Title: Aldridge v. Grund
Citation: 302 So. 2d 847
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 26, 1974

302 So. 2d 847 (1974)
G. B. ALDRIDGE et al.
v.
Clarence B. GRUND et al.
SC 505.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 26, 1974.
Rehearing Denied November 21, 1974.
*848 William K. Murray, Birmingham, for appellants.
John Martin Galese, Birmingham, for appellees.
McCALL, Justice.
The appellants, who were respondents in the trial court, appeal from an adverse decree which held that the rezoning of certain real property by the zoning authorities of Jefferson County, Alabama, was arbitrary and capricious. The trial court set aside and declared the action of the zoning authority in rezoning the property void and of no effect. The case was submitted here after oral argument (a) on a motion to dismiss the appeal and (b) on the merits of the appeal.
The motion to dismiss the appeal was grounded on the appellants' failure to file the transcript timely. The transcript of record was filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court on January 18, 1974. Prior to filing the record and on December 28, 1973, Clarence B. Grund, one of the appellees, filed his motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On July 10, 1973, the trial judge entered a final decree in favor of the appellees. On August 8, 1973, the appellants perfected the appeal by filing with the register good and sufficient surety for costs of appeal which was approved on the day it was filed. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, 289 Ala. 192, 266 So. 2d 752; Jones v. Kendrick Realty Co., 286 Ala. 435, 241 So. 2d 107.
The court reporter did not file the transcript of evidence with the Register in Chancery until November 21, 1973, and on that date the transcript of the evidence is deemed to have been established. Stevens v. Thompson, 279 Ala. 232, 184 So. 2d 140. No extension of time was granted by the trial court within which to file the transcript of evidence with the register. The appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal was not filed until December 28, 1973. This was after the transcript of evidence was filed with the register, but before the record was filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court.
As stated above, the record was filed with the clerk of this court on January 18, 1974, which was on the fifty-eighth (58th) *849 day after the court reporter filed the transcript of evidence with the register. The record was filed here within the sixty days after the transcript of evidence had been established below. Rule 37, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama, as amended on July 2, 1973, became effective on July 3, 1973, 291 Ala. XXI. It reads as follows:
Rule 37, as amended, supra, which applies in all cases, either civil or criminal, prescribes no fixed time limit within which the court reporter must file the transcript of evidence with the register. The rule simply provides "* * * the transcript of the record shall be filed in this court within sixty days after the transcript of the evidence has been established in the court below * * *." The record was filed here on the fifty-eighth day, which was within the sixty day limit after November 21, 1973, when the transcript of evidence was filed.
While the appellee, upon submission of the cause on appeal, presented, in his motion to dismiss, his objection, and the point as to the delay, he did not point out, with supporting affidavit, material omissions or defects in the transcript of evidence which should or would have been the subject of contest before the trial judge, had the transcript of evidence been timely filed. Under the circumstances, it is within the discretion of this court to consider the transcript of evidence, which we are agreeable to. See Rule 48, Revised Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXI. This rule reads as follows:
We think the above rule has application even though it utilizes the language, "In cases at law," because Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP), 290 Ala. 373, provide for only one form of action to be known as "civil action." The distinction between law and equity has been abolished. Rule 2 ARCP. In applying Supreme Court Rule 48, supra, it will be recalled that the court reporter's transcript of evidence was filed within the time for taking an appeal, which is six months from the rendition of the final judgment or decree. Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 788.
The motion to dismiss the appeal on account of late filing is overruled and denied.
The appellees contend that assignment of error No. 6 complains of matter entirely unrelated to the appellants' other seven assignments of error, and that the appellants have elected to argue all eight assignments of error in bulk. The appellees cite Quarles v. State, 288 Ala. 275, 259 So. 2d 823, Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Scott, 286 Ala. 10, 236 So. 2d 328, and State v. Barnhill, 280 Ala. 574, 196 So. 2d 691, for the proposition that where several unrelated assignments of error are grouped and argued together, if any one is found to be without merit, the other assignments will not be considered.
Thus the appellees raise an alleged defect or insufficiency in the appellants' brief, that is, they argue unrelated assignments of error in bulk. Rule 52, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 290 Ala. XVII, in its pertinent part, reads as follows:
It is not necessary to decide whether or not such defect or insufficiency existed in the appellants' brief, because after the appellees, in their brief, called this matter to the attention of the appellants, the appellants corrected the defect or insufficiency in their correction brief, filed prior to the time of submission of the case, by separately arguing each of the eight assignments relied upon for reversal.
