Naftel v. State ex rel. Driggars

361 So.3d 751

James P. NAFTEL II, individually and in his official capacity as Probate Judge for Jefferson County, and Governor Kay Ivey v. STATE of Alabama EX REL. Charles R. DRIGGARS

Ex parte James P. Naftel II, individually and in his official capacity as Probate Judge for Jefferson County, and Governor Kay Ivey

( In re: State of Alabama ex rel. Charles R. Driggars v. James P. Naftel II, individually and in his official capacity as Probate Judge for Jefferson County, and Governor Kay Ivey)

1200755

1200787

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 18, 2022

Steve Marshall, att'y gen., and Edmund G. LaCour, Jr., solicitor gen., A. Barrett Bowdre, deputy solicitor gen., and A. Reid Harris, asst. att'y gen., for James P. Naftel II, in his official capacity.

Maibeth J. Porter, John C. Neiman, Jr., and Thomas W.H. Buck, Jr. , of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for James P. Naftel II, in his individual capacity.

William G. Parker, Jr., gen. counsel, Office of the Governor, for Governor Kay Ivey.

Bruce F. Rogers of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP, Birmingham; and Barry A. Ragsdale of Dominick Feld Hyde, PC, Birmingham, for State of Alabama ex rel. Charles R. Driggars.

SELLERS, Justice. ¹

These consolidated appellate proceedings arise from a quo warranto action filed by the State of Alabama, on the relation of Charles R. Driggars, challenging Governor Kay Ivey's appointment of James P. Naftel II to the office of Judge of Probate of Jefferson County, place no. 1. In case no. 1200755, Judge Naftel, individually and in his official capacity, and Governor Ivey appeal from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying their motion for a summary judgment. We reverse that order of the circuit court and remand the case for that court to enter a summary judgment in their favor. In case no. 1200787, those same parties seek a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its discovery orders in the quo warranto action. We dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.

I. Facts

On May 31, 2020, Judge Alan King retired, creating a vacancy in the office of Judge of Probate of Jefferson County, place no. 1. On June 30, 2020, Governor Ivey appointed Naftel to fill that vacancy. The next day, the State of Alabama, on the relation of Charles R. Driggars ("the relator"), commenced a quo warranto action pursuant to § 6-6-591(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, alleging that Judge Naftel was holding that office unlawfully. ² During the proceedings below, the parties disputed whether, under § 153 Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.) (derived from § 6.14 of Amendment No. 328 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901), Governor Ivey had the sole authority to fill, by appointment, a vacancy existing in the office of Judge of Probate of Jefferson County without considering nominees selected by the Jefferson County Judicial Commission ("the judicial commission"). Both sides filed cross-motions for a summary judgment, conceding that the action involves only a legal question regarding the interpretation of § 153 and its interplay with Local Amendments, Jefferson County, § 8 and § 9, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.) (derived from, respectively, Amendment No. 83 and Amendment No. 110 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901). The circuit court denied both summary-judgment motions and scheduled the action for a jury trial. Judge Naftel and Governor Ivey appealed from the denial of their motion for a summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(C), Ala. R. App. P.

II. Discussion

A. Interlocutory Appeal - Rule 4(a)(1)(C), Ala. R. App. P.

As a threshold issue, we address whether the circuit court's order denying the motion for a summary judgment filed by Judge Naftel and Governor Ivey falls with the purview of Rule 4(a)(1)(C), Ala. R. App. P., which authorizes appeals from "any interlocutory order determining the right to public office." In his motion to dismiss the appeal, the relator argues that, because Rule 4(a)(1)(C) refers to orders " determining the right to public office" (emphasis added), it applies only to orders declaring that a person does or does not have the right to hold and occupy a public office. He contends in his motion to dismiss that, because the circuit court denied the parties’ cross-motions for a summary judgment and set the matter for a jury trial, "there has been no determination by the circuit court regarding whether Judge Naftel was or was not lawfully or properly appointed by the Governor." Thus, the relator asserts that the appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(C) is due to be dismissed. ³ In response to the motion to dismiss the appeal, Judge Naftel and Governor Ivey contend that the relator's reading of Rule 4(a)(1)(C) deprives the rule of significant meaning. They assert in their response that

