author: BOLIN, Justice. SHAW, Justice BRYAN, Justice

text:
    Ex parte Chad BOSTICK. (In re Alabama Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects v. Chad Bostick).
    1141358.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    March 25, 2016.
    Frank M. Wilson, Montgomery, for petitioner.
    Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andrew Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and Andy S. Poole, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
   BOLIN, Justice.

Chad Bostick petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion reversing the judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court that reversed the administrative order issued by the Alabama Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects (“the Board”) suspending Bostick’s license for one year and imposing a $250 fine upon him pursuant to § 34-17-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Alabama Bd. of Exam’rs of Landscape Architects v. Bostick, 211 So.3d 816 (Ala.Civ.App.2015). We issued the writ. We now reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

The Court of Civil Appeals set forth the following facts:

“The Board licensed Bostick as a landscape architect in 2009. At that time, Bostick was employed by GRC Design Group, Inc. (‘GRC’), a landscaping business owned and operated by Greg R. Curl. A dispute between Bostick and GRC arose, and Bostick resigned from his employment with GRC on January 15, 2010. Bostick then started his own landscaping firm. In February 2010, Curl filed a written complaint with the Board alleging that Bostick had, while employed with GRC, ‘misrepresented himself to clients as part owner in [GRC] and as a result had clients write checks payable to him which he cashed for his own personal use.’ Curl claimed that Bostick ‘admitted to stealing these design fees and eventually to several more acts of fraud.’ Bostick responded to the complaint by a letter in which he denied that he had violated the Board’s Code of Conduct and stated that ‘[t]he clients in question paid me directly for the intellectual property that I provided for them, and were completely satisfied with the work that they received. Their payment was not directed by me, nor was it based upon any misrepresentation or fraudulent act whatsoever.’
“On December 14, 2011, the Board brought an administrative complaint against Bostick, alleging three counts as a basis for disciplinary action: that Bos-tick’s ‘actions indicate fraud or deceit by [Bostick] and are therefore a violation of [§] 34—17—5(a)(5), [Ala.Code 1975,]’ that his ‘actions indicate negligence or willful misconduct and are therefore a violation of [§] 34—17—5(a)(6), [Ala.Code 1975,]’ and that his ‘actions indicate conduct involving fraud or wanton disregard of the rights of others and are therefore a violation of the Boardf’s] ... Code of Conduct Section 5(c).’ On February 15, 2013, a hearing was held before a hearing officer appointed by the Board. The hearing officer received testimony from Curl, Bostick, and GRC employee Brad Johnson. Bostick was represented by counsel. The hearing officer also accepted two affidavits from clients of GRC who had written checks to Bostick for work he had performed while he was employed by GRC. After the hearing was concluded, the hearing officer filed a recommended order with the Board, which contained the following findings of fact:
“ ‘Curl is the sole owner of GRC. He has been in business for eighteen years after receiving his degree in landscape contracting from Mississippi State. Curl met and hired Bostick in the late 1990’s.... Bostick was a subcontract employee for GRC for about six months, but then ... Curl allowed Bostick to become a full-time employee. Bostick’s job consisted of design and sales and eventually a Landscape Architect position when he was licensed on September 23, 2009.
“‘GRC paid Bostick a salary plus quarterly bonuses if GRC had a good quarter, based on Bostick’s work and the company as a whole. Curl testified that he did not have an agreement with Bostick that he could do outside design work....
“ ‘In 2009, ... Curl examined client files. Curl mentioned to Johnson that the Berry clients had not paid for their installation work, and Johnson said he saw one of the Berrys give Bostick a check. Johnson testified that Bostick did the design work on the project and would come on site occasionally. Johnson testified that one day in December 2009 when Bos-tick was on the site, one of the Berrys said, “Wait, I have a check to give you,” and gave Bostick a check.
“ ‘Curl called the Berrys, who said they gave Bostick a $300.00 check and provided Curl with a copy of the cheek made out to and deposited by Bostick.
“ ‘Curl then checked the file of clients named Borden. The file contained a project proposal letter to the Bordens from Bostick on GRC letterhead dated June 10, 2009, in which Bostick refers to himself as a partner. Curl testified that Bostick was not authorized to represent himself as a partner and does not remember having any discussion with Bostick about Bostick becoming a partner or representing himself to clients as a partner. Bostick testified that he asked Curl if Bostick could use the term partner so that his proposals would have more credentials and Curl said yes.
“ ‘Curl then called the Bordens who said they paid Bostick several times, and they provided copies of three checks made out to and deposited by Bostick: one dated October 25, 2009, for $1094.30, another dated August 20, 2009, for $1305.80, and another dated December 7, 2009, for $802.60.... All of the checks were for invoices submitted by Bostick to the Bordens on GRC letterhead. The design for the Bordens has Bostick’s initials and GRC in the title block....
“ ‘Curl confronted Bostick about the checks, and Bostick finally admitted to taking the checks and resigned from GRC. On the advice of Curl’s CPA, Curl filed a 1099 for the checks paid directly to Bostick so that Curl would not have to pay payroll taxes on those amounts.... Bostick testified that he reported the checks paid to him from the Bordens and the Berrys to the IRS using the 1099 form.
“ ‘Bostick does not deny receiving the checks from clients, and testified he has no idea why they made the checks out to him directly. He testified he felt he was right to deposit the checks because he would have been paid a performance bonus at the end of the quarter. His position is that the payments from the clients would have been part of his bonus for that quarter. He was not stealing, in his belief, because of the loose agreement he had with Curl. But in previous years he had never taken payment from clients as part of his bonus. Bostick did not receive a bonus from GRC for the last quarter of 2009, and Curl testified that the money paid to Bostick from the clients could have become money in his performance bonus.
“ ‘Also, one invoice Bostick submitted to the Bordens included $360.00 for engineering work. Bostick did not perform any engineering work but cashed the check for the invoice that included engineering work and did not pay that money back to GRC.’
“The recommended order concluded:
“‘In the present case, the Board presented substantial evidence warranting disciplinary action against Bostick. The Board proved, and Bos-tick admitted in writing and at the hearing, that he deposited checks from clients totaling $2196.90 and did not submit the money to GRC, while he was working as a Landscape Architect for GRC. The total amount does not include a payment he received before he was a licensed Landscape Architect.
“ ‘No grounds for mitigation exist in this case.
“ ‘Accordingly, the undersigned finds the totality of the evidence warrants a suspension of Bostick’s license for no less than six months. Therefore, the undersigned recommends [that the] Board ... SUSPEND Bos-tick’s license for no less than six months.’ ”

Bostick, 211 So.3d at 818-20.

On April 24, 2013, the Board entered an order in which it made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“FINDINGS OF FACT
“The Board finds that Chad Bostick received checks from clients of GRC Design Group made payable to Bostick. The payments received by Bostick from clients of GRC Design Group were not submitted by him to GRC Design Group.
“The Board finds that Bostick was not authorized to receive payment directly from clients of GRC for his services made payable to Bostick.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“The Board finds that Bostick’s actions are in violation of Alabama Code Sectfon 34~17-5(a)(5) because they show fraud or deceit.
“The Board finds that Bostick’s actions are in violation of Alabama Code Section 34—17—5(a) (6) because they show negligence or willful misconduct.
“The Board finds that Bostick’s actions are in violation of the Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects Code of Conduct Section 5(c) because they show conduct involving fraud or wanton disregard of the rights of others.”