Appellants' assignment No. 1 is that the trial court erred in that the decree of the court is contrary to law; No. 2 is that the decree of the court is contrary to the evidence; and No. 8 is that the trial court's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The appellees contend that these assignments are insufficient, because they are too general to invite the attention of the court. While the three assignments may be general in their expression, nevertheless, being addressed to a so-called unit decree, they fall within the following rule:
The decree here is a unit decree because it contains a single ruling by the court, namely, that the rezoning of the subject real property from E-2 Estates) to R-4 (Multiple Dwellings) by the zoning authorities of Jefferson County, Alabama, was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the decisions of our Supreme Court. Error addressed to this decree in general terms is sufficient to invite our consideration.
The appellees have further moved the court to strike the brief of Dr. and Mrs. Lewis S. Chase, respondents in the court below, on the grounds that they did not join in the appeal and failed to assign error on the record. When the appeal was taken, the register issued a summons to each of them to unite in said appeal, if they saw proper. This notice by summons was served on each of these respondents pursuant to Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 804. Their interests in the subject matter of this appeal are therefore properly before the court, although neither of them joined in the appeal by giving security for costs as required by Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 766.
The Chases filed no separate brief, but undertook by endorsement thereon to join and adopt as their joint brief, the one which was filed by the appellants Aldridge, Myca, Inc., a corporation, and Raiford Ellis. Since that brief is properly before us as the appellants' brief and will be considered by us, it would serve no useful purpose to strike it as to the Chases. The motion is denied.
The real property sought to be rezoned by the appellants from E-2 (Estates) to R-4 (Multiple Dwellings) is approximately thirty acres in extent and is located on the east side of Rocky Ridge Road, which runs in a north by northeast direction from its southerly intersection with U. S. Highway 31, a divided highway, south of Birmingham, to U. S. Highway 280, another divided highway, with which Rocky Ridge Road intersects at its north terminous, a short distance south of the municipal water filtration plant.
The purpose for the change in the zoning to R-4 (Multiple Dwellings) is to allow the construction on the property of apartment units in clusters which will be made available for public rental. After giving notice and holding a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Jefferson County recommended to the County Commission that the rezoning be approved. Next, after advertising a meeting and notifying interested parties, a public hearing was held by the County Commission. The commissioners subsequently visited the area and the subject property. There were some individuals who favored the rezoning and there were some who opposed it, the conflicting views being made known to the Commission. In changing the zoning from E-2 (Estates) to R-4 (Multiple Dwellings) for an apartment complex, the Commission thereafter unanimously ordained as follows:
The appellees, who were owners and occupants of single family dwellings on real property adjoining and adjacent to the rezoned property, then filed a bill in equity against the County Commission and those seeking the rezoning to enjoin the enforcement of the rezoning enactment and to have the action of the County Commission in bringing about the rezoning declared arbitrary, capricious, discriminating, not in conformity with comprehensive zoning plans, contrary to the public interest, unreasonable, oppressive, confiscatory and not reasonably related to the protection of public health, safety, morals and general welfare, and that such action amounted to the taking and confiscation of the appellees' property without due process or just compensation.
At the conclusion of the evidence and the testimony, which was heard ore tenus in open court, the chancellor first entered an "Interim Decree" wherein the court found that a full and proper appraisal of the effect of the rezoning had not been accomplished by the Commission in regard to (1) the possible flooding which might occur occasionally on account of the coursing of Little Shades Creek through the subject property, (2) the vehicular traffic situation, and (3) the fire and police protection features. This decree then gave the Commission an opportunity to make a further and more exhaustive survey of the property in order to consider all of the factors which the trial court said are necessary for the preservation of the public welfare and of the parties involved in the cause. The Commission undertook to comply with this decree by holding another public hearing after notice, and then it timely submitted to the court a further report of its findings which were again favorable to rezoning the property. Following receipt of the commissioners' report pursuant to the Interim Decree, the court entered an adverse decree to the rezoning, thus reversing the action of the Commission.
Among the matters found by the court in its final decree were that the rezoning "involves an extreme alteration of the character of the neighborhood" by the construction of a considerable number of multifamily units, wherein a large number of people will dwell, and that "the zoning authorities must in a full and proper exercise of the zoning function, consider every facet of the new and potential manner of use of the property so as to afford to the individual property owners and to the public generally every convenience and protection which the government should guarantee to its citizens." The court further found as set forth in the Interim Decree that "the zoning authorities had, up to that time, from the evidence presented at the oral hearing of this cause, fallen far short of making a survey of the subject property which is adequate for the purposes of this type of rezoning." The court further found that the commissioners' final report afforded "no evidence of any new or extensive or comprehensive study of the total and potential effect of the subject rezoning." The decree characterized the report as being speculative and dependent on future plans and possibilities which may or may not become reality. On this premise the court decreed that the rezoning was arbitrary and capricious and set it aside.
