Opinion ID: 1599346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alabama Administrative Procedure Act

Text: The appellants argue that this case is governed by the AAPA and, therefore, that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the case until all administrative remedies had been exhausted. Ala.Code 1975, § 41-22-20. Indeed, this Court has acknowledged that failure to exhaust proper administrative remedies can preclude a court from acquiring subject-matter jurisdiction. Ex parte Crestwood Hosp. & Nursing Home, Inc., 670 So.2d 45 (Ala.1995); Faulkner v. University of Tennessee, 627 So.2d 362, 365 (Ala.1992) (citing Ex parte Graddick, 495 So.2d 1367 (Ala.1986)). Even the trial court in this case pointed out that it would have no jurisdiction if the AAPA applied. The Propane Dealers, however, argue that the AAPA does not apply, because, they contend, the limited involvement of Coosa Electric with the LP Gas Board did not amount to an administrative proceeding; therefore, they argue, there were no administrative remedies to be sought. We agree. In their arguments before the trial court concerning lack of jurisdiction, the appellants relied on § 41-22-20(a), a part of the AAPA: (a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency, other than rehearing, and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy. (Emphasis added.) A contested case is defined, in pertinent part, as [a] proceeding, including but not restricted to ratemaking, price fixing, and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing. Ala.Code 1975, § 41-22-3(3). Also, the AAPA provides that [i]n a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice in writing delivered either by personal service as in civil actions or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Ala.Code 1975, § 41-22-12(a). It is clear from these statutes that a contested case is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties, or privileges are determined after one has been afforded the opportunity to appear and be heard. In the case at hand, the evidence before the trial court indicated that because it was acquiring an already existing gas company (DeKalb Gas), Coosa Electric did not need to go before the LP Gas Board and request a new gas permit. All that was required of Coosa Electric, according to a letter from the administrator of the LP Gas Board, was to furnish the Board with an updated copy of DeKalb Gas's articles of incorporation and a new certificate of insurance. Despite the appellants' arguments to the contrary, this action is not tantamount to the Board's making a final decision in a contested case. Therefore, we hold that, under these facts, the AAPA does not govern and the trial court properly assumed jurisdiction over the case.