James F. Hilgers, Carolyn M. Hilgers, and Hilgers Real Estate Investments, LLC v. Jefferson County and the Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/15/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090307 James F. H i l g e r s , C a r o l y n M. H i l g e r s , and H i l g e r s Real E s t a t e Investments, LLC v. J e f f e r s o n County and the Water Works Board o f the C i t y o f Birmingham Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-2758) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r Rehearing THOMAS, J u d g e . The opinion o f August following i s substituted 13, 2 0 1 0 , i s w i t h d r a w n , therefor. and t h e 2090307 James F. Hilgerses"), (the Hilgers along Hilgerses hereinafter claims Works Board to collectively i n favor Hilgers the as "the Hilgers f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d Court by of ("the are the judgment e n t e r e d Hilgers LLC appeal against M. H i l g e r s R e a l E s t a t e I n v e s t m e n t s , LLC, and Jefferson Circuit Carolyn with H i l g e r s Real Estate Investments, referred defendants"), and the of the J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y on i t s defendants circuit City of by court and from i n favor Birmingham ("the a of summary the WWB") Water on the claims s t a t e d i n the H i l g e r s d e f e n d a n t s ' t h i r d - p a r t y complaint against matter t h e WWB. We dismiss the a p p e a l f o r want o f subject- jurisdiction. Facts and Procedural History I n A p r i l 2008, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n S m a l l C l a i m s D i v i s i o n of the J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , to enforce owned by its the the liens Hilgerses complaint, the i t had the unpaid on three Hilgerses sewer-service 2 i n the seeking properties charges. County sought to o b t a i n H i l g e r s e s d i d n o t o c c u p y any times placed for unpaid sewer-service Jefferson judgment a g a i n s t The that amount o f had In a monetary the liens. of the p r o p e r t i e s d u r i n g charges the accrued. the The 2090307 Hilgerses had r e n t e d the properties to various tenants, those t e n a n t s had f a i l e d t o pay a l l t h e s e w e r - s e r v i c e owed t o J e f f e r s o n County i n connection with I n A u g u s t 2008, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d of Jefferson County subsequently circuit on appealed court for a trial charges the p r o p e r t i e s . a judgment i n f a v o r a l l of i t s claims. the d i s t r i c t and court's The Hilgerses judgment de novo a n d made a demand to the for a t r i a l by j u r y . On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2008, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y moved t h e c i r c u i t court f o r a summary judgment. The H i l g e r s e s responded t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d f i l e d a motion to dismiss indispensable party amended i t s c o m p l a i n t , LLC, the action for n a m e l y , t h e WWB. failure join an J e f f e r s o n County then adding H i l g e r s Real Estate Investments, as an a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t a n d c l a i m i n g t h a t i t was t h e owner o f a f o u r t h p r o p e r t y l i e n f o r unpaid sewer-service on w h i c h charges. Jefferson additional party eventually to the a c t i o n , which granted. 3 County had a On November 20, 2008, the H i l g e r s defendants f i l e d motions seeking an to t o a d d t h e WWB the c i r c u i t as court 2090307 On F e b r u a r y motion f o ra 16, 2009, J e f f e r s o n summary County judgment. filed a renewed The H i l g e r s defendants r e s p o n d e d t o J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment. favor The c i r c u i t of Jefferson court County entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n on M a r c h 2 5 , 2009, reaffirming J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s l i e n s on t h e t h r e e p r o p e r t i e s owned b y t h e Hilgerses. amended i t s summary t o reconsider filed judgment i n response Jefferson claim The c i r c u i t County, relating Investments, later t o a motion making t h e judgment t o the property LLC, a n d a w a r d i n g judgment a g a i n s t liens court effective owned b y H i l g e r s Jefferson properties. motion t o reconsider f i l e d by the H i l g e r s and a n e g l i g e n c e motion outside Estate a monetary t o dismiss claim. t o dismiss, court filed a third- breach-of-contract treated 4 defendants' held and, because the pleadings, denied a The WWB s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a the Hilgers The c i r c u i t court defendants. defendants p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e WWB, a l l e g i n g a complaint. County The c i r c u i t On May 29, 2009, t h e H i l g e r s motion Real the t h e H i l g e r s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e amount o f t h e on a l l f o u r claim as t o by third-party a hearing on t h e WWB's i t considered information t h e WWB's m o t i o n a s a m o t i o n 2090307 for a summary j u d g m e n t . The j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e WWB defendants subsequently c i r c u i t court entered on O c t o b e r 27, The Hilgers r a i s e d the