Rel: October 27, 2023

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 printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

_________________________

SC-2022-0741
_________________________

Steven Dixon

v.

City of Auburn; Ron Anders, in his official capacity as the

mayor of the City of Auburn; and Beth Witten, in her official
capacity as a member of the Auburn City Council

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court

(CV-21-900211)
SC-2022-0741

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Steven Dixon, appeals from a summary judgment

entered in favor of the defendants, the City of Auburn ("the City"); Ron

Anders, in his official capacity as the mayor of the City; and Beth Witten,

in her official capacity as an Auburn City Council member who serves as

mayor pro tempore of the City. The underlying action arose from a

dispute between Dixon and the defendants over Ordinance No. 3288 ("the

short-term-rental ordinance"), which amended the City's zoning

ordinance to expressly regulate short-term rentals of residential property

within the City's geographical limits. Dixon claims that the adoption and

enforcement of the short-term-rental ordinance violated his right to due

process and also violated his right to equal protection as guaranteed by

the Alabama Constitution. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In April 2018, Dixon purchased property located on Green Street in

Auburn ("the home") to use as his primary residence. Dixon has

continuously resided in the home since that time. Shortly after closing on

the purchase of the home, however, Dixon began using online home-

2
SC-2022-0741

sharing platforms operated by entities such as Airbnb and VRBO, among

others, to rent the basement of the home on a short-term basis.

Although, at the time Dixon purchased the home, the City's zoning

ordinance did not expressly regulate short-term rentals of residential

property, the home was zoned in a Neighborhood Conservation ("NC")

District at the time of Dixon's purchase. Under the zoning ordinance in

effect at that time and since, only single-family detached dwelling units,1

accessory dwelling units, private parks, and cemeteries are permitted by

right in NC districts. The occupancy of dwelling units in NC districts has

also continuously been limited to no more than two unrelated persons. 2

1Since Dixon's purchase of the home, the City's zoning ordinance

has listed "[s]ingle family residential S/D" developments in conventional
residential subdivisions as a use permitted by right in NC districts. The
zoning ordinance has defined "conventional residential uses" as
consisting of "all single-family detached dwelling units" and
"conventional subdivision" as consisting of "single-family dwellings on
individual lots."

2Since Dixon's purchase of the home, the City's zoning ordinance

has defined a "single-family detached dwelling unit" as a "[f]reestanding
structure … designed to house one (1) family as a single housekeeping
unit" and a "dwelling unit" as a "room or group of rooms, providing or
intended to provide living quarters for not more than one (1) family." In
NC districts, the zoning ordinance has defined "family" to include no
more than two unrelated persons residing in a single dwelling unit.
Moreover, except for accessory dwelling units, no other special residential
uses have been permitted by right in NC districts.
3
SC-2022-0741

Before the City's adoption of the short-term-rental ordinance, Dixon

had not applied for a business license or a zoning certificate pertaining

to his short-term-rental use of the home's basement. Dixon also did not

directly remit lodging taxes for any short-term rentals of the home's

basement. However, in May 2018, pursuant to an agreement between

Airbnb and the City, Airbnb began collecting and remitting lodging taxes

on behalf of property owners using the Airbnb platform to execute short-

term rentals of property within the City's geographical limits. The

agreement required Airbnb to share aggregate data on gross tax receipts

but permitted Airbnb to withhold "any personally identifiable

information" about the short-term-rental operators.

Dixon was elected to a seat on the Auburn City Council in October

2018. In that same election, Anders was elected to his first term as mayor

of the City. Following his inauguration in November 2018, Anders

established a "Short-Term Rental Task Force" tasked with soliciting

feedback from the City's residents and recommending regulations of

short-term rentals of residential property.

On March 16, 2021, the city council voted to adopt the short-term-

rental ordinance, which, among other things, explicitly prohibited all

4
SC-2022-0741

short-term rentals in the zoning district for the home. 3 More specifically,

the short-term-rental ordinance allowed homestays, defined as short-

term rentals of an owner's primary residence, in all zoning districts that

permitted up to five unrelated persons to occupy a dwelling unit. The

short-term-rental ordinance, however, prohibited homestays in all other

zoning districts -- including NC districts.

