Sima Properties, LLC (“Sima”), appealed from two separate judgments entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court, which dismissed Sima’s inverse-condemnation action against John R. Cooper, in his official capacity as the director of the Alabama Department of Transportation (“ALDOT”), and the City of Prattville. Sima owns a gas station at the corner of Alabama Highway 14 and Old Farm Road within the geographical boundaries of Prattville. Sima’s customers had access to the gas station from Highway 14 by the use of a driveway. In November of 2014, the driveway was closed when ALDOT and the city of Prattville “altered the construction of Highway 14 by creating another road and an intersection in close proximity to [Sima’s] access way onto said Highway 14 and closed [Sima’s] direct access to Alabama Highway 14.” Sima claimed that the construction project terminated its easement rights and its right of access. Additionally, Sima alleged that the value of its property was diminished and said property had been taken without due process of law. Finally, Sima asserted that Cooper and the city of Prattville had acted “fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their respective authorities, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law” in exercising dominion over Sima’s property rights. 

Cooper filed a motion to dismiss Sima’s complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that he had sovereign immunity, and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Likewise, the city filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Sima failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that ALDOT owned the property at issue, and that Sima had no right of ownership or possession to that property. After a hearing on the motions to dismiss, the trial court entered separate judgments dismissing Sima’s claims. 

On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals noted that, under § 14 of the Alabama Constitution, a state official sued in his official capacity is entitled to sovereign immunity under most circumstances, though there are exceptions. One such exception is a valid inverse condemnation action brought against a state official in his representative capacity. The Court noted, “If the exception did not exist, an action against a governmental authority to recover the value of property that has been taken by that authority could never occur, because, based on sovereign immunity, the trial court would never obtain jurisdiction over an inverse condemnation action.” Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court erred in determining that Sima’s action against Cooper was due to be dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity. 

Additionally, on appeal, Sima asserted that the trial court erred in dismissing its inverse-condemnation action on the grounds that Sima did not have a property right in the access from Highway 14 to its gasoline station. After citing Article I, § 23, and Article XII, § 235 of the Alabama Constitution, the Court noted that a government cannot take “private property for public use without just compensation.” Sima argued that it “owned” a right of access in the driveway leading from Highway 14 to the gas station because of Sima’s contentions that: (1) the owner of land adjoining a highway has a property right in access to the highway, and (2) because it had used that driveway for more than 20 years, it had acquired an ownership right by adverse possession. Although it disagreed with Sima’s contention that it had acquired ownership in the land by adverse possession, the Court agreed with Sima that the trial court erred in dismissing the claim. Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.