Colbert County Board of Education v. Melcha Satchel (Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court: CV-24-23).

Rel: February 14, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.

Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,

Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025

_________________________

CL-2024-0534

_________________________

Colbert County Board of Education

v.

Melcha Satchel

Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court

(CV-24-23)

LEWIS, Judge.

The Colbert County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from

a judgment entered by the Colbert Circuit Court ("the circuit court")

reversing the Board's termination of Melcha Satchel's employment. We

affirm the circuit court's judgment.

CL-2024-0534

Procedural History

On May 16, 2024, Satchel, a principal employed by the Board, filed

in the circuit court a request for a nonjury expedited evidentiary hearing

pursuant to § 16-24B-3(e)(2)b., Ala. Code 1975, of the Alabama Teacher

Accountability Act ("the Act"), § 16-24B-1 et seq. After a trial, the circuit

court entered an order on June 27, 2024, in favor of Satchel. The circuit

court specifically found that the Board had not provided Satchel with

proper notice and that the Board failed to prove that Satchel willfully

violated the Board's policy.

On July 1, 2024, the Board filed a motion for clarification of the

circuit court's order. On July 2, 2024, Satchel requested that the circuit

court order the Board to reinstate his employment, asserting that,

despite the June 27, 2024, order, "the Board has taken the position that

it will not reinstate ... Satchel to his position." On July 3, 2024, the Board

filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's order or,

alternatively, for a new trial.

On July 10, 2024, the Board electronically filed its notice of appeal

with the circuit-court clerk. Later that same day, the circuit court entered

an order that it stated served as an addendum to the previous order. In

2

CL-2024-0534

the subsequent order, the circuit court again found that the Board had

failed to give Satchel proper notice pursuant to § 16-24B-3(e)(2) and that

the Board had not shown that Satchel willfully violated the Board's

policy. The circuit court further specifically stated that the employment

contract between Satchel and the Board remained in effect. The circuit

court's order stated:

"An April 18, 2024, letter from Superintendent [Chris]

Hand listed allegations whereby he gave his recommendation

to the … Board … to cancel the contract of … Satchel. The

letter stated to the Board … that his recommendation was

based on the grounds of willful failure to comply with board

policy, and/or other good and just cause.

"A hearing contesting the recommended cancellation

took place on May 10, 2024. Subsequent to the hearing, the …

Board … voted 4-2 to cancel … Satchel's employment contract.

The Board … immediately notified ... Satchel of its decision to

cancel the contract. A copy of the letter of cancellation was

given to … Satchel on May 10, 2024. The letter did not list any

reasons for the cancellation of the contract. The letter was

provided to this Court in Exhibit 2 that accompanied the

Board's initial filing.

"In a letter dated May 15, 2024, … Satchel formally

requested a non-jury expedited evidentiary hearing before the

Circuit Court. He would follow that request with a Motion for

Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Alabama

Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion was filed on June 18,

2024. The Motion states that the Board … was required to

provide … Satchel with a statement of reasons for

cancellation. The Motion further argued that the Board has

not and cannot provide a statement of the reasons for

3

CL-2024-0534

cancellation. After hearing arguments on June 21, 2024[,] this

Court denied Summary Judgment due to both parties

expressing they could not provide case law for their position

"The case then proceeded to trial where this Court heard

the evidence and testimony in an Ore Tenus Hearing. Based

on said hearing, this Court found the following statute to be

the primary point of law:

"1. 16-24B-3(e)2 of the Code of Alabama, 1975 states that

the Board canceling a Principal contract 'within five days of

the action of the employing board canceling or non renewing

the contract of the contract principal, the employing board

shall provide written notice pursuant to subsection (c) to the

contract principal with a statement of the reason upon which

such action was taken.'

"The Board … argued to this Court that (1) an abundance

of due process had been given ... Satchel prior to his

termination and (2) the spirit of the law had been followed as

to due process being given. The Board … argued these points

while also admitting that they had not followed the statute

which provides five (5) days to give its reasons for canceling

[Satchel's] contract.