In May 2021, the City sent Dixon a cease-and-desist letter

instructing him to stop renting out the home's basement on a short-term

basis. Dixon, however, continued his short-term-rental use of the home's

basement. In November 2021, the City issued Dixon a citation and

prosecuted him in the Auburn Municipal Court for violating the short-

term-rental ordinance. Dixon was convicted and fined.

In June 2021, Dixon commenced an action against the defendants

in the Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court"), challenging the validity and

enforceability of the short-term-rental ordinance. Dixon and the

defendants filed cross-motions for a summary judgment. Following oral

3As the owner of a short-term-rental property, Dixon declared a

potential conflict of interest and recused himself from all votes and
proceedings pertaining to the short-term-rental ordinance.
5
SC-2022-0741

argument and additional briefing, the trial court entered a summary

judgment in favor of the defendants on June 17, 2022. Dixon now appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the same

standard as that applied by the trial court. Dow v. Alabama Democratic

Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038 (Ala. 2004). Thus, this Court must

determine whether the evidence presented to the trial court establishes

that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R.

Civ. P. In making that determination, we must view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the nonmovant. Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475

So. 2d 539, 541 (Ala. 1985).

III. Analysis

On appeal, Dixon contends that the short-term-rental ordinance

violates his rights to due process and equal protection. Dixon also claims

that the City should be equitably estopped from enforcing the short-term-

rental ordinance to prevent his short-term-rental use of the home's

basement. We address those arguments in turn and find each of them

unavailing.

6
SC-2022-0741

A.

According to Dixon, because his short-term-rental use of the home's

basement predated the City's adoption of the short-term-rental

ordinance, that use qualifies as a preexisting, nonconforming use. Dixon

contends that, as a result of this preexisting, nonconforming use, he

acquired a vested right to continue renting the basement of the home on

a short-term basis despite the City's enactment of the short-term-rental

ordinance. Dixon further argues that this vested right is entitled to

protection under Alabama law and that the City's enforcement of the

short-term-rental ordinance improperly deprived him of that vested right

without due process of law. 4 Dixon cites Budget Inn of Daphne, Inc. v.

4Dixon's arguments both below and in this Court, to some extent,

mix principles relating to regulatory takings -- or inverse condemnation
-- with his legally distinct due-process claim. In fact, Count II of Dixon's
complaint was styled as an "unlawful taking without just compensation"
claim under the Alabama Constitution. That count, however, also
asserted due-process principles that Dixon expounded on in his briefing
to the trial court. We note that in Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials,
Inc., 143 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013), a majority of this Court concluded that the
Alabama Constitution does not recognize regulatory-takings claims, and
the trial court relied upon Gurley in entering a summary judgment as to
Count II. Dixon has not asked this Court to revisit Gurley, and,
therefore, to the extent that Dixon attempted to present a takings claim
under the Alabama Constitution, the trial court's summary judgment as
to that claim must be affirmed. Nevertheless, Dixon argues, as he did in
the trial court, that his claim is different from that in Gurley because, he
7
SC-2022-0741

City of Daphne, 789 So. 2d 154 (Ala. 2000), among other prior decisions,

in support of this proposition.

In Budget Inn, this Court did indeed recognize that a preexisting,

nonconforming use is "a vested property right that a zoning ordinance

may not abrogate except under limited circumstances." Id. at 159. In

particular, we addressed the due-process concerns implicated by a zoning

ordinance's termination of a preexisting, nonconforming use, explaining

that "[a] municipality may not simply divest a property owner of a vested

right, without compensation, and any attempt to do so violates the most

fundamental principles of due process." Id. Significantly, this

constitutional limitation on a municipality's authority to enforce zoning

ordinances applies only if the use qualifies as a preexisting,

nonconforming use. The parties in Budget Inn agreed that the property

owner's use "was, at least initially, a legal-nonconforming use,

grandfathered under the zoning ordinance." 789 So. 2d at 159. Here, in

contends, his short-term-rental use of the home's basement constituted a

preexisting, nonconforming use that conferred upon him a right to such
use. Citing Budget Inn of Daphne, Inc. v. City of Daphne, 789 So. 2d 154
(Ala. 2000), Dixon posits that the City's attempt to divest him of that
right violated fundamental principles of due process. We, therefore,
address this claim as a separate due-process claim, rather than as a
regulatory-takings claim under the Alabama Constitution.
8
SC-2022-0741

contrast, the defendants dispute Dixon's claim that his short-term-rental

use of the home's basement has ever qualified as a nonconforming use.

