City of Orange Beach v. Boles, [Ms. SC-2024-0850, Oct. 24, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Shaw, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Bryan, J., concurs in the result; Cook, J., recuses) reverses the Baldwin Circuit Court’s declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Ian Boles, entered on remand following the Court’s reversal of a judgment awarding damages to Boles against the City of Orange Beach (“the City”).
The Court determines the declaratory relief Boles sought on remand was moot, stating:
Boles sought a declaration that the City could not require, as a condition of performing necessary inspections on his property, the provision of financial and other information regarding the subcontractors Boles hired to work on the project. The first form of the relief he sought – that the inspections occur – was granted. The damages determination, his second requested form of relief, was premised on such a declaration and was resolved in favor of Boles, albeit erroneously. With all the issues and requested relief having been determined, there exists no need for a subsequent, perfunctory declaration whether the City’s policy of requiring the subcontractor form was incorrect or unauthorized in this case. Accordingly, there remains nothing for the trial court to “to settle and to afford relief from” for purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act, and such a determination no longer “affects the legal rights or obligations of the parties” in this case.
Ms. *7, citing Hunt Transition & Inaugural Fund, Inc. v. Grenier, 782 So. 2d 270, 272-73 (Ala. 2000). “Because no remaining justiciable controversy existed between the parties at the time this case was remanded, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment.” Ms. *8.