Ex parte W.C.R. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: N.L.J. v. W.C.R.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/8/2012 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 b e 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, 2011-2012 2110434 Ex p a r t e W.C.R. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: N.L.J. v. W.C.R.) (Madison THOMAS, Circuit Court, CS-11-96.00) Judge. W.C.R. ("the a l l e g e d father") petitions t h i s court f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e M a d i s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t t o v a c a t e 2110434 its order denying h i s motion to dismiss for lack the u n d e r l y i n g of jurisdiction and his granting personal motion. We petition grant the to enter action an and order issue the writ. On December 27, 2011, N.L.J. ("the mother") filed a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n s as t o p a t e r n i t y , c u s t o d y , and child support mother regarding alleged biological mother's 2012. father. The child. alleged appearance of father the a hearing dismiss. for the trial a trial court entered the an was i n Louisiana court. was legal purpose On motion regarding Following father complaint, sheriff c o m p l a i n t f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l held her father a filed In alleged alleged father retained jurisdiction alleged the c o m p l a i n t by The special that her to on dismiss the on 1 The February alleged a the mother's trial 7, 3, the 2012, father's the filed challenging 17, hearing, the January January alleged denying served with of the child's c o u n s e l and jurisdiction. order her the court motion 2012, to the father's The m o t h e r f i l e d an a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g attorney f e e s and c o s t s . The a l l e g e d f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t , a s s e r t i n g t h e same a r g u m e n t s contained i n h i s o r i g i n a l motion to d i s m i s s . 1 2 2110434 motion 2012, to dismiss t h e mother's complaint. On F e b r u a r y the alleged father timely p e t i t i o n e d this court 8, fora w r i t o f mandamus. The personal a l l e g e d f a t h e r contends t h a t the t r i a l jurisdiction over him. Specifically, court lacked the a l l e g e d f a t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t he h a s h a d no c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e S t a t e o f Alabama and has never been t o t h e S t a t e o f Alabama and, t h u s , t h a t h i s c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a were to give the t r i a l c o u r t i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n insufficient over him. " ' [ A ] p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e p r o p e r d e v i c e by which t o c h a l l e n g e t h e d e n i a l o f a motion to dismiss f o r lack of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e D i l l , D i l l , C a r r , S t o n b r a k e r & H u t c h i n g s , P.C., 866 So. 2d 519, 525 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . 'A p e t i t i o n e r may be e n t i t l e d t o a w r i t o f mandamus i n s u c h a c a s e upon a s h o w i n g o f a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t i t . ' Ex p a r t e F i r s t W e s t e r n Bank, 898 So. 2d 7 0 1 , 704 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . '"The b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a c l e a r l e g a l right to the r e l i e f sought rests with the p e t i t i o n e r . " ' Ex p a r t e D a n g e r f i e l d , 49 So. 3d 675, 680 ( A l a . 2010) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e M e t r o p o l i t a n P r o p . & C a s . I n s . Co., 974 So. 2d 967, 972 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e McNeese T i t l e , In his petition L L C , 82 So. 3d 670, 673 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . for a writ o f mandamus, the alleged f a t h e r argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying h i s motion to dismiss the mother's action j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e , he s a y s , f o r lack of personal i ti s clear that, pursuant t o 3 2110434 Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3A-201, t h e t r i a l jurisdiction over the a l l e g e d f a t h e r . In d e n y i n g trial the a l l e g e d father's court We personal agree. motion t o d i s m i s s , c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t had p e r s o n a l t h e f a t h e r p u r s u a n t t o § 30-3A-201. lacked jurisdiction S e c t i o n 30-3A-201 "(2) the i n d i v i d u a l submits t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s s t a t e by c o n s e n t , by e n t e r i n g a g e n e r a l a p p e a r a n c e , o r by f i l i n g a r e s p o n s i v e document h a v i n g t h e e f f e c t o f waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction; "(3) t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e