Pratt v. Alabama State Tenure Commission Court Opinion

    18 Ala.

267 (1975), and Ful&s v. Gteen,?L6ltla.Bg2,
p So.zd 787 (1948). From this rule, appel-
lant arjues that a witness need not have
any intent to witness the document. This
does not necessarily follow. In each of
these cases, there was at least an intent to
witness some document, whether it be a will
or noL This minimal intent requirement is
still generally recognized.

- Although a will may be attested validly
in jurisdictions in which publication is noi
required notwithstanding that the wit-
ness is not aware that the instrument
which he subscribes is a will, it is essen-
tial to the effectiveness of his attestation
that he act with intent to attest the in-
strument. He must sign with the inten_
tion of performing the act necessary to
become a witness to the execution oi the
instrument. It is, however, the intent
manifested by the circumstances under
which the witness signs, rather than his
own concept of the purpose for which his
signaturc is required, which is determina-
tive.

394 SOUTHERN REPORTER.2d SERIES

correctly considercd Judge Burns's intcnt in
placing his name on the notes, although it is
not necessary that a witness intcnd to at
t*st a will per se.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER,
JONES and EMBRY, JJ., @ncur.

\william PRATT

v.

AI"ABAMA STATE TENI.IRE. COMMISSION.

Civ. BB.
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

PRAl

record on appeal satisfied r

section of Teacher Tenurc Ar
education assemble recond

ings including board's findin1
(6) better practice under sec'

Tenure Act requiring reoor
contain board's findings an
for board of education to
findings setting forth ground
in terminating teacher's cor
due prcess did not rcquire
education make specific find
support of cancellation of te
contrzcL

Affirmed.
Certiorari denied, Ala.,

1. Schoolg el4l(4)
"Incompetency," as gror

lation of employment contra
under statute is term which
mean disqualification, inabili
ty. Code 1975, S 16-%-8.

See publication Words r

for other judicial constr
definitions.

2. Schoolr elll(4)
Teacher's failure to ptw

tive leadership and his failu
stable lunch period schedule
tency" within statute perm
tion of tenured teacher's en
tract for "incompetency." C
%-a.
3. Schoolr el4l(4)

Teacher's failure to coo

tion of school problemE was
cancellation of employment,
statutory prcvision permitti
for "other good and just
1975, S t6-?L8.

Sce publicatlon \Vords r

for other judlcid constrt
definitions.

4. Schools €l{f({)
Teacher's failure to adr

ual education pnogram ws
duty" permitting cancellati
ment contrzct under statut
s rr%-€.

See publlcation lVordr
for d,her Judcid constr
dellnltionc.

?9 AmJur.Zl Wils g 267 (1975) (footnotes Nov' 5, 1980.

omitted). See Page on Wills g 19.129 (rev. Rehearing Denied Dec. B, 19g0.
ed. 1960). In the instant case, the evidence
indicates that Judge Burns, by his signa-
ture, sought to infirm the drafting aftor- Teacher appealed- from judgment of
ney of wlom Mrs. Elder desired to" U" tt " 

the Circuit Court, Bibb County, U. P. Rus.
executor of her will. Thus, the trial court's sell, Jn, J., upiolding decision of Alabama
finding that there was no intent to witness State Tenure Commission and county board
anything at all is amply supportea Uy tfre of edueation terminating contract of em-
evidence. --- -J ---- ployment The Court of Civit Appeals,

As a leading authority on wills has stat- Holmes, J', held that: (1) teacher's iaitune
ed: to provide administrative leadership and his

Regardless of what it is that is attested, 
failure to establish stable lunch period

the witnesses must intend to act as wit- schedulg evidenced "incompetenca/' 8s

nesses, or the will is not valid. The mere 
ground for cancellation of employrnent con-

presenoe of pensons during the perform- 
trzct under statute; (2) teacher's failur= to

ance of the acts required by the statute, 
cooperate in solution of schml problems was

coupled with the f""t tt 
"t 

they sign the legal cause within provision permitting can-

wil[ is not ruffi"i.ii unless the witnesses 
cellation of employrnent contract for'bther

t""" ifr"-r"qr1.il*"nir* attestandi. good and just cause"; (3) tcacher's failure
T. Atkinson, Handbook of the Law of wi,s to administ€r individual education proSr8m

s6e(zd;'6ilir*l,"tcomiued). ffi;[#;S"1T[,ffi1,i:LH;,I;
t3l We hold that an attesting witness (4) determinaiion that political or penonal

must possess, at the minimum, an intcnt to motive was absent in action of board of
witness some documenl 

- 
In-denying the education terminating tenured tcacher,spetition to probate the will, the trial-court contrzct of employrneit *r" not emr; (6)



PRATT v. AIIL STATE TENURD COIIN
Cltc rr AbClvIgP. tel so'd tt

Ala. 19
RIES

ered Judge Burng's intcnt in
e on the notes, although it is
,hat a witness int+nd to aL
rc.

