Mootness Bars Post‑Remand Declaratory Judgments: Alabama Supreme Court Requires Dismissal When Relief Is Afforded and Damages Are Barred — City of Orange Beach v. Boles (2025)

Introduction

In City of Orange Beach v. Boles (Ala. Oct. 24, 2025), the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed whether a trial court may enter a declaratory judgment after the underlying controversy has become moot. The case stems from a dispute between homeowner-builder Ian Boles and the City of Orange Beach over the City’s requirement that builders submit a “subcontractor form” containing financial information before the City would conduct electrical or gas inspections and issue a certificate of occupancy.

After Boles refused to provide the form, the City declined to inspect. Boles sued, seeking (1) declaratory and injunctive relief compelling inspection without the form, and (2) damages for delay. During litigation, the City completed the inspections without the form. A jury nevertheless awarded Boles over $3.5 million in damages. In 2023, a seven-Justice Court reversed that damages award under the doctrine of substantive immunity, expressly noting it was not adjudicating Boles’s declaratory-judgment request. On remand, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment for Boles (without damages). The City appealed again, noting Boles had also moved for over $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees.

The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether, in light of completed inspections and the prior reversal of damages, any justiciable controversy remained to support a declaratory judgment. The Court held there did not, reversed, and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s post-remand declaratory judgment and directed dismissal. Anchoring its reasoning in Alabama’s Declaratory Judgment Act, § 6-6-221, Ala. Code 1975, and long-standing justiciability and mootness principles, the Court concluded:

Declaratory relief requires a bona fide, presently existing justiciable controversy affecting the parties’ legal rights or obligations.
Here, the core injunctive relief (inspection without the subcontractor form) had already been granted during the litigation, and the damages claim had been reversed (barred by substantive immunity).
With all requested relief resolved, a “perfunctory” declaration about the legality of the City’s policy would not affect the parties’ rights and would exceed the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Because no live controversy remained, the trial court’s declaratory judgment was void ab initio. The only permissible action was dismissal. The Court therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to enter an order of dismissal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

City of Orange Beach v. Boles, 393 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2023): In the first appeal, the Supreme Court held that Boles’s damage claim was barred by substantive immunity. Significantly, the Court noted it was not addressing the declaratory-judgment request. That prior holding set the stage: damages were off the table, leaving only the question whether a stand-alone declaratory judgment could still be entered post-remand. The 2025 opinion answers “no” when the case is moot.
Hunt Transition & Inaugural Fund, Inc. v. Grenier, 782 So. 2d 270 (Ala. 2000): A cornerstone of Alabama’s declaratory-judgment jurisprudence, Grenier reiterates that courts may issue declaratory judgments only when a “bona fide, presently existing justiciable controversy” exists that affects the parties’ legal rights or obligations. It also disapproves declaratory actions brought for anticipated or future controversies. The Court quoted and applied this standard to conclude that no live dispute remained between Boles and the City.
Creola Land Dev., Inc. v. Bentbrooke Hous., L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285 (Ala. 2002): The Court emphasized that a controversy is justiciable when present legal rights are “thwarted or affected.” Here, once inspections occurred and damages were barred, nothing presently affected the parties’ legal relations, rendering the controversy nonjusticiable.
Save Our Streams, Inc. v. Pegues, 541 So. 2d 546 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988): When the relief sought has already been granted, the issue is moot and will not be reviewed. This principle directly parallels the procedural posture of Boles’s case: the inspections he wanted had been performed.
Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So. 3d 120 (Ala. 2009): A court without subject-matter jurisdiction may take no action other than dismissal; any other action is “null and void.” The Court relied on this rule to label the trial court’s post-remand declaratory judgment void ab initio and to mandate dismissal.
Additional authorities underpinning justiciability: King v. Calhoun Community College, 742 So. 2d 795 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999); State ex rel. Baxley v. Johnson, 293 Ala. 69, 300 So. 2d 106 (1974); Ex parte State ex rel. James, 711 So. 2d 952 (Ala. 1998); Stamps v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941 (Ala. 1994); Luken v. BancBoston Mortg. Corp., 580 So. 2d 578 (Ala. 1991); Wallace v. Burleson, 361 So. 2d 554 (Ala. 1978); and Graddick v. McPhillips, 448 So. 2d 333 (Ala. 1984). Collectively, these decisions delineate the boundaries of declaratory relief and forbid advisory opinions or rulings on hypothetical future disputes.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds from first principles about the nature and purpose of declaratory judgments under Alabama law:

Declaratory judgments “settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” § 6-6-221.
They may issue only where there is a “bona fide, presently existing justiciable controversy” affecting the parties’ legal rights or obligations.
A declaratory-judgment action will not lie for anticipated or future controversies, nor will courts render advisory or academic pronouncements.

Applying these standards, the Court identified the relief Boles sought: (1) inspections without having to furnish subcontractor financial information, and (2) damages for the delay. The City conducted the inspections during the litigation, and the 2023 decision eliminated damages via substantive immunity. At that point, the case presented no unresolved, practical dispute between the parties. Any judicial declaration about the legality of the City’s “subcontractor form” policy, unconnected to any remaining relief, would be a “perfunctory declaration” that would not affect the parties’ legal rights in this litigation.

