Ex parte Teachers’ Retirement System of Alabama, et al., [Ms. SC-2023-0610, May 2, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2025). The Court (McCool, J.; Wise, Bryan, and Mendheim, concur; Cook, J., concurs specially; Shaw, J., concurs in the result; Sellers, J., dissents, which Stewart, C.J., joins) affirms the Baldwin Circuit Court’s decision that Retirement Systems of Alabama (“RSA”) waived its argument that the Point Clear Property Owners Association, Inc. (“PCPOA”), was not an aggrieved party able to appeal the zoning administrator’s decision pursuant to § 45-2-261.11, Ala. Code 1975.
In its appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, PCPOA argued that the administrator should not have issued the land-use certificate. Ultimately, the Board agreed with PCPOA and rescinded the land-use certificate. Ms. *3. RSA appealed the Board’s ruling to the Baldwin Circuit Court, see § 45-2-261.13, Ala. Code 1975 (Local Laws, Baldwin County), and the circuit court affirmed the ruling. RSA then appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, where it argued that the Board should not have considered PCPOA’s appeal because, according to RSA, PCPOA was not “aggrieved” by the issuance of the land-use certificate. Ms. *3.
The Court holds that RSA waived that issue by not raising it before the Board. The Court explains
Constitutional-standing requirements are not applicable when a party’s standing is governed by statute, such as when a statute identifies who may appeal to an administrative agency; rather, it is the statutory requirements that control. See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he starting point for a standing determination for a litigant before an administrative agency is not Article III, but is the statute that confers standing before that agency.”); AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Article III requirements do not apply to administrative agencies.”); Williamson v. Montana Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 364 Mont. 128, 142, 272 P.3d 71, 82 (2012) (“[S]tanding under the Constitution is not required for administrative proceedings”; instead, “[a] litigant’s standing before an administrative agency depends on the language of the statute and regulations which confer standing before that agency.”).
Ms. **6-7. The Court holds “alleged lack of ‘aggrieved’ status is an issue of ‘capacity,’ Lee, 274 Ala. at 346, 148 So. 2d at 644, which does not have jurisdictional implications and therefore is a waivable issue. Pretl v. Ford, 723 So. 2d 1, 3 (Ala. 1998).” Ms. *9.