Although the Board adopted most of the hearing officer’s recommended order in its order, it imposed a more severe punishment-ordering that Bostick’s license be suspended for one year as opposed to six months; it also imposed upon Bostick the $250 fine. Bostick appealed the Board’s order to the trial court pursuant to § 41-22-20, Ala. Code 1975.

Following a hearing, the trial court, on May 22, 2014, entered a judgment reversing the Board’s order and finding as follows:

“The section of the [Board’s] Order labeled: ‘Findings of Fact’ contains no findings of fact on any significant disputed issues. It simply recited undisputed testimony and recited, but did not resolve, conflicting testimony on several relatively minor points.
“The only ‘finding’ made to support the charge of fraud in the [hearing officer’s] Recommended Order is a legal conclusion followed by a recitation of the undisputed facts regarding the deposit of ... three checks.[] The following is found in the ‘Conclusions of Law’ section:
“‘In the present case, the Board presented substantial evidence warranting disciplinary action against Bostick. The Board proved, and Bos-tick admitted in writing and at the hearing, that he deposited checks from clients totaling $2196.90 and did not submit the money to GRC, while he was working as a Landscape Architect for GRC.’
“Neither the [hearing officer’s] Recommended Order nor the Board’s Order adopting it cited any evidence or made any specific finding that these deposits were made with fraudulent intent. The Board’s Order appears to equate the making of the deposit with fraud.
“Neither order addresses in any significant manner, the undisputed hearing testimony of Mr. Bostick and Mr. Curl that for the fourth quarter of 2009, GRC owed commissions to Mr. Bostick that exceeded the total of these three checks; and that under Mr. Bostick’s interpretation of his ‘very loose’ oral employment agreement with GRC, Mr. Bostick was entitled to deposit these checks to his bank account in payment of those commissions ....
“The Board’s April 24th Order is even less clear about the basis for the Board’s conclusion that Mr. Bostick acted with fraudulent intent or was guilty of fraud, deceit, or willful misconduct, etc., in depositing these three checks. The Board’s Order states only in conclusory form that ‘the charges against Mr. Bos-tick have been substantially proved,’ ... and that Mr. Bostick’s actions ‘showed’ fraud or deceit, negligence or willful misconduct, and fraud or wanton disregard of the rights of others....
“Thus, the Board’s finding that Mr. Bostick was guilty of intentional fraud was based solely upon Mr. Bostick’s admitted act of depositing into his bank account three checks made payable to him by GRC’s clients and not immediately remitting their proceeds to his employer, GRC. No other actions taken by Mr. Bostick were cited or found by the Board to support its finding of fraud or its suspension of Mr. Bostick’s landscape architect’s license.”

Based on the foregoing findings, the trial court concluded:

“[T]he Board’s April 24, 2013, Order was (a) ‘affected by error of law,’ (b) ‘clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record,’ and (c) ‘unreasonable’ in view of the evidence presented; and ... the substantial rights of the petitioner, Mr. Bostick, were prejudiced by these errors.
“The only point of disagreement between Mr. Bostick and Mr. Curl was whether under their veiy loose, oral employment agreement, Mr. Bostick was entitled to deposit those three checks several weeks prior to the end of the fourth quarter of 2009 or was required to wait until the end of the quarter to be paid those sums and more as his fourth quarter commission.
“Mr. Bostick thought that he was entitled to deposit these checks in partial payment of the sums owed to him; Mr. Curl believed he was not. That difference of opinion in the interpretation of Mr. Bostick’s very loose oral employment agreement with Mr. Curl is what the Board’s charge of fraud rests upon.
“While contracting parties’ differing interpretations of their agreement may be the basis for a contract claim between the parties, those differing opinions not only do not constitute fraud, but are ‘not evidence of fraud,’ and therefore cannot ... support the fraud charge herein....
“The Board exceeded the authority granted it by statute by purporting to sanction Mr. Bostick in the total absence of evidence to support the charges against him. There was no evidence to support a finding of fraud. The reliable probative, and substantial evidence from the record as a whole shows—at the very least—that Mr. Bostick had a good faith claim for the funds he deposited. Any sanction against Mr. Bostick based on the evidence presented would be unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
“The Board is directed to enter an order finding Mr. Bostick not guilty of fraud or any other willful misconduct; to restore Mr. Bostick’s license to practice landscape architecture; and to dismiss the Complaint and all charges against Mr. Bostick.”

Following the denial of its postjudgment motion, the Board timely appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals, arguing: (1) that the trial court applied an incorrect standard of review for an order issued by an administrative agency and (2) that the authority the trial court relied upon was inapplicable. In reversing the trial court’s judgment, the Court of Civil Appeals stated:

“The trial court’s judgment noted that ‘Mr. Bostick thought that he was entitled to deposit these checks in partial payment of the sums owed to him; Mr. Curl believed he was not.’ Thus, the trial court reasoned, the Board’s finding of fraud was based on the determination of which party was credible. Whether Bostick had a ‘good faith’ belief that he was entitled to deposit the checks was a disputed fact largely dependent upon findings of credibility. That factual issue was resolved against Bostick by the Board following an administrative hearing based on testimony from the witnesses and documents submitted.
“ ‘[0]ur review, just like that of the circuit court, is limited to ascertaining whether the Board’s order is supported by “substantial evidence,” i.e., “evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.” West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989); accord, Ex parte Williamson, 907 So.2d 407, 414-15 (Ala.2004) (applying West definition in administrative setting). In no event is a reviewing court “authorized to reweigh the evidence or to substitute its decisions as to the weight and credibility of the evidence for those of the agency.” Ex parte Williamson, 907 So.2d at 416-17.’
“Alabama Bd. of Nursing v. Williams, 941 So.2d [990] at 999 [(Ala.Civ.App.2005) ]. Accordingly, the factual finding that Bostick acted in ‘good faith’ could not be made by the trial court in the judicial-review process.
“Bostick testified before the hearing officer that he never instructed a client to pay him directly, and when asked why GRC’s clients would have made checks out to him personally, he claimed: T have no earthly idea.’ However, it is undisputed that, when Bostick received those checks from clients of GRC made payable to him, he deposited those checks in his personal bank account with the intent to retain those funds as payment for services provided to those clients in connection with Bos-tick’s employment with GRC and that he did not inform GRC that he had done so. Curl testified that Bostick was not authorized to receive payment directly to him or in his name for work done for GRC. Bostick testified that he had never previously been paid a ‘bonus’ by receiving payment directly from a client of GRC. Further, the hearing officer heard testimony from Curl, which, if believed, would indicate that, when he was confronted by Curl, Bostick denied receiving those cheeks or billing those clients and continued in his denial until he was confronted with copies of the checks he had received and deposited into his personal bank account.
“Considering the deference due the Board’s findings of fact, see § 41-22-20(k), [Ala.Code 1975,] there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings as well as the Board’s conclusion that Bostick engaged in acts of deceit and willful misconduct while in the practice of landscape architecture—specifically, that he accepted and kept for himself payments from clients that should have been delivered to GRC and that he denied having done so once his actions were discovered. The Act does not define the terms fraud, deceit, negligence, or willful misconduct as they are used in § 34-17-5(a)(5) and (a)(6), [Ala.Code 1975,] and the parties do not dispute the meaning of those terms as an issue in this case. We note that ‘[w]ords used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says.’ IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng’g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992). Although Bostick argues that his actions merely amounted to ‘ “poor judgment” or “questionable ethics,” ’ rather than behavior sanctionable pursuant to § 34-17-5(a)(5) and (a)(6), this court has stated that ‘ “an agency’s interpretation of its own rule or regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation.” Sylacauga Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Alabama State Health Planning Agency, 662 So.2d 265, 268 (Ala. Civ.App.1994).’ Colonial Mgmt. Grp., [L.P. v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency ], 853 So.2d [972] at 975 [ (Ala.Civ.App.2002) ]. Although the trial court found no evidence of fraud and reversed the Board’s order on the ground that the Board had committed an error of law, see § 41-22-20(k)(5), [Ala.Code 1975,] our review of the trial court’s judgment is without any presumption of its correctness. Regardless of whether the Board received evidence as to all the elements of fraud, the record contains substantial evidence, which if believed by the Board, would support the Board’s findings and conclusion that Bostick engaged in acts of deceit and willful misconduct while in the practice of landscape architecture. We accordingly pretermit discussion of whether the trial court relied on inapplicable legal authority in reaching its judgment. See Dennis v. Holmes Oil Co., 757 So.2d 479, 482 (Ala.Civ.App.2000).
“Applying the deferential standard of judicial review of an administrative-agency decision, we hold that there were no grounds to set aside the Board’s administrative order and sanctions imposed against its licensee, Bostick.”

