Ex parte Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron). PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) v. David Jeremy Vest)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/25/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2100127 Ex p a r t e J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t (Herron) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t (Herron) v. D a v i d Jeremy (Elmore BRYAN, Circuit C o u r t , DR-01-492.02) Judge. J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t court Vest) for a writ (Herron) o f mandamus ("the m o t h e r " ) p e t i t i o n s directing t h e Elmore this Circuit 2100127 Court to vacate dismiss i t s order or transfer Jeremy Vest Court. We this denying postdivorce proceeding, ("the f a t h e r " ) commenced a strike threshold matter, (1) t w o p l e a d i n g s petition t h a t were statements two filed to attached i t denied support moves Circuit and b r i e f s of h i s motion, were the this not before mother's September the dismiss or the father submits an attached commenced to motion C o u r t . The a l l t h e p l e a d i n g s t h a t were f i l e d 29, 2010, t h e d a t e mother's between June his postdivorce the Elmore to dismiss the clerk's Circuit that the pleadings attached to the postdivorce proceeding father those to s i g n e d by t h e c l e r k of t h e Elmore C i r c u i t the on the Elmore affidavit constitute a n d (2) the father asserts motion of h i s motion, clerk's affidavit certifies to mandamus based In date Circuit Court transfer. father's David court t o the mother's i n the Mobile two p l e a d i n g s when affidavit to Strike i n the mother's p e t i t i o n those Court which i n the Elmore the father p l e a d i n g s . As t h e g r o u n d that motion deny the p e t i t i o n . Motion As the mother's or affidavit 2 Circuit not 2010, t h e proceeding, transfer. do 25, i n the Court The include and denied pleadings t h e two 2100127 pleadings ruling is that on a p e t i t i o n court. (Ala. 1995)." 1089, 1091 that to parte that Elmore C i r c u i t was motion. "this In [c]ourt a statement or not before the trial R e s . I n s . C o . , 663 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 936 Pike Fabrication, (Ala. 2002). Therefore, are the subject dismiss brief American Ex o f mandamus, and i t cannot c o n s i d e r i n a party's Ex p a r t e of the father's f o r the writ bound by t h e r e c o r d , evidence the are the subject I n c . , 859 because of the father's t h e two motion were So. 2d pleadings not before C o u r t when i t d e n i e d t h e m o t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o o r t r a n s f e r , we g r a n t t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n w i t h those two pleadings petition and briefs and any that are statements based respect i n the mother's solely on those two pleadings. Procedural On J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e f a t h e r Court a motion seeking a History filed i n the Elmore modification of the Circuit provision awarding the mother custody of the p a r t i e s ' minor daughter i n the parties' divorce Elmore Circuit against t h e m o t h e r b a s e d on a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the divorce Court judgment, which had been e n t e r e d i n 2002, judgment by d e n y i n g 3 and a finding the father of by t h e contempt she had v i o l a t e d the v i s i t a t i o n to 2100127 which the he was entitled by v i r t u e o f t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n d i v o r c e judgment. On July motion to d i s m i s s the father's ground t h a t v e n u e was not 23, because, she postdivorce still said, proceeding pending and the (1) 2010, the proceeding proper she i n the had i n the Elmore Circuit neither living in Circuit party was lived i n Mobile County f o r over 1 then Elmore Section Elmore 3 0 - 3 - 5 , A l a . Code two Court that Court to a was Court, years. and 1 On transfer and (2) neither the father A u g u s t 6, provides: " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any law t o t h e c o n t r a r y , venue of a l l p r o c e e d i n g s f o r p e t i t i o n s or o t h e r a c t i o n s seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , or enforcement of a f i n a l d e c r e e a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y of a c h i l d or children to a parent and/or g r a n t i n g v i s i t a t i o n rights, and/or awarding child support, and/or awarding other expenses i n c i d e n t to the support of a minor c h i l d or c h i l d r e n , and/or g r a n t i n g p o s t m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r a c h i l d or c h i l d r e n i s changed s o t h a t v e n u e w i l l l i e i n : (1) t h e o r i g i n a l circuit c o u r t r e n d e r i n g the f i n a l d e c r e e ; or (2) i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t of the c o u n t y where b o t h the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t or, i n the case of p o s t - m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s , where the most r e c e n t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , t h a t p a r e n t having custody at the time of the c h i l d ' s a t t a i n i n g majority, and the said child or children have r e s i d e d f o r a p e r i o d of at l e a s t three c o n s e c u t i v e years immediately preceding the filing of the 4 the commenced Court a o b j e c t e d to venue i n County 1975, on Circuit previously Mobile f a t h e r had to the filed postdivorce proceeding t h