"The Alabama legislature, in writing the above statute,

gave great specificity to be followed. The statute requires a

very specific act of due process requiring a Board of

Education, once it ha[s] voted to cancel a principal's contract,

to provide written notice stating its reasons within five days.

This Court would note that the language is very specific and

uses the word 'shall.' Simply put, the … Board … failed to

comply with the statute although the Teacher Accountability

Act commands strict adherence.

"The Board … argues they did follow the spirit of the law,

but this Court, in its decision and final order, must follow the

letter of the law as is required by the Alabama legislature.

4

CL-2024-0534

The Court of Civil Appeals has distinguished between cases

of non-renewals and cancellations of principals' contracts. In

Ex [p]arte Undrea Johnson[,] 332 So. 3d 910 (2020), the Court

held that in cases of cancellations, the burden is on the board

of education. The Code of Alabama, 16-24B-3(e)2 requires that

the [B]oard follow the letter of the law in giving notice, and

their reason for canceling -- it has failed to do so. Due process

is an unwaivable requirement. The notice required in the

above statute as written by the Alabama legislature is within

the meaning of due process.

"Testimony was taken as to whether … Satchel willfully

violated [B]oard policy. This Court based its decision on the

evidence and testimony taken during an ore tenus hearing.

The Board … failed to meet its burden and did not prove …

Satchel willfully violated the board policy. The Board failed in

two key points (a) not giving proper notice that … Satchel was

terminated due to a willful violation; and (b) failure to meet

the burden of proof of a willful violation.

"After learning of the Principal's school grade from the

Department of Education[,] the Board … rehired him for a

new three-year period ending in May 2026. Therefore, any

attempt to use this reason for termination is pretextual and

can not be used as a basis for terminating Satchel's contract.

Further testimony taken from the Superintendent of

Education demonstrated verbal communication between the

Superintendent and the Principal. This verbal

communication occurred with a failure by the Superintendent

to give notice or instruction in writing. Again, and for

emphasis, the Board failed to give proper notice to Mr. Satchel

as to this point as well, as it lacks the requisite due process to

be used as a cause for termination.

"Finally, the Board … asks for clarification of the Rule 52

partial findings during the ore tenus hearing. This Court,

based on the evidence and testimony taken during the ore

5

CL-2024-0534

tenus hearing, found that the Board … failed to meet its

burden:

"Based on this Court's finding that the Board … failed to

meet its burden, the contract between the Board … and

Satchel remains in place; therefore, the contract between

Satchel and the Colbert County Board of Education remains

in full force and effect.

"All other relief requested by either party is herein

DENIED."

The circuit court transmitted the notice of appeal to this court.

Thereafter, this court requested that the parties submit letter briefs

directed to the issue of whether the Board's notice of appeal filed with the

clerk of the circuit court properly invoked this court's jurisdiction. See,

e.g., Maxwell v. Maxwell, 266 So. 3d 748, 750 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018)

("Jurisdictional issues are of such importance that this court may take

notice of them ex mero motu.") Both parties submitted letter briefs to

this court.

Section 16-24B-5(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

"All appeals of a final decision from the expedited evidentiary

hearing shall lie with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. An

appeal shall be filed within 14 days after the receipt of the

final written decision of the circuit judge or the mediator. An

appeal by either party shall be perfected by filing a written

notice of appeal with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals

within 14 days after the receipt of the final written decision of

the circuit judge or the mediator by the party. …"

6

CL-2024-0534

(Emphasis added).

Because the notice of appeal was transmitted from the circuit court

to this court within 14 days, this court allowed the appeal to proceed.

Discussion

On appeal, the Board argues that (1) the circuit court erred by

holding a trial de novo instead of an expedited evidentiary hearing; (2)

the circuit court erred by declining to uphold the termination of Satchel's

employment because Satchel stipulated that the termination was not due

to personal or political reasons; and (3) the circuit court erred by failing

to allow Board members to testify concerning their reasons for

terminating Satchel's employment.