Because justiciability is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, the absence of a live controversy deprived the trial court of power to enter a declaratory judgment. Under Underwood, a court in that posture may do nothing other than dismiss. Consequently, the trial court’s post-remand declaratory judgment was void ab initio, and the Supreme Court reversed with instructions to dismiss.

Impact and Forward-Looking Consequences

The decision clarifies and sharpens several practical and doctrinal points in Alabama civil practice:

No post-remand declarations when the case is moot. Trial courts lack jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgments after intervening events have afforded the requested practical relief and remaining claims (e.g., damages) are nonviable. A desire for a judicial pronouncement on the legality of a policy—absent a live dispute—does not suffice.
Advisory opinions are out of bounds. Even where a higher court previously declined to reach a declaratory claim, a trial court cannot use remand to render an abstract declaration that no longer affects the parties’ rights in the case.
Attorney’s fees implications. Although the Court did not directly adjudicate fees, its holding has a practical effect: a void declaratory judgment cannot support fee awards premised on prevailing in a declaratory action. Where dismissal is required for lack of jurisdiction, fee petitions tied to the void judgment necessarily falter unless an independent, jurisdictionally sound basis exists.
Strategic litigation lessons. Litigants who obtain their practical relief during litigation should consider whether any live, concrete stake remains. If not, courts will dismiss, and attempts to secure declarations for broader policy purposes or to support fee claims are likely to fail. Parties seeking systemic or prospective relief must plead and prove ongoing or imminent injury, or pursue class-wide or institutional relief consistent with justiciability.
Municipal practice. Municipalities can rely on this decision to resist stand-alone declaratory pronouncements after a dispute has been mooted by compliance or changed circumstances. At the same time, municipalities should be aware of mootness exceptions (e.g., capable of repetition yet evading review, voluntary cessation) in appropriate cases; the Court did not apply any exception here.
Substantive immunity remains intact. The 2023 holding that barred damages on substantive-immunity grounds stands undisturbed and continues to shape the remedial landscape in suits challenging municipal inspection or permitting practices in Alabama.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Declaratory Judgment: A court order that clarifies the rights and obligations of parties without awarding damages or coercive relief. It is meant to resolve uncertainty in a live dispute—not to issue abstract guidance.
Justiciable Controversy: A real, present dispute that affects the legal rights of the parties. If the matter is hypothetical, speculative, or resolved, it is not justiciable.
Mootness: A case becomes moot when the court can no longer grant effective relief because the issue has resolved or circumstances have changed. Courts dismiss moot cases; they do not issue rulings on moot questions.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: A court’s power to hear a type of case. If there is no justiciable controversy (e.g., due to mootness), the court lacks jurisdiction and may only dismiss; any other action is void.
Void Judgment: A judgment entered without jurisdiction has no legal effect from the outset (void ab initio) and cannot support further orders, such as fee awards, absent a separate jurisdictional basis.
Substantive Immunity (Municipal): A doctrine protecting municipalities from certain tort damages arising from their governmental functions, as applied in the 2023 Boles decision to bar the damages award.

Additional Observations

Jury submission of declaratory issues: The record indicated the declaratory-judgment claim was submitted to the jury alongside damages. The Court expressly “express[ed] no opinion” on the propriety of that procedure. Thus, whether and when declaratory issues are triable by jury in Alabama remains context-dependent and unresolved by this opinion.
Merits of the City’s policy: The Court declined to opine on whether the City’s “subcontractor form” requirement (including financial information) was authorized by the International Building Code or otherwise. That merits question is left unanswered because the case was moot.
Mootness exceptions: The opinion does not discuss exceptions such as “capable of repetition yet evading review” or “voluntary cessation.” The procedural posture did not present those issues, and the Court found no continuing effect on the parties’ rights.

Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in City of Orange Beach v. Boles reaffirms a foundational constraint on the declaratory-judgment remedy: when the requested practical relief has been afforded and remaining claims (like damages) are no longer viable, the case is moot and the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment. Any such judgment is void, and the only proper course is dismissal.

This opinion strengthens the guardrails against advisory opinions, clarifies post-remand practice in the wake of mooting events, and cautions litigants against pursuing stand-alone declarations disconnected from present, concrete stakes. While leaving unresolved the legality of the City’s subcontractor-information policy and the propriety of submitting declaratory claims to a jury, the Court decisively underscores that Alabama’s Declaratory Judgment Act is a vehicle to resolve real, live disputes—not to render perfunctory pronouncements for their own sake.

Key Takeaways

Declaratory relief in Alabama requires a live, present controversy affecting the parties’ legal rights; moot cases must be dismissed.
Post-remand declaratory judgments cannot be used to backfill a case after practical relief is provided and damages are unavailable.
Judgments entered without subject-matter jurisdiction are void ab initio; trial courts have no power to do anything but dismiss.
Attorneys’ fees tied to a void declaratory judgment have no footing absent a separate, valid jurisdictional basis.

Disposition: Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Bryan, J., concurs in the result; Cook, J., recuses.