Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC v. Morgan County Board of Equalization
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
I agree with the Morgan Circuit Court's conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any “appeal” taken from a nonfinal judgment. I also agree that, based on the representations made to the trial court, the Morgan County Board of Equalization (“the Board”) is not equitably estopped from taking a contrary position.
I write separately to emphasize that the trial court, in rendering its judgment of dismissal, expressly relied on the Board's assurances that Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC (“Indorama”), “would have an additional avenue of appeal at the conclusion of the audit if there is a discrepancy” between the audit value and the assessed value. C. 120; see also R. at 14-15 (“[I]f the audit showed something in the variance, we [the Board] would file with them an escape valuation, and they [Indorama] would have another opportunity to appeal.”). The trial court had no reason to question the truth of that representation at the time it issued its ruling.
But Indorama now tells us that its most “recent communications with the [Board] indicate that the [Board] has abandoned” -- or intends to abandon -- “any plans to proceed with the [third-party] audit for 2022, apparently in order to avoid affording Indorama its statutory right to a hearing and appeal.” Indorama's reply brief at 11; see also id. at 9 n.1. We have no way of knowing what the parties will do in the future, but if Indorama's prediction holds true, then the Board's conduct would raise serious concerns. As the parties decide how to proceed, it bears emphasizing that misrepresentations to a trial court, if established, can have serious consequences, including justifying a motion for relief from judgment. See Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
With those observations, I concur in the decision to affirm the trial court's judgment.
MENDHEIM, Justice.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw and Bryan, JJ., concur. Mitchell, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: SC-2023-0461
Decided: March 22, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)