Ex parte Miguel A. Ortiz. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Wendy J. Dorning v. Miguel A. Ortiz)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/05/2012 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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, 2012-2013 2110927 Ex p a r t e Miguel A. O r t i z PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Wendy J . Dorning v. Miguel A. O r t i z ) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, DR-11-1082) MOORE, J u d g e . Miguel A. O r t i z ("the f a t h e r " ) p e t i t i o n s this court f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the 2110927 trial court") father's to vacate motion Dorning ("the g r a n t the to i t s May dismiss mother"). p e t i t i o n and 14, the For the Procedural On July petition that to 21, 2011, the "annex" a petition a certified filed reasons by the Wendy below, stated J. we writ. History mother f i l e d foreign order denying action the issue 2012, i n the judgment. copy of a She trial court submitted December with 17, ("the Judicial C i r c u i t of court"). I n the F l o r i d a judgment, the F l o r i d a c o u r t d i v o r c e d the Seminole County, Florida the and 1st events o r d e r e d the and 15th Eighteenth ("the Florida f a t h e r ; awarded the mother p r i m a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d , M.B.O, who 1993; the 1998, judgment t h e m o t h e r and F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t " ) , e n t e r e d by a day father of t o pay as was physical b o r n on June 29, c h i l d s u p p o r t $250 e a c h month u n t i l certain on specified occurred. Also on July 21, 2011, the court a p e t i t i o n for a rule n i s i , i n contempt f o r h i s a l l e g e d support provisions sought to modify of the the mother filed in the trial s e e k i n g to h o l d the father f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the child- F l o r i d a judgment; the Florida judgment to 2 mother provide for also post- 2110927 minority educational expenses f o r the child, to allow the m o t h e r t o c l a i m t h e c h i l d as a d e p e n d e n t f o r f e d e r a l and s t a t e income-tax purposes, medical to require the f a t h e r t o pay a l l e x p e n s e s o f t h e c h i l d n o t c o v e r e d by h e a l t h On filed and August a 8, motion 2011, to the f a t h e r , dismiss or, through insurance. legal alternatively, counsel, a limited appearance f o r the purpose of c o n t e s t i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n the trial court. lacked personal failed to The father jurisdiction comply with the asserted over that the t r i a l him; that requirements of court t h e mother had for registering a f o r e i g n judgment; t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o the terms of the F l o r i d a judgment, the S t a t e of F l o r i d a had r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e p a r t i e s ; and t h a t t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a does n o t an o b l i g a t i o n on post-minority the part educational of a d i v o r c e d parent t o h e r p e t i t i o n t o annex t h e F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t . parties' asserted, "Marital h a d been recognize provide support. On S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2011, t h e m o t h e r s u b m i t t e d the to over Settlement incorporated an amendment She Agreement" submitted that, she i n t o the F l o r i d a judgment. The m o t h e r a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t she h a d f u l l y c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements f o r r e g i s t e r i n g the F l o r i d a judgment. 3 2110927 The trial court i n support an A p r i l the m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r affidavits to the respective positions. After 19, 2012, h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , trial scheduled of t h e i r submitted court denied that motion the case f o r t r i a l . on May 14, 2012, The f a t h e r t i m e l y f i l e d and this petition. Analysis The father subject-matter may not be jurisdiction first argues jurisdiction. waived; a that the trial "[S]ubject-matter court's lack may be r a i s e d a t any t i m e ( A l a . C i v . App. lacks jurisdiction subject-matter by any p a r t y a n d e v e n be r a i s e d by a c o u r t ex mero motu." 868 So. 2d 4 5 1 , 453 of court C . J . L . v. M.W.B., 2003). "'"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, a n d i t ' w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l right i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o perform, accompanied by 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 i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . ' " ' "Ex p a r t e M o n s a n t o Co., 862 So. 2d 595, 604 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u t t s , 775 So. 2d 173, 176 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501, 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . '[T]he q u e s t i o n o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s r e v i e w a b l e by a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus.' Ex 4 may 2110927 p a r t e J o h n s o n , 715 So. 2d 783, 785 ( A l a . 1998) . ' A l t h o u g h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a mandamus p e t i t i o n t o determine whether the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h i s Court reviews i s s u e s of law de n o v o . ' Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 957 So. 2d 455, 457 (Ala. 2006)." Ex p a r t e B e r r y , The 999 So. 2d 883, 885 ( A l a . 