In Grund v. Jefferson County, 291 Ala. 29, 277 So. 2d 334, this court held that the statute that grants the power to zone and rezone, Code of Ala., Vol. 14B, Appendix § 970, does not require the zoning authority to make studies with regard to the impact of the proposed rezoning on the morals, health, safety and welfare of the county, although the record showed there, as in the present case, that studies and investigations had been made.
The responsibility imposed by the final decree on the Commission, as a requisite to rezone, that is, "to afford the individual *853 property owners and the public generally every convenience and protection the government should guarantee its citizens," is vague and uncertain as to what the government should guarantee its citizens in the way of every convenience and protection. The phrase is susceptible of and provokes a variety of thought on what the government should do for individual property owners and the public generally in order to accomplish rezoning.
Aside from being vague and uncertain in meaning, the requirements, imposed on the Commission for rezoning, go beyond those imposed by the legislature in delegating this legislative authority to the Commission. See Code of Ala., Vol. 14B, Appendix § 970, which provides:
We think that under the above statute, if the rezoning is done for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the county, the Commission is duly authorized to act in that direction. When it acts pursuant to its legislative authority, the Commission's action is likened to the legislature's acting, and the courts should be slow to set aside that legislative action by substituting their views on the subject. The powers of the three branches of government must be kept separate and inviolate. Art. 3, § 43, Constitution of Alabama, 1901.
In Ball v. Jones, 272 Ala. 305, 310, 132 So. 2d 120, 123, the court aptly recognized judicial limitations where zoning has been accomplished by duly authorized bodies. It made the following observation:
We are mindful that in Allen v. Axford, 285 Ala. 251, 231 So. 2d 122, this court said:
We also observe in the same decision, Allen, supra, that the court further stated:
In Marshall v. City of Mobile, 250 Ala. 646, 649, 35 So. 2d 553, 555 (1948), the court said:
Again:
Again:
After repeating what it said in Marshall, supra, the court, in Ball v. Jones, 272 Ala. 305, 314, 132 So. 2d 120, 128 (1961) stated:
Then in Waters v. City of Birmingham, 282 Ala. 104, 209 So. 2d 388 (1968), the court held that:
So here, the question is: Was there presented to the Commission a debatable issue as to whether or not the rezoning was for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the county? If it was, then the court ought not to interfere in the matter.
In Cudd v. City of Homewood, 284 Ala. 268, 271, 224 So. 2d 625, we said:
The findings of the Commission, made after hearings before it, and after an inspection of the subject property by the commissioners, resolved, in favor of the rezoning ordinance, issues of fact that were presented by the opposing sides on the question of whether or not the rezoning would promote the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the county.
In Grund v. Jefferson County, 291 Ala. 29, 277 So. 2d 334, the court saw fit to affirm the Commission's rezoning of approximately nine acres from its prior classification of E-2 (Estates) to C-1 (Commercial), *855 permitting a neighborhood shopping center immediately across Rocky Ridge Road from the subject property, and approximately thirty-two acres, which surrounded the shopping center, to a classification of R-4 (Multiple Dwellings), permitting the construction of luxury apartments. The same contentions in substance that are made here were made in that case, namely, that the action of the Commission is discriminatory, confiscatory, arbitrary and capricious, bears no relationship to the health, safety, welfare or morals of the county and violates constitutional rights. There the trial court upheld the validity and constitutionality of the zoning ordinance and held that the action of the Commission was not arbitrary and capricious.
In Grund, supra, the trial court found that a debatable issue existed, and, in affirming, this court said:
We fail to perceive how the action taken before the Commission in that case presents any greater or any more clearly debatable issue on whether or not the rezoning would promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the county than the action taken by the conflicting interests in this case.
Without alluding to the details of the evidence in the lengthy transcript, which we have read in its entirety, we are satisfied from our study of the record that there is evidence in the record from which we conclude that a debatable issue was presented as to whether or not the rezoning will serve to promote the general welfare of the county. There was evidence that the population in metropolitan Birmingham and in its environs was rapidly increasing and that in the area of the rezoning and nearby there were school facilities, that the subject property was served by water and sewer lines, that there was adequate drainage, that widening Rocky Ridge Road was under consideration, that police and fire protection was good, and that the subject property had good highway access to Birmingham's business district. These are only some of the factors that the Commission might have considered from the evidence in concluding that it would promote the general welfare of the county to rezone the property. With this evidence before the Commission, we are unwilling to say that it was not a debatable issue that the rezoning be effectuated.
The trial court erred in holding that the action of the Commission in rezoning the property was arbitrary and capricious. The final decree of that court and the judgment entered thereon is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
HEFLIN, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and JONES, JJ., concur.