Bostick, 211 So.3d at 823-24. Bostick filed a petition in this Court for a writ of certio-rari, which we granted.

Standard of Review

The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion set forth the appropriate standard of review applicable to an appeal from a decision of an administrative agency:

“ ‘[An appellate] court reviews a trial court’s judgment regarding the decision of an administrative agency “without any presumption of its correctness, since [the trial] court was in no better position to review the [agency’s decision] than” this court. State Health Planning & Res. Dev. Admin. v. Rivendell of Alabama, Inc., 469 So.2d 613, 614 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (“AAPA”), § 41-22-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, which governs judicial review of agency decisions,
“‘“[ejxcept where judicial review is by trial de novo, the agency order shall be taken as prima facie just and reasonable and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact, except where otherwise authorized by statute. The court may affirm the agency action or remand the case to the agency for taking additional testimony and evidence or for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision or grant other appropriate relief from the agency action, equitable or legal, including declaratory relief, if the court finds that the agency action is due to be set aside or modified under standards set forth in appeal or review statutes applicable to that agency or if substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the agency action is any one or more of the following:
“ ‘ “(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
“ ‘ “(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
“ ‘ “(3) In violation of any pertinent agency rule;
“ ‘ “(4) Made upon unlawful procedure;
“ ‘ “(5) Affected by other error of law;
“ ‘ “(6) Clearly erroneous in view of the rehable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
“‘“(7) Unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”
“ ‘§ 41-22-20(k), Ala.Code 1975.... In reviewing the decision of a state administrative agency, “[t]he special competence of the agency lends great weight to its decision, and that decision must be affirmed, unless it is arbitrary and capricious or not made in compliance with applicable law.” Alabama Renal Stone Inst., Inc. v. Alabama Statewide Health Coordinating Council, 628 So.2d 821, 823 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).... Neither this court nor the trial court may substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. Alabama Renal Stone Inst., Inc. v. Alabama Statewide Health Coordinating Council, 628 So.2d 821, 823 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). “This holds true even in cases where the testimony is generalized, the evidence is meager, and reasonable minds might differ as to the correct result.” Health Care Auth. of Huntsville v. State Health Planning Agency, 549 So.2d 973, 975 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).’
“Colonial Mgrnt. Grp. [v. State Health Planning and Development Agency, 853 So.2d 972, 974-75 (Ala.Civ.App.2002)] (emphasis omitted).”

Bostick, 211 So.3d at 822-23.

Discussion

Bostick argues, among other things, that the Board’s decision is not supported by the evidence presented and that the Board acted beyond its jurisdiction and authority in suspending his license to practice landscape architecture and in imposing a fine. We agree.

The Board was created by an act of the legislature for the purpose of regulating the practice of landscape architecture in Alabama, § 34-17-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. The legislature vested the Board with limited authority to pursue a disciplinary action against a licensee of the Board upon certain enumerated grounds set forth in § 34-17-5, Ala.Code 1975. Section 34-17-5 provides:

“(a) Each of the following facts shall constitute a ground for disciplinary action:
“(5) That, in the practice of landscape architecture, the holder of a certificate has been guilty of fraud or deceit;
“(6) That, in the practice of landscape architecture, the holder of a certificate has been guilty of negligence or willful misconduct;
“(b) For violations of the preceding subsection, or for violations of the provisions of this chapter, or for violations of board rules and regulations, the board shall have the following disciplinary powers:
“(1) To reprimand a board licensee;
“(2) To levy an administrative fine against a licensee of the board not to exceed $250 per violation;
“(3) To refuse to issue a certificate to an applicant of the board;
“(4) To suspend a licensee’s certificate for a definite period of time; or
“(5) To revoke the certificate of a licensee. The board shall by rule and regulation adopt a disciplinary code.”

Section 34-17-1, Ala.Code 1975, defines the practice of landscape architecture as

“[t]he performance of professional services such as consultation, investigation, research, planning, design, preparation of drawings and specifications and responsible supervision in connection with the development of land areas where, and to the extent that the dominant purpose of such services is the preservation, enhancement, or determination of proper land uses, natural land features, planting, naturalistic and aesthetic values, the settings and approaches to structures or other improvements, the setting of grades and determining drainage and providing for standard drainage structures, and the consideration and determination of environmental problems of land including erosion, blight, and other hazards.”

As set forth above, the Board alleged that Bostick’s actions constituted “fraud or deceit,” a violation of § 34-17-5(a)(5); “negligence or willful misconduct,” a violation of § 34-17-5(a)(6); and “fraud or wanton disregard of the rights of others,” a violation of Section 5(c) of the Board’s Code of Conduct. The Board made absolutely no allegation that any clients of GRC Design Group, Inc. (“GRC”), had been harmed by Bostick’s alleged unauthorized acceptance and retention of client fees owed to GRC. The record is devoid of any charge that GRC clients did not receive the professional landscape-architecture services they had contracted to receive. The Board found that Bostick had violated the aforementioned sections based on its express finding that Bostick had

“received checks from clients of GRC Design Group made payable to Bostick. The payments received by Bostick from clients of GRC Design Group were not submitted by him to GRC Design Group.
“The Board finds that Bostick was not authorized to receive payment directly from clients of GRC for his services made payable to Bostick.”

The Court of Civil Appeals explained that Bostick’s acceptance and retention for himself of payments from clients that should have been delivered to GRC and his subsequent denial of having done so after his actions were discovered constituted substantial evidence that supported the Board’s finding that Bostick had “engaged in acts of deceit and willful misconduct while in the practice of landscape architecture." Bostick, 211 So.3d at 824. The Court of Civil Appeals acknowledged in reaching that conclusion that the act regulating the practice of landscape architecture does not define the terms “fraud,” “deceit,” “negligence,” or “willful misconduct” as those terms are used in § 84-17-5(a)(5) and (a)(6). However, the Court of Civil Appeals, citing IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Associates Corp., 602 So.2d 344 (Ala.1992), for the proposition that words used in a statute should be given their commonly understood meaning, and Colonial Management Group v. State Health Planning & Development Agency, 853 So.2d 972 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), for the proposition that an agency’s interpretation of its own rule or regulation must stand if that interpretation is reasonable, determined that substantial evidence supported at least the Board’s decision that Bostick’s actions constituted “deceit” and “willful misconduct” as those terms are used in the act. We need not reach the decision whether Bostick’s actions constituted “fraud,” “deceit,” “willful misconduct,” or the “wanton disregard of the rights of others” under the act regulating the practice of landscape architecture because, as explained below, Bostick’s actions did not occur while he was engaged “in the practice of landscape architecture” as the Board and the Court of Civil Appeals concluded.