2008). f a t h e r s p e c i f i c a l l y argues t h a t the mother f a i l e d to c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 30-3A-602, A l a . Code 1975, ("the a p a r t of the Uniform I n t e r s t a t e Family Support Act U I F S A " ) , A l a . Code 1975, 30-3A-602 of the UIFSA § 30-3A-101 e t s e q . provides the Section f o l l o w i n g method r e g i s t e r i n g a f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t order i n a court of state: "(a) A s u p p o r t o r d e r o r i n c o m e - w i t h h o l d i n g order o f a n o t h e r s t a t e may be r e g i s t e r e d i n t h i s s t a t e by s e n d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g documents and i n f o r m a t i o n t o the a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e : "(1) a l e t t e r o f court requesting enforcement; t r a n s m i t t a l to registration the and "(2) two copies, including one certified copy, of a l l orders to be r e g i s t e r e d , i n c l u d i n g any m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r ; "(3) a sworn s t a t e m e n t by seeking registration or a s t a t e m e n t by t h e t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y s h o w i n g t h e amount o f any 5 the p a r t y certified collection arrearage; for this 2110927 "(4) known: and t h e name o f t h e o b l i g o r and, i f "(i) the obligor's address S o c i a l S e c u r i t y number; " ( i i ) t h e name a n d a d d r e s s of t h e o b l i g o r ' s employer and any o t h e r s o u r c e o f income o f t h e o b l i g o r ; and " ( i i i ) a d e s c r i p t i o n and t h e location of property of the o b l i g o r i n t h i s s t a t e n o t exempt from e x e c u t i o n ; and "(5) t h e name a n d a d d r e s s o f t h e o b l i g e e and, i f a p p l i c a b l e , t h e agency o r p e r s o n t o whom s u p p o r t payments a r e t o be remitted. "(b) On r e c e i p t o f a r e q u e s t f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n , t h e r e g i s t e r i n g c o u r t s h a l l c a u s e t h e o r d e r t o be f i l e d as a f o r e i g n j u d g m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h one c o p y o f t h e documents a n d i n f o r m a t i o n , regardless of t h e i r form." The 21, father t h a t , when t h e m o t h e r f i l e d her July 2011, a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o r e g i s t e r t h e F l o r i d a judgment and to modify that the asserts judgment, she f a i l e d to s t r i c t l y comply with p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n § 30-3A-602 b e c a u s e , he s a y s , s h e failed to file t h e n e c e s s a r y number o f c o p i e s o f t h e F l o r i d a judgment, she f a i l e d to f i l e copies of the complete Florida j u d g m e n t , a n d s h e f a i l e d t o f i l e a sworn s t a t e m e n t s h o w i n g t h e amount o f t h e a l l e g e d arrearage. 6 We a g r e e that t h e mother 2110927 f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h § 30-3A-602 b e c a u s e she f a i l e d to a complete copy of the F l o r i d a judgment i n her i n i t i a l file filing, see § 3 0 - 3 A - 6 0 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , and f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e a sworn s t a t e m e n t showing the 602(a)(3). This amount o f the claimed c o u r t has held that a t r i a l jurisdiction f o r e i g n support order t h e UIFSA. See 2007). over i f i t i s not S.A.T. v. E.D., Only strict 972 c i r c u i t court to enforce a court § 30-3A- does n o t obtain petition to modify registered properly So. 2d 804, compliance w i t h procedure confers subject-matter judgment. see 1 subject-matter App. arrearage, 807 that a under (Ala. Civ. registration j u r i s d i c t i o n upon an A l a b a m a or to modify a f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t See M a t t e s v. M a t t e s , 60 So. 3d 887 (Ala. Civ. App. B a s e d on t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t , we cannot d e t e r m i n e t h e number o f c o p i e s o f t h e F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t t h e mother f i l e d w i t h the t r i a l - c o u r t c l e r k . We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t h e r p e t i t i o n t o annex t h e F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t "a c e r t i f i e d c o p y o f s a i d Judgment i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o ... as E x h i b i t A." We a l s o c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t she s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s t h e l a s t j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e F l o r i d a c o u r t i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r . Because, however, the materials e s t a b l i s h t h a t the mother f a i l e d t o submit c o p i e s of the c o m p l e t e F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t and f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a sworn s t a t e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m e d a r r e a r a g e , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s t h e s e other a l l e g e d d e f i c i e n c i e s . 1 7 2110927 2010), a n d Ex p a r t e Owens, 65 So. 3d 953 (Ala. C i v . App. 2010). B e c a u s e t h e F l o r i d a j u d g m e n t was n o t r e g i s t e r e d i n s t r i c t compliance with nisi and f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n trigger See t h e UIFSA, t h e m o t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n o f t h e F l o r i d a judgment the subject-matter S.A.T., correct jurisdiction 972 So. 2d a t 807. that fatal The m o t h e r also See Ex p a r t e court. could not by f i l i n g Owens, an 65 So. 3d 954 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( b e c a u s e m o t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o properly the d i d not of the t r i a l d e f i c i e n c y i n her p e t i t i o n amendment t o t h a t p e t i t i o n . 