Linda Thurman v. Judicial Corrections Services, Inc.

Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 1 of 18
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14450
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00724-RDP-TFM
LINDA THURMAN and COURTNEE CARROLL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES, INC., and
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(January 10, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and BALDOCK, ∗ Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge:
∗ Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 2 of 18
Plaintiffs-Appellants Linda Thurman and Courtnee Carroll appeal from the
district court’s denial of their motion for partial summary judgment and grant of
Defendants-Appellees Judicial Correctional Services, Inc. (JCS) and Correctional
Healthcare Companies, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. After careful
review, we affirm the district court.
At issue in this case is whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine proscribes our
jurisdiction to consider invalidating state court probation orders directing Plaintiffs
Courtnee Carroll and Linda Thurman to pay fines and fees for misdemeanors. We
review de novo the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Lozman v. City of
Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069−70 (11th Cir. 2013). Under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review a
final state court decision. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
I.
A. Plaintiff Courtnee Carroll
In April 2010, Plaintiff Courtnee Carroll received three tickets in
Montgomery for failing to use a child restraint, switching tags, and driving without
a license. In May 2010, Carroll pleaded guilty to all charges. The municipal court
imposed $25 fines for the first two offenses and a $75 fine for the latter offense.
2
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 3 of 18
The court also imposed $113 in court costs for each offense. Rather than pay the
fees and fines in full at one time, Carroll opted for a payment plan.
The court’s order regarding the three tickets state that the court referred
Carroll to JCS. On May 14, 2010, Carroll signed an “Order of Probation” issued
on the municipal court’s letterhead. The order placed Carroll on probation for
twelve months and directed her to pay a $10 set-up fee and a $40 per month fee to
JCS while on probation. The order also directed her to pay fees and costs totaling
$805 at the rate of $140 per month.
Along with the financial obligations, the order of probation directed Carroll
to report to her probation officers as instructed and report any changes in residence
or employment. The order instructed Carroll to work during her probation unless
she was a full-time student. The order warned Carroll that she could be arrested
for violating the terms of her probation and that her probation could be revoked
upon any such violation.
Carroll and a JCS employee each signed the order but the signature block for
the municipal court judge remained blank. A separate JCS document entitled
“Reporting for Probation” instructed Carroll not to contact the court with any
questions about her case but to contact her probation officer. Carroll did not
appeal the obligations set forth in the order of probation in state court and, instead,
Carroll paid off her financial obligations in January 2011.
3
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 4 of 18
B. Plaintiff Linda Thurman
In January 2012, Plaintiff Linda Thurman received a citation in Montgomery
for failing to possess or display insurance. The municipal court ordered Thurman
to pay $279 in court costs for this offense. Rather than pay the costs in full at one
time, Thurman opted for a payment plan.
On February 10, 2012, Thurman signed an “Order of Probation” issued on
the municipal court’s letterhead. The order directed Thurman to pay $279 in court
costs for her infraction and to pay $140 per month on any amount she owed. The
order contained the same probation conditions as those in Carroll’s order,
including the obligation to pay JCS a $10 set-up fee and $40 per month while on
probation. Thurman and a JCS employee signed the order of probation. Municipal
court Judge Hayes’s last name was handwritten on the order, along with a set of
initials. Thurman did not appeal the obligations set forth in the order of probation
in state court. In August 2012, Thurman paid off her financial obligations under
the probation order. Like Carroll, Thurman also received a JCS document entitled
“Reporting for Probation” instructing her not to contact the court with any
questions about her case but to contact her probation officer.
C. District Court Proceedings
In February 2013, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint as a
putative class action alleging both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. As
4
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 5 of 18
relevant on appeal, Plaintiffs asked the district court to declare: (1) JCS violated
state and federal law by commanding probationers to pay fines and fees pursuant to
documents that were not lawful orders of probation; (2) JCS violated state and
federal law by commanding or coercing money payments from individuals above
the relevant statutory maximums; (3) JCS violated state and federal law by
imposing probation for periods longer than the relevant statutory maximums;
(4) JCS was unjustly enriched by its conduct; and (5) JCS obstructed justice and
violated Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights. In addition to Plaintiffs’ request for
declaratory judgment, Plaintiffs claimed JCS was unjustly enriched by their
collection of fees without authority and should be ordered “to disgorge the ill-
gotten gains.”