C. J., and FAULKNER,
IBRY, JJ., ooncur.

lltam PRATT

%

A STATE TENURE
)ilMISSION.

Clv. 2323.

il Appeals of Alabama.

lov. 5, 1980.

Denied Dec. 8, 1980.

oealed fiom judgment of
t, Bibb County, E P. Rus.
rlding decision of Alabama
mmission and county board
minating contract of em-
Court of Civil Appeals,
that: (l) teacher's failurc
istrstive leaderahip and his
rlish steble lunch period
roed "incompetency" as
llation of employrnent con-
fia; (2) teacher's failure to
:ion of school publems was
n prcvision permitting cen-

{rment contract for "other
uee"; (8) teacher's failure
ividual education pttg?8m
duty" permitting cancella-
rnt oontract under atatute;
that political or penonal

nt in action of board of
rating tenured teacher's
rynent was not enor; (6)

rccord on appeal sstisfied requircment of Si,Schoolt el{l(2)
section of Teacher Tenurc Act lhat board of I., Una"t Teacher Tenurc Act, only board

education assemble record of its proceed- of education has authority to tcrminate
ings including boatd's findings and deciaion; teacher's contract; superintendent may nec-

(6) bettcr practice under section of Teacher ommend termination, but he cannot termi-
i'enure Act requiring record on appeal to nate tenured teacher. Code 1975, SS lF
contain boatd's findings and decision was 24-l et eeq., 16-%J,l6-?A-9.
for board of education to make speclllc

findings setting forth grounds it relied upo:t 6. Schools ef4l(5)
in terminating teacher's contnact; and (7) In order to aupport rcversal of cancella-
due prucess did not require that F1rd 9f tion of tcnurcd teacher's enploynrent oon-
education make specific finding:s of f""t 'rrr io"t ,na", Teacher Tenurc ict, it is board
support of cancellation of tenured teacher's 

of education that must be politically or per-
contract. sonally biased against tcacher. Code 1915,

Affirmed. $g t6-24-r et seq., t6-24.4.
C,ertiorari denied, Ala., 894 b.% n. 

?. Schools c_l4l(s)

l. Schoolg el4l(4)
"Incompetency," as ground for cancel-

lation of employment contract with teacher

under statut€ is term which may be used to

mean disqualification, inability, or incapaci-

ty. Code l9?5, $ f6-%+.
See oublication Words and Phrases

foi 
-otf,er judicial constructions and

definitions.

2. Schools ef4l(4)
Teacher's failure to provide administra-

tive leadership and his failure to establish

stable lunch period schedule was "incompe-
tency" within statute permitting caneella-

tion of tenurrcd teacher's employment con-

tract for "incompetency." Code 1975' S 16-

?tL-8.

3. Schools Ff4f(4)
Teacher's failure to cooperate in solu-

tion of school problems was legal cause for
cancellation of employment contract within
statutory prcvision permitting cancellation

for "otler good arid just cause." Code

l9?5, S IWZL-8.
See oublication Words and Phrases

foi-otf,er judicial constructions and
definitions.

4. Schools c=l1l(1)
Teacher's failure to administer individ-

ual education progrsm was "neglect of
duty" permitting cancellation of employ-

ment contract under statute. Code 1975,

s 16-%-8.
See oubUcation Wcds and Phrases

foi 
-otfler 

Judidal constructions and
definltiona.

Determination that politicsl or personal

motive was absent in action of county board

of education cancelling emplo5rment con-

tract of tenured teacher was not emor, in

light of findingrs of incompetence, neglect-of

duty, and other good and juat cause for
tcrmination, where only teatimony asserL

ing rivalry was that of tcacher asserting

ri*l.V between himself and county superil-
tendent of schools and there was no evi-

dence suggesting board of education'a in-

volvement in such rivalry. Code 1975'

SS f6-%-1 et aeq., 76-2*{.,I6IZL-9'

8. Schoole c-l{l(5)
J(rOn appeal of cancellation of tenurrcd

teacher's contract, recotd, which contained

lettcr to tcacher eetting forth statutory
grounds for termination and listing 26 spe

cific incidents 8s ltasons for boatd's ptu
posed action, minutes of meeting of board

of education reveatingif,af-mter Was IEn

@iewer-,8nd
aiditionat tettcr to tcCcfrE-in6ffig him

9. Schoole c-1lf(5)
Bettcr practice under section of Teach-

er Tenurc Act requiring board of education

that his contract was terminated,



20 Ala.

to assemble, for purposes of teacher's ap
peal from cancellation of contract of em-
ployment record of its proceedings includ-
ing board's findings and decision, is for
board of education to make specific findings
setting forth grounds it relied upon in ter-
minating teacher's contract. Code lg?5,
s 16-24-10(b).

