Epps Aircraft, Inc. v. Montgomery Airport Auth.

570 So. 2d 625, 1990 Ala. LEXIS 666, 1990 WL 155168
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedSeptember 14, 1990
Docket89-916
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 570 So. 2d 625 (Epps Aircraft, Inc. v. Montgomery Airport Auth.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Epps Aircraft, Inc. v. Montgomery Airport Auth., 570 So. 2d 625, 1990 Ala. LEXIS 666, 1990 WL 155168 (Ala. 1990).

Opinion

Exxon Corporation leased a fixed base operation1 at Dannelly Field Montgomery Municipal Airport ("the Airport") from the Montgomery Airport Authority ("the Authority"), a public corporation organized under the provisions of Ala. Code 1975, §4-3-1 et seq. That corporation was organized for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Airport.2 Exxon subleased the facility to Epps Aircraft, Inc. ("Epps"). Subsequently, Epps purchased a Thrifty Car Rental franchise and began to operate an automobile rental service from its facility.

Exxon is obligated under the primary lease to pay as a rental fee $1,000 per month or, based upon a sliding scale, a percentage of its gross monthly income, whichever is larger.3 The primary lease does not directly authorize Exxon to operate an automobile rental company at the Airport; it does, however, provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

"In addition to the foregoing, and not in limitation thereof, the Tenant may, at its option, provide other services and sell other products, including the following:

". . . .

"The right to load and unload passengers and cargo and to transport passengers to and from transient aircraft to and from the terminal and other areas of the Airport;

"Such other services and sale and rental of such other items as from time to time may be handled by Fixed Base Operators generally;

". . . The Tenant shall have the right of ingress to and egress from and over the entire Airport property on any and all roads and/or access therein and thereto which the Landlord controls leading thereto and therefrom which shall be for the benefit of and may be exercised by the Tenant, its employees, passengers, guests, patrons, and other invitees and licensees subject to the reasonable rules and regulations of the Airport Director."

Epps considered that the provisions of the primary lease quoted above, which were incorporated into the sublease, authorized it to operate the automobile rental service from its facility.

Epps included the gross income from its automobile rentals in calculating its rent under the sliding scale set out in the sublease, which was identical to the sliding scale set out in the primary lease; however, at the time Epps purchased its automobile rental franchise, other automobile rental companies doing business at the Airport — three of which operate solely out of the terminal and one of which operates out of both the terminal and another fixed base operation — were paying monthly rental fees equal to 10% of their gross incomes, pursuant to agreements that were apparently executed subsequent to the execution of Epps's sublease.

Taking the position that the primary lease did not authorize Epps to operate an *Page 627 automobile rental service from its facility, the Authority adopted a resolution that reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

"WHEREAS, the Authority finds that, in order to retire debts incurred for the construction of facilities, pay for Airport equipment and maintenance, protect the public, preserve order, provide for the public health, safety and welfare, and govern the Airport, it is necessary to fix charges, fees and regulations for those persons and corporations who do not have leases or concession contracts with the Authority, including but not limited to non-tenant rental car businesses, and hotel/motel operators who desire the privilege of picking up passengers in courtesy vehicles and supplying services to passengers picked up at the Airport; and

"WHEREAS, any business that does not lease space in the Airport passenger terminal at Dannelly Field, Montgomery, Alabama, and desires access to the terminal through the use of Airport roads to conduct its business shall be deemed a non-tenant business. This definition includes but is not limited to motel courtesy vehicles and car rental companies not renting counter space within the terminal building; and

"WHEREAS, the Authority finds that the charges and fees established and fixed herein for non-tenant rental car businesses and motel courtesy vehicles are reasonable compensation from the users to the Authority for the use of Airport facilities, and are needed to help defray the cost of Airport operations and facilities; and

"WHEREAS, the Authority has heretofore entered into contracts for rental car concessions with persons or corporations wishing to use any of the four designated rental car business areas in the passenger terminal, with said contracts being on file at the Administration Offices of the Authority; and

"WHEREAS, the aforementioned rental car concession contracts have reasonable requirements, regulations, charges, and fees for the privilege of supplying goods, commodities, and services at the Airport, based on the property and improvements used, the expenses of Airport operation, the cost of Airport facilities, including Authority debt retirement; and

"WHEREAS, rental car businesses not having said rental car concession contracts may, nevertheless, desire the privilege of supplying services at the Airport, such as driving on Airport roads, and [picking up] and dropping off customers at the Airport; and

"WHEREAS, the Authority finds that, in order to protect the public, to provide for public safety, to preserve the good order and peace of the Authority, to regulate the entrances to property and buildings of the Authority and the way of ingress and egress to and from the same, and in order to enhance the accuracy of the levying and collecting of fees and charges by the Authority on non-tenant rental car business, it is necessary to enact reasonable standards, controls, rules, regulations, and procedures for such non-tenant rental car business; and

"WHEREAS, the Authority finds that, in consideration of all the foregoing, it is necessary to fix and establish reasonable charges, fees, rules, regulations, standards, controls, and procedures for non-tenant persons or corporations with rental car businesses, and motels desiring to furnish courtesy vehicles, desiring access to Airport property for business purposes.

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the MONTGOMERY AIRPORT AUTHORITY as follows:

"Section 1. In order to retire Authority debts incurred for the construction of Airport facilities, pay for Airport operations and maintenance, manage the Airport, pay for Airport equipment, protect the public, preserve order, provide for the public health, safety and welfare, enhance the welfare of the Authority, and govern the Airport, it is necessary to fix charges, fees and regulations for those persons and corporations who do not have leases or concession contracts *Page 628 with the Airport Authority, including but not limited to non-tenant rental car businesses and motel courtesy vehicles, but who want the privilege of picking up and delivering passengers and supplying services at the Airport.

"Section 3. The charges and fees established and fixed herein are reasonable compensation from the users to the Authority for the use of Airport facilities and are needed to help defray the cost of Airport facilities.

"Section 4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Selma Air Center, Inc. v. Craig Field Airport & Industrial Authority
210 So. 3d 1140 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2016)
Ex Parte Carlton
867 So. 2d 332 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carlton
867 So. 2d 332 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2003)
Montgomery Airport Authority v. Epps Aircraft, Inc.
658 So. 2d 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1994)
Knox Kershaw, Inc. v. Kershaw
598 So. 2d 1372 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1992)
HUNTSVILLE AVIATION CORPORATION v. Ford
577 So. 2d 1281 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
570 So. 2d 625, 1990 Ala. LEXIS 666, 1990 WL 155168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epps-aircraft-inc-v-montgomery-airport-auth-ala-1990.