As an initial matter, " '[t]he burden of proof is upon the party

asserting a right to a nonconforming use to establish the lawful and

continued existence of the use at the date of the enactment of zoning laws

pertaining to it.' " Mousseau v. City of Daphne Bd. of Zoning Adjustments,

6 So. 3d 544, 550 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (quoting 8A Eugene McQuillin,

The Law of Municipal Corporations § 25.188.50 at 67-69 (3d ed. rev.

2003)) (emphasis added). The City's zoning ordinance defines a

nonconforming use as "an activity using land, buildings, and/or

structures for purposes which were legally established prior to the

effective date of this Ordinance or subsequent amendment to it …."

(Emphasis added.)

At issue in this case is whether Dixon's short-term-rental use of the

home's basement was lawful or "legally established" before the City's

enactment of the short-term-rental ordinance. As previously noted, at the

time Dixon purchased the home, and continuously since that purchase,

the home has been zoned in an NC district. Since that time, the City's

zoning ordinance has also provided that "no building, structure, or land

9
SC-2022-0741

shall be used or occupied except … for the purposes permitted" and has

stated that "[u]ses not listed in [the table of permitted uses] … are not

permitted in any district except pursuant to Article IX, which provides

for interpretation of uses, or Article VII, which provides for

nonconformities." (Emphasis added.)5

Although "[s]tatutes or ordinances which impose restrictions on the

use of private property are strictly construed and their scope cannot be

extended to include limitations not therein included or prescribed,"

Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So. 2d 305, 307 (Ala. 1979), the plain

language of the City's zoning ordinance has -- at all times relevant to this

litigation -- presumptively prohibited those uses not specifically

enumerated as permitted in NC districts. See also Town of Enfield v.

Enfield Shade Tobacco, LLC, 265 Conn. 376, 381, 828 A.2d 596, 599

(2003) (reading analogous language in a town's zoning ordinance to

conclude that "[a]ll uses that are not expressly permitted … are

prohibited uses").

5Article IX of the zoning ordinance additionally provides that "[n]o

use interpretation shall permit a use in any district in which such use is
not listed either as permitted or conditional in [the table of permitted
uses]."
10
SC-2022-0741

Crucially, Dixon does not dispute that short-term rentals have

never been listed as a permitted use in NC districts. Before the trial

court, Dixon also did not contend that his short-term-rental use fell

within any other use specifically enumerated as permitted. 6 Our review

of the record, moreover, has revealed no evidence indicating that Dixon

received -- or requested -- a favorable use interpretation from the City

before the enactment of the short-term-rental ordinance.7 Dixon

consequently failed to show that his short-term-rental use of the home's

basement was lawfully established before the City's adoption of the short-

6For the first time in his brief before this Court, Dixon argues that
the enumerated permitted use of "[s]ingle family residential S/D"
encompasses his short-term-rental use of the home's basement. Dixon's
brief at p. 28; see, e.g., note 1, supra. This argument, however, has not
been preserved for review. See Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So. 2d
409, 410 (Ala. 1992) ("This Court cannot consider arguments raised for
the first time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to the evidence
and arguments considered by the trial court.").

7In any event, pursuant to Article IX of the zoning ordinance, "no

use interpretation finding a particular use to be permitted or
conditionally permitted in a specific district shall authorize the
establishment of such use … but shall merely authorize the preparation,
filing, and processing of applications for any permits and approvals which
may be required …." Dixon has not alleged that he ever obtained a zoning
certificate or business license authorizing his short-term-rental use of the
home's basement before the enactment of the short-term-rental
ordinance.

