Opinion ID: 1601400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's Request for a Declaratory Order

Text: The State seeks review of the Montgomery Circuit Court's decision to deny without prejudice the State's request for a declaratory order. The agreement allows any settling state or PM to bring an action in the settling state's respective state court to obtain a declaration construing any such term [of this agreement] with respect to disputes, alleged violations or alleged breaches within such Settling State. § VII(c)(1). The State gave the required notice that it intended to move for a declaratory order to have the Montgomery Circuit Court construe the term diligent enforcement as it is used in the agreement. The State argues here that the Montgomery Circuit Court erred in denying its motion for a declaratory order because, it argues, the motion was not actually filed and there was never any briefing or hearing on the issue. We agree. This Court has stated that `the court can consider only the issues made by the pleadings, and the judgment may not extend beyond such issues nor beyond the scope of the relief demanded.' Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972, 984 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Central Bank of Alabama, N.A. v. Ambrose, 435 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Ala.1983), quoting in turn Sylvan Beach, Inc. v. Koch, 140 F.2d 852, 861-62 (8th Cir.1944)). The State had not yet moved for the declaratory order; therefore, we reverse the circuit court's decision denying the State's motion for a declaratory order, and we remand these cases with instructions for the circuit court to vacate the denial of the State's anticipated motion. [10]