a t p r o c e e d i n g n o r moved t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t that mother had 2010, 2100127 the mother and t o s e e k , as an father's amended h e r motion to assert an a d d i t i o n a l ground a l t e r n a t i v e to d i s m i s s a l , a t r a n s f e r of postdivorce proceeding to the Mobile Circuit Court. The a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t e d was that had w a i v e d any to venue i n Mobile Circuit postdivorce lived in On a of petition, briefs in 2010, mandamus. this court support by and Circuit (2) by Mobile the mother's in the Court failing Circuit Court, on that to called and a in he an a September 29, 2010, motion. review answer to the opposition of to, court of petition the for the and mother's Review "A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e appropriate means b y w h i c h t o c h a l l e n g e a trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e g a r d i n g a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . Ex p a r t e p e t i t i o n o r o t h e r a c t i o n . The c u r r e n t o r m o s t r e c e n t custodial parent shall be able to choose the p a r t i c u l a r v e n u e as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f which p a r t y f i l e s the p e t i t i o n or o t h e r a c t i o n . " 5 had assert petition. Standard the Following Court. preliminary f o r an father mother's the mother p e t i t i o n e d t h i s After of, to o b j e c t admitting Mobile Circuit denying N o v e m b e r 8, writ in i n the Elmore order have had (1) County venue the an may proceeding to hearing, he Court Mobile objection entered right the the 2100127 S a w y e r , 892 S o . 2 d 8 9 8 , 901 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . The w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y ; i t w i l l n o t be i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r s h o w s ' " ' ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e duty upon the respondent to p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court.'"' Ex parte Inverness Constr. C o . , 775 S o . 2 d 1 5 3 , 156 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e G a t e s , 675 S o . 2 d 3 7 1 , 374 (Ala. 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; E x p a r t e P f i z e r , I n c . , 746 S o . 2 d 9 6 0 , 962 (Ala. 1999)." Ex parte Children's Hosp. o f Alabama, 931 S o . 2 d 1, 5-6 (Ala. 2005). "Applying the general rules to a p e t i t i o n f o ra w r i t o f mandamus c h a l l e n g i n g a r u l i n g r e l a t e d t o v e n u e , t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d : 'The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i m p r o p e r v e n u e i s on t h e p a r t y r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e a n d on r e v i e w o f a n o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o t r a n s f e r , a w r i t o f mandamus w i l l n o t b e granted u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e . ' Ex p a r t e F i n a n c e A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 S o . 2 d 458 , 4 60 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 'Our r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o o n l y t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' E x p a r t e K a n e , 98 9 S o . 2 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 1 (Ala. 2008)." Ex ___ parte De V e g a , (Ala. [Ms. 10914 91 , D e c . 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3d , 2010). Analysis The denying mother argues her postdivorce motion proceeding that to the Elmore C i r c u i t dismiss or transfer because, she says, 6 Court erred i n the father's § 6-5-440, A l a . Code 2100127 1975, 440 bars the father's postdivorce proceeding. Section 6-5¬ provides: "No p l a i n t i f f i s entitled to prosecute two a c t i o n s i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e a t t h e same t i m e f o r t h e same c a u s e a n d a g a i n s t t h e same p a r t y . I n s u c h a c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t may r e q u i r e t h e p l a i n t i f f to elect w h i c h he w i l l prosecute, i f commenced s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , and t h e pendency o f t h e former i s a g o o d d e f e n s e t o t h e l a t t e r i f commenced a t d i f f e r e n t times." Regarding § 6-5-440, t h e supreme c o u r t has s t a t e d : "This Court has h e l d t h a t the o b l i g a t i o n imposed on a d e f e n d a n t u n d e r R u l e 1 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t o assert compulsory counterclaims, when read in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h § 6-5-440, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o h i b i t s a p a r t y f r o m p r o s e c u t i n g two a c t i o n s f o r the same cause and a g a i n s t t h e same p a r t y , i s tantamount t o making the defendant w i t h a compulsory counterclaim i n the f i r s t action a ' p l a i n t i f f ' i n t h a t a c t i o n ( f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-5-440) as o f t h e time o f i t s commencement. See, e . g . , Ex parte P a r s o n s & W h i t t e m o r e A l a b a m a P i n e C o n s t r . C o r p . , 65 8 So. 2 d 414 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; P e n i c k v . C a d o S y s t e m s o f C e n t . A l a b a m a , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 598 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; E x p a r t e C a n a l I n s . C o . , 534 S o . 2 d 582 ( A l a . 1 98 8 ) . Thus, t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b j e c t t o t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m r u l e who commences another action has v i o l a t e d the prohibition i n § 6-5-440 a g a i n s t m a i n t a i n i n g t w o a c t i o n s f o r t h e same c a u s e . We a f f i r m t h e g e n e r a l r u l e e x p r e s s e d i n t h e s e c a s e s ; t o do o t h e r w i s e w o u l d invite waste of scarce judicial resources and promote piecemeal litigation." Ex parte (Ala. Breman Lake 1999). postdivorce View Resort, L . P . , 729 S o . 2 d 8 4 9 , 851 The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e c l a i m a s s e r t e d i n t h e proceeding commenced b y t h e f a t h e r i n t h e E l m o r e 7 2100127 Circuit Court postdivorce Court constitutes proceeding and, t h e r e f o r e , proceeding compulsory she commenced that i n the Elmore Although a the postdivorce that court i n the Mobile h i s commencement Circuit Court the mother a s s e r t e d that counterclaim proceeding of a violates i n the Circuit postdivorce § 6-5-440. i n the Elmore C i r c u i t the father was d u e t o b e d i s m i s s e d Court h a d commenced i n o r t r a n s f e r r e d due t o t h e p e n d e n c y o f h e r p r e v i o u s l y commenced p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i n the Mobile Circuit Court, she n e i t h e r Elmore C i r c u i t Court i n support in Circuit the Elmore motion Court that the claim mandamus p e t i t i o n , ___ n.2 the trial § [Ms. 1 0 9 1 1 9 2 , ( A l a . 2010) court proceeding i n the ("Restoration that Mobile Moreover, even on t h e m o t h e r ' s an a r g u m e n t t h a t she d i d Court. Sept. See Ex p a r t e 17, 2010] Coatings American So. 3d i f we 8 any such could , d i d not argue t o C o u n t y was a n i m p r o p e r v e n u e 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . T h u s , waived."). i n the In r u l i n g we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r t o the Elmore C i r c u i t I n s . Co., asserted Court c o n s t i t u t e d a compulsory counterclaim i n the mother's p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . not p r e s e n t § 6-5-440 t o t h e of that a s s e r t i o n nor asserted commencing t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e Elmore C i r c u i t Res. cited under argument has been consider the mother's 2100127 argument that the claim asserted in the father's motion c o n s t i t u t e s a c o m p u l s o r y c o u n t e r c l a i m b a r r e d by § 6-5-440, the mother d i d not she e s t a b l i s h i n the was entitled to p r e v a i l she did file not pleading and, with thus, in she her Elmore Circuit commenced h e r postdivorce Therefore, we proceeding was proceeding cannot hold Court mother's postdivorce parte Pike The erred she argument the that the proceeding. Fabrication, mother i n denying says, because, venue she although Ex her motion is mother that Circuit De Vega, the Court. Court erred or t r a n s f e r based barred to the Elmore dismiss or Elmore not proper in the father had the been s i x m o n t h s when t h e proceeding in counterclaim Elmore C i r c u i t 6-5-440 the proceeding claim asserted Mobile parte of the on father's supra, and Ex supra. argues says, the See also C o u n t y f o r more t h a n postdivorce § that copy a compulsory in that a postdivorce i n denying the mother's motion to d i s m i s s the Court of t h a t argument because f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h t h a t the father's postdivorce in on t h e m e r i t s the which Elmore C i r c u i t i n the Mobile alleged in 9 her Circuit transfer because, Circuit residing Court in Court Mobile m o t h e r commenced Circuit motion Court. to her However, dismiss or 2100127 t r a n s f e r t h a t v e n u e was because, she County said, not proper i n the Elmore the for over Mississippi, she allegations. In the allegations, we cannot erred on she been residing submit any evidence proving those any evidence proving those Circuit Court hold that the been Elmore mother's motion second argument. mother also argues that Elmore her motion says, the father to did the to d i s m i s s or d i s m i s s or any not object objection to venue i n the However, the mother d i d not submit pleadings proceeding in that the t h e r e was no that father the had Mobile been Circuit Elmore Circuit had to Court, Court. Court or t r a n s f e r his Therefore, erred i n denying based on Court. Circuit Court postdivorce consequently, Circuit Court proving to cannot venue hold in the that the the mother's motion the mother's 10 thereby Circuit her her and, objection we in C o u r t and in Court because, venue Mobile filed Circuit waived Circuit to the Elmore evidence b e f o r e the Elmore Mobile dismiss in transfer transfer p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i n the Mobile C i r c u i t the residing Id. i n denying waived Mobile she of had in Court and absence the had the mother's The erred years d i d not i n denying based two father Circuit third argument. to 2100127 Accordingly, t h e mother has n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t she has a clear legal right Court to dismiss for a vacate t o an o r d e r i t s order c o m p e l l i n g the Elmore denying the mother's motion o r t r a n s f e r ; t h e r e f o r e , we d e n y t h e m o t h e r ' s writ Alabama, o f mandamus. See Ex parte Children's Circuit to petition Hosp. of supra. PETITION Thompson, concur. DENIED. P . J . , and Pittman, 11 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.