We note, however, that the trial court based its judgment on both

the Board's failure to give Satchel proper notice pursuant to § 16-24B-

3(e)(2) and the Board's failure to show that Satchel willfully violated the

Board's policy. Section 16-24B-3(e)(2) provides that, "[w]ithin five days

of the action of the employing board of canceling or nonrenewing the

contract of the contract principal, the employing board shall provide

written notice pursuant to subsection (c) [of this section] to the contract

7

CL-2024-0534

principal with a statement of the reasons upon which such action was

taken."

The Board argues in its opening brief, without citation to authority,

that, because Satchel was given notice of the reasons for the termination

of his employment on multiple occasions, no due process violation

occurred despite the technical violation of the statute. The Board argues,

again without citation to authority, that, even if there was a due process

violation, nullification of the employment termination was an improper

remedy. "When a trial court provides multiple reasons supporting its

judgment, an appellant seeking reversal of that judgment is required to

challenge all of those reasons in its opening brief, failing which the

judgment is due to be affirmed. Alabama Department of Mental Health

v. Nobles Grp. Homes, Inc., 343 So. 3d 1140, 1145-46 (Ala. Civ. App.

2021); see also Soutullo v. Mobile Cnty., 58 So. 3d 733, 738-39 (Ala. 2010).

In Soutullo, the trial court, relying on two separate grounds, entered a

judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the

plaintiffs challenged only one of those two grounds for the judgment. Our

supreme court affirmed the judgment, writing, as set out in Nobles:

" 'In order to secure a reversal, "the appellant

has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the

8

CL-2024-0534

record." Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So. 2d 1263, 1264

(Ala.1983). It is a familiar principle of law:

" ' "When an appellant confronts

an issue below that the appellee

contends warrants a judgment in its

favor and the trial court's order does

not specify a basis for its ruling, the

omission of any argument on appeal as

to that issue in the appellant's

principal brief constitutes a waiver

with respect to the issue."

"Fogarty v. Southworth, 953 So. 2d 1225, 1232

(Ala. 2006) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

This waiver, namely, the failure of the appellant to

discuss in the opening brief an issue on which the

trial court might have relied as a basis for its

judgment, results in an affirmance of that

judgment. Id. That is so, because 'this court will

not presume such error on the part of the trial

court.' Roberson v. C.P. Allen Constr. Co., 50 So.

3d 471, 478 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (emphasis

added). See also Young v. Southern Life & Health

Ins. Co., 495 So. 2d 601 (Ala. 1986). If an appellant

defaults on his or her duty to show error by failing

to argue in an opening brief an unstated ground

that was placed in issue below, then, a fortiori, a

challenge to the judgment is waived where, as

here, the trial court actually states two grounds for

its judgment, both grounds are championed by the

appellee, and the appellant simply declines to

mention one of the two grounds."

" 'Because the [plaintiffs] have pretermitted

discussion of one of the two grounds forming the

basis for the [judgment as a matter of law], we

9

CL-2024-0534

pretermit discussion of the other ground, and we

affirm the judgment.'

"Soutullo[ v. Mobile Cnty.], 58 So. 3d [733,] 738-39[ (Ala.

2010)]."

Nobles, 343 So. 3d at 1146.

Furthermore, our supreme court has explained:

"It is the appellant's burden to refer this Court to legal

authority that supports its argument. Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.

App. P., requires that the argument in an appellant's brief

include 'citations to the cases, statutes, [and] other

authorities ... relied on.' Consistent with Rule 28, '[w]e have

stated that it is not the function of this court to do a party's

legal research.' Spradlin v. Spradlin, 601 So. 2d 76, 78 (Ala.

1992) (citing Henderson v. Alabama A & M University, 483

So. 2d 392, 392 (Ala. 1986) (' "Where an appellant fails to cite

any authority, we may affirm, for it is neither our duty nor

function to perform all the legal research for an appellant."

Gibson v. Nix, 460 So. 2d 1346, 1347 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).'))."

Board of Water & Sewer Comm'rs of City of Mobile v. Bill Harbert Constr.

Co., 27 So. 3d 1223, 1253-54 (Ala. 2009).