953, for a rule r e g i s t e r f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t order UIFSA, her p e t i t i o n subject-matter purported for a rule nisi jurisdiction of the amendment t o h e r p e t i t i o n , as r e q u i r e d b y failed trial filed to trigger court i n an a t t e m p t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s , was a l s o a n u l l i t y ; filing of a jurisdiction result, t o do a n y t h i n g the t r i a l to dismiss The deficient petition, the t r i a l but dismiss and h e r upon t h e court had the a c t i o n ) . no As a court e r r e d i n denying the f a t h e r ' s motion f o r lack of subject-matter father also contends that jurisdiction. the t r i a l court erred i n denying h i s motion t o d i s m i s s t h e mother's a c t i o n f o r l a c k o f 8 2110927 personal jurisdiction, pursuant to A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3A-201. "'[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 o f i n personam jurisdiction.' Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, 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 . 2003) . '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 . 2004). '"The b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a clear l e g a l r i g h t to the r e l i e f sought r e s t s w i t h t h e 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 , L L C , 82 So. 3d 670, 673 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . S e c t i o n 30-3A-201, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "In a proceeding to establish, enforce, or modify a support order o r t o determine parentage, a court of this state may exercise personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over a n o n r e s i d e n t i n d i v i d u a l o r the i n d i v i d u a l ' s guardian or conservator i f : "(1) the individual i s personally s e r v e d w i t h summons a n d c o m p l a i n t w i t h i n this state; "(2) t h e i n d i v i d u a l s u b m i t s to 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 consent, by e n t e r i n g a g e n e r a l appearance, or 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; 9 2110927 child "(3) t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n this state; resided with the "(4) t h e i n d i v i d u a l resided i n this s t a t e and p r o v i d e d p r e n a t a l e x p e n s e s 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 of the individual; "(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 act of intercourse; "(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 b y 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 with 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 . " Although subsection t h e mother exists, 30-3A-201(8) i s the only could father. explicitly identify p r o v i s i o n u n d e r w h i c h an 30-3A-201(8) provided the personal i t i s c l e a r from h e r arguments t h a t possibly attain Section jurisdiction not o f § 30-3A-201 u n d e r w h i c h she a l l e g e s jurisdiction court does personal jurisdiction adopts the b a s i s Alabama over the for personal i n R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P. 10 § 2110927 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 personal jurisdiction over a person or corporation is 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 under 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 . 2 0 0 1 ) . 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 o f 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 action against the person or e n t i t y i n t h i s state i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t with the c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s state or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United States ' "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 a n d a f t e r t h e 2004 amendment, Alabama's long-arm rule consistently has b e e n 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 o f 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) (quoting S u d d u t h v. Howard, 646 So. 2d 664, 667 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) , a n d even 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 ) : 'Rule 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 discussed the extent of the personal 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 ) : 11 2110927 " ' 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 process 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 subject a nonresident defendant to i t s courts only when that defendant has sufficient "minimum c o n t a c t s " w i t h the forum s t a t e . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Shoe Co. v. W a s h i n g t o n , 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The critical q u e s t i o n w i t h regard to the nonresident defendant's contacts is whether the c o n t a c t s are such t h a t the nonresident 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.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 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.Ed.2d 490 (1980).'" Ex parte (emphasis DBI, Inc., 23 So. 3d 635, 643-44 (Ala. 2009) omitted). Moreover, i n Ex supreme c o u r t n o t e d parte McNeese t h e b u r d e n on establishing personal jurisdiction. Title, the LLC, supra, respective parties in Specifically, " ' [ o u r supreme c o u r t ] has explained t h e 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 . 12 our 2110927 "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 defendant's a f f i d a v i t s , 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 Cir. 1990))."' "'"Wenger Tree Truck & Equip., Serv. v. Royal I n c . , 853 So. 2d 13 2110927 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 t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l allegations 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 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 evidence 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. 2d 226, 229-30 ( A l a . 2004) (...; footnote omitted).' "Ex p a r t e E x c e l s i o r (Ala. 2010). F i n . , I n c . , 42 So. 3 d 96, 103 14 