Rel: August 7, 2026
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2026
CL-2026-0014
Alabama Beverage Licensees Association; Kristi, LLC; Supreme
Properties, LLC; Pinki's Fine Wine and Spirits, Inc.; Copper
Line Beverages, LLC; Wagon Wheel Liquors, LLC; Feun, Inc.;
GRC, LLC; Wanderers, LLC; Posey 2020, Inc.; Somnath 2, LLC;
Convenience Management, Inc.; Marvic, LLC; Bootlegger
Liquors, LLC; Sara Bama, LLC; Downtown Tobacco and
Beverage, LLC; Downtown Entertainment, LLC; GJB, LLC;
Alabama Beverage, Inc.; Home Package, LLC; Pinki's Pub, Inc.;
Troy Enterprise 1, LLC; Fayette Prime, LLC; Liquor Express,
Inc.; North Alabama Beverage, LLC; Jay Ambe, LLC; 2022
Liquor, LLC; Hilltop Liquor, LLC; Manojavaya, Inc.; Tiger's
Pride Market, Inc.; Saai, LLC; Heet Marketing, LLC; Maruti
Nandan, Inc.; Mahakayaya, LLC; Mahatapase, LLC; Aanshi
Aarna, LLC; Shivam 07, LLC; and BSAC, Inc.
v.
Curtis E. Stewart, as administrator of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-25-901333)
CL-2026-0014
EDWARDS, Judge.
In August 2025, Alabama Beverage Licensees Association; Kristi,
LLC; Supreme Properties, LLC; Pinki's Fine Wine and Spirits, Inc.;
Copper Line Beverages, LLC; Wagon Wheel Liquors, LLC; Feun, Inc.;
GRC, LLC; Wanderers, LLC; Posey 2020, Inc.; Somnath 2, LLC;
Convenience Management, Inc.; Marvic, LLC; Bootlegger Liquors, LLC;
Sara Bama, LLC; Downtown Tobacco and Beverage, LLC; Downtown
Entertainment, LLC; GJB, LLC; Alabama Beverage, Inc.; Home
Package, LLC; Pinki's Pub, Inc.; Troy Enterprise 1, LLC; Fayette Prime,
LLC; Liquor Express, Inc.; North Alabama Beverage, LLC; Jay Ambe,
LLC; 2022 Liquor, LLC; Hilltop Liquor, LLC; Manojavaya, Inc.; Tiger's
Pride Market, Inc.; Saai, LLC; Heet Marketing, LLC; Maruti Nandan,
Inc.; Mahakayaya, LLC; Mahatapase, LLC; Aanshi Aarna, LLC; Shivam
07, LLC; and BSAC, Inc. (collectively "the plaintiffs"), filed in the
Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial court") a complaint against the
Alabama Beverage Control Board ("the ABC board") and Curtis E.
Stewart, in his official capacity as the administrator of the ABC board,
seeking a judgment declaring that the ABC board was acting in violation
of Ala. Code 1975, § 28-3-53.2, when it began imposing an approximately
2
CL-2026-0014
2% convenience fee1 for the plaintiffs' use of credit cards to make their
wholesale purchases of case lots of liquor from the ABC board.2 After a
trial, the trial court determined that the imposition of the convenience
fee for the use of a credit card to make purchases from the ABC board did
not violate § 28-3-53.2. The plaintiffs appealed.
"Our review of a declaratory judgment is ordinarily
governed by the ore tenus standard. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Brown, 894 So. 2d 643 (Ala. 2004); Alfa Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Small, 829 So. 2d 743 (Ala. 2002). However, the
standard 'is not applicable where the evidence is undisputed,
or where the material facts are established by the undisputed
evidence.' Salter v. Hamiter, 887 So. 2d 230, 234 (Ala. 2004).
Neither does the ore tenus rule apply to the trial court's legal
conclusions or misapplications of the law to undisputed facts.
Eubanks v. Hale, 752 So. 2d 1113, 1144-45 (Ala. 1999)."
1The record indicates that the exact percentage of the convenience
fee was unclear. The plaintiffs contended that the percentage was 2.022
while Stewart (see note 2, infra)the ABC board contended that it was
2.03. The exact percentage of the convenience fee is not material to the
determination of this appeal.
2The complaint initially named the ABC board and Stewart as
defendants, but the trial court dismissed the ABC board as a defendant
based on its sovereign immunity under Ala. Const. 2022, Art. I, § 14. The
complaint also incorrectly designated Stewart as the commissioner of the
ABC board; however, he is the administrator of the ABC board. See Ala.
Code 1975, § 28-3-42(a) (providing that "the [ABC] board shall appoint
an administrator … to administer the provisions of [Ala. Code 1975, § 28-3-1 et seq.]").
3
CL-2026-0014
Barber v. Jefferson Cnty. Racing Ass'n, Inc., 960 So. 2d 599, 603 (Ala.
2006).
Relying on the principle of statutory construction requiring a court
to construe a statute according to its plain language, see IMED Corp. v.
Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992) ("Words
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."), the
plaintiffs argue on appeal, as they did in the trial court, that § 28-3-53.2
prohibits the ABC board from imposing an additional fee for the use of a
credit card for wholesale purchases of case lots of liquor from the ABC
board because, they say, the statute places a cap on the amount of "mark
up" that the ABC board may apply to the cost of case lots of liquor.3
Specifically, § 28-3-53.2(c) provides that "[t]he [ABC] board shall be
prohibited from increasing the mark up on wholesale case lot sales of
liquor above 16.99 percent of the cost plus freight subsequent to
3The term "mark up" is defined in § 28-3-53.2(a) as "the percentage
amount added to cost plus freight on spiritous or vinous liquors sold by
the [ABC] board, exclusive of taxes heretofore levied with respect
thereto."
4
CL-2026-0014
December 1, 2004." The plaintiffs characterize the imposition of the
convenience fee as "marking up the 'mark up' " and argue that the
application of the convenience fee to their credit-card purchases results
in an unlawful increase in the mark up on the wholesale cost of case lots
of liquor beyond the 16.99% statutory cap. Plaintiffs' brief, p. 14.
The plaintiffs further contend that the clear intent of the legislature
in enacting § 28-3-53.2(c) was to limit the ability of the ABC board to
increase the wholesale price of liquor.4 They assert that Stewart's
argument that adding additional "costs outside of the direct cost of liquor
and freight" is permissible would allow the ABC board to skirt the
limitation on the wholesale price imposed in § 28-3-53.2(c). Plaintiffs'
brief, p. 22. According to the plaintiffs, allowing the ABC board to
characterize the convenience fee as a cost of doing business that it is
4The plaintiffs have also posited that, "[w]hen determining the
intent of a statute where an ambiguity exists, the Court may look to the
sources external to the words in the statute," Plaintiffs' brief, p. 19, and
have directed this court to the text of Ala. Acts 2004, Act No. 2004-266,
to support their conclusion that the purpose of § 28-3-53.2(c) was to
prevent the ABC board from attempting to increase the wholesale price
of liquor. However, the plaintiffs have not tendered an argument that §
28-3-53.2 is ambiguous, and we find no ambiguity in the statute that
would require this court to consider sources other than the language
contained therein.
5
CL-2026-0014
passing along to its "customers" would enable the ABC board to pass
along other costs of doing business, like employee salaries and other costs
associated with the business of the ABC board. Thus, they say, allowing
the ABC board to impose the convenience fee will permit the ABC board
to "thwart" the legislature's intent in limiting the mark up on the
wholesale cost of liquor and to increase the wholesale cost of liquor well
over the 16.99% cap, in violation of § 28-3-53.2(c).
Stewart argues that the convenience fee is not a mark up of the
wholesale cost of liquor but is instead imposed only on those purchasers
who use a credit card to pay for their purchases from the ABC board.
According to Stewart, the convenience fee is a fee charged by the creditcard companies to the ABC board for the privilege of using a credit card
to complete a sale, and, he asserts, the ABC board is passing that
convenience fee along to the purchaser itself. Stewart points out that
Ala. Code 1975, § 41-1-60(e), authorizes a "board … accept[ing] ... credit
card payments [to] impose a surcharge or convenience fee upon the
person making payment by credit card to wholly or partially offset, but
not to exceed the amount of any discount or administrative fees charged
to state government." Stewart explains that those purchasers who pay
6
CL-2026-0014
for their purchases with the electronic-payment system utilized by the
ABC board, with a check, or with cash are not charged the convenience
fee. Thus, Stewart reasons, the imposition of the convenience fee is not
a mark up of the wholesale cost of case lots of liquor but, instead, is a
"separate, optional, transaction-specific" payment-processing charge that
the plaintiffs could avoid by changing their method of payment.
Stewart's brief, p. 11.
In its judgment, the trial court concluded that the convenience fee
was not a part of the wholesale cost of a case lot of liquor and was instead
the cost for the privilege of using a credit card to purchase the liquor. The
trial court noted that the convenience fee was not imposed on every
purchase of a case lot of liquor but was imposed only on those
transactions in which credit cards were used to pay for the purchase. In
other words, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the
imposition of the convenience fee should be considered an additional
mark up on the wholesale cost of a case lot of liquor. We agree.
The wholesale cost of a case lot of liquor is not changed by the
imposition of the convenience fee solely on customers that choose to pay
by using a credit card. Therefore, the imposition of a convenience fee on
7
CL-2026-0014
wholesale purchases of case lots of liquor that are made by credit card is
not a "mark up" of the wholesale cost of a case lot of liquor sold by the
ABC board and does not run afoul of the prohibition in § 28-3-53.2(c).
Furthermore, the imposition of the convenience fee on those who
purchase liquor from the ABC board with a credit card is authorized by
§ 41-1-60(e). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
Moore, P.J., and Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur.
8