10. Constitutional law o278.5(1)
Due prccess of law did not require that

county board of education make specific
findings of fact in support of cancellation of
tenured teacher's employment contract un-
der provision of Teacher Tenurc Act. Code
l9?5, S 16-%-8; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

William M. Dawson, Birmingham, for ap
pellant.

Raymond E. Ward, Ray, Oliver & Ward,
Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a teacher tenure case.

The contract of the teacher-principal,
who had eontinuing service status (tenure),
was tcrminated by the county board of edu-
cation. The teacher appealed to the Ala-
bama State Tenure Commission. The ten-
ure commission upheld the board of educa-
tion's action. The teacher sought relief
fipm the tenurc commission's action in the
circuit court. The circuit court upheld the
tenure commission's decision. The circuit
court specifically found the action taken by
the tenurc commission to be in accordance
with the requircments of the Alabama
Teacher Tenure law and that the action was
not unjust.

The teacher now appeals to this court and
we affirm.

The teacher contends (f) the evidence
does not support termination of the teach-
er's contract, (2) the termination was for
penonal and political neasons in contraven-
tion of S lil%-8, Code of Alalg?5, and (3)
the teacher was denied constitutional due
prccess of law in that the board of educa-
tion in its final determination failed to state
with sufficient specificity the rcasons for
termination.

394 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

At the outset, we note that "the State
Tenurc Commission's conclusions and judg-
ment will not be reversed on appellate rrc-
view as being unjust unless it is against the
preponderance of the evidence and the
overwhelming weight of the evidence."
Sumter County Board of &lucation v. Ala-
bama State Tenurc Comm'n, AIa.,352 So.2l
1137, 1139 (1977).

I
The termination as revealed by the min-

utes of the board of edueation and lettcr of
notification to the teacher was on grounds
of incompetency, neglect of duty, and other
good and just cause. We do not deem it
necessary or prudent to set out in detail
those acts that support the action of the
board of education and the tenure commis-
sion. Suffice it to say therc is evidence
that the teacher-principal failed to adminis-
ter the Individual Education Prcgram as
required by law; that he failed to establish
and maintain a consistent lunch perid
schedule; that he failed to prcvide his fac-
ulty administrative leadership; and that he
failed to cooperate with his faculty and the
board of education in the solution of indi-
vidual and administrative prrblems.

Section 16-24-8, Code of Ala.l975, pro-
vides:

Cancellation of an employment con-
tract with a teacher on cxi,ntinuing service
status may be made for incompetency,
... neglect of duty, . .. or other good
and just cause .. . .

tl-{l Incompetency is a term which
may be used to mean disqualification, ina-
bility, or incapacity. hunty Boald of Etlu-
cation v. Oliver, ?I0 Ala lg|, 116 So.zd 556
(1959). Herc, incompetency is evidenced by
the teacher's failure to provide administra-
tive leadenship and his failure to establish a
stable lunch period schedule. Failure to
cooperate, r'. e., the teacher's failure to coop
erate in the solution of school prcblems, is a
legal cause within the prcvision, "other
good and just c8use." St:,ta Tenute
Comm'n v. Madison County Boart of Fxlu-
cation,2ll2 Ala- 658, 213 So.zd 828 (1968).

PR

Neglect of dutY bY its or

a failure to do what one

or contract to do. Here,

ure to administer the Inr

Program is such neglect

the termination of the te,

the above mentioned sta

be fully supPorted bY th

II
The Teacher Tenure I

termination for Political
s)ns. Section lF2A-8,
prcvides:

Cancellation of an
trzct with a teacher ol
status may be made

insubordination, negle

rality, justifiable decn

of teacher poeitionr t

just cause, but cane,
mile for plitical u
(Emphasis supplied.)