Section 34-17-1 specifically defines the practice of landscape architecture as the “performance of professional services such as consultation, investigation, research, planning, design, preparation of drawings and specifications and responsible supervision in connection with the development of land areas.” (Emphasis added.) Bostick’s conduct here did not occur during the course of performing professional landscape-architecture services in any of the quoted examples listed in § 34-17-1. Rather, the Board’s express finding of wrongful conduct, i.e., the unauthorized receipt and retention of fees owed to GRC, upon which it based its disciplinary action occurred exclusively mthin the context of the employer-employee relationship, wrongful acts separate and apart from Bostick’s performance of professional services as a landscape architect. The only entity remotely affected by Bostick’s conduct was his former employer, GRC. No clients of GRC’s were harmed, or otherwise adversely affected, by Bostick’s conduct, and the Board has not asserted any claims or facts to the contrary. Rather, the clients, representing the public the Board was created to protect, received the work they had contracted for, and there was no attempt to double-bill the clients for work they had paid for and received. It is the Board’s purpose to protect the general public from incompetent and unscrupulous landscape architects. No member of the general public suffered any loss as a result of Bostick’s performance. See generally Gary Powers Dev., Inc. v. State Home Builders Licensure Bd., 852 So.2d 778 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (discussing the purpose of regulatory boards in the context of home builders). It is not the Board’s purpose to wade into disputes arising in the context of the employer-employee relationship; rather, the civil and criminal courts are available to handle such disputes. Indeed, the facts suggest that the only point of dispute between GRC and Bostick was whether Bostick was authorized to receive and to retain the client fees under the “loosely” arranged employment agreement between Bostick and GRC. This dispute is in the nature of a contract claim suitable for resolution in a court of law, not a regulatory forum.

Although we recognize that deference should be afforded an interpretation placed on a statute or an ordinance by an administrative agency, where the language of the statute or ordinance is plain, this Court will not blindly follow an administrative agency’s interpretation, but will interpret the statute to mean exactly what it says. Ex parte Chesnut, 208 So.3d 624 (Ala.2016). “When it appears that the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable or unsupported by the law, deference is no longer due.” Alabama Dep’t of Revenue v. American Equity Inv. Life Ins. Co., 169 So.3d 1069, 1074 (Ala.Civ.App.2015). Here, the Board’s determination that the unauthorized acceptance of client fees by Bostick and his subsequent failure to remit those fees to GRC constituted statutorily mandated but wrongful performance of professional services as a landscape architect, as that term is defined by the act regulating the practice of landscape architecture, is both unreasonable and not supported by the plain language of the act. The Board, a regulatory licensing entity, was simply not vested with the authority to determine a matter that is essentially a dispute regarding compensation between an employer and a former employee. Accordingly, we conclude that, based on the facts presented, the Board acted beyond the scope of its authority in suspending Bostick’s license and imposing a fíne upon him. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the case to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MOORE, C.J., and STUART, PARKER, MURDOCK, and MAIN, JJ,, concur.

SHAW and BRYAN, JJ., dissent.

SHAW, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Although Ala. Code 1975, § 34-17-1(3), defines “landscape architecture,” it does not define the “practice” of landscape architecture. “Practice” has been defined, among other things, as “[t]he exercise of any profession.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1172 (6th ed.1990). “Exercise” has been defined, among other things, as “[t]o put in action or practice, to carry on something, to transact or execute.” Black’s Law Dictionary 572.

It is grounds for disciplinary action if, “in the practice of landscape architecture,” the landscape architect “has been guilty of fraud or deceit” or “has been guilty of negligence or willful misconduct.” Ala. Code 1975, § 34-17-5(a)(5) and (6). The Code section is directed not just at the work product created by one exercising the profession, but also to the actions and practices in which one is executing the privileges associated with that profession. Using one’s position as a landscape-architect professional to intercept money from clients owed to another for landscaping services, in my opinion, is an act done while carrying on the profession of landscape architecture. Here, for all that appears from the record, Chad Bostick, who was employed by GRC Design Group, Inc., as a landscape architect, misrepresented his professional relationship with his employer and took money from clients that was owed to his employer for landscaping services. I would affirm the Alabama Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects’ administrative order and the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

BRYAN, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The main opinion concludes that the Alabama Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects (“the Board”) lacked the authority to discipline Chad Bostick, a landscape architect. The opinion bases that conclusion on its rationale that Bostick’s actions did not occur while he was engaged in the practice of landscape architecture. I disagree. The Board disciplined Bostick for the unauthorized receipt and retention of payments for his landscape-architecture services. Bos-tick was engaged in the practice of landscape architecture when he received and retained those payments. The receipt and retention of payments is squarely part of Bostick’s job and is subject to scrutiny by the Board. “Regulatory statutes governing professions are to be liberally construed to protect the public.” Madasu v. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 962 So.2d 215, 218-19 (Ala.Civ.App.2005). That purpose would be fully served by construing the statutes regulating the practice of landscape architecture to allow the Board to discipline Bostick’s actions, which resulted in allegations of fraud, deceit, and willful misconduct in regard to an aspect of Bostick’s job as a landscape architect. This is true regardless of any civil or criminal case that may arise from these facts; the potential for such a case does not preclude the administrative proceeding here.

      . The three checks the trial court is referring to are the following checks: the $300 check from the Berrys and the $1,094.30 and $802.60 checks from the Bordens.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: DONALDSON, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    ALABAMA BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS v. Chad BOSTICK.
    2130919.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    June 10, 2016.
    Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andy S. Poole, asst, atty gen., for appellant.
    Frank M. Wilson, Montgomery, for ap-pellee.
   After Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

DONALDSON, Judge.

The prior judgment of this court reversing the judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court (“the trial court”) has been reversed, and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. See Ex parte Bostick, 211 So.3d 825 (Ala.2016). On remand to this court, and in compliance with the supreme court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, THOMAS, and MOORE, JJ., concur.


author: MOORE, Judge.

text:
    Paul W. SULLIVAN v. Elizabeth SULLIVAN.
    2140760.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 26, 2016.
    Certiorari Denied May 13, 2016
    Alabama Supreme Court 1150618.

      Ruth S. Sullivan, Dadeville, for appellant.
    John Olszewski of Minor & Olszewski, L.L.C., Montgomery, for appellee.
   MOORE, Judge.

Paul W. Sullivan (“the husband”) appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court to the extent that it divided the parties’ property and awarded Elizabeth Sullivan (“the wife”) alimony. We affirm.

