Title: Sarah S. Swindle et al. v. Sheila Hocutt Remington
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1161044
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 2019

Rel: May 24, 2019
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2018-2019
____________________
1161044
____________________
Sarah S. Swindle et al.
v.
Sheila Hocutt Remington
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-16-315)
On Application for Rehearing
BOLIN, Justice.
Sarah S. Swindle, Bill Newton, Young Boozer, Philip
Cleveland, Susan Williams Brown, Richard Brown, Joe Ward, Luke
Hallmark, Susan Lockridge, Russell Twilley, John R. Whaley,
Charlene McCoy, C. Ray Hayes, and Donald L. Large, Jr., in
1161044
their official capacities as board members of the Public
Education Employees' Health Insurance Program ("PEEHIP"),
pursuant to Rule 40, Ala. R. App. P., request this Court to
modify or amend its "March 8, 2019, Opinion to clarify that
PEEHIP may fulfill the Court's ruling by repaying refund
amounts for active members through the employers from whom
PEEHIP 
initially 
received 
the 
premium 
payments, 
for
distribution to those members in compliance with federal and
state tax laws."  The members of the PEEHIP Board maintain
that amending this Court's March 8, 2019, opinion to
incorporate this clarification will not change the Court's
ruling on the substance of the issues decided in that opinion.
Sheila Hocutt Remington opposes the request.
In our opinion on original submission, this Court
discussed the substantive issues raised by the parties on
appeal.  Although we affirmed the circuit court's judgment,
which included a general order that "the amounts now held in
escrow must be distributed by the Defendants back to the
PEEHIP members who contributed those amounts," the parties did
not specifically assert in their appellate briefs any claims
related to the manner of distributing the amounts held in
2
1161044
escrow. Moreover, the circuit court is the more appropriate
court to clarify, modify, or amend its previous order
regarding the manner of distribution.  Accordingly, the
application for rehearing is overruled.    
APPLICATION OVERRULED.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and
Stewart, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., recuses himself.
3