The teacher citea rival
and the county superir
for the latter's office at

termination. The only
that this rivalry was th
nation was the teache/r
no evidence suggeating
involvement in this rivr
valry motivatcd the bt
the te.acher's contract

t5, q We note unde
ure Act only the boar
authority to terminate
The superintendent mq
nation, but he cannot 1

teacher. Brown v. Stt
Ala0iv.App.,849 So2d

tion must be politically
againrt the teacher.
Board of fuluation
hmm'n,291Ala 281,

tO Summarizing, ir

and in light of what s
boerd of educationb I
tence, negtect of duty,
jurt causo for terminal

t

!
&

$



RIES

t, we note that "the State
sion's conclusions and judg-
rc revensed on appellate re-
njust unless it is against the
of the evidence and the
weight of the eviden@.',
Boad of Eiucation v. AIa-
ure &mm'n, AIa.,852 So.2d
).

I
on as rcvealed by the min-
I of education and letter of
he teacher w8s on grounds
, neglect of duty, and other
ause. We do not deem it
rdent to s€t out in detail
support the action of the
rn and the tenure commis-
to say therp is evidenee

principal failed to adminis-
al F,ducation Program as
that he failed to establish
conaistent lunch period

: failed to provide his fac-
re leadership; and that he
e with his faculty and the
rn in the solution of indi-
istrative problems.

B, Code of Ala.lg?5, pru.

of an emplo5rment con-
cher on continuing service
made for incompetency,

1O, 
.. or other good

iency is a term which
rcan diaqualification, ina-
y. bunty Boart of Ectu-
I0 Ala. 107, 116 So.2d ES6
mpetency is evidenced by
rc to prvide administra-
I his failure to establish a
d schedule. Failure to
teacher's failure to coop.
n of school prcblems, ia a
n the pruvision, ,,other

e8uEe." Str,te Tenurc
n bunty Bond of Ettu-
8,218 So.2d 82S (1963).

ure to administer the Individual Fducation
Prugram is such neglect of duty. We find
the termination of the teacher's contract on

the above mentioned statutory grounds to
be fully supported by the evidence.

II
The Teacher Tenurc Act does not allow

termination for political or penonal rca-
BonB. Section 16-24-8, Code of Ala.l975,
prcvides:

Cnnoellation of an emplo5rment con-

trsct with a teacher on continuing seruice

status may be made for incompetency,
insubordination, neglect of duty, immo-
rality, justifiable decrease in the number
of teacher positions or other good and
just cause, but unellation may not b
made for pliticz,l or personalreasons.
(Emphasis oupplied.)

The teacher cites rivalry between himself
and the county auperintendent of schools

for the latter's office as the neason for his
terminstion. The only teetimony asserting
that this rivalry was the neason for termi-
nation was the teacher's. Further, there is
no evidence suggesting board of education
involvement in this rivalry or that this ri-
valry motivated the board in terminating
the teacher'e contrzct.

{- fS- St \ile note under the Teacher Ten-
Tre fi ontv tt" Uo"ta of 

"auotiilh""ag!9!fy to tet !n"t ffflt9*,*loqeu
f[e-iuperintendent may rccommend termi-
nilio-n. tr-uftre cannolErminaE a trn[re<l

_j__-.-_

teceEA: Brcwi v. Statc Tenurc Qprym'n,
Alsciv.App@
g;Gde of Alal9?5. The board of educa-

tion must be politically or penonally biased

against the teacher. iilanhall County
Boatd of Erlucation v. Ststz Tenurc
C)omm'n,291 Ala. ?fl,m So.2d 180 (19?8).

IT Summarizing, in light of the above

and in light of what we said rcgarding the
board of education's findinga of incompe-

tence, neglect of duty, and other good and
just cause for termination, the tenurc com-

Neglect of duty by its own terms describes mission and the cirrcuit oourt did not err in
a fiiture to do what one is required by law finding an absence of political or penonal

or contract to do. Herc, the teacher's fail- motive in the board's action.

PRATT v. AIIL STATE TENURE COilN
cltc rr' Alrovrp' lo' 52d lt

Ala. 2l

III
The teacher contends he was denied due

process of law by the board of edueation's
failure to Btste with sufficient specificity
the rcasons for his termination. In other
words, the teacher contends due poceas

rcquircs the board to make specific findings
of fact.

At the outset, we note S 1F24-9, Code of
A1a.1fi5, outlines the procedure the boad
of education mugt follow in terminating
teacher contracts. Neither this code section
nor &ny other in the Teacher Tenurc Act
rcquires the board to mahe cpecific findings
of fact.

This court is cognizant of S 16-%-f0(b),
Code of A1a1975, which requires the boad
of education to assemble, for the purposes

of the teacher's appeal to the Statc Tenurc
Commission, the record of its pruceedings

including the board's finding and deision.

