Title: City of Mobile v. Simpsiridis

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

733 So. 2d 378 (1999)
CITY OF MOBILE et al.
v.
Vasilios SIMPSIRIDIS and Broad Street Food Mart, Inc.
No. 1972014.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 16, 1999.
W. Perry Hall and Roderick P. Stout of Stout & Rossler, Mobile, for appellant City of Mobile.
David P. Broome, Mobile, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The Mobile City Council denied Vasilios Simpsiridis's application for a liquor license for a store known as the Broad Street Food Mart, which he operated through a corporation, Broad Street Food Mart, Inc. The Mobile Circuit Court entered a judgment declaring that that denial had been arbitrary and capricious and setting aside the denial and directing the approval of the license. The City of Mobile appealed. We affirm.
The trial judge's opinion reads:
The Alabama Legislature enacted § 28-1-6 in 1995, by Act No. 95-561, Ala. Acts 1995. The Code section reads:
"(a) All other provisions of law, rules, or regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board shall absolutely have no authority to issue any form of license in a Class 1 or Class 2 municipality, including, but not limited to, off-premise consumption licenses, restaurant licenses, or club licenses, for the retail sale of any form of intoxicating beverages, including, but not limited to, malt liquor, beer, wine, liquor, or other alcoholic beverage regulated by the board, unless one of the following requirements are satisfied:
This statute requires a de novo nonjury review by the circuit court of a municipal governing body's order denying approval of an application for "any form of license" for the sale of "any form of intoxicating beverages." The statute requires the trial judge reviewing the municipality's denial of a license to consider all the evidence before the municipality and any new evidence that may be offered at the de novo hearing in the circuit court. § 28-1-6(b). The statute is unambiguous. It gives the ultimate decision to a circuit judge on a de novo appeal from the denial of an application for a license to sell alcohol. The trial judge can set aside the governing body's denial of approval on the ground "that the municipal approval was arbitrarily or capriciously denied without a showing of one of the following: a. The creation of a nuisance. b. Circumstances clearly detrimental to adjacent residential neighborhoods. c. A violation of applicable zoning restrictions or regulations." § 28-1-6(a)(2).
The trial court explicitly followed the statute and made specific findings of fact based upon the evidence that was before the municipality when it denied the application and upon the minutes of the meeting of the city council at which the application was denied. The only negative matter presented on the application, according to the record before us, was Council President Clinton Johnson's concern, without any evidence to support it, that the issuance of a license at these premises might increase crime and loitering in the area.
The trial court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct when they are *382 based on ore tenus evidence. Because § 28-1-6 provides for de novo review in the circuit court from the disapproval of an application for a license to sell alcohol, the usual presumption in favor of the findings by the city or administrative agency is not applicable here. The City of Mobile argues that its action should be upheld if there exists any rational basis for its denial of the application. That would be true, except for the express provisions of § 28-1-6. In the case of an appeal to the circuit court, the statute requires a circuit judge to hear the evidence de novo, i.e., without any presumption in favor of the municipality. § 28-1-6(b). The State's power to regulate the sale of liquor is very broad, as compared to the State's power to regulate an ordinary lawful business. Maddox v. Madison County Comm'n, 661 So. 2d 224, 227 (Ala.1995), citing Black v. Pike County Comm'n, 375 So. 2d 255, 257 (Ala.1979), and Inn of Oxford, Inc. v. City of Oxford, 366 So. 2d 690, 692 (Ala.1978).
On appeal from the order of the circuit court, we are required to indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court's findings of fact. King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 1023 (Ala.1987); McCrary v. Butler, 540 So. 2d 736 (Ala. 1989). The trial court's judgment in such a case will be affirmed if, "under any reasonable aspect of the testimony, there is credible evidence to support the judgment." Jones v. Jones, 470 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Ala.1985). Clark v. Albertville Nursing Home, Inc., 545 So. 2d 9, 12-13 (Ala.1989). By that standard, the record supports the trial court's findings of fact, and those findings were not palpably erroneous. Section 28-1-6 compels the trial court's conclusions of law under those facts.
The statute expressly provides for an award of attorney fees in the circuit court. Section 28-1-6(b) provides that "[i]f a license applicant prevails in any judicial review on any basis other than new evidence ..., the applicant shall be entitled to an award of attorney fees against the municipality." The trial court reserved jurisdiction to award attorney fees to the applicant's attorney. The City appealed the trial court's order on the merits, but it does not argue that the trial court erred in reserving jurisdiction to award an attorney fee. While the statute is silent with regard to whether an applicant is entitled to an award of an attorney fee on appeal to an appellate court, to deny such an award would run counter to the obvious intent of the statute when the trial court has found that the action of the City was arbitrary and capricious and was not based upon any of the statutory reasons for disapproving the application and the record contains no evidence that is contrary to the findings of fact entered by the trial court. The trial court reserved jurisdiction to rule on a request for attorney fees; consequently, we affirm the judgment on the merits. Crump v. Etowah County, 541 So. 2d 14, 15 (Ala.1989); Maddox v. Madison County Comm'n, supra. We remand the cause for the trial court to award a reasonable attorney fee as authorized by § 28-1-6(b), as we have interpreted that statute.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEE.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, KENNEDY, SEE, and BROWN, JJ., concur.