In a thorough written order, the district court dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim and their request for the court to declare JCS’s
administration of purportedly unlawful orders of probation to be unlawful because
the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Regarding the Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief, the court explained,
[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the court from considering the
Plaintiffs’ request to declare JCS’s administration of purportedly
unlawful orders of probation to be unlawful. . . . [T]his request for
declaratory relief expressly rests on JCS’s enforcement of state court
orders and requires the court to find that those orders “are not lawful
orders of probation.” This court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to
review and reject those state court orders.
5
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 6 of 18
Regarding the unjust enrichment claims, the district court determined they were
also barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine:
Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, which is premised on the assertion
that JCS received “ill-gotten gains” from collecting monies under the
orders of probation, cannot be considered by the court under Rooker-
Feldman either. For the court to conclude that JCS’s fees were ill-
gotten gains, it would necessarily have to find that the orders of
probation did not authorize JCS to collect those fees because they were
nullities. Accordingly, the claim ultimately asks the court to review
and reject orders of probation that purportedly justified JCS’s collection
of monies from Carroll and Thurman. This the court cannot do.
In the alternative, the district court held the Alabama Voluntary Payment
doctrine barred Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The district court determined
Plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue whether JCS obtained the probation fees
through fraud, duress, or improper pressure. Accordingly, the district court found
Plaintiffs’ claim failed as a matter of law.
II.
A. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
We first turn to whether the district court erred in holding the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine applies to bar Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment and request
for a declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs contend Rooker-Feldman does not apply for
two reasons. First, Plaintiffs contend they are not seeking review of a state court
decision. Second, Plaintiffs argue Defendants obstructed access to meaningful
state court review.
6
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 7 of 18
1. Are Plaintiffs’ orders of probation state court orders?
First, Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in concluding the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine barred their claims because they are not seeking review of a state
court decision. Plaintiffs contend the orders of probation are not valid orders
because a judge did not sign the documents ordering them to pay probation fees.
Plaintiffs conclude, if the orders are not signed by a judge, they are incomplete and
therefore cannot be final judgments subject to Rooker-Feldman. In response,
Defendants contend Rooker-Feldman applies because Plaintiffs’ claims require this
Court to determine whether the orders of probation were valid based on Alabama
state law, which is precisely the action the Rooker-Feldman doctrine proscribes.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack jurisdiction
to adjudicate the validity of a state court order. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482. The
doctrine “prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases
brought by ‘state court losers’ challenging ‘state-court judgments rendered before
the district court proceedings commenced.’” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460
(2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284
(2005)). The doctrine bars federal jurisdiction “where the issue before the federal
court [i]s ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court judgment so that (1) the
success of the federal claim would ‘effectively nullify’ the state court judgment, or
that (2) the federal claim would succeed ‘only to the extent that the state court
7
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 8 of 18
wrongly decided the issues.’” Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 679 F.3d 1257,
1262−63 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th
Cir. 2009)).
By all appearances, the probation orders Plaintiffs seek to invalidate are state
court orders. The documents are titled “Order of Probation.” The documents are
printed on “Municipal Court of Montgomery, AL” letterhead. The documents
state, “by virtue of the authority vested in me as a Municipal Court Judge . . . I
hereby order.” Plaintiffs signed the documents acknowledging they “received a
copy of this ORDER.” And perhaps most critically, Plaintiffs conceded at oral
argument that if the probation orders were signed by a judge, the orders would be
valid probation orders.
Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief and claim for unjust enrichment
expressly rest on Defendants’ enforcement of state court orders and require this
Court to conclude that those orders are not lawful orders of probation without a
signature. Such a request is precisely what Rooker-Feldman proscribes because it
“complain[s] of injuries caused by state-court judgments and invite[s] . . . review
and rejection of those judgments.” May v. Morgan Cty., 878 F.3d 1001, 1005
(11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284) (quotations omitted). We
need not peer into Alabama law to determine whether an order must be signed to
be valid because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from
8
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 9 of 18
adjudicating the validity of state court orders. See, e.g., Target Media Partners v.