Procedural History

On October 4, 2013, the wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce from, the husband. On December 30, 2013, the husband answered the complaint. After a trial, the trial court entered a judgment on January 14, 2015, that, among other things, divorced the parties; ordered the husband to pay $1,012 per month in child support for the parties’ minor child; ordered that the husband could purchase the wife’s equity in the marital residence or that the house was to be sold by the parties; ordered the husband to pay the mortgage indebtedness and other expenses associated with the marital residence pending the husband’s purchase of the wife’s equity or the sale of the house; awarding the wife a 2012 Honda automobile and ordering the husband to pay the indebtedness owed on that vehicle; and awarding the husband a 2000 Dodge automobile and ordering him to pay the indebtedness owed on that vehicle. With regard to periodic alimony, the trial court stated:

“8. Commencing February 1, 2015 and continuing through July, 2015, the Husband shall pay to the Wife the sum of Three Thousand Two Hundred and no/100 ($3,200.00) Dollars per month as periodic alimony. Commencing August 1, 2015, the Husband’s periodic alimony shall increase to Four Thousand and no/100 ($4,000.00) Dollars per month.
“As additional alimony, the Husband shall pay to the Wife twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross amount of all sums received by, from, through, or as a result of the Husband being a beneficiary under The Family Trust dated May 12, 2003.”

On February 13, 2015, the husband filed a postjudgment motion. On May 6, 2015, the trial court entered an order amending the divorce judgment, stating, in pertinent part:

“1. That Paragraph 8 of the Final [Judgment] of Divorce is modified to remove the automatic alimony increase to $4,000.00 per month.
“2. That the second half of Paragraph 8 of the Final [Judgment] of Divorce provided for additional alimony to be paid to the ... Wife.
“3. That the ‘additional alimony’ paragraph is hereby amended to provide that in paying to the ... Wife the 25% of sums received under the family trust the Husband shall be given credit for the $3,200.00 per month alimony paid pursuant to Paragraph 8. Said paragraph is further amended to provide that the ... Husband shall provide, at least semiannually, to the ... Wife a sworn statement setting out the gross amount of all funds.”

On June 15, 2015, the husband filed his notice of appeal.

Discussion

We initially note that the wife has argued in her brief to this court that the husband’s brief is not compliant with Rule 208, Ala. R.App. P. See White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.2008) (“Rule 28(a)(10)[, Ala. R.App. P.,] requires that arguments in briefs contain discussions of facts and relevant legal authorities that support the party’s position. If they do not, the arguments are waived.”). Although we agree that the husband’s brief is not a model of clarity regarding what issues he is presenting for this court’s consideration, we conclude that the husband has adequately addressed, with supporting legal authority, the two issues that the wife discusses in her appellee’s brief to this court: (1) whether the husband’s income from “The Family Trust” (“the trust”) was divisible and (2) whether the division of property and the award of alimony are equitable. We will therefore discuss those two issues herein.

With regard to the trust income, the husband first argues that the provisions of the trust state that his distributions from the trust cannot be used to pay alimony. At the trial, the evidence indicated that the trust document states:

“Except as otherwise provided by law, no power of appointment or power of withdrawal shall be subject to involuntary exercise, and no interest of any beneficiary shall be subject to anticipation, to claims for alimony or support, to voluntarily transfer without the written consent of the Trustee, or to any involuntary transfer in any event.”

We note that the judgment does not award the wife any interest in the trust or require the husband to take any certain distributions from the trust. Instead, subject to a setoff for alimony paid, the wife is entitled to 25% of any distribution that the husband actually receives from the trust. We have reviewed the cases cited by the husband in support of his argument on this point and have found that they do not stand for the proposition that alimony cannot be paid from the distributions the husband actually receives. Therefore, we find no error on this point. See White Sands Grp., 998 So.2d at 1058.

The husband next argues that his distributions from the trust are his separate property and, thus, should not have been considered by the court when fashioning its property division and alimony award. Section 30—2—51(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:

“If either spouse has no separate estate or if it is insufficient for the maintenance of a spouse, the judge, upon granting a divorce, at his or her discretion, may order to a spouse an allowance out of the estate of the other spouse, taking into consideration the value thereof and the condition of the spouse’s family. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the judge may not take into consideration any property acquired prior to the marriage of the parties or by inheritance or gift unless the judge finds from the evidence that the property, or income produced by the property, has been used regularly for the common benefit of the parties during their marriage.”

In the present case, the husband admitted that distributions from the trust had been deposited into a bank account that was jointly held by him and the wife and that he had paid all the family’s bills out of that account. He testified that the trust distributions had been used to purchase automobiles for the wife and the parties’ children, to pay for the children’s private-school and college tuitions, to renovate the marital residence, and to rent a second house for the family to reside in for a period. We conclude that that evidence is sufficient to prove that the trust distributions had been “used regularly for the common benefit of the parties during their marriage.” § 30—2—51(a); see Bushnell v. Bushnell, 713 So.2d 962, 964 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (holding that an account had been used regularly for the common benefit of the parties because the funds from that account had been “periodically deposited ... into the joint account” of the parties and used “to pay the joint income taxes, to make the mortgage payment, and to purchase household items, such as the furnace”).

The husband also argues that the trial court’s division of property and its award of alimony were inequitable.

“‘“[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.” Philpot v. State, 843 So.2d 122, 125 (Ala.2002). “ ‘The presumption of correctness, however, is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its judgment.’” Wattman v. Rowell, 913 So.2d 1083, 1086 (Ala.2005) (quoting Dennis v. Dobbs, 474 So.2d 77, 79 (Ala.1985)).'
“Fadalla v. Fadalla, 929 So.2d 429, 433 (Ala.2005).
“‘[T]he ore tenus rule affords a correct and necessary deference to the trial court’s factual findings, recognizing that an appellate court sees only a written record and does not observe the appearance, behavior, and demeanor of live witnesses. The ore tenus rule simultaneously requires the appellate court to review the trial court’s judgment to determine if it is supported by the appropriate level of evidence. The rule thus preserves the safeguards of the standard of proof that was utilized by the trial court without improperly usurping the trial court’s role as fact-finder.’

“J.C. v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172, 1185-86 (Ala.Civ.App.2007). Additionally, ‘[a] property division made by a trial court will not be set aside on appeal absent a palpable abuse of its discretion.’ TenEyck v. TenEyck, 885 So.2d 146, 154 (Ala.Civ.App.2003).

“ ‘The purpose of the division of marital property is to give “each spouse the value of [his or her] interest in the marriage. Each spouse has a right, even a property right in this.” ’ Lo Porto v. Lo Porto, 717 So.2d 418, 421 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (quoting Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915, 917 (Ala.1982)).

“ ‘On appeal, the issues of alimony and property division must be considered together. The trial court’s judgment on those issues will not be reversed absent a finding that the judgment is so unsupported by the evidence as to amount to an abuse of discretion. [Parrish v. Parrish, 617 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Civ.App.1993).] The property division need not be equal, but it must be equitable. Id. The factors the trial court should consider in dividing the marital property include “the ages and health of the parties, the length of their marriage, their station in life and their future prospects, their standard of living and each party’s potential for maintaining that standard after the divorce, the value and type of property they own, and the source of their common property.” Covington v. Covington, 675 So.2d 436, 438 (Ala.Civ.App.1996).’
“Courtright v. Courtright, 757 So.2d 453, 456 (Ala.Civ.App.2000).”

Weeks v. Weeks, 27 So.3d 526, 529 (Ala.Civ.App.2008).

In the present case, the husband testified that his employment income was approximately $74,000 per year. He admitted, however, that he had had an average of $64,600 per year in additional income deposited into the parties’ joint account from trust distributions and also between $2,000 and $16,000 in rental income per year deposited into the joint account. He testified that, in 2013, he had had trust distributions in the amount of $110,000 deposited into the joint account and that, in addition to that amount, there had also been direct payments made by the trust on his behalf totaling $28,300.

