Equity Trust Company, etc. v. Kimbrell, et al., [Ms. CL-2024-0510, Jan. 31, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The court (Lewis, J.; Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur) reverses the Jefferson Circuit Court’s summary judgment in favor of Katie Kimbrell in her appeal from the City of Birmingham Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (“the board”) decision that the Equity Trust Company f/b/o John L. Kalousek, IRA (“Kalousek”) “presented sufficient evidence that the structure [in question] did not lose its legal non-conforming status” and overturning the decision of the director of the City of Birmingham Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits. Ms. *2.
Kimbrell owned property neighboring the Kalousek structure. The court concludes Kimbrell did not establish that she was a “party aggrieved” within the meaning of § 11-52-81, Ala. Code 1975, and consequently could not appeal from the board’s decision in favor of Kalousek and holds
However, as our supreme court has recognized, there must be “proof of the adverse effect.” Gulf House Ass’n v. Town of Gulf Shores, 484 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Ala. 1985) (emphasis added). The only evidence that Kimbrell points to is her response to an interrogatory asking how she was aggrieved by the board’s decision, in which she stated: “I live next door to the [property]. The decision of the [board] conflicts with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and will lead to activity that will negatively impact the use and enjoyment of my property.” We conclude, however, that this statement falls short of our supreme court’ requirement that the appealing party “‘establish[] proof of the adverse effect the changed status of the rezoned property has, or could have on the use, enjoyment, and value of his own property.’” Id. at 1063 (emphasis added) (quoting Crowder v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 406 So. 2d 917, 918 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981)).
Ms. *7.