Russellville rental property owner alleges he’s entitled to a judgment against the Russellville Water Board as a matter of law

The attorney representing a Russellville rental property owner is asking the Franklin County Circuit Court to rule, as a matter of law, that he is entitled to an order in his favor on a lawsuit filed last November against the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Russellville (the Water Board).

William V. Lawson filed the lawsuit through his attorney, Evan Hargett, with the Russellville law firm of Rogers, Bowling & McReynolds, P.C.

The Water Board has denied the allegations of Lawson’s lawsuit and maintains he is not entitled to any relief from the Court. Russellville attorney Danny McDowell, of McDowell & Beason, P.C., represents the Water Board in the lawsuit.

On February 18, 2026, Hargett filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that no genuine issue of material fact exists in the case and that Lawson is entitled, as a matter of law, to judgment in his favor.

The burden to prevail on a Motion for Summary Judgment is a high standard. Alabama law states that all reasonable doubts concerning the existence of a genuine issue of fact must be resolved in favor of the party asking for summary judgment.

The case centers around a Water Board policy enacted at its November 12, 2024, meeting, that deals with restoration of water service.

The policy language reads: “The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Russellville does not provide or restore water service to an existing property with an unpaid balance.”

Such policies for Alabama utilities are in place with other utility districts but Lawson’s lawsuit only addresses the Russellville policy that’s impacting his rental property.

In cases where the person seeking to restore water service is the same person whose account is in arrearage, there is no dispute that the policy is enforceable. The legal question in this case, though, is whether a delinquent balance from someone other than the applicant for service may constitute grounds to deny service to a new applicant.

Lawson owns rental property at Mills Trailer Park in Russellville. The case centers around Lot 14, owned by Lawson. Lot 14 was occupied by a former tenant who received water and sewer service from the Water Board under a separate account in the previous tenant’s name.

That previous tenant vacated the property, leaving an unpaid balance on the Water Board account. When Lawson attempted to open a new account for Lot 14, the lawsuit alleges, he was told the unpaid balance on the prior account must first be paid in full in order for him to receive water and sewer service.

Lawson’s twofold argument for summary judgment is based first on Alabama’s Statute of Frauds, which he maintains is being violated by the Water Board’s policy. The motion cites Code of Alabama 8-9-2(3), which outlines certain agreements in Alabama that must be evidenced in writing to be enforceable.

Whether the provision applies to the Water Board policy, and whether there existed any agreement between the parties to be bound to a third party debt that would have triggered the language of the particular code section is a question to be determined by the Court.

Lawson’s second argument is that Alabama law expressly prohibits landlords from being liable for tenants’ debts.

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that, in the absence of a statute making a service charge a lien on the premises, a new customer cannot be denied utility service because a former customer left a delinquent balance and that payment of the delinquent balance may not be required as a condition to establish new service.

Again, a legal question for the Court to weigh is whether the Water Board’s November 2024 policy meets the requirement of a statute making a service charge a lien.

Clearly, the Water Board enacted this as a policy. But Lawson argues that the original Certificate of Incorporation that created the Water Board in 1948 did not provide for a lien and, as a result, the Water Board has no authority to deny or refuse service to a new tenant based on the delinquency of someone else.

If the Court decides both issues in Lawson’s favor and finds that no genuine issue of material fact or law exist to support the Water Board’s defense, then the standard for a summary judgment order is met.

Conversely, if the Court determines issues of material fact and law exist then summary judgment is to be denied.

The Water Board has up to 30 days to respond to Lawson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Once that answer has been filed, the Court can set the matter for a hearing, grant the motion after a determination that no genuine issues of material fact exist in the dispute, or it may deny the motion outright.

A second civil action filed by Hargett against the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Russellville, seeks to have the Court certify it as a class action.

In that case, Hargett represents William D. Ragan, Jr., another property owner in Russellville, and relates to property Ragan owns on Stuck St. SW.

If certified as a class action by the Court, Ragan’s case would move forward on behalf of all Water Board customers alleging similar claims regarding the restoration of service policy.

That matter is set for a hearing on June 2, 2026.