We also note $ 16-%-9, Code of Ala19?5,
requircs the boad of education to notify
the teacher that it is considering the termi-
nation of his contract. [n this instance, the
teacher was Eo notified by letter. The let"
ter, which is part of the tecotd, eet forth
the statutory grounds for termination and
listed at length the rcasons for the board'g

proposed action. In fact twenty+ix specif-
ic incidents were list€d in the board's letter
to the teacher.

The record also contsins the minutea of
the meeting of the boad of education
where the board votcd to terminate the
teacher. These minutes rcveal that the
teacher was terminated for the rcasons set
forth in the aforcmentioned lettcr.

Additionally, the board vnpte the teacher
and informed him that the charyes against
him had been substsntiatcd and that his

contract was terminatcd.

We further note that therp ie nothing in
the rpcord to indicate the teacher was not
fully appriaed of the rcasons for his termi-
nation. The ariument in brief rcgsrding



22 Ala. 394 SOUTHERN REPORTER 2d SERIES

the boanl of education's lack of specific
findings was appanently made for the firct
time in the teacher's motion for a "new
trial" in the circuit court.

[8,9] In view of all of the above, we
find that the findings of the board of edu-
cation arc contained in the record. The
above mentioned pmvision of S 16-%-f(b)
has been satisfied. tbsleJjL-we-note-tht
it would be better Fr"actiee fer the bnar"rl of

tinC
folh_Ee_"eEsgldsjt relied_gpqn-inLlemt
na!l!g_!!ga"_q9ler! rgltrygt.

tl0l The teacher through counsel cites

Goldberg v. Kelly,3g? U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct.
1011, 25 L.Fd.2d 287 (1970), for the proposi-

tion that due process of law requires the
board of education to make specific findings
of fact. ln Goldberg, the United States

Supreme Court said essentially that due
pnocess requires the decision maker's con-
clusion to rcst "solely on the legal rules and

evidence adduced at the hearing." The

court then went on to say:

Ex Parte lVilliem PRATT.

(Re William PRATT

v.

AI.ABAI}IA STATE TENI.IRE
coMMrssroN).

8r)-191.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 20, 1981.

Certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals,

394 So.2d 18.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED_NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES
and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Monique NORTON

v.

lVilliam A- NORTON.

Civ. 2410.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 5, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1980.

Wife appealed from an otder of the
Circuit Court, Morgan County, Newton B.

Powell, J., granting divorrce on grounds of
incompatibility and dividing rcal and per-

sonal property of parties. The C,ourt of
Civil Appeals, Wright, P'J., held that: (1)

evidenee supported trial court's granting of
divorce on grounds of incompatibility, and
(2) trial court did not abuse its discrretion in
division of property.

Affirmed.
Certiorari denied, Ala., 394 *.fut %.

-f,ro with this ele-

rh@G&ns roffiaetcfri
na-ig!-cdrxdicatq@ed
"f^ though his statement need not
amount to a full opinion or even formal
findings of fact and conclusions of
law....

39? U.S. attll,g0 S.Ct. atLU2^ We find
nothing in Goldberg that requires the board

of education to make specific findings of
fact. In fact, Caldberg indicates that "for-
mal findings of fact" are not required. In
view of the facts of the instant appeal, the
findings by the board ane sufficient.

The case is due to be affirmed and is

hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., con-
cur.

l. Divorce c=3{

"IncomPatibilitY," for

vonge, nefen to conflicts in I

dispositions so deeP as to'

"nd 
to rcnder it imPossibl

continue normal maritsl r
each other.

See Publication Wordl
for other judicial cons
deflnitions.

2. Divorce e&l
It is the fact of the

state or condition of incon

to be determined in dit

brought on ground of inr

for purpose of finding thal
material.

& Divorce caf3z(f)
Evidence suPPorted tt

ing of divorrce on grtund t

{. Apped and Etror ca9

Judgment rendered r

tenus has standing of jur3

spp€81 is presumed to be

5. IXvorcc e252.1
Division of PrcPertY t

consideration of equitiea
by parties, is matter for
court

6. IXvorce o=286(5)

Exerrcise of trial co

determining division of P
disturbed on appeal excel
palpable abuse.

7' IXvorce e,522
In divorce Proceedit

not abuse its discnetion i

erty where each part '
and pmperty was fairlY t
ed between parties.

Mumay SI. BeasleY,
pellant

Bingham D. Edwardr,
lee.