The husband testified that, for most of the marriage, he and the wife had agreed that she would not work outside the home and that she would take care of the children. He testified that she had been employed part time in various jobs at times but had earned no more than $8,000 per year. The husband testified that he had not contributed to a retirement account but that he had told the wife that distributions from the trust would be a large part of their retirement. The husband testified that his total debt is $164,000, including the outstanding mortgage indebtedness on the marital residence, the loan indebtedness on the wife’s automobile, the loan indebtedness on the automobile driven by one of the parties’ adult children, the loan indebtedness on the automobile driven by the parties’ minor child, and the balance owed on a credit-card account that he had opened during the parties’ separation. He testified that the value of the marital residence is $150,000, that the mortgage balance is $121,000, and that the monthly mortgage payment is $1,050. The husband testified that he is financially supporting one of the parties’ adult children. He did not introduce evidence of his total expenses.

The wife testified that, at the time of the trial, she was earning $897 per month and had a savings account with a balance of $11,400. She testified that her expenses are $5,245 per month, which amount, she said, did not include the monthly loan payment on her automobile or any expenses related to the minor child.

Considering only the income deposited into the parties’ joint account, we recognize that the husband has total monthly income of at least $11,550 ($74,000 in employment income + $64,600 from trust distributions = $138,600 + 12 = $11,550). We note that, because the amendment to the judgment awarded the husband a credit of $3,200 (the amount of the monthly periodic-alimony award) against the 25% of the trust distributions to be paid to the wife, our calculations show that, if the husband continues to receive approximately the same amount from the trust that he had received before the divorce, he will not owe any alimony above and beyond the $3,200 per month. Therefore, even after paying his periodic-alimony obligation, the husband will be left with $8,350 per month from which to pay his monthly expenses, including his additional monthly court-ordered obligations, while the wife has only $4,097 per month in income from which to pay her monthly expenses of $5,245.

With regard to the property division, the parties’ property for which a value was assigned at trial consisted only of the marital residence, which was divided equally between the parties. The husband’s interest in the trust was not divided but was, instead, considered as a source of income from which the husband could make his monthly periodic-alimony payments. Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s division of property and its award of alimony were inequitable to the husband.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The wife’s request for the award of attorney’s fees on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, THOMAS, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur.

      . Considering the husband’s testimony that, in 2013, he had trust distributions deposited into the joint account in the amount of $110,000 and that the trust had also made direct payments on his behalf in the amount of $28,300, that would total $138,300. Twenty-five percent of $138,300 would be $34,575. Dividing that amount by 12 months yields a monthly amount of $2,881.25, which is less than the $3,200 credit amount. Therefore, no additional alimony would be due.

      . In calculating the wife's monthly income, we have not included the amount she was awarded as monthly child support because the $5,245 in monthly expenses she claimed did not include any expenses related to the minor child.


author: MOORE, Judge. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,

text:
    Judge John E. ENSLEN, in his official capacity as the Probate Judge of Elmore County v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
    2140963 and 2140964.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 18, 2016.
    Certiorari Denied May 20, 2016 Alabama Supreme Court 1150704.

      Matthew Kidd and Madison Fair, Foundation for Moral Law, Montgomery, for appellant.
    Judkins M. Bryan of Wilkerson & Bryan, P.C., Montgomery, for appellee.
   MOORE, Judge.

In appeal no. 2140963, Judge John E. Enslen, in his official capacity as the probate judge of Elmore County, appeals from a judgment entered by the Elmore Circuit Court (“the circuit court”), in circuit-court case no. CV-15-64, granting a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the Alabama Department of Transportation (“the DOT”) against Mercer Properties, Inc., and directing Judge Enslen to vacate his order conditionally dismissing a condemnation action that had been instituted in the probate court by the DOT against Mercer Properties. In appeal no. 2140964, Judge Enslen, in his official capacity as the probate judge of Elmore County, appeals from a judgment entered by the circuit court, in circuit-court ease no. CV-15-65, granting a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the DOT against Willow Bend Properties, Inc., and directing Judge Enslen to vacate his order conditionally dismissing a condemnation action that had been instituted in the probate court by the DOT against Willow Bend Properties. We dismiss the appeals.

Procedural History

On March 10, 2015, the DOT filed in the probate court an “Amended Petition to Condemn Real Property and for an Order of Condemnation” regarding certain real property located in Elmore County owned by Mercer Properties (“the Mercer Properties action”). That same day, the DOT filed an “Amended Petition to Condemn Real Property and for an Order of Condemnation” regarding certain real property located in Elmore County owned by Willow Bend Properties (“the Willow Bend Properties action”). The probate court entered separate orders granting the amended petitions that same day, and, on March 31, 2015, the probate court “appointed Commissioners to assess the damages and compensation to which [the owners of the property were] entitled” in both eases.

Although it is not clear from the record whether the cases were consolidated before the probate court, the record does not contain a transcript of any hearing that took place in the probate court in either the Mercer Properties action or the Willow Bend Properties action. It is apparent from the record, however, as well as the parties’ briefs to this court, that the sole evidence presented by the DOT in the probate court regarding the value of the property owned by Mercer Properties and the value of the property owned by Willow Bend Properties were letters that the DOT had sent to Mercer Properties and to Willow Bend Properties, respectively, both of which “summarized the appraisal and how much the value of the property was worth.” Both Mercer Properties and Willow Bend Properties moved the probate court to dismiss the cases based on the DOT’s failure to present sufficient evidence of the value of the subject properties. On April 28, 2015, the probate court entered separate, but almost identical, orders in the Mercer Properties action and the Willow Bend Properties action in which it stated:

“Now before the Court is Defendant’s oral motion at the close of [the DOT’s] case to dismiss due to [the DOT’s] failure to offer any admissible, legal evidence to the Commissioners on the fair market value of the subject property before or after the taking, and [the DOT’s] refusal to accept the Court’s offer to continue the case to a later date and re-open [the DOT’s] case so such evidence could be admitted, and after due consideration the Court hereby FINDS, ADJUDGES and DECREES as follows:
“The Court finds that no legal, admissible evidence of the only accepted valuation methodology, the ‘before and after’ methodology, was offered by [the DOT], See Cullman v. Moyer, 594 So.2d 70 (Ala.1992); Chandler v. State, 910 So.2d 108 (Ala.Civ.App.2004); Ala.Code [1975,] § 18-1A-170. [The DOT’s] failure was intentional. [The DOT’s] failure, and refusal, to offer legal evidence to the Commissioners denies Defendant] the due process and procedural protections guaranteed [it] by the Constitution and by the Alabama Eminent Domain Code. This is, at best, a failure to prosecute or it is an abuse of condemnation process.
“Therefore, it is hereby Ordered that this action is conditionally dismissed unless [the DOT], in the next 30 days, request[s] a new trial date at which [it] intend[s] to offer legal, admissible evidence, in which case this action will be reinstated and re-set for a trial. If [the DOT] continue^] to refuse to offer legal, admissible evidence, then this Court will hold another hearing concerning the award of litigation expenses for the Defendant ] and sanctions against [the DOT].”

(Capitalization in original.)

