McInnish v. Bentley

116 So. 3d 201 (Ala. 2012) · Supreme Court of Alabama · August 24, 2012 · No. 1110321, 1110325, 1110330, 1110506

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court held that Alabama Constitution article I, § 14 bars an award of attorney fees and costs payable from the State treasury, even when a plaintiff prevails against state officials in their official capacities on a state constitutional claim that preserves significant public funds. Applying Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, the court reversed the judgment awarding Hugh McInnish $196,625 in attorney fees and costs and dismissed one mandamus petition as moot.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the Court
Woodall, Justice; Stuart; Bolin; Parker; Murdock; Shaw; Wise; Woodall
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Decision date
August 24, 2012
Docket number
1110321, 1110325, 1110330, 1110506
Procedural posture
Petition for a writ of mandamus and three appeals challenging a Montgomery Circuit Court judgment awarding McInnish $196,625 in attorney fees and costs against state officials in their official capacities.
Standard of review
De novo review of the legal issue whether Alabama Constitution § 14 barred the attorney-fee and cost award; the trial court's authority to enter the award was a legal question.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama
Parties
Governor Robert Bentley, in his official capacity, Marquita Davis, Alabama State Finance Director, in her official capacity, Tom White, Alabama State Comptroller, in his official capacity, Young Boozer III, Alabama State Treasurer, in his official capacity, Joint Fiscal Committee of the Alabama Legislature v. Hugh McInnish
Disposition
reversed

Topics

constitutional lawseparation of powersremediesdeclaratory judgmentappellate procedure

Practice areas

constitutional lawsovereign immunityappellate procedureattorney fees

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Alabama Constitution § 14 bars an award of attorney fees and costs from the State treasury when a plaintiff prevails against state officials in their official capacities on a claim that the officials violated the Alabama Constitution.
  2. Whether the common-benefit doctrine permits such an award because the litigation allegedly preserved significant funds in the State treasury and benefited Alabama taxpayers.

Holdings

  1. Alabama Constitution § 14 bars an award of attorney fees and costs payable from the State treasury even when the plaintiff prevails against state officials in their official capacities on a state constitutional claim.
  2. The amount of funds allegedly preserved and the benefit conferred on the public do not create an exception to § 14 immunity or permit access to the State treasury.

Key quotations

In short, we hold that § 14 bars an award of attorney fees and costs even if a plaintiff has prevailed on a claim against State officials in their official capacities for a violation of the State constitution that results in preservation of significant funds in the State treasury. (116 So. 3d at 204)
Simply put, § 14 bars access to the State coffers, regardless of the amounts involved. (116 So. 3d at 204)
The trial court lacked authority to award such attorney fees and costs. (116 So. 3d at 204)

Factual background

McInnish challenged Alabama's statutory community-services grant-making process, and the Supreme Court of Alabama previously held that the process violated the separation-of-powers provisions of the Alabama Constitution. After prevailing, McInnish sought attorney fees and costs from state officials in their official capacities, asserting that his litigation produced a common benefit and preserved significant funds in the state treasury. The circuit court awarded him $196,625 in attorney fees and costs.

Procedural history

McInnish previously obtained a judgment holding Alabama's community-services grant-making process unconstitutional, and this Court reversed and remanded. On remand, he sought attorney fees, expenses, and costs under the common-benefit doctrine. The Montgomery Circuit Court awarded him $196,625. The State officials and the Joint Fiscal Committee sought appellate and mandamus relief; the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed in three matters and dismissed the mandamus petition as moot in one.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…