11
SC-2022-0741

term-rental ordinance, and the trial court, therefore, did not err in

concluding that the defendants were entitled to a summary judgment on

Dixon's due-process claim.

B.

Next, Dixon contends that the short-term-rental ordinance violates

his right to equal protection as guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution.8

Specifically, Dixon contends that the short-term-rental ordinance treats

property owners who own properties in NC districts differently than

other property owners and that this distinction is not supported by any

rational basis or compelling governmental interest. As this Court has

recognized, however, Alabama's Constitution contains no express equal-

protection provision. Ex parte Melof, 735 So. 2d 1172 (Ala. 1999).

Following the decision in Melof, courts and commentators have debated

whether Alabama's Constitution independently provides for an equal-

protection claim and what the contours of such a claim would be. See,

e.g., Hutchins v. DCH Reg'l Med. Ctr., 770 So. 2d 49, 59 (Ala. 2000) (in

which a plurality of this Court noted that whether the Alabama

Constitution provides for a guarantee of equal protection "remains in

8Dixon has not asserted a federal equal-protection claim.

12
SC-2022-0741

dispute"); Marc James Ayers, Interpreting the Alabama Constitution, 71

Ala. Law 286, 289 (2010) (commenting that Melof put an end to

Alabama's "phantom equal protection provision"); and Martha I. Morgan

& Neal Hutchens, The Tangled Web of Alabama's Equality Doctrine After

Melof: Historical Reflections on Equal Protection and the Alabama

Constitution, 53 Ala. L. Rev. 135 (2001) (arguing that, notwithstanding

the statement by the Melof "plurality," the Alabama Constitution

provides equal-protection guarantees). We need not wade into that

discussion today. Given the post-Melof "dispute" concerning the existence

and scope of the Alabama Constitution's equal-protection guarantee, it

was incumbent on Dixon to provide to this Court in his opening brief

contextual legal analysis supporting his equal-protection claim. See

M.E.T. v. M.F., 892 So. 2d 393, 394 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). Instead, he cited

a single pre-Melof case for the proposition that federal equal-protection

standards also apply to equal-protection claims brought under the

Alabama Constitution. See Indian Rivers Cmty. Health Ctr. v. City of

Tuscaloosa, 443 So. 2d 894, 896 (Ala. 1983). In light of the conclusory

and generalized arguments made by Dixon, as well as the facts of this

13
SC-2022-0741

case, we conclude that Dixon has not established that the trial court erred

in entering a summary judgment as to his state equal-protection claim.

C.

Finally, Dixon argues that -- even assuming that his short-term-

rental use of the home's basement does not qualify as a preexisting,

nonconforming use -- the defendants should be equitably estopped from

enforcing the short-term-rental ordinance against him based on the

defendants' (1) alleged acquiescence to Dixon's short-term-rental use of

the home's basement before the enactment of the short-term-rental

ordinance and (2) collection of lodging taxes pursuant to the 2018

agreement with Airbnb. In support of this proposition, Dixon cites this

Court's decisions in City of Foley v. McLeod, 709 So. 2d 471 (Ala. 1998),

and City of Prattville v. Joyner, 661 So. 2d 1158 (Ala. 1995).

In McLeod, a mobile-home park that had been in operation since

1955 was allowed to continue operating as a nonconforming use after the

City of Foley enacted an ordinance that zoned the mobile-home park in a

single-family residential district. McLeod, 709 So. 2d at 472. The

ordinance, however, prohibited the expansion of the nonconforming use.

Id. at 473. In 1994, the owners of the mobile-home park purchased six

14
SC-2022-0741

new mobile homes to replace existing rental units. Id. at 472. After that

purchase, the City of Foley demanded that the owners remove the six

new units, alleging that the installation of the new units constituted an

impermissible enlargement of the nonconforming use. Id.

