Ala. Code 1975, § 36-26-100 (emphasis added). In Estill v. State Tenure Commission, 650 So.2d 890, 891 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994), this court construed "succeeding year" under § 16-24-5 to mean "succeeding scholastic year." A careful reading of Estill reveals that this court attributed the same meaning to the terms "school year" and "scholastic year," but a different meaning to the term "school term.
This "implication" argument, however, does not persuade the court in this context. See id., at 10 (citing Hershey v. State of Illinois, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl. 108 (Ill.Ct.Cl. 1990); Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); and Pfeifle v. Tanabe, 620 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2000)). F D's reliance on Weymouth in this context is misplaced.
However, she argues that the Board should have notified her before the beginning of the succeeding school year in order to have a valid transfer under § 16-24-5, and that, therefore, the Board's October 14, 1997, notice of the transfer was untimely. See Estill v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 650 So.2d 890 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994) (under § 16-24-5, allowing transfer of teacher for succeeding year to another position, grade, or school by giving written notice of intent to transfer, notice must be given before beginning of the succeeding school year). The Commission argues that it cannot address the question whether Coley's notice was improper, because Coley failed to timely appeal. The Commission cites Bramlett v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 341 So.2d 727 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977), and Johnson v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 566 So.2d 500 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990), in support of its position.