Specialty Mktg. Corp., 881 F.3d 1279, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a
district court must apply the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where the plaintiffs “ask[]
to have a state-court order ‘declared null and void’” (quoting Rooker, 263 U.S. at
414)). Plaintiffs’ claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court
probation orders so that the success of Plaintiffs’ federal claims would effectively
nullify the state court orders. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. Accordingly, the district
court properly held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.
2. Did Plaintiffs have a reasonable opportunity to raise their federal
claim in state court?
Next, we must determine whether Plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to
raise their federal claim in state court. Plaintiffs argue Rooker-Feldman is not
applicable because JCS obstructed Plaintiffs’ access to state court review when
JCS included the following language in its “Reporting for Probation” document:
“The following person will be your probation officer. All questions concerning
your case should be directed to him/her. Do not contact the Municipal Court they
will be unable to help you.” Plaintiffs argue this language discouraged Plaintiffs
from contacting the municipal court and was “tantamount to a warning not to file
an appeal with it.” In response, Defendants argue the statement was not designed
9
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 10 of 18
to discourage an appeal but rather to communicate that JCS was better-positioned
to answer the probationer’s questions about probation. Defendants argue further,
even if the evidence supported “discouragement,” discouraging the exercise of
legal process does not establish that the discouraged party lacked meaningful
access to the process.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts “may not decide
federal issues that are raised in state court proceedings and ‘inextricably
intertwined’ with the state court’s judgment.” Wood v. Orange Cty., 715 F.2d
1543, 1546 (11th Cir. 1983). The doctrine “also operates where the plaintiff fails
to raise his federal claim in state court” if “the plaintiff had a reasonable
opportunity to raise his federal claim in state court proceedings. Id. at 1546−47.
“[W]hen a party did not have a chance to raise its federal claim in state court, such
claim ‘is not “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment.’”
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., Dep't of Revenue, 917 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (S.D.
Fla. 2013), aff'd on other grounds, 750 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wood,
715 F.2d at 1547). Put another way, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars claims that
“were or could have been decided by the state court.” Target Media Partners, 881
F.3d at 1288 (citing Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1334
(11th Cir. 2001)).
10
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 11 of 18
Here, Plaintiffs do not assert that they did not have a chance to present their
claims in state court or that their claims could not have been decided by a state
court. They merely contend the language in the document from JCS “was
effectively suppressive.” Plaintiffs failed to explain how the instruction, “Do not
contact the Municipal Court they will be unable to help you,” deprived them of a
reasonable opportunity to contest the probation fees, given that the instruction—
and the document more broadly—makes no reference to a probationer’s ability to
appeal, let alone a state court’s ability to decide such an appeal. Instead, the
document instructs probationers to report to JCS offices to meet with his or her
probation officer, identifies the probation officer, and provides the date, time, and
amount of fees and fines due at the appointment. Reading the instruction in this
context makes clear the instruction is about contacting a probation officer with
questions, not about a probationer’s opportunity to appeal the conditions of one’s
probation.
Plaintiffs failed to raise their challenge to the probation fees on direct appeal
and now belatedly attempt to litigate their claim in federal court by relying on
language in a document that does not address whether the claim “could have been
decided by the state court.” Target Media Partners, 881 F.3d at 1288. Plaintiffs
are “just the sort of ‘state-court loser[]’ the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was designed
to turn aside.” Casale, 558 F.3d at 1261 (citing Exxon, 544 U.S. at 284). “If
11
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 12 of 18
[Plaintiff] believed the state court’s result was based on a legal error, the proper
response was the same one open to all litigants who are unhappy with the judgment
of the trial court: direct appeal.” Id. Because Plaintiffs had a reasonable
opportunity to raise their challenge to probation fees in Alabama’s state courts, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this suit. 1
AFFIRMED.
1 Plaintiffs also contend the district court erred in finding, in the alternative, the Alabama
Voluntary Payment doctrine barred Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims. Given the district court
did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims because the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine bars both the request for declaratory relief and the unjust enrichment claim, we do not
reach the state law question of whether the voluntary payment doctrine prevents Plaintiffs’
recovery for the payments Plaintiffs made to Defendants.
