Shelby County Judge Jonathan Spann closed the second case without prejudice and denied a 300-foot work-zone order. The condemnation fight continues. The utility’s own words are what raised the convenience question.
By Energy News Beat | As of Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2026, 4:13 PM CST
We covered this article first on the Energy News Beat Substack.A Judge Questioned Alabama Power’s Route Across a Shelby County Landowner’s Property. The Line Is Moving Anyway.
Procedural status can change after this afternoon’s cutoff. This is a follow-up to Energy News Beat’s Nov. 7 article on the Church property dispute. Not legal or investment advice.
The court record in the Church property dispute moved again on Tuesday. In Document 45, filed at 2:37 p.m. in Shelby County case 58-CV-2026-901264, Circuit Judge Jonathan A. Spann granted Fenn Church’s motion to dismiss Alabama Power’s second lawsuit, denied the company’s request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and dismissed the case without prejudice (order as posted by ABC 33/40; WVTM 13, updated 4:09 p.m. CST).
That is a real procedural win, not a final one. The judge did not decide the right to take, restore the Sept. 22 injunction, or bar the company from the property. The condemnation case and the Supreme Court appeal remain pending, and the dismissal is without prejudice, so the company may try again. News reports place the hearing on Monday, Nov. 9; the order text says November 10. Dustin Kittle wrote on X minutes after the filing that “the condemnation fight here continues.”
The company’s own sentence
The question now circulating, in a Nov. 9 post by Yanasa TV, is whether eminent domain is “now a convenience and profit thing.” The post quoted Alabama Power’s statement to ABC 33/40 after the hearing: “Even if the route met our criteria and impacted property owners consented, the proposed route would add millions to the project cost and delay its completion…”
That sentence is real. The full statement, also printed by WVTM 13, says those costs and delays “would negatively impact the three million Alabamians who look to us to provide reliable service.” “Profit” is Yanasa TV’s characterization, and a fair question, not the company’s wording. The company also says it evaluated two alternative-route requests and found them “not feasible,” notifying Church in writing; that a “third route” would affect three neighbors “who have not provided their consent”; and that “more than 80% of the transmission poles have been installed” on the 74-mile Autaugaville–East Pelham 230-kilovolt line. Those last claims are unverified. “Three million Alabamians” is not a customer count; the company’s November court papers cited 1.6 million customers.
This is a traditional utility taking, not a Kelo-style transfer of homes to a private developer. Alabama’s 2005 post-Kelo statute expressly carves out public utilities (Ala. Code § 11-47-170, Justia reproduction). The live reform issue is that gap: routing discretion, offer practice, and whether a 125-foot corridor may be cleared before the right to take is finally decided (ABC 33/40, Aug. 31).
The offers, and the award
The Sept. 22 preliminary-injunction order laid out the offers: $80,000 in January 2025, $132,000 in September 2025, and final letters totaling $194,000, received after the condemnation was filed (PI order). Alabama Power now says a probate court awarded $425,435 for the easement — more than double the final $194,000 offer — and that Church keeps title. The award is a company figure; the probate order itself has not been obtained. It matches the $850,870 double bond the company says it posted, exactly twice $425,435.
The company’s case, and what remains open
Alabama Power describes a 74-mile line between Birmingham and Montgomery, with a May 2027 in-service date it says delay would put at risk (WVTM 13). It frames the 300-foot request as a safety buffer after Church refused to move back from clearing work. Judge Spann’s answer was procedural — Alabama law bars two actions at once for the same cause (Ala. Code § 6-5-440, as quoted in the order) — not a finding that the safety concern was invented.
WVTM 13 reports crews have now cleared “about 300 yards of the half-mile corridor.” Church says the trees were cut last week while he was away: “Until this right to take has been decided, they had no business cutting my tree.”
Inside Climate News reported that Church’s lawyers tried to introduce a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers memo at the Monday hearing. Alabama Power objected as hearsay, and Spann did not admit it. ICN, describing a copy Church provided, said the memo was signed by D. Lee Forsgren, discussed stream crossings, and directed a temporary “pause evaluation” of a related permit. That is not a finding that the route is forbidden, and John Rich’s agency-defiance claim remains unproven.
For families in a utility’s path, a procedural win does not put the trees back or stop the line. Alabama Power’s third-quarter net income was $661 million; the $2 billion quarterly figure in some posts is Southern Company’s parent-level earnings (AL.com). The PSC sets a weighted return range under Rate RSE at 5.75% to 6.15%, which the company says is not a guarantee (Alabama Power, “How Earnings and Rates Work”). After the ruling, Alabama Power said it was “disappointed by the court’s decision” and is “evaluating our legal options and will continue to pursue all available avenues under the law” (WVTM 13, updated 4:09 p.m. CST). Whether it will refile, or when work will resume, was not public as of this afternoon.