Although this Court agreed that the installation of the new mobile

homes violated the City of Foley's zoning ordinance, we determined that

the City of Foley was estopped from forcing the removal of those six

specific units because (1) the City of Foley had presented no evidence

indicating that it ever objected to similar replacements in the past, (2)

the City of Foley's building inspector had expressed no objection when

notified of the owners' plan to purchase the six new mobile homes, and

(3) the City of Foley had expressed an objection only after the owners had

already purchased the mobile homes. Id. at 474-75. Thus, we concluded

that, "[t]aken as a whole, … the [c]ity's continued acquiescence amounted

to a misrepresentation of a material fact, namely that it would not

enforce the zoning ordinance to prevent the [owners] from replacing

mobile homes …." Id. Importantly, however, this Court clarified that,

although the City of Foley could not compel the removal of those six

15
SC-2022-0741

specific rental units, the City of Foley could generally enforce the zoning

ordinance to preclude additional replacements in the future. Id. at 475.

Here, in contrast, Dixon is asking us to conclude that the City's

inaction transformed his short-term-rental use of the home's basement

into a lawfully established, nonconforming use and divested the City of

any authority to generally enforce the short-term-rental ordinance

against him moving forward. McLeod does not stand for that proposition.

Furthermore, to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel, a party must

show (1) "[t]hat 'the person against whom estoppel is asserted …

communicates something in a misleading way, either by words, conduct,

or silence, with the intention that the communication will be acted on' ";

(2) "[t]hat 'the person seeking to assert estoppel, who lacks knowledge of

the facts, relies upon [the] communication' "; and (3) "[t]hat 'the person

relying would be harmed materially if the actor is later permitted to

assert a claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct.' " Lambert v. Mail

Handlers Benefit Plan, 682 So. 2d 61, 64 (Ala. 1996) (quoting General

Elec. Credit Corp. v. Strickland Div. of Rebel Lumber Co., 437 So. 2d

1240, 1243 (Ala. 1983)). In addition, and as our prior caselaw has made

clear, for the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply, the " 'representation

16
SC-2022-0741

must be as to the facts and not as to the law …. ' " State Highway Dep't

v. Headrick Outdoor Advert., Inc., 594 So. 2d 1202, 1205 (Ala. 1992)

(quoting First Nat'l Bank of Montgomery v. United States, 176 F. Supp.

768, 772 (M.D. Ala. 1959)) (emphasis omitted).

In the present case, Dixon has presented no evidence indicating (1)

that the City intended, by not enforcing the previous zoning ordinance

against him, to communicate that Dixon would be exempt from any

future ordinance's regulation of short-term rentals or (2) that he relied

on the City's alleged enforcement inaction before commencing his short-

term-rental use of the home's basement. Dixon also has not alleged that

he ever sought a use interpretation, zoning certificate, or business license

from the City before the enactment of the short-term-rental ordinance or

that the defendants took any other affirmative action to recognize the

legality of Dixon's short-term-rental use of the home's basement.

Moreover, even in the event that the City's inaction was intended

to convey that Dixon's use was lawful under the previous zoning

ordinance, " ' "[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel is not a bar to the

correction ... of a mistake of law." ' " State Highway Dep't, 594 So. 2d at

1205 (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Montgomery, 176 F. Supp. at 772,

17
SC-2022-0741

quoting in turn Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner, 353 U.S.

180, 182 (1957)) (emphasis omitted). Thus, the City's failure to engage in

any enforcement efforts against Dixon before the enactment of the short-

term-rental ordinance does not provide a basis for estopping the

defendants from asserting that Dixon’s short-term-rental use of the

home's basement is not a preexisting, nonconforming use. See, e.g, State

Highway Dep't, 594 So. 2d 1202 (holding that the State Highway

Department could not be estopped from contesting the legality of certain

billboard signs despite having previously issued permits allowing their

erection).