i s s u e of t h i s court's appealed to t h i s 2009. a summary court. Analysis None o f t h e p a r t i e s has subject-matter because court jurisdiction jurisdictional i s permitted over matters this are of appeal. such magnitude, to n o t i c e a l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n motu. See R e e v e s v. S t a t e , 882 So. However, 2d 872, 874 this ex mero (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). " J u r i s d i c t i o n i s '[a] c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e a c a s e o r i s s u e a d e c r e e . ' B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 867 (8th ed. 2004). Subject-matter jurisdiction c o n c e r n s a c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e c e r t a i n t y p e s o f c a s e s . W o l f f v. McGaugh, 175 A l a . 299, 303, 57 So. 754, 755 (1911) ('"By jurisdiction over the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s meant t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n and o f t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t . " ' ( q u o t i n g C o o p e r v. R e y n o l d s , 77 U.S. (10 W a l l . ) 308, 316, 19 L.Ed. 931 (1870))). T h a t power i s d e r i v e d f r o m the A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e A l a b a m a Code. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o t t o n , 535 U.S. 625, 630-31, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction r e f e r s to a court's ' s t a t u t o r y or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power' t o a d j u d i c a t e a c a s e ) . " Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. A l a b a m a C o n s t . 1901, § 4 (Off. Recomp.), 2d 536, 538 ( A l a . 2006). L o c a l Amendments, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , which, among 5 other things, grants 2090307 Jefferson County the nondiscriminatory authority to "make any reasonable r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s f i x i n g [sewer-service] r a t e s and c h a r g e s , [and] p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e payment, and e n f o r c e m e n t thereof," provides, and i n pertinent collection part: "Such sewer r e n t a l s o r s e r v i c e c h a r g e s s h a l l be l e v i e d upon and c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e p e r s o n s and p r o p e r t y whose sewerage i s d i s p o s e d o f o r t r e a t e d by the sewers or the sewerage t r e a t m e n t o r d i s p o s a l p l a n t s and w h e t h e r s e r v e d by t h e p a r t o f t h e sewer system then b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d , improved, or extended o r by some o t h e r p a r t o f s u c h s y s t e m ; and s u c h c h a r g e s o r r e n t a l s s h a l l be a p e r s o n a l o b l i g a t i o n o f t h e o c c u p a n t o f t h e p r o p e r t y t h e sewerage f r o m w h i c h i s d i s p o s e d o f by s u c h s e w e r s o r t r e a t e d i n s u c h p l a n t s and s h a l l a l s o be a l i e n upon s u c h p r o p e r t y , e n f o r c e a b l e by a s a l e t h e r e o f . II "... L i e n s f o r sewer r e n t a l s o r s e r v i c e c h a r g e s shall be foreclosed i n s u c h manner as may be provided by law for foreclosing municipal assessments f o r p u b l i c improvements." (Emphasis Act added.) No. 619, A l a . Acts title, "authorize[s] extend and [Jefferson] repair 1949, J e f f e r s o n County sewers and Local improve, in sewer r e n t a l s o r i n [what i s now A l a . C o n s t . Jefferson 6 to i t s treatment plants [ C ] o u n t y and t o l e v y and c o l l e c t Amendments, according to construct, sewerage sewer s e r v i c e c h a r g e s as p r o v i d e d 1901, which, County, § 4 (Off. 2090307 R e c o m p . ) , ] " a n d " p r o v i d e [ s ] f o r t h e method o f f o r e c l o s i n g any assessments which remain unpaid," provides, i n Section 13, that " [ i ] n t h e e v e n t t h a t any s e r v i c e c h a r g e c h a r g e d t o any p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y s h a l l n o t be p a i d as a n d when due, t h e u n p a i d balance thereof and a l l i n t e r e s t accrued thereon, together with recording f e e s a n d c o u r t c o s t s , may be r e c o v e r e d by t h e c o u n t y commission i n a c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t the occupant of s u c h p a r c e l , a n d any l i e n on s u c h p a r c e l o f r e a l property f o r such s e r v i c e charge and interest a c c r u e d t h e r e o n may be f o r e c l o s e d i n any s u c h manner as may be p r o v i d e d by l a w f o r f o r e c l o s i n g m u n i c i p a l assessments f o r p u b l i c improvements. N e i t h e r o f t h e f o r e g o i n g r e m e d i e s s h a l l be e x c l u s i v e o f t h e o t h e r ; and t h e s a i d c o u n t y may p u r s u e e i t h e r o f s a i d remedies separately, or both of said remedies simultaneously, until the f u l l amount of the c h a r g e s , i n t e r e s t , c o u r t c o s t s , and r e c o r d i n g f e e s have b e e n c o l l e c t e d . " (Emphasis added.) The M u n i c i p a l P u b l i c Improvement A c t , c o d i f i e d at A l a . Code 1975, § 11-48-1 e t s e q . , g o v e r n s t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a n d the foreclosure improvements. of municipal assessments for public A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 11-48-33, p r o v i d e s : " I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e method h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d in this article f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of such assessments, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may e n f o r c e s a i d [ 1 ] A m u n i c i p a l i t y may a l s o s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y on w h i c h an a s s e s s m e n t h a s b e e n l e v i e d i f t h e owner f a i l s t o t i m e l y p a y t h e a s s e s s m e n t . See A l a . Code 1975, § 11-48-49. 