12
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 13 of 18
MARTIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Judicial Correction Services (“JCS”) instructed Plaintiffs Linda Thurman
and Courtnee Carroll: “All questions concerning your case should be directed to
[your probation officer]. Do not contact the Municipal Court they will be unable
to help you.” (emphasis in original) Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll got this
instruction after JCS imposed a $40 per month probation fee and a $10 account set-
up fee—all to be pocketed by JCS—on top of fines and court costs imposed on
them because of their traffic violations. Even in light of this directive, the Majority
opinion says Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll had a “reasonable opportunity” to
challenge JCS’s imposition of fees in their respective state court proceedings. Maj.
Op. at 9–11. I don’t think this is so. I view JCS (an agent of the Municipal Court)
as having obstructed Ms. Thurman’s and Ms. Carroll’s access to state court review.
For that reason, I would not apply the Rooker–Feldman doctrine to bar their claims
in federal court. I would reverse the District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’
claims, and I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s ruling to the contrary.
The Majority opinion recognizes that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not
bar a federal court’s jurisdiction over a claim if a plaintiff had no “reasonable
opportunity to raise [her] federal claim in state proceedings.” Wood v. Orange
Cty., 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d
464, 467 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a federal claim is not “inextricably
13
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 14 of 18
intertwined” with a state court judgment when a plaintiff lacked a reasonable
opportunity to raise a claim in state court). I have found no opinion in which this
Circuit details what circumstances amount to a reasonable opportunity, but our
cases generally look to whether a party had a reasonable chance to present claims
in initial state proceedings or on appeal. See, e.g., Goodman ex rel. Goodman v.
Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The plaintiffs were both parties to
the state court proceeding, and . . . they were present and participated in the state
court proceedings.”); Dale v. Moore, 121 F.3d 624, 627 (11th Cir. 1997) (per
curiam) (concluding a plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to assert disability
discrimination claims against the Florida Bar in state court where the Bar’s rules
permitted him to petition the Florida Supreme Court).
The Majority opinion rejects Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll’s argument that
JCS’s command thwarted their opportunities to pursue their claims in state court.
Maj. Op. at 10–11. First, the Majority suggests it is enough that Ms. Thurman’s
and Ms. Carroll’s claims “could” have been decided by the Municipal Court. Maj.
Op. at 11. But this overlooks the fact that our Circuit has not treated every
opportunity to bring a claim in state court as one that is reasonable for purposes of
Rooker–Feldman. For example, Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491 (11th Cir.
1996) (per curiam), concluded that Rooker–Feldman did not bar a plaintiff’s
federal claim even though the Florida Supreme Court denied mandamus relief on
14
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 15 of 18
the very same claim. Id. at 1495 n.1. The Biddulph opinion reasoned “the state
mandamus proceeding did not afford [the plaintiff] the kind of ‘reasonable
opportunity’ to raise his federal claim that would preclude our independent review
of that claim” because the state court grants mandamus relief only under very
limited circumstances. Id. That Mr. Biddulph technically had his day in state
court was not enough to deprive him of jurisdiction in federal court.
Also, in Wood v. Orange County—a decision issued only months after
Feldman—this Court determined Rooker did not preclude a federal court from
entertaining jurisdiction over claims related to liens imposed in state court. 715
F.2d at 1544, 1548. Orange County and its comptroller urged that the plaintiffs
had a reasonable opportunity to challenge the judgment resulting in the liens, even
though the plaintiffs had no actual knowledge of the judgment until well after the
time for filing an appeal. Id. at 1548. This Court declined to say the plaintiffs had
constructive knowledge of the judgment, and concluded they lacked a reasonable
opportunity to appeal because they had no actual notice until the time to appeal had
already expired. Id. The Majority cites Wood, see Maj. Op. at 10, but seems to
ignore its import. I read the Majority opinion here to replace the “reasonableness”
inquiry established in our Circuit’s earlier cases with a too-rigid test that focuses
solely on the technical availability of state court remedies.