We note that, although the Board cited authority in its reply brief,

our supreme court has held that "[a]uthority cited for the first time in a

reply brief cannot cure a complete failure to cite authority in the opening

brief." Griggs v. NHS Mgmt., LLC, [Ms. SC-2023-0784, Nov. 15, 2024]

___ So. 3d ___, ___ n.2 (Ala. 2024). Moreover, although the Alabama

10

CL-2024-0534

Association of School Boards, as amicus curiae, argued the notice issue

with citations to authority, an amicus curiae is not a party to a cause and

is limited to raising issues that were raised by the parties and argued in

the parties' briefs. See, e.g., Hanes v. Merrill, 384 So. 3d 616, 621 n.3

(Ala. 2023) (holding that the court "will not consider the amicus's

arguments, which go far beyond the scope of the parties' briefs and the

plaintiffs' request for relief"); Lanzi v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 968 So.

2d 18, 21 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that

"because the … appellant in this court … waived … an issue [raised by

an amicus curiae] by declining to argue it in his brief, we treat that issue

as not before the court"); Hall v. Esslinger, 235 Ala. 451, 456, 179 So. 639,

643 (1938) (noting that there is no need for discussion of arguments that

were presented in an amicus curiae brief that were not "treated by

appellant in brief").

Because Satchel failed to present in his opening brief an argument

supported by citations to authority concerning one of the bases upon

which the circuit court relied in its judgment, we pretermit discussion of

the other arguments and affirm the circuit court's judgment. See Nobles,

343 So. 3d at 1146.

11

CL-2024-0534

AFFIRMED.

Hanson and Fridy, JJ., concur.

Moore, P.J., concurs specially, with opinion, which Edwards, J.,

joins.

12

CL-2024-0534

MOORE, Presiding Judge, concurring specially.

I concur with the main opinion that the judgment of the Colbert

Circuit Court ("the circuit court") should be affirmed. I write specially to

address the jurisdiction of this court to hear this appeal.

To perfect an appeal from a judgment of a circuit court arising out

of the Alabama Teacher Accountability Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 16-24B-1

et seq., a party must file a written notice of appeal with the clerk of this

court within 14 days of the final judgment of the circuit court. Section

16-24B-5(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

"All appeals of a final decision from the expedited evidentiary

hearing shall lie with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. An

appeal shall be filed within 14 days after the receipt of the

final written decision of the circuit judge or the mediator. An

appeal by either party shall be perfected by filing a written

notice of appeal with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals

within 14 days after the receipt of the final written decision of

the circuit judge or the mediator by the party. …"

In this case, within 14 days of the entry of the final judgment of the

circuit court, the Colbert County Board of Education ("the board")

electronically filed its notice of appeal with the clerk of the circuit court.

Through computer programming, the notice of appeal was automatically

transmitted to this court and "e-filed" on the same date. Within 30

minutes following that transmission, the clerk of this court notified the

13

CL-2024-0534

parties and the circuit court that the appeal had been docketed in this

court.

In my opinion, that filing procedure complied with § 16-24B-5(a).

The "filing" of a written notice of appeal occurs when the notice is

delivered to the clerk of the appropriate court for docketing. See Ex parte

G.L.C., 281 So. 3d 401, 406 (Ala. 2018). Although the electronic filing of

the notice of appeal with the clerk of the circuit court did not perfect the

appeal, see Seibert v. Fields, 386 So. 3d 776, 778 (Ala. Civ. App.), cert.

denied, Ex parte Seibert, 386 So. 3d 781 (Ala. 2023) (holding that notice

of appeal filed in the Court of Civil Appeals was a nullity because it could

have been filed only in circuit court), the subsequent electronic filing of

the notice of appeal with the clerk of this court, although achieved

indirectly, strictly satisfied the filing requirement of § 16-24B-5(a).

Although the better practice would have been for the board to file the

notice of appeal directly with the clerk of this court, which could have

been accomplished by the electronic filing of the notice of appeal through

the Alabama Appellate Courts' E-filing System currently accessible at

https://efile.alappeals.gov or by hand filing the original notice of appeal

with the clerk of this court, I cannot say that the alternative filing

14

CL-2024-0534

procedure used by the board did not perfect its appeal, when the clerk of

this court timely received the notice and properly docketed it.

Edwards, J., concurs.

15