194 So. 3d 214
Ala.2015Background
- Judge Rick Allison (probate judge and county chief elections officer) solicited bids from two county newspapers to publish statutorily required voter lists and election notices; he contracted with The Corridor Messenger after it submitted the lower bid.
- Walker County Commission (through county administrator Jill Farris) refused to pay the Corridor Messenger for publications, asserting the Commission must approve publisher selection and costs.
- Allison filed in Walker Circuit Court seeking mandamus/declaratory relief to compel the Commission to pay; the circuit court denied relief, holding the Commission’s funding obligation included the right to select the publisher and set price.
- Allison appealed, arguing that the statutes imposing the duty to “shall publish” on the probate judge implicitly authorize him to contract for publication and bind the Commission to pay.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court on the authority-to-contract issue, holding the probate judge’s duty to publish includes authority to contract with a newspaper; remanded to determine whether the Alabama competitive-bid law applied and whether Allison substantially complied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probate judge who is statutorily required to publish voter lists may select the newspaper and contract for publication, binding the county commission to pay | Allison: "Shall publish" imposes both duty and necessary authority to contract; commission must pay | Farris: Commission must authorize selection and costs because it funds the expense and has discretion under §17-4-1 | Held: Probate judge may contract for required publication; commission’s funding obligation does not include veto power over selection or price |
| Whether the county commission’s discretionary authority to publish (as advertising supplement) overrides the probate judge’s "shall publish" duty | Allison: Commission’s discretion to publish itself does not supersede judge’s mandatory duty | Farris: Commission’s discretion implies authority to decide format, publisher, and cost | Held: Court rejected Farris’s interpretation; giving the commission such control would frustrate statute’s purpose and timing requirements |
| Whether the probate judge’s contract must comply with Alabama competitive-bid law | Farris: Contract is subject to competitive-bid statutes and may be invalid if not complied with | Allison: He substantially complied with competitive-bid requirements | Held: Remanded — trial court did not decide whether bid law applied or whether there was substantial compliance; those issues must be resolved on remand |
| Whether Allison is entitled to attorney fees for seeking enforcement | Allison: Requests fees if he prevails in binding commission to pay | Farris: Opposes or limits fee award until bid-law and compliance issues resolved | Held: Remanded to consider appropriateness of attorney fees after competitive-bid issues addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365 (Ala. 1994) (standard for review when facts undisputed and legal application is at issue)
- Wood v. Booth, 990 So.2d 314 (Ala. 2008) (statutory-construction principles and de novo review citations)
- Pace v. Armstrong World Indus., 578 So.2d 281 (Ala. 1991) (rules for ascertaining legislative intent in statutory construction)
- Kennedy v. City of Prichard, 484 So.2d 432 (Ala. 1986) (substantial compliance can satisfy competitive-bid requirements)
- Brown's Ferry Waste Disposal Ctr., Inc. v. Trent, 611 So.2d 226 (Ala. 1992) (substantial compliance doctrine applied to public bidding)
- Ex parte Forrester, 914 So.2d 855 (Ala. 2005) (authoritative precedent cited for appellate review standards)