Title: Adam v. SHELBY COUNTY COM'N
Citation: 415 So. 2d 1066
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 1982

415 So. 2d 1066 (1982)
Cecil F. ADAM, et al.
v.
SHELBY COUNTY COMMISSION, et al.
80-178.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 14, 1982.
Rehearing Denied June 11, 1982.
James H. Weaver, Jr. and Carol J. Millican, Birmingham, for appellants.
Carl E. Johnson, Jr., Bishop, Colvin &amp; Johnson, Birmingham, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment adverse to the appellants in an action in which they challenged the constitutionality of Act Number 816, Acts of Alabama 1965, Regular Session, which created the Shelby County Planning Commission. There are two issues involved:
The facts of this case are simple: Act 816 was enacted by the state legislature on September 2, 1965; it created the Shelby County Planning Commission. The act basically provided that the planning commission would consist of seven memberstwo to be appointed by the Board of Revenue of Shelby County, two to be appointed by the Shelby County Board of Education, two to be appointed by the Shelby County Bar Association, and one by the judge of the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Expenses were to be paid out of the general fund of Shelby County. Jurisdiction of the planning commission was to extend to all areas of the county not already affected by zoning except that certain railroad, mining, and utility operations, and buildings having a cost of $500.00 or less and certain remodeling operations were excluded from its jurisdiction. The planning commission was given general power to zone, including the power to make and maintain a master plan and to adopt zoning regulations. No beat was to be governed by the act unless a majority of the voters therein had voted to be so governed. Section 14 of the act provided for granting exceptions to zoning regulations, and Section 15 governed appeals to the circuit court from planning commission actions.
By complaint filed May 3, 1974, in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, appellants sought a declaratory judgment that Act 816 was invalid under various constitutional grounds. Pursuant to their complaint, appellants filed a motion for summary judgment. The appellants submitted a brief in support of that motion, and the appellees filed a brief in response thereto. In ruling on the appellants' motion for summary judgment, the trial judge granted judgment for the appellees. It is because of this ruling that the appellants bring this appeal.
This assertion brings us to an issue of first impression in Alabama, to wit: When a motion for summary judgment is filed by one party, can a trial judge, on his own motion, grant summary judgment in favor of the opposing party?
Rule 56 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, dealing with summary judgments, makes no specific provision as to whether a court, upon motion of one party and without cross motion by the other party, may grant a summary judgment against the moving party and in favor of the nonmoving party.
As was stated earlier, this issue has not yet been decided in this state; it is, also, an issue on which the federal courts have not reached full agreement. [Annot., 48 A.L. R.2d 1188 (1956).] However, the clearly established majority rule with respect to Federal Rule 56 is found in Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. Zero Refrigerated Lines, 381 F. Supp. 363 (N.D.Ill.1974), wherein it is stated:
381 F. Supp.  at 367-68. See also, Hennessey v. Federal Security Administrator, 88 F. Supp. 664 (D.Conn.1949); Carpineta v. Shields, 70 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1954); Annot., 48 A.L.R.2d 1188 (1956).
We hold that the rule of law stated in Watkins Motor Lines is sound, and accordingly, we opt to follow the rule that cases construing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are authority for construction of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Ex Parte Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 397 So. 2d 98 (Ala.1981). Even though it would be better practice for an opposing party to file a cross motion, under our corresponding Rule 56, we hold that in the absence of a timely and meritorious objection, there is no reason why, upon the motion of one of the parties, the court cannot dispose of the whole matter by granting a judgment to the other party if it finds that there is not a scintilla of evidence supporting the moving party's position, thus showing the non-moving party to be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The case at bar, due to its nature, was particularly susceptible to this type of action by the trial court. The case presented the question of the constitutionality of a statute, and the action revolved primarily around the wording of that statute. This left little, if any, facts open to interpretation. We note also that there is nothing in the record indicating that the appellants made any objection to this ruling of the court at the trial level. See, Chestnut Hills Civic Ass'n v. Dobbins, 361 So. 2d 1043 (Ala. 1978).
We now consider the second issue raised by the appellant: Did the trial court err in rendering summary judgment for the defendants under the facts that were before the court at that time?
The first contention of the appellants under this issue is that the trial court erred in finding Act 816 to be constitutional because there are material and substantial differences in Act 816 as enacted and the version of Act 816 which was published prior to its enactment.
As the appellants correctly set forth, Section 106, Constitution of Alabama, 1901, requires publication of a local act prior to its consideration by the legislature. This is in order to give affected persons notice "of the substance of the proposed law, of its characteristics and essential provisions, and of its most important features." Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 208 So. 2d 74 (1968).
While Section 106 does require notice of the substance of the proposed act, the legislature has the right to shape up and work out details in the act before it is finally passed. The rule is that the legislation, when finally enacted, must not be materially and substantially different from the act as proposed by publication. State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Allen, 219 Ala. 590, 123 So. 36 (1929).
The trial judge in his "Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment" addressed this issue as follows:
*1069 In the case of Wilkins v. Woolf, this Court set forth the following principles which are considered when this issue is presented on appeal:
281 Ala. at 697, 698, 208 So. 2d 74.
While we do not set out the particular changes in Act 816, as published, and as subsequently enacted, suffice it to say that we have thoroughly and carefully reviewed the wording contained in both.
