Ex parte Washington County Students First, et al., [Ms. 2190529, June 5, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). The court
(Hanson, J.; Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Donaldson, and Edwards, JJ., concur)
issues a writ of mandamus to the Washington Circuit Court directing dismissal
of an action filed by the Washington County Education Association (“WCEA”).
Plaintiffs WCEA and certain affiliated individuals sought an order setting
aside the Alabama Public Charter School Commission’s (“the
Commission”) approval of an application by Washington County Students
First (“WCSF”) for the approval of a charter school. WCSF’s
petition for a writ of mandamus asserted that the action should be dismissed
because the WCEA failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Ms. *5. The
Plaintiffs countered that they did not seek to collaterally attack the
Commission’s decision but to show that WCSF committed fraud on the
Commission.
The court rejects this distinction, observing that
“‘[W]hen the law has vested a special board, commission or
tribunal with authority to hear and determine matters arising in the course
of its duties, its decisions on those matters are conclusive, and like
the judgments of courts, cannot be collaterally attacked in another proceeding.’
City of Lubbock v. Corbin, 942 S.W.2d 14, 22 (Tex. App. 1996). The decision of an administrative
agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity is not subject to collateral
attack if the agency had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
In re Applications T-851 and T-852, 268 Neb. 620, 686 N.W.2d 360 (2004);
Bryant v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 54 Ark. App. 157, 924 S.W.2d 472 (1996).”
Ms. **8-9, quoting
Bishop State Community College v. Williams, 4 So. 3d 1152, 1159 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). The fraud asserted by the
Plaintiffs did not allow a collateral action because it was “[i]ntrinsic
fraud [which] necessarily includes, for example, perjury of a party to
a case or controversy, such as the false statements allegedly made by
the Defendants to the Commission. See generally
Greathouse v. Alfa Fin. Corp., 732 So. 2d 1013, 1016-17 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (allegedly false statements
contained in affidavit filed in collections action amounted to intrinsic
fraud rather than ‘fraud on the court’).” Ms. *7, n. 9.
In dismissing the action as a collateral attack, the court explains “[a]llegations
of fraud before a deliberative body should be brought before the body
which was the victim of the alleged fraud.” Ms. **11-12, quoting
Wyatt v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 314, 319 (1991).