On April 29, 2015, the DOT filed a response to the motions to dismiss that had been filed in both the Mercer Properties action and the Willow Bend Properties action. On May 6, 2015, the DOT filed motions in both actions asking the probate court to reconsider its judgments; the DOT incorporated into those motions the responses it had filed to the motions to dismiss. On May 14, 2015, the DOT filed, in both actions, supplements to its motions to reconsider. On May 15, 2015, the probate court denied the motions to reconsider filed in both the Mercer Properties action and the Willow Bend Properties action.

On June 12, 2015, the DOT filed a petition in the circuit court, requesting the circuit court to issue “a writ of mandamus directing the Probate Court to vacate and reverse its May 15, 2015 order [in the Mercer Properties action] and to appoint new commissioners to conduct a commissioners hearing in accordance with Ala. Code [1975,] § 18-14-281”; that petition was assigned case no. CV-15-64. That same day, the DOT filed a separate petition in the circuit court seeking the same relief regarding the Willow Bend Properties action; that petition was assigned case no. CV-15-65. On July 21, 2015, Mercer Properties and Willow Bend Properties filed answers to the petitions. On July 22, 2015, the DOT filed amended petitions for a writ of mandamus.

On July 29, 2015, the circuit court entered a judgment in the Mercer Properties action granting the DOT’S petition for a writ of mandamus; on August 4, 2015, the circuit court entered a judgment in the Willow Bend Properties action granting DOT’s petition. In both the Mercer Properties action and the Willow Bend Properties action, the circuit court directed Judge Enslen to vacate the probate court’s orders of conditional dismissal, finding that “the Offer letter and other evidence submitted by [the DOT] and admitted by the Probate Court complied with Aa.Code [1975,] § 18-1A-281,” and “that no additional evidence or testimony was required to be submitted at the commissioners hearing under the Alabama Eminent Domain Code”; the circuit court ordered that a new hearing be held and instructed the probate court that “any party in interest ,.. may in accordance with ... § 18-1A-281 offer any legal evidence but no party ■will be required to present expert testimony or other evidence regarding the value of the subject property.” On August 11, 2015, Judge Enslen filed in each action a notice of appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. That court subsequently transferred the appeals to this court, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6). The appeals have been consolidated by this court ex mero motu.

Discussion

We initially note that the DOT has argued that Judge Enslen lacks standing to appeal in these actions. Judge Enslen appealed from the circuit court’s orders purportedly pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-6, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ppeals may be taken to the appropriate appellate court from the judgment of the circuit court on application for writs of .., mandamus.... ” Judge Enslen cites several cases in which judges sought review from appellate courts after writs of mandamus had been issued to them. See, e.g., Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Inst., 200 So.3d 495, 511 (Ala.2015); Ex parte Vance, 900 So.2d 394 (Ala.2004); and Ex parte Calhoun, 688 So.2d 259 (Ala. 1997). However, none of those cases involve an appeal of a mandamus order under § 12-22-6. Thus, this case raises an issue of first impression as to whether a probate-court judge has standing to appeal from a writ of mandamus issued by a circuit court.

“Only a party prejudiced or aggrieved by a judgment can appeal,... ‘A party cannot claim error where no adverse ruling is made against him.’” Alcazar Shrine Temple v. Montgomery Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 868 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Ala.2003) (quoting Holloway v. Robertson, 500 So.2d 1056, 1059 (Ala.1986)). Although we have found no Alabama law on the specific issue at hand, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions indicates that, when a respondent judge in a circuit-court mandamus proceeding is merely a nominal party, the judge may not appeal. In People v. Recorder’s Court Judge, 66 Mich.App. 315, 316, 239 N.W.2d 185, 185 (1975), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that “a judge, who was the nominal defendant in the circuit court, [is not] an aggrieved party before [the appellate court] .,. who has standing to appeal an order of superintending control issued by the circuit court.” See also Bender v. Ragan, 53 Wash. 521, 522, 102 P. 427, 428 (1909) (noting that, in mandamus proceedings, “the judge of the court is a mere nominal party”).

In appellate proceedings in this state, Rule 21(b), Ala. R.App. P., allows a respondent judge, who is only a nominal party in a mandamus proceeding, to opt out of the proceedings. The Committee Comments to Rule 21 state, in pertinent part:

“If the judge who is named as respondent does not desire to appear in the proceeding, he may so advise the clerk of the appellate court and the parties. His failure to appear does not admit that the petition is to be granted. This provision simply recognizes the reality that mandamus proceedings are in most instances adversary proceedings between the parties to the litigation below, and that the judge is really a nominal party rather than an active party. There are, however, instances in which the judge would consider that he is directly affected and would wish to appear, and the rule permits this. Since the counsel for the opposing party ordinarily files the brief for the judge, this practice would be given a straightforward literal application rather than continuing in the guise of a proceeding in the judge’s name.”

(Emphasis added.) In this case, when the DOT filed its petitions for a writ of mandamus in the circuit court, the DOT served Judge Enslen, but Judge Enslen never answered the petitions or otherwise appeared in the proceedings. Mercer Properties and Willow Bend Properties filed responses to the petitions. The circuit court held oral argument and ruled on the petitions without Judge Enslen participating in any of the proceedings.

In his brief to this court, Judge Enslen maintains that the circuit court erred in construing § 18-1A-281, Ala.Code 1975, and in ordering him to reinstate the eminent-domain proceedings without requiring additional evidence of the value of the properties. In essence, Judge Enslen complains that the circuit court ordered him to perform a legally erroneous act. However, Judge Enslen does not argue that the circuit court ordered him to perform a legally impermissible act that would subject Judge Enslen to personal or even official liability. Thus, Judge Enslen has not been personally “aggrieved” by the writs of mandamus issued by the circuit court. We, therefore, conclude that Judge Enslen was merely a nominal party in the cases at issue and, therefore, lacks standing to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals in both cases.

2140963—APPEAL DISMISSED.

2140964—APPEAL DISMISSED.

PITTMAN, THOMAS, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur.

THOMPSON, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,

concurring in the result.

I agree with the main opinion that Judge John E. Enslen does not have standing, in his capacity as probate judge of Elmore County, to appeal the judgments of the Elmore Circuit Court (“the trial court”) in these actions. Lack of standing is a jurisdictional defect. State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Ala.1999). Therefore, I agree "with the main opinion’s decision to dismiss the appeals. See Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 4 So.3d 460, 463 (Ala.2008) (holding that, in the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction because of a lack of standing, the court must dismiss the action); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Moore, 900 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (“Therefore, because the company in the present case lacks standing to seek appellate review ..., we must dismiss this appeal”).

“Standing ... turns on ‘whether the party has been injured in fact and whether the injury is to a legally protected right.’ ” State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d at 1027. Generally,”[t]o have standing to appeal a judgment, one must have been a party to the judgment below.” Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers, 621 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Ala.1993); see also Boschert Merrifield Consultants, Inc. v. Masonite Corp., 897 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Ala. 2004) (same), and Daughtry v. Mobile Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t ex rel. Purvis, 536 So.2d 953, 954 (Ala.1988) (same). Judge Enslen was not a party to the actions below.

I agree with the main opinion that Judge Enslen was, at most, a “nominal party” to the petitions for writ of mandamus filed in the trial court. Alabama law does not contain a definition of the term “nominal defendant,” but Black’s Law Dictionary contains an entry for that term that refers us to the term “nominal party.” A “nominal party” is

“[a] party to an action who has no control over it and no financial interest in its outcome; esp., a party who has some immaterial interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit, and who will not be affected by any judgment, but who is nonetheless joined in the lawsuit to avoid procedural defects.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 1298 (10th ed.2014). In earlier editions, Black’s contained the following definition for the term “nominal defendant”:

“A person who is joined as defendant in an action, not because he is immediately liable in damages or because any specific relief is demanded as against him, but because his connection with the subject-matter is such that the plaintiffs action would be defective, under the technical rules of practice, if he were not joined.”