| STU’S TAKE
A procedural win is still a win, and Judge Spann was right to shut down a second lawsuit while the condemnation case is pending. It is not a final victory, and it does not put the oaks back. What stays with me is the company’s own sentence: even a consented, criteria-meeting reroute would be rejected because it would “add millions” and cause delay. The company says that is about customers, not profit. That may be. I still want to see the engineering and the cost numbers, and I want lawmakers to look at a 2005 reform that carved utilities out and at a rule that lets clearing start before the right to take is decided. We have reached out and not heard back from John Rich and Fenn Church, and if it helps, we would love to have them on the Energy News Beat Podcast |
Sources
- Shelby County Circuit Court, Document 45, 58-CV-2026-901264, filed Nov. 10, 2026, 2:37 p.m. (ABC 33/40 PDF; also photographed on the Church X account): https://abc3340.com/resources/pdf/c645b991-67a4-48e8-b515-a1425cffb37d-4ittbfgoinzjv030cocicg4d_3e57afd078274befa9f034f2e62c387f.pdf
- WVTM 13, Zach Rainey, “Judge rejects Alabama Power restraining order request against property owner in land dispute,” updated 4:09 p.m. CST Nov. 10, 2026: https://www.wvtm13.com/article/judge-denies-alabama-power-request-fenn-church/74391802
- ABC 33/40, “Judge denies Alabama Power’s request to keep Fenn Church 300 feet from crews,” Nov. 10, 2026: https://abc3340.com/news/local/judge-denies-alabama-powers-request-to-keep-fenn-church-300-feet-from-crews-jonathan-spann
- ABC 33/40, Gracie Johnson, “Judge to rule ‘very quickly,’” Nov. 9, 2026, 3:58 p.m., including the full Alabama Power statement: https://abc3340.com/news/local/judge-to-rule-very-quickly-in-latest-alabama-power-fenn-church-court-battle-calera-property-owner
- WVTM 13, “Shelby Co. Judge denies restraining order on Fenn Church’s property,” updated 3:04 p.m. CST Nov. 10, 2026 — still carries the full Nov. 9 company statement: https://www.wvtm13.com/article/shelby-co-judge-to-decide-restraining-order-on-fenn-churchs-property/74380710
- Dustin Kittle (@dustinkittle) on X, Nov. 10, 2026, 2:56 p.m. CST: https://x.com/dustinkittle/status/2120259214299869669
- Yanasa TV (@YanasaTV) on X, Nov. 9, 2026, 5:11 p.m. CST: https://x.com/YanasaTV/status/2119930916130668638
- Inside Climate News, Lee Hedgepeth, Nov. 9, 2026 (hearing color and the Corps memo, which the judge did not admit): https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112026/landowner-fights-alabama-power-transmission-construction/
- Shelby County Circuit Court, Order on Preliminary Injunction, CV-2026-900929, filed Sept. 22, 2026 (as posted by ABC 33/40) — offer ladder: https://abc3340.com/resources/pdf/682b135a-9aaa-4392-aeda-28c689f65978-wclnqjodk05f2agqih1p1exs_a9ccf9acd63147ab9fab41ca159b5a001.pdf
- ABC 33/40 I-Team, “This is my home,” Aug. 31, 2026 — 125-foot-wide strip sought in court documents: https://abc3340.com/news/abc-3340-news-iteam/this-is-my-home-shelby-county-man-fights-alabama-power-over-transmission-line-route-fenn-church-calera
- Ala. Code § 11-47-170 (Justia reproduction) — 2005 post-Kelo limits, with the utility carve-out: https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-11/title-2/chapter-47/article-7/section-11-47-170/
- Ala. Code § 6-5-440, as quoted in Document 45 (Justia reproduction linked for the statute): https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-6/chapter-5/article-25/section-6-5-440/
- AL.com, William Thornton, Nov. 7, 2026 — Alabama Power Q3 net income $661 million; Southern Company parent earnings about $2 billion: https://www.al.com/business/2026/11/alabama-powers-parent-company-reports-2-billion-earnings-in-single-quarter.html
- Alabama Power, “How Earnings and Rates Work” — PSC-set weighted return range 5.75% to 6.15%: https://www.alabamapower.com/company/media-room/energy-answers/rates-versus-earnings.html
- Fenn Church (@Gfennchurch) on X, Nov. 10, 2026, 2:45 p.m. CST, with photos of Document 45. Account not independently authenticated: https://x.com/Gfennchurch/status/2120256672228610304
Access date: Nov. 10, 2026, CST, unless a source carries an earlier date. The Nov. 10 order was read from the PDF posted by ABC 33/40 and from screenshots on the Church X account; those screenshots are not a clerk-issued PDF. The $425,435 probate award and the “more than 80% of poles” and “third route” claims are company statements; the probate order and an independent pole count were not obtained. Statutory text is from the order’s quotation of § 6-5-440 and from Justia reproductions, not the official Legislature host. No one was contacted. A Nov. 9 Yanasa TV video predates the order and was not used for legal findings.