Appellants placed in their brief the following diagram setting forth those changes made between publication and enactment which they contend are substantial and material:
The trial court incorrectly held that the variations complained of were not material, in at least two aspects: the added provision which excluded certain mining activities, railroads, and utilities from zoning, and the deletion of the provision which required approval of the county governing body.
Article IV, § 106, as amended, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, in pertinent part provides:
As stated in Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. Hoadley, 414 So. 2d 895 (Ala.1982), this Court listed "four welldefined canons of construction." These canons are:
Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. Hoadley, 414 So. 2d  at 899. See also, Parrish v. Faulk, 293 Ala. 401, 404-405, 304 So. 2d 194 (1974); State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Allen, 219 Ala. 590, 123 So. 36 (1929).
This Court in Parrish v. Faulk, quoted the following from State v. Allen which offers guidance when deciding whether Section 106 has been violated:
293 Ala. at 405, 304 So. 2d 194.
In Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. Hoadley, the Legislative Electoral College, which consisted of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate of our Legislature, were to choose the Board of Directors of the Civic Center Authority. In the advertised version, the entire "Legislative Electoral College" was to vote jointly but in the enacted version the Senate and House delegations were separated with the Senate delegation to appoint five board members while the House delegation was to appoint only four board members. This Court decided that this change violated § 106 because: "The filling of directorships in the Authority is important, and the authority designated to fill those offices is a matter of substance and not merely a detail which can be changed from the authority designated in the published notice to a different authority not designated in the published notice." 414 So. 2d  at 900.
In Parrish v. Faulk, 293 Ala. 401, 304 So. 2d 194 (1974), the advertised version provided *1071 that the office of license commissioner would be filled by an appointing board composed of three designated officials and that the term of office for the commissioner was at the pleasure of the board. The enacted version, however, provided that the office would be filled by qualified electors, presumably the voters of Houston County, and the term of office would be for a fixed term of four years. This Court considered this change to violate § 106 because:
293 Ala. at 408, 304 So. 2d 194.
In State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Allen, 219 Ala. 590, 123 So. 36 (1929), the advertised version provided that one of the judges of the municipal court was to be named judge of a new court and his successors were to be elected by the judges of the circuit court. The enacted version provided that the judge and his successors would be appointed by the Governor. This Court held that this change violated § 106 because:
219 Ala. at 593, 123 So. 36.
In this case, the differences between the substance of the published act and the bill which passed the Legislature are material and warrant the intervention of the judiciary to declare the statute unconstitutional. While there are six variations between the bill as published and as enacted, there are at least two which are material and, therefore, impermissible variances in violation of § 106. First, as published the proposed act contained no provision limiting any activity or special interest groups within the county from zoning, but as finally enacted it contains a provision excluding mining activities, railroads, and utilities from zoning. Secondly, the published bill provided that regulations adopted by the planning commission would be approved by the county governing body; as enacted, the provision requiring approval by the county governing body was deleted. These provisions of the act as passed by the Legislature materially changed the substance of the act. The proposed bill presented to the people gave the planning commission authority over any land use activity and guaranteed that the county government would have to approve any regulations adopted by the commission. The enacted legislation exempted certain special interests, i.e., mining, railroads, and utilities, from the jurisdiction of the planning commission and, in addition, withdrew control of the planning commission from the county governing body, which is composed of elected officials answerable to the voters of Shelby County for their actions. This is not the same bill as examined by the voters of Shelby County. Perhaps they did want some groups to have privileges that the rest of the area would not enjoy. But on the other hand perhaps the voters thought that elected officials, the county governing body, would be in a position to check any regulations adopted by the planning commission insuring that the commission would operate within the boundaries of popular demands. This act violates Art. IV, § 106.
Because of our holding on the Section 106 issue, we need not address appellants' contention that Act 816 is invalid because it violates the principles of separation of powers of government by illegally delegating legislative power to a subordinate body.
The judgment of the trial court is due to be reversed and the cause rendered.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., dissents.
*1072 MADDOX, Justice (dissenting).
I dissent on the same grounds I expressed in my dissenting opinion in Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. Hoadley, 414 So. 2d 895 (Ala.1982).
My position on the requirements of § 106 was very eloquently stated by this Court in 1906, five years after § 106 was ratified by the people as a part of our Constitution. In State ex rel. Hanna v. Tunstall, 145 Ala. 477, 40 So. 135 (1906), the Court, in great detail, defined the word "substance" which appears in § 106. Because the opinion in Hanna expresses so eloquently my own view of what the framers intended, I quote extensively from that opinion. In the quoted portion of that opinion, I emphasize certain statements of law which I think are quite significant and which I think the majority, in this case, has overlooked. In Hanna, the Court opined:
The Court today reinforces the holding in Parrish v. Faulk, 293 Ala. 401, 304 So. 2d 194 (1974), which follows State v. Allen, 219 Ala. 590, 123 So. 36 (1929). I dissented in Parrish v. Faulk, because I believe then, as I do now, that we unnecessarily hamper the legislature's right to work out details of local legislation in the legislative process.