Black’s Law Dictionary 1049 (6th ed.1990); see also Soderlund v. Administrative Dir. of Courts, 96 Haw. 114, 119-20, 26 P.3d 1214, 1219-20 (2001) (quoting the sixth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary in defining “nominal defendant”), and Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, 170 Ariz. 532, 539, 826 P.2d 1158, 1165 (Ct.App.1991) (quoting the fifth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, which contained the same definition as the sixth edition, in defining “nominal defendant”). “As these definitions demonstrate, abstention from actively participating as an advocate is not the only defining characteristic of a nominal party. To qualify as a nominal party, a defendant must also lack any pecuniary or proprietary stake in the outcome of the action.” Bromley Grp., Ltd. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, 170 Ariz. at 539, 826 P.2d at 1165. Given the foregoing, I agree that Judge Enslen is a nominal party to the proceedings below. The main opinion notes that Judge Enslen did not participate in the mandamus proceedings in the trial court. To the extent the main opinion might imply otherwise, however, I do not agree that if Judge Enslen had participated in the mandamus proceedings, such participation would afford him standing to appeal the judgments entered in those actions; Judge Enslen would remain a nominal party to those actions.

In responding in his reply brief to the standing argument asserted by the Alabama Department of Transportation (“AL-DOT”) in its appellate brief, Judge Enslen argues that he has standing to appeal what he contends are erroneous judgments pertaining to the parties to the condemnation actions because, he says, he is a public official who has a duty to uphold the law. Judge Enslen contends in his reply brief that, because he believes that the trial court’s orders were erroneous, he “cannot in good conscience silently comply with the mandamus [orders] because he views [doing so] as a flagrant violation of the rights of the citizens under the responsibility of his county office.” Judge Enslen cites several cases in which our supreme court has considered petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking extraordinary relief filed by lower-court judges, including one case in which Judge Enslen sought emergency relief from our supreme court. See Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, 200 So.3d 495 (Ala.2015); Ex parte Vance, 900 So.2d 394 (Ala.2004); Ex parte Sharp, 893 So.2d 571 (Ala.2003); and Ex parte Calhoun, 688 So.2d 259 (Ala.1997). In those opinions, the issue of the standing of the lower-court judge who sought relief in the supreme court was not addressed by that court. However, the circumstances under which the requests for extraordinary relief raised in those petitions for a writ of mandamus were addressed by our supreme court are distinguishable from the circumstances of these cases, in which Judge Enslen has attempted to appeal from orders of the trial court.

Ex parte Calhoun and Ex parte Vance both involved issues regarding the authority the lower-court judges could exercise in their own courts; those opinions did not address the propriety or the correctness of the merits of the issues the parties presented for resolution. In Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, supra, our supreme court concluded that Judge Enslen had standing to petition the supreme court for extraordinary emergency relief because the issue in that case—the authority of a court to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples—impacted the ministerial duties of his job as a probate judge in this state. In Ex parte Sharp, supra, the lower-court judge filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pertaining to a writ of prohibition issued to the lower-court judge by the Court of Criminal Appeals. However, the defendant in a capital-murder action at issue in Ex parte Sharp, who clearly had standing, also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus raising the same issues, and the two petitions for extraordinary relief were consolidated and addressed in one opinion.

In these cases, Judge Enslen argues that the trial court erred in entering its orders; he maintains in his appeals that the parties did not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court and that the relief granted by the trial court was erroneous. Judge Enslen also argues that he is attempting to protect the citizens of his county from improper orders. However, there does not appear to be a matter of public interest at issue here. Rather, these actions involve the condemnation of private property, and the arguments Judge Enslen asserts benefit Mercer Properties, Inc., and Willow Bend Properties, Inc., neither of which sought appellate relief from the trial court’s orders. See Hillyard v. Leonard, 431 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Mo.1968) (“Obviously, appellant [ (who the court found to be a nominal defendant) ] has no standing to present an issue of the fairness of the decree. He was not a party to the settlement agreement and could not be aggrieved thereby. He seeks merely to appeal the case on behalf of noncomplain-ing plaintiffs.”).

The extraordinary relief available pursuant to a petition for a writ of mandamus might be available to Judge Enslen if he were seeking relief on the basis that the law or a court was requiring him to perform an impermissible act. As the main opinion concludes, however, in his appeals addressing the merits of the judgments below, Judge Enslen is advocating against what he maintains is a legally incorrect ruling. Although this court might recognize

“the practice of naming the court or judge whose action is complained of as a nominal defendant ... simply because he is the proper person or official to furnish the reviewing court a duly authenticated record of the case to be re-viewedf, ... w]e know of no rule which makes it competent for the justice of the peace whose judicial act is sought to be reviewed or set aside to sue out certiora-ri in his own right for the purpose of invaliding a ruling made by a superior court.”

Travis v. District Court of Dallas Cty., 199 Iowa 658, 656-57, 192 N.W. 835, 836 (1923).

Judge Enslen’s position is that he has standing to appeal orders that he does not believe were correctly reached so that he cannot be compelled to comply with such orders. The decisions of lower-court judges are often reversed or overruled by higher courts, and lower-court judges might often believe that the higher court’s ruling is erroneous. Judge Enslen’s argument, if applied to other judges and courts, would allow any judge of this state to appeal an order with which he or she disagrees, or regarding which he or she questions the higher court’s authority to enter, and perhaps to raise issues and arguments not contemplated by the parties to the action when the matter was originally litigated before the lower-court judge. Under such circumstances, a trial-court judge, or perhaps a judge from this court, could conceivably attempt to seek review of decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court. Such circumstances would also place lower-court judges in the precarious position of possibly being seen as advocating on behalf of certain parties to the action in which the lower-court judge had just ruled, which might call into question the judge’s impartiality.

In these cases, the issue is the propriety of orders allowing the condemnation of specific parcels of private property. I recognize that Judge Enslen, in briefing one of his issues, questions the jurisdiction of the trial court to enter its orders. However, I believe that that is an issue to be raised by the private parties impacted by the trial court’s orders. Although I sympathize with Judge Enslen and can identify with his frustration in being compelled to act in accordance with what he believes are incorrect or improper orders from a higher court, I do not believe that Judge Enslen has suffered an injury to a legally protected right such that he has standing to appeal those orders. See State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, supra. Therefore, I concur in the result.

      . Rule 21 does not apply to mandamus proceedings in the circuit courts. See Rule 1, Ala. R.App. P.

      . For that reason, we do not address Judge Enslen's other arguments on appeal. Accordingly, we do not express any opinion as to whether the circuit court acquired jurisdiction and properly issued the writs of mandamus.

      . I also note that it can he argued that, given the nature of the order issued by the lower-court judge in Ex parte Sharp, supra, the lower-court judge could arguably be said to have acted in compliance with a duty to the public to ensure the appropriate prosecution of one accused of capital murder. See Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, 200 So.3d at 532 (discussing the issue of standing in the context of a public official acting in regard to an issue of great public interest).

      . Judge Enslen concedes in his reply brief that he does not have standing under the public-interest theory set forth in Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, supra.