Opinion ID: 1894771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did Waldrop's lawsuit result in a common benefit?

Text: The Board challenges the trial court's award of attorney fees under the common-benefit exception, asserting that Waldrop's lawsuit did not result in a common benefit to the general public. The trial court held that Waldrop's efforts resulted in a common benefit to Waldrop and to the general public and that Waldrop's lawsuit rendered a public service. However, the record does not support this conclusion. First, Waldrop presented absolutely no evidence tending to establish any relationship between the filing of this action and the amendment of the Foundation Act. Waldrop argued that his contact with the AEA and with Dr. Hubbert, the filing of his federal lawsuit, and the subsequent filing of this state-court action all combined to bring about the amendment to the Foundation Act. However, the record before this Court contains no evidence of the filing or the disposition of Waldrop's federal lawsuit, and we therefore do not consider that lawsuit. Even if the record adequately documented Waldrop's prior lawsuit and we accepted the argument that his filing of the federal lawsuit was the catalyst that prompted the AEA to review its position regarding the Foundation Act, this Court has previously rejected a similar argument in Battle v. City of Birmingham, 656 So.2d 344 (Ala.1995). In Battle, the Court affirmed the trial court's refusal to award attorney fees under a common-benefit theory, explaining that the arguments of the party seeking the fee appl[ied] solely to her efforts in another case and that she had failed to show that her efforts in this case resulted in any benefit to the general public that would support an award of attorney fees. 656 So.2d at 347 (first emphasis in original; second emphasis added). See also Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (rejecting an award of attorney fees under a catalyst theory, i.e., where the plaintiff's lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct). Second, it is significant to note that Representative Bill Fuller introduced the legislation proposing the amendment on February 4, 1997, the first day of the regular legislative session, while Waldrop's state-court action was not filed until February 18, 1997, some two weeks later. Thus, even Waldrop's state-court action lacks any causal relationship to the proposed amendment. At the hearing before the trial court on the attorney-fee issue, Waldrop's counsel essentially admitted that there was no evidence indicating such a causal relationship: Of course, Dr. Hubbert is going to say that it's not. Of course, Bill Fuller is going to say that it's not. You're never going to get a direct admission in this important case as to what wheels are turning where to bring what benefits about. But we believe it's almost res ipsa loquitur as far as the time sequence there. The deposition testimony of Dr. Hubbert and Representative Fuller was the only evidence submitted at the hearing on the attorney-fee issue. As Waldrop's counsel admitted, both Dr. Hubbert and Representative Fuller denied that the filing of Waldrop's lawsuit or his contact with the AEA had had any impact upon the drafting of, the lobbying for, or the passage of the amendment to the Foundation Act. Accordingly, the trial court's finding that Waldrop's lawsuit resulted in a common benefit is unsupported by any evidence; the trial court could only have speculated as to what prompted the Legislature to amend the Foundation Act. Although we agree that Waldrop's complaints to the AEA may have highlighted the deficiencies in the Foundation Act, merely highlighting a deficiency in a statute does not, without evidence of a more direct influence, rise to the level of prompting a correction of that deficiency. We cannot allow speculation to satisfy a narrow exception to the American rule and to create an entitlement to attorney fees, especially where substantial, uncontroverted evidence to the contrary has been presented. Additionally, to justify an award of attorney fees under the common-benefit exception, the litigation must result in a benefit not only to the plaintiff, but also to the general public. See Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. at 478, 100 S.Ct. 745; Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 19 F.Supp.2d at 1269-70 (recognizing that the purpose underlying an award of attorney fees under the common-benefit exception is to spread the cost of the benefit over those benefited); see also Ex parte Horn, supra (spreading the cost of the benefit over the citizens of Birmingham because all citizens benefited from the consent judgment in favor of the plaintiff); Brown v. State, supra (spreading the cost of the benefit over state taxpayers because all taxpayers benefited from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff). In this case, Waldrop and certain other public schoolteachers benefited from the amendment to the Foundation Act. However, Waldrop and those schoolteachers are not the ones being asked to pay for that benefit. The trial court's award of attorney fees against the Board attempts to charge the costs associated with Waldrop's lawsuit to the State Board of Education and the local boards of education. Nothing suggests that the State Board and the local boards benefited from the amendment to the Foundation Act. Thus, the Board is not the proper group over which to spread the costs associated with Waldrop's litigation. Finally, even if we attributed some tangential benefit to the Board as a result of the amendment to the Foundation Act, the Board would be required to pay Waldrop's attorney fees with funds from its annual budget. That money is allocated to the Board for the purpose of educating children enrolled in Alabama's public schools. Thus, any award of attorney fees against the Board reduces the funds available for that purpose. We cannot conclude that Waldrop's litigation benefited all children enrolled in Alabama's public schools to the level required to justify an attorney-fee award under the common-benefit exception. The benefit, if any, inuring to the Board and the children enrolled in public schools as a result of Waldrop's lawsuit is more than offset by the reduction in funds that would be available for public education if the Board were required to pay the attorney fees. We conclude that an award of attorney fees under the common-benefit exception is inappropriate in this case. We do not hold that attorney fees may never be awarded against the State Board of Education or against the local boards under a common-benefit theory. We simply conclude that the benefit, if any, resulting from Waldrop's lawsuit did not justify an award of attorney fees against the Board in this case.