"[t]he interlocutory ‘determination’ in Rule 4(a)(1)(C) must therefore be one that is not conclusive, yet determines the right to public office in some way. The denial of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment -- i.e., the denial of a motion seeking a conclusive determination -- fits the bill. In this case, for instance, the circuit court determined that Judge Naftel was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that more facts are needed to conclusively determine whether he is the rightful office holder. That is an interlocutory -- though not conclusive -- determination of Judge Naftel's ‘right to public office.’ "

As Judge Naftel and Governor Ivey describe it in their response to the motion to dismiss the appeal, the order at issue was one "denying a substantive, dispositive motion made on purely legal grounds that asks for a conclusive determination of the right to public office." We agree. "By and large, the construction of rules of court are for the court which promulgated them." Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 281 Ala. 111, 115, 199 So. 2d 653, 656 (1967). "In construing rules of court, this Court has applied the rules of construction applicable to statutes." Ex parte State ex rel. Daw, 786 So. 2d 1134, 1137 (Ala. 2000). " ‘A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant, and so that one section will not destroy another unless the provision is the result of obvious mistake or error.’ " Ex parte Welch, 519 So. 2d 517, 519 (Ala. 1987) (quoting Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.06 (4th ed.)).

In this case, the circuit court entered an order denying the parties’ cross-motions for a summary judgment. In those motions, each side asserted that there was no genuine issue of a material fact and conceded that the action was based on a pure question of law regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions. That order, denying both summary-judgment motions, was a determination of a right to public office; by not deciding what the parties agree is a purely legal issue, the circuit court made a determination, and an appeal from that lack of a decision is precisely what Rule 4(a)(1)(C) is intended to provide. Our conclusion is buttressed by the nature of quo warranto actions, which are expedited proceedings because of the public's interest in quickly resolving questions surrounding who holds public office in Alabama. Rule 4(a)(1)(C) itself recognizes the importance of prompt resolution of such questions by providing that appeals provided by that rule are to be filed within 14 days. In this case, Governor Ivey appointed Judge Naftel on June 30, 2020, and the relator challenged that appointment the very next day. The case has been pending now for more than 19 months, and both sides have conceded that the circuit court was in a position to decide the dispositive legal issue by summary judgment based solely on the plain wording of the constitution. The circuit court, however, entered an order denying the cross-motions for a summary judgment and scheduled the action for a jury trial. That order, if allowed to stand, will cause further delay, which would be manifestly against the best interests of the public as well as Judge Naftel. The lack of a prompt decision places a cloud over the Jefferson Probate Court by permitting only tentative decisions because of the possibility that Judge Naftel has been improperly appointed. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the circuit court's order in this case falls within the purview of Rule 4(a)(1)(C).

B. Standard of Review

This case, involving competing motions for a summary judgment, involves a pure question of law upon which the circuit court declined to decide, thus depriving the parties of a final judgment on the merits. Accordingly, based on the expeditious nature of quo warranto proceedings, this Court will make an independent, de novo, determination of the legal question presented. See King v. Campbell, 988 So. 2d 969 (Ala. 2007) (noting that questions of law are reviewed de novo); see also State ex rel. Williams-Scott v. Penny, 319 So. 3d 514 (Ala. 2019) (applying de novo standard of review in appeal involving quo warranto action).

C. Merits

As all the parties agree, this case concerns the interpretation of § 153 and its interplay with Local Amendments, Jefferson County, § 8 and § 9, which pertain exclusively to Jefferson County. The question presented is whether, under § 153, the Governor of Alabama has the sole authority to fill, by appointment, a vacancy existing in the office of Judge of Probate of Jefferson County without considering the nominees selected by the judicial commission of that county.

Section 153, which addresses the filling of vacancies in judicial offices, provides:

"The office of a judge shall be vacant if he dies, resigns, retires, or is removed. Vacancies in any judicial office shall be filled by appointment of the governor; however, vacancies occurring in any judicial office in Jefferson county shall be filled as now provided by amendments 83 and 110 to the Constitution of Alabama 1901 [Jefferson

...