1 7 2090307 l i e n s , and i n a l l c i v i l a c t i o n s w h i c h may be b r o u g h t t o e n f o r c e s a i d l i e n s e i t h e r by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y o r by i t s a s s i g n s , t h e c o m p l a i n a n t s h a l l r e c o v e r the amount o f s u c h a s s e s s m e n t , w i t h i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n , t o g e t h e r w i t h the c o s t of such p r o c e e d i n g s . " Thus, Ala. County, § 4 County Const. 1901, Local ( O f f . Recomp.), and the constitutional and Act. Amendments, No. 619 statutory prescribes t h a t any foreclosed manner may in such foreclosing municipal In turn, municipal method by § be assessments which governs for public Jefferson such l i e n s provided the circuit in the over court. district an County action to place "shall by law may enforcement obtain enforce be for improvements." a of the monetary t h e owners o f S e c t i o n § 11-48-33 e x p r e s s l y g r a n t s jurisdiction to improvements, p r o v i d e s j u d g m e n t i n t h e amount o f t h e l i e n s a g a i n s t property. Jefferson f o r u n p a i d sewer- assessments f o r p u b l i c 11-48-33, which as grant authority l i e n s on t h e H i l g e r s d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t i e s s e r v i c e c h a r g e s and Jefferson the subject-matter such liens to the However, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y b r o u g h t i t s a c t i o n court, which, accordingly, matter j u r i s d i c t i o n to enforce the liens. has no subject- 2 On r e h e a r i n g , J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a r g u e s t h a t i t s l a w s u i t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was p r o p e r l y f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t b e c a u s e i t was an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e u n d e r l y i n g d e b t f o r 2 8 2090307 Because the jurisdiction over is void. Riley void court v. district 3 So. 3d 835, not support an appeal, and appeal from dismiss an attempted App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g Vann v. Civ. App. 2008)). court Hilgerses' take appeal. 14 So. Cook, 989 Consequently, jurisdiction could subject-matter Pate, j u d g m e n t . ' " C o l b u r n v. C o l b u r n , acquired lacked J e f f e r s o n County's complaint, judgment w i l l must court over the no action See Ex the ( A l a . 2008). 3d 176, So. 'an 179 than Smith, ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ( o p i n i n g t h a t "on a p p e a l c i r c u i t court l a c k [ s ] subject matter 438 to So. a void (Ala. Civ. 2d 556, circuit "A appellate such 559 (Ala. court never H i l g e r s e s ' appeal, other parte 838 i t s judgment and dismiss 2d that the 766, 768 [ f o r a t r i a l de n o v o ] , the j u r i s d i c t i o n to consider unpaid s e w e r - s e r v i c e charges, not a s u i t to e n f o r c e the l i e n s t h a t i t had p l a c e d on t h e p r o p e r t i e s owned by t h e H i l g e r s defendants. The H i l g e r s d e f e n d a n t s were t h e owners o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s i n t h i s c a s e ; h o w e v e r , t h e y were n o t t h e o c c u p a n t s of those properties. As Alabama Const. 1901, Local Amendments, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , § 4 ( O f f . Recomp.), makes c l e a r , unpaid s e w e r - s e r v i c e charges are the p e r s o n a l o b l i g a t i o n of t h e o c c u p a n t o f a p r o p e r t y , n o t o f t h e owner, and § 13, A c t No. 619, A l a . A c t s 1949, a u t h o r i z e s t h e c o u n t y t o f i l e a c i v i l a c t i o n to c o l l e c t unpaid s e w e r - s e r v i c e charges o n l y a g a i n s t t h e o c c u p a n t o f a p r o p e r t y , n o t t h e owner. T h e r e f o r e , the o n l y mechanism o f c o l l e c t i o n t h e c o u n t y c o u l d p u r s u e a g a i n s t the H i l g e r s defendants, as nonoccupant owners of the p r o p e r t i e s a t i s s u e t h i s c a s e , was an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e l i e n s t h a t i t had p l a c e d on t h e p r o p e r t i e s . 