Opinion ID: 1827176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Was the grant of attorneys' fees proper in this case?

Text: In Alabama, attorneys' fees are recoverable only where authorized by statute, when provided in a contract, or by special equity, such as in a proceeding where the efforts of an attorney create a fund out of which fees may be paid. Shelby County Commission v. Smith, 372 So.2d 1092 (Ala. 1979); State ex rel. Payne v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 351 So.2d 538 (Ala.1977). We affirm the trial court's finding that the decree creates a common fund from which counsel fees may be paid. An identifiable common fund, termed the refund pool by the trial court, will be created prior to the actual distribution of refunds to eligible landowners: The Court finds that counsel for the plaintiffs have, by virtue of the tax refund ordered herein, created a pool of assets or common fund that will benefit the class immediately as well as prospectively through the reduction of future ad valorem taxes.... The defendants shall provide the plaintiffs with an accounting of all anticipated refunds ... and the plaintiffs shall thereafter have reasonable access to the books and records of the defendant as are necessary, in the discretion of plaintiffs' counsel, to verify the amount of the refund ordered herein. Following the deduction of fees and costs, the balance of the refund shall be distributed prorata [sic] to each eligible landowner accompanied by a clear explanation of the refund due and the deduction of attorneys' fees and costs. Consistent with the underlying philosophy of the common fund doctrine, an award of attorneys' fees from this fund spreads the costs and expenses of litigation among all those who benefit. The attorneys herein rendered their services not only for the litigant landowners, but also for all other members of the class. As this Court stated in Kimbrough v. Dickinson, 251 Ala. 677, 684, 39 So.2d 241 (1949): The rule rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden and expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense. (Citations omitted.) See also, Annot., 89 A.L.R.3d 690 (1979). For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed except as to the relief granted to landowners who did not apply for current use treatment. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.