. Alabama Power Co., 285 Ala. 20, 228 So. 2d 780, that (quoting from McLemore):
This statement is correct and is supported by the cases. Ordinarily, no condemnor puts up the bond required by § 18, as amended, unless it is ready to take possession of the condemned property. But since there could be a dispute as to the actual date of taking possession, and since the filing of the approved bond makes the date on which the condemnor became precluded from abandoning the condemnation proceeding, and also marks the date when the condemnor may take possession of the condemned property without becoming a trespasser, and without having paid the amount of compensation and damagesbecause it has not been finally determined as the case has been appealedwe think the better and more definite date on which interest begins to accrue is the date of filing the approved bond under § 18, as amended, and that date in the instant case was July 26, 1965.
It follows that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals should be corrected and affirmed.
One point not involved in the instant case should be noted to avoid confusion in those cases where the State, or exempted counties and municipalities (See Tit. 19, § 18, as amended), is the condemnor.
Title 7, § 72, Code 1940, exempts the State from making bonds or giving security. We have specifically held that the State is not required to give the bonds required by Tit. 7, § 760 (double bond ad quod damnum proceedings) and Tit. 19, § 23, in eminent domain proceedings. State v. Barnhill, 280 Ala. 574, 196 So. 2d 691. Under that case and the authorities cited, it is evident that the State is not required to give the bonds required in Tit. 19, § 18, as amended, or any other sections in the eminent domain chapter. That being true, what is the date when interest begins to accrue when the State or an exempted political subdivision desires to enter the condemned property pending appeal?
The answer in such cases is that interest begins to accrue when the amount of the last adjudicated award is paid into court. The State does not usually pay the award made in the probate court until it desires possession of the property. It then pays the amount of the award and goes into possession and its obligations are the same from that moment on as with any other condemnor as already discussed, that is, it cannot dismiss the proceedings without the consent of the condemnee and it must pay whatever amount is finally awarded the condemnee. So, the definite date of public record, the date of the payment of the award into court is the date from which interest would accrue.
Corrected and affirmed.
All the Justices concur.