As an additional basis for his equitable-estoppel claim, Dixon also

points to the City's 2018 agreement with Airbnb. According to Dixon, the

defendants should be estopped from denying that his short-term-rental

use of the home's basement qualifies as a preexisting, nonconforming use

based on the City's collection of lodging taxes pursuant to that 2018

agreement.9 Dixon contends that "the City, in a publicly available and

9In support of that proposition, Dixon relies on this Court's decision

in City of Prattville v. Joyner, 661 So. 2d 1158 (Ala. 1995) ("Joyner I"). In
Joyner I, this Court determined that equitable estoppel prevented the
City of Prattville from terminating fire-protection services to residents
and businesses within the City of Prattville's police jurisdiction because
18
SC-2022-0741

publicized contract, held itself open to profit on any and all short term

rental 'accommodations located in City of Auburn,' " Dixon's brief at 31

(footnote omitted), and insists that "[i]t was against this backdrop that

[he] purchased the [h]ome and began listing that space on Airbnb and

other short term rental sites." Id. at 32. That same publicly available

contract, however, provided that the agreement between Airbnb and the

City would not relieve short-term-rental operators from "responsibilities

with respect to Lodging Tax for transactions completed" on non-Airbnb

platforms or "constitute a waiver by … [the City] of the provisions of any

other law and/or ordinance applicable to" the short-term-rental operator.

As previously noted, pursuant to the 2018 agreement, Airbnb

remitted lodging taxes due for short-term rentals without providing "any

personally identifiable information" about the short-term-rental

operators. Dixon, moreover, has not alleged that he directly remitted

lodging taxes to the City for transactions that he completed on any online

the residents and businesses within the police jurisdiction, who paid
business license fees and remitted sales tax to finance those services,
reasonably relied on the continuation of those services. However, in City
of Prattville v. Joyner, 698 So. 2d 122 (Ala. 1997), we held that Joyner I
had been wrongfully decided and concluded that equitable estoppel did
not apply. Dixon's reliance on Joyner I is therefore misplaced.
19
SC-2022-0741

home-sharing platform. As a result, Dixon could not have reasonably

relied on the City's 2018 agreement with Airbnb, or that agreement's

anonymous data-provisions, to conclude that his short-term-rental use of

the home's basement was lawfully established before the enactment of

the short-term-rental ordinance. The trial court therefore did not err in

failing to apply equitable-estoppel principles to find that Dixon's short-

term-rental use of the home's basement qualified as preexisting,

nonconforming use.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the trial court

properly entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and

we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Parker, C.J., and Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur.

Bryan, J., concurs specially, with opinion, which Wise and

Mendheim, JJ., join.

Shaw and Sellers, JJ., concur in the result.

20
SC-2022-0741

BRYAN, Justice (concurring specially).

I concur in the main opinion. I write specially to note that, insofar

as Steven Dixon alleges a "regulatory taking" of his property, his claim

is, unfortunately, not a viable claim under Alabama law. It appears to

me that Dixon, among other things, attempted to allege a regulatory

taking, i.e., that the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance, as amended by

the short-term-rental ordinance, is so onerous that it amounts to a taking

of his property under the Alabama Constitution despite the absence of a

physical intrusion onto the property. See, e.g., Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.,

Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 537 (2005) (discussing regulatory takings under the

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution). However, as the circuit court correctly observed, under

Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc., 143 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2012), this

Court does not recognize a regulatory-takings claim based on the

Alabama Constitution. I dissented regarding that issue in Town of

Gurley, and I continue to believe that that issue was wrongly decided in

that decision. As I observed in my special writing in that case, Alabama's

failure to recognize regulatory takings "is out of line with the vast

majority of states, which recognize the concept of a regulatory taking

21
SC-2022-0741

under state constitutions." 143 So. 3d at 55 (on applications for

rehearing) (Bryan, J., concurring in the result in part and dissenting in

part). Had Dixon asked this Court -- which has significantly changed in

composition since Town of Gurley was released -- to overrule that

decision, I would have voted to overrule it and to recognize the concept of

a regulatory taking under Alabama law. Although I deeply value the

principle of stare decisis, at times "this Court has had to recognize ... that

it is necessary and prudent to admit prior mistakes and to take the steps

necessary to ensure that we foster a system of justice that is manageable

and that is fair to all concerned." Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham, 693 So.

2d 409, 421 (Ala. 1997). Overruling Town of Gurley would provide Dixon

and other landowners of this State the same basic protections under well-

settled takings law provided by other jurisdictions. However, we have

not been asked to overrule Town of Gurley, and, thus, I concur to affirm

the circuit court's judgment.

Wise and Mendheim, JJ., concur.

22