Winston County Bd. of Health v. Clark, [Ms. 2190074, June 12, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2020). The court (Thompson, P.J.; Moore, Donaldson, Edwards, and Hanson, JJ., concur) affirms the Winston Circuit Court’s judgment denying the Winston County Board of Health’s request for an injunction requiring the Clarks to install a sanitary sewer system at their residence in rural Winston County. Notwithstanding the board’s convincing proof of the Clarks’ violation of law by discharging raw sewage on their property, the Court affirms because,
“In its appellate brief, the board does not mention the requirements for obtaining an injunction, and there is no discussion or analysis regarding whether it met those requirements in this case. Arguably, the board’s discussion of the applicable statutes and the undisputed facts may be construed as an argument that it demonstrated success on the merits, but, as to the other elements required for the issuance of a permanent injunction, i.e., a showing that there exists a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may cause the defendant, and that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest, Vestlake Communities Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., supra, the board’s brief is silent.
As has been stated many times, it is not an appellate court’s function to craft arguments for the parties. Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007)(“‘“[I]t is not the function of this Court to do a party’s legal research or to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.”’ Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003)(quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994)).”).