15
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 16 of 18
Second, the Majority contends “context” demonstrates the do-not-contact
instruction “is about contacting a probation officer with questions, not about a
probationer’s opportunity to appeal the conditions of one’s probation.” Maj. Op. at
11. Like Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll, I see it differently. Ms. Thurman and Ms.
Carroll were told that “all questions concerning [their] case[s]” were to be directed
to their respective probation officers, not to the Municipal Court. Unlike the
Majority, I read “all” to mean “all.” In my view, this instruction necessarily
encompasses inquiries related to the appeal process.
On this record, I don’t believe Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll were afforded
reasonable opportunities to challenge JCS’s imposition of fees. The instruction
they received from JCS—the self-avowed agent of the Municipal Court charged
with supervising their terms of probation—told them in no uncertain terms “[d]o
not contact the Municipal Court.” This message was both bolded and underlined
for emphasis. And all the while, the Municipal Court was the very institution Ms.
Thurman and Ms. Carroll needed to contact to challenge anything appearing on
their “Orders of Probation.” They could not have presented their claims to the
Municipal Court without violating the emphatic instruction given by JCS.
True enough, no one barred Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll from defying
JCS’s instruction. But Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll say they understood JCS’s
command to mean they could not reach out to the Municipal Court for any reason,
16
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 17 of 18
including to challenge JCS’s fees. And because JCS acted on behalf of the
Municipal Court when supervising Plaintiffs’ terms of probations, Plaintiffs could
have reasonably believed its directives flowed from the Municipal Court itself. Cf.
Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 558 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Typically,
either some action taken by the state court or state court procedures in place have
formed the barriers that the litigants are incapable of overcoming in order to
present certain claims to the state court.”). If “Orders of Probation” issued by JCS
are equal to orders of the Municipal Court, as the Majority opinion suggests, then
why aren’t instructions given by JCS similarly equal to instructions of the
Municipal Court? By demanding that Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll steer clear of
the Municipal Court, JCS thwarted the opportunities these women had for state
court review. For this reason, I would hold that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does
not bar a federal court from hearing their claims, and I respectfully dissent from the
Majority’s decision to the contrary.
The District Court made the alternative ruling that JCS is entitled to
summary judgment on Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll’s unjust enrichment claim
under the voluntary payment doctrine. The Majority opinion here concluded
Rooker–Feldman barred their action in any event, so it did not address the
voluntary payment issue. Maj. Op. at 12. n.1 For my part, I would decline to
apply the Alabama voluntary payment doctrine to bar the claim. Under Alabama
17
Case: 17-14450 Date Filed: 01/10/2019 Page: 18 of 18
law, a payment is voluntary only if it was “made by a person of his own motion,
without compulsion; . . . without a mistake of fact or fraud, duress, coercion, or
extortion, on a demand which is not enforceable against the payor.’” Mt. Airy Ins.
Co. v. Doe Law Firm, 668 So. 2d 534, 538 (Ala. 1995) (quoting 70 C.J.S. Payment
§ 100 (1987)); see also CIT Commc’n Fin. Corp. v. McFadden, Lyon & Rouse,
L.L.C., 37 So. 3d 114, 128 (Ala. 2009) (“[I]t is well settled that money voluntarily
paid under a mistake of fact may be recovered, even where the party paying had
means of ascertaining the real facts” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). I
read the allegations made by Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll and the record before
this Court to at least raise an issue of material fact about whether they made their
payments based on a mistake of fact. Cf. Sykes v. Sykes, 78 So. 2d 273, 276 (Ala.
1954) (“The averments of the complaint clearly indicate that complainant paid out
moneys for the benefit and protection of real estate in the belief that she was the
equitable owner of the property and, therefore, had an interest to protect. The
contention that the bill shows her to be a mere volunteer is without merit.”). As I
view the record, Ms. Thurman and Ms. Carroll certainly could have been under the
mistaken impression the Municipal Court—and not JCS—had selected and
imposed the fees they were required to pay to JCS. For this reason, I would
reverse the District Court’s ruling on this issue as well.
I respectfully dissent to the holding of the Majority.
18