d w i t h child i n this state; the "(4) t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e d i n t h i s s t a t e and p r o v i d e d p r e n a t a l expenses o r support f o r the c h i l d ; "(5) t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s i n t h i s s t a t e as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c t s o r d i r e c t i v e s o f the i n d i v i d u a l ; "(6) t h e i n d i v i d u a l e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e i n t h i s s t a t e and t h e c h i l d may have been conceived by that a c t of intercourse; 4 over states: "In a proceeding to e s t a b l i s h , enforce, or modify a support order or t o determine parentage, a c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e may e x e r c i s e p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a nonresident i n d i v i d u a l or the i n d i v i d u a l ' s guardian or conservator i f : "(1) the i n d i v i d u a l i s p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d w i t h summons and c o m p l a i n t w i t h i n this state; the 2110434 "(7) t h e i n d i v i d u a l a s s e r t e d p a r e n t a g e i n t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r r e g i s t r y as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 26-10C-1, w h i c h i s m a i n t a i n e d i n this s t a t e by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human Resources; or "(8) there is any other basis c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c o n s t i t u t i o n s of t h i s state and the United States f o r the exercise of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . " The mother conceded that § 30-3A-201(8) i s the p r o v i s i o n under w h i c h Alabama c o u l d p o s s i b l y a t t a i n jurisdiction over the a l l e g e d f a t h e r . adopts the b a s i s Section for personal-jurisdiction only personal 30-3A-201(8) provided i n Rule 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P. It i s well settled that " [ t ] h e e x t e n t o f an A l a b a m a c o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l jurisdiction over a person or corporation i s g o v e r n e d b y R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P., A l a b a m a ' s 'long-arm r u l e , ' bounded by t h e l i m i t s o f due p r o c e s s u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . S i e b e r v. C a m p b e l l , 810 So. 2d 641 ( A l a . 2001) . R u l e 4 . 2 ( b ) , as amended i n 2004, s t a t e s : "'(b) B a s i s f o r O u t - o f - S t a t e S e r v i c e . An a p p r o p r i a t e b a s i s e x i s t s f o r s e r v i c e o f process outside of t h i s s t a t e upon a p e r s o n o r e n t i t y i n any a c t i o n i n t h i s s t a t e when t h e p e r s o n o r e n t i t y has s u c h contacts with this state that the prosecution of the a c t i o n against the person or e n t i t y i n t h i s s t a t e i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s s t a t e or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States ' 5 2110434 "In accordance w i t h the p l a i n language of Rule 4.2, b o t h b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e 2004 amendment, Alabama's long-arm rule consistently has been i n t e r p r e t e d by t h i s C o u r t t o e x t e n d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of A l a b a m a c o u r t s t o t h e p e r m i s s i b l e l i m i t s o f due p r o c e s s . Duke v. Young, 496 So. 2d 37 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; D e S o t a c h o , I n c . v. V a l n i t I n d u s . , I n c . , 350 So. 2d 447 ( A l a . 1977) . As t h i s C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d i n Ex p a r t e M c I n n i s , 820 So. 2d 795, 802 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g S u d d u t h v. Howard, 646 So. 2d 664, 667 (Ala. 1 9 9 4 ) ) , and e v e n more r e c e n t l y i n H i l l e r I n v e s t m e n t s I n c . v. I n s u l t e c h Group, I n c . , 957 So. 2d 1111, 1115 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) : ' R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P., e x t e n d s t h e p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t s t o t h e l i m i t o f due p r o c e s s u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . ' ... "This Court d i s c u s s e d the e x t e n t of the p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f A l a b a m a c o u r t s i n E l l i o t t v. Van K l e e f , 830 So. 2d 726, 730 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) : " ' T h i s C o u r t has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e due process guaranteed under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n t o be c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h t h e due p r o c e s s guaranteed under the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . See A l a b a m a W a t e r p r o o f i n g Co. v. Hanby, 431 So. 2d 141, 145 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , and D e S o t a c h o , I n c . v. V a l n i t I n d u s . , I n c . , 350 So. 2d 447, 449 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . ... "'The Due Process Clause of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment p e r m i t s a f o r u m s t a t e to s u b j e c t a n o n r e s i d e n t defendant t o i t s courts only when that defendant has sufficient "minimum c o n t a c t s " w i t h t h e forum s t a t e . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 ( 1 9 4 5 ) . The critical q u e s t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to the n o n r e s i d e n t defendant's contacts is whether the c o n t a c t s are such t h a t the n o n r e s i d e n t 6 2110434 defendant "'should reasonably a n t i c i p a t e b e i n g h a l e d i n t o c o u r t ' " i n the forum s t a t e . B u r g e r K i n g C o r p . v. R u d z e w i c z , 471 U.S. 462, 473, 105 S . C t . 2174, 85 L . E d . 2 d 528 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , q u o t i n g W o r l d - W i d e V o l k s w a g e n C o r p . v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L . E d . 2 d 490 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . ' " Ex parte (emphasis DBI, I n c . , 23 So. 3d 635, 643-44 ( A l a . 2009) omitted). Moreover, i n Ex supreme c o u r t n o t e d establishing parte McNeese Title, LLC, supra, our t h e b u r d e n on t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s i n personal jurisdiction when i t i s at Specifically, " ' [ o u r supreme c o u r t ] h a s e x p l a i n e d the a p p r o p r i a t e a n a l y s i s and t h e p a r t i e s ' r e s p e c t i v e burdens on a personal-jurisdiction i s s u e as f o l l o w s . "The p l a i n t i f f h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g that the trial court has personal j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t . Ex p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e Dodge, I n c . , 904 So. 2d 226 (Ala. 2 0 0 4 ) . " J.C. Duke & A s s o c s . Gen. C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . v. West, 991 So. 2d 194, 196 ( A l a . 2008) . "'"'"In considering a Rule 12(b)(2), A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o dismiss f o r want of personal jurisdiction, a c o u r t must consider as t r u e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of the plaintiff's c o m p l a i n t n o t controverted by the 7 issue. 2110434 defendant's affidavits, R o b i n s o n v. G i a r m a r c o & B i l l , P.C., 74 F.3d 253 (11th C i r . 1996), and C a b l e / H o m e C o m m u n i c a t i o n C o r p . v. Network Productions, Inc., 902 F.2d 829 (11th C i r . 1990), and 'where t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint and the defendant's affidavits c o n f l i c t , t h e ... c o u r t must construe a l l reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.' Robinson, 74 F.3d a t 255 ( q u o t i n g Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1990))."' "'"Wenger T r e e S e r v . v. Royal T r u c k & E q u i p . , I n c . , 853 So. 2d 888, 894 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e M c I n n i s , 820 So. 2d 795, 798 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . However, i f t h e d e f e n d a n t makes a p r i m a facie evidentiary showing that the Court has no personal jurisdiction, 'the p l a i n t i f f i s then r e q u i r e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n the c o m p l a i n t by a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r c o m p e t e n t p r o o f , a n d he may n o t merely reiterate the factual a l l e g a t i o n s i n the complaint.' M e r c a n t i l e C a p i t a l , LP v . F e d e r a l T r a n s t e l , I n c . , 193 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1247 (N.D. A l a . 2002) ( c i t i n g F u t u r e T e c h . Today, I n c . v. OSF H e a l t h c a r e S y s . , 218 F.3d 8 2110434 1247, 1249 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . See a l s o Hansen v . N e u m u e l l e r GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 4 7 1 , 474-75 (D. D e l . 1995) ('When a d e f e n d a n t f i l e s a motion t o dismiss pursuant t o Fed. R. C i v . P. 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , a n d supports that motion with affidavits, p l a i n t i f f i s required to c o n t r o v e r t those affidavits w i t h h i s own a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r competent e v i d e n c e i n order t o survive t h e motion.') (citing Time Share Vacation Club v. A t l a n t i c R e s o r t s , L t d . , 735 F.2d 61, 63 (3d C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . " "'Ex p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e Dodge, I n c . , 904 So. 2 d 226, 229-30 ( A l a . 