9 2090307 more t h a n a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o v e r w h i c h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a d subject matter jurisdiction"; citing Ala. 603, 38 So. 2d 870 ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 479, 25 So. 2d 147 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ) . judgment i s a l s o v o i d . is void, this defendants' dismiss circuit court appeal. and Hilgers lacks jurisdiction Colburn, the WITHDRAWN; OPINION appeal, court's judgment the Hilgers Thus, we a n d we i n s t r u c t t h e court to vacate their case. motion i s denied OVERRULED; over 14 So. 3d a t 179. district defendants' J e f f e r s o n County's b r i e f APPLICATION the c i r c u i t Because t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r e s p e c t i v e judgments i n t h i s The v . P o l l o c k , 251 a n d C r a i g v. R o o t , 247 A l a . Therefore, the H i l g e r s defendants' court State to strike of as moot. OPINION SUBSTITUTED; portions OF AUGUST APPEAL 13, 2010, DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n , J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t s i n p a r t as t o t h e o p i n i o n a n d d i s s e n t s as t o t h e d e n i a l o f r e h e a r i n g , w i t h w r i t i n g , which Pittman, J . , j o i n s . 10 2090307 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t as t o t h e o p i n i o n and d i s s e n t i n g as t o t h e d e n i a l o f r e h e a r i n g . I c o n c u r i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n p a r t as t o t h e m a j o r i t y opinion, and I respectfully decision to overrule dissent Jefferson from County's the majority's application for a rehearing. Jefferson district County's court, complaint, which was filed i n the stated, i n pertinent part: " [ J e f f e r s o n County] c l a i m s o f [the H i l g e r s e s ] the f o l l o w i n g amounts due by l a w o r o r d i n a n c e including interest, future interest, penalties, a t t o r n e y f e e s and o t h e r amounts a c c r u i n g i n t h e future: "$2,228.75 Principal "$ Interest "$ 13.92 744.12 A t t o r n e y "$2,986.79 $135.00 Total fees claimed PLUS court costs of " "(7) Sewer S e r v i c e Fund F e e s " J e f f e r s o n County a t t a c h e d copies system l i e n s t h a t i t had p l a c e d the of t h e s t a t e m e n t s of seweron t h r e e p r o p e r t i e s owned b y H i l g e r s e s , w h i c h were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 11 t h e u n p a i d sewer- 2090307 service charges Jefferson County sought t o recover in i t s complaint. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a c o m p l a i n t i s t o be construed." 757 C a l h o u n v. C o f f e e C o u n t y Comm'n, 706 So. 2d 755, ( A l a . C i v . App. Jefferson County's unpaid sewer-service After a t r i a l , 1997). Under complaint a claim circuit County a f o r both the a monetary judgment The H i l g e r s e s appealed t o the J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . court initially entered a summary f a v o r o f J e f f e r s o n County e n f o r c i n g the l i e n s . the construction, charges and t h e enforcement o f t h e l i e n s . the d i s t r i c t court entered c i r c u i t court. circuit a liberal stated i n f a v o r o f J e f f e r s o n County. The liberally court monetary amended i t s judgment judgment on the judgment i n Subsequently, t o award unpaid Jefferson sewer-service charges. Although appeal from jurisdiction I agree w i t h the d i s t r i c t to enforce the majority court, the l i e n s opinion the c i r c u i t against that, court lacked the H i l g e r s e s , 3 a g r e e w i t h J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y ' s argument i n i t s r e h e a r i n g I brief A l a b a m a C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 1 1 - 4 8 - 3 3 , p r o v i d e s t h a t an a c t i o n e n f o r c e a l i e n m u s t be i n i t i a l l y f i l e d i n c i r c u i t court. 3 to on an 12 2090307 t h a t , on an a p p e a l did, in fact, from the d i s t r i c t c o u r t , the c i r c u i t have j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r the unpaid s e w e r - s e r v i c e court also had claims against WWB. should the not be charges. of WWB; Accordingly, dismissed Similarly, 4 address and I the breach conclude i n s o f a r as the this court that appeal with regard on foregoing, Hilgerses' contract the appeal i t addresses the sewer-service should circuit of address to the those circuit c h a r g e s and i t s the H i l g e r s e s ' t h i r d - p a r t y complaint instead, Hilgerses' to negligence c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e u n p a i d d i s m i s s a l of t o award a monetary judgment jurisdiction third-party court against merits the of of portions the the judgment. Based opinion's the dismissal enforcement of the of liens I the concur appeal against the with with the majority regard to H i l g e r s e s ; however, d i s s e n t to the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n ' s d i s m i s s a l of the appeal regard to the judgment for the J e f f e r s o n County on the I with unpaid A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 2 - 3 1 ( a ) , p r o v i d e s : "The d i s t r i c t court s h a l l e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l c i v i l a c t i o n s i n which the matter i n controversy, e x c l u s i v e of i n t e r e s t and c o s t s , does n o t e x c e e d t h r e e t h o u s a n d dollars /to r\ r\ r\ ii ($3, 0 0 0 )\ . " 4 13 2090307 sewer-service charges and with complaint. Pittman, J . , concurs. 14 regard to the third-party

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.