Steeley v. NolenSteeley v. Nolen
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Almon
James Wesley Steeley appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, the City of Gadsden (“City”) and a number of its elected officials, in an аction for a declaratory judgment and in-junctive relief. Steeley brought this action in his capacity as a taxpayer, to challenge
The City filed a motion to dismiss Stee-ley’s complaint, alleging inter alia, that: (1) Steeley was not a “taxpayer” because he was delinquent in paying his ad valo-rem taxes and therefore lacked standing; and (2) Rapid Rail had failed to submit a bid bond as specified in the City’s invitation to bid and as required by
The trial court converted the City’s motiоn to one for summary judgment and held a hearing, at which affidavits, documentary evidence, and testimony were considered. After the hearing the court granted the City’s motion, holding, inter alia, that Steeley lacked standing and that Rapid Rail had failed to submit a proper bid bond. Steeley’s “motion to reconsider” was denied, and he appeals. He argues that the court erred by holding that he lacked standing; by holding that the bonds submitted by Rapid Rail did not comply with
Because we conclude that the trial court correctly held that Rapid Rail failed to submit a proper bid bоnd, the judgment is due to be affirmed. However, we do not agree with the court’s holding that Steeley lacked standing. Although that error does not require reversal in this cаse, the question of when a citizen could lose his status as a taxpayer, and thus, his standing to bring an action under sections like § 41-16-61, has far-reaching consequenсes and must be addressed.
Standing
Steeley’s action was brought pursuant to
“Any taxpayer of the area within the jurisdiction of the awarding authority and any bona fide unsuccessful bidder on a particular contract shall be еmpowered to bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin execution of any contract entered into in violation of thе provisions of this article.”
(Emphasis added.) The trial court held that because Steeley was delinquent in paying his ad valorem taxes for the years 1987-1989, he was not a taxpаyer and therefore lacked standing to bring an action pursuant to
The City argued at the trial level, and continues to contend, that the fact that Steeley was delinquent, standing alone, deprived him of his status as taxpayer. It directs this Court’s attention to one case, Donna Independent School Dist. v. Sanders,
The bankruptcy laws enacted by the federal government are remedial in nature and are intended to give debtors a fresh start, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt. Perez v. Campbell,
Rapid Rail’s Bid Bond
One of the grounds for the сourt’s entry of a summary judgment for the defendants was its holding that Rapid Rail had not submitted a proper bid bond, as required by
“It is further рrovided that all bidders must furnish a bid bond on any contract exceeding $10,000; provided that bonding is available for such services, equipment or materials.”
Section 12 of the City’s invitation, “Terms & Conditions To Be Complied With By All Bidders,” stated:
“Security in the form of a bid bond equal to five percent (5%) of the total bid must be furnished with all bids of $10,000 or more.”
Rapid Rail did not submit a bid bond that named it as the principal. Instead, it submitted bonds in the name of the truck supplier and in the name of the refuse container supplier that it planned to use if it was awarded the contract. The trial court held that
We agreе. The purpose of the statutory bond requirement is to guarantee that successful bidders honor the terms of their bids. That purpose can be accomplished only if the bidder is the principal on the bond, as the surety’s liability is measured by that of the principal. Phelps v. Dawson,
In White v. McDonald Ford Tractor Co.,
“We think that [awarding] authorities should have discretion in determining who is the lowest responsible bidder. This discretion should not be interfered with by any court unless it is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or unless it is based upon a misconception of the law or upon ignorance through lack of inquiry or in violation of law or is the result of improper influence.”
Because Rapid Rail failed to submit a proper bond, we conclude that the City did not exercise its discretion in an arbitrary,
Finally, we note that Steeley argues that he did not receive proper notice that the trial court had converted the City’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. However, our review of the record reveals that Steeley did not object to the allegedly insufficient notice. Any failure to comply with the notice requirement set out in Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P., must be raised at trial or is waived. Kelly v. Harrison,
Fоr the reasons set out above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
MOTION TO STAY PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Notes
. Neither Ingram nor Rapid Rail was made a party to this action, and there is no evidence that Steeley owned any interest in either company.