Alabama Supreme Court Appellate Alert: Decisions from June 26, 2026

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, June 26, which included the following orders and opinions of interest to the business community:

• The City of Mountain Brook v. Miller – Alabama law authorizes, but does not require, municipalities to construct and maintain stormwater-drainage systems. A municipality that chooses to construct a drainage system assumes a duty to individuals to maintain that system. After the Millers’ property flooded, they sued Mountain Brook. They alleged that Mountain Brook was aware that its drainage system, built around 1928, had become inadequate to handle the amount of stormwater being drained through it and that Mountain Brook’s failure to upgrade the system amounted to negligent maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed and unanimously reversed the trial court’s judgment for the Millers. The Court held that a municipality’s decision to upgrade a drainage system by building new and larger pipes is different in kind from simply keeping and maintaining an existing system because it involves taking multiple public-policy factors into consideration. It implicates a duty owed to the public as a whole, not to individual property owners, and is left to the discretion of a municipality’s elected leaders. Thus, a municipality’s duty to maintain its drainage system does not include a duty to upgrade the system.

• Harper v. Taylor – This case, involving when attorney fees may be assessed against a party who unsuccessfully contests a will, resulted in splintered opinions and raises questions about how the Court will resolve future similar cases. Following a jury trial, the trial court ruled for Taylor and against her brother Harper in a dispute about their mother’s will. The trial court ordered Harper to pay almost $6.3 million in attorneys’ fees pursuant to an Alabama statute requiring the “costs” of any will contest to be “paid by the party contesting if he or she fails.” By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the attorneys’ fee award, but it produced no majority opinion. Three separate opinions acknowledged that, under Court precedents, the “costs” contemplated by the statute included attorneys’ fees and that to “fail” under the statute means to fail to provide what the Court has described as “some credible evidence.” An unsigned plurality opinion joined by Justices Cook, McCool, and Parker concluded that, under the Court’s prior applications of the “some credible evidence” test, a challenger who supports his claim with evidence sufficient to raise a question of fact, like Harper, cannot be liable for attorneys’ fees. Justice Bryan and Special Justice Bowden—a judge on the Court of Civil Appeals specially appointed for this case because of Justice Mendheim’s recusal—both agreed the attorneys’ fees award should be reversed, but neither joined the plurality’s reasoning. Justice Sellers, joined by Chief Justice Stewart and Justice Wise, would have affirmed the award based on the trial court’s finding that Harper’s challenge was “not supported by credible evidence.” Justice Shaw, also dissenting, suggested that Court precedent had strayed from the plain language of the statute. Under stare decisis principles, however, Justice Shaw rejected the plurality’s approach and said he would have assessed whether the trial court was correct in its credibility determination.

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of Maynard Nexsen’s Appellate Group.