Opinion
1161044
05-24-2019
Sarah S. Swindle et al. v. Sheila Hocutt Remington
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) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter . Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-16-315)
On Application for Rehearing
BOLIN, Justice.
Sarah S. Swindle, Bill Newton, Young Boozer, Philip Cleveland, Susan Williams Brown, Richard Brown, Joe Ward, Luke Hallmark, Susan Lockridge, Russell Twilley, John R. Whaley, Charlene McCoy, C. Ray Hayes, and Donald L. Large, Jr., in their official capacities as board members of the Public Education Employees' Health Insurance Program ("PEEHIP"), pursuant to Rule 40, Ala. R. App. P., request this Court to modify or amend its "March 8, 2019, Opinion to clarify that PEEHIP may fulfill the Court's ruling by repaying refund amounts for active members through the employers from whom PEEHIP initially received the premium payments, for distribution to those members in compliance with federal and state tax laws." The members of the PEEHIP Board maintain that amending this Court's March 8, 2019, opinion to incorporate this clarification will not change the Court's ruling on the substance of the issues decided in that opinion. Sheila Hocutt Remington opposes the request.
In our opinion on original submission, this Court discussed the substantive issues raised by the parties on appeal. Although we affirmed the circuit court's judgment, which included a general order that "the amounts now held in escrow must be distributed by the Defendants back to the PEEHIP members who contributed those amounts," the parties did not specifically assert in their appellate briefs any claims related to the manner of distributing the amounts held in escrow. Moreover, the circuit court is the more appropriate court to clarify, modify, or amend its previous order regarding the manner of distribution. Accordingly, the application for rehearing is overruled.
APPLICATION OVERRULED.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., recuses himself.