2004) (...; footnote omitted).' "Ex p a r t e E x c e l s i o r F i n . , I n c . , 42 So. 3 d 96, 103 (Ala. 2010). "However, when t h e c o m p l a i n t f a i l s t o a l l e g e a n y jurisdictional basis, 'there i s nothing i n the c o m p l a i n t ... t h a t t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r as t r u e and that therefore places [any] b u r d e n on [ t h e defendant] t o c o n t r o v e r t by a f f i d a v i t . ' E x c e l s i o r , 42 So. 3d a t 104 ( d e f e n d a n t n e e d n o t p r e s e n t evidence o f absence of j u r i s d i c t i o n when t h e c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s no j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a v e r m e n t s ) . " Ex p a r t e McNeese omitted). In the present Title, case, L L C , 82 So. 3d a t 674 t h e mother's complaint (emphasis failed to a l l e g e any j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s f o r t h e Alabama t r i a l c o u r t t o have i n personam Specifically, jurisdiction over the alleged father. she a v e r r e d t h a t she r e s i d e d i n Alabama w i t h t h e 9 2110434 c h i l d , that the a l l e g e d f a t h e r r e s i d e d i n L o u i s i a n a , that the alleged child, father and child. had never that Thus, the resided alleged t h e mother i n t h e same s t a t e father failed had never to state f a t h e r h a d h a d any c o n t a c t s w i t h A l a b a m a . that as t h e visited the the alleged Furthermore, i n h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he has n e v e r resided that i n Alabama, he Therefore, was served the record that he with i s domiciled the i s devoid i n Louisiana, complaint in Louisiana. o f e v i d e n c e o f any contacts t h a t t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r may have w i t h A l a b a m a t o s u g g e s t he h a d s u f f i c i e n t reasonably "minimum c o n t a c t s " a n t i c i p a t e being haled w i t h Alabama o r into court" and that "should i n Alabama. W o r l d - W i d e V o l k s w a g e n C o r p . v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 297 (1980). A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n cases s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o the present c a s e , t h i s c o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t even v i s i t i n g a c h i l d i n A l a b a m a i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h minimum c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e state. See Coleman v. Coleman, 864 So. 2d 371, 375-76 ( A l a . 2003) ( t h i s c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e h u s b a n d ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus and i s s u e d a w r i t d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l court to grant the husband's motion t o d i s m i s s because, a l t h o u g h the husband 10 2110434 had o c c a s i o n a l l y v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t minimum c o n t a c t s s t a t e t o a l l o w an A l a b a m a c o u r t p e r s o n a l under the Uniform Interstate Sena, 709 So. 2d 48, 51 Family j u r i s d i c t i o n over him Support trial him," court although to exercise he i n personam had v i s i t e d Alabama d e c l a r i n g the p o r t i o n of the t r i a l paternity, child A c t ) ; Sena ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) t h e h u s b a n d d i d n o t have " r e q u i s i t e c o n t a c t s the custody, (holding v. that w i t h Alabama f o r jurisdiction several court's and c h i l d with the over times, judgment and regarding s u p p o r t v o i d due t o t h e lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n ) . In t h e p r e s e n t father case, d i d not v i s i t i t i s undisputed that the c h i l d s t a t e d above, t h e mother f a i l e d i n Alabama. court, we sufficient presented to the t r i a l cannot conclude minimum c o n t a c t s court personal jurisdiction that with Furthermore, t o suggest a s i n g l e t h a t t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r has had w i t h Alabama. the i n f o r m a t i o n the a l l e g e d as contact Thus, b a s e d on c o u r t , as w e l l as t h i s the Alabama alleged father had to allow the t r i a l over the a l l e g e d f a t h e r regarding the mother's a c t i o n . Conclusion 11 2110434 For t h e above-stated reasons, t h e p e t i t i o n mandamus i s g r a n t e d . its The t r i a l f o r a writ of court i s d i r e c t e d t o vacate o r d e r denying t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s and t o e n t e r a new o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n . The alleged father's motion to strike portions of the m o t h e r ' s b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d . The mother's countermotion to strike portions of the a l l e g e d f a t h e r ' s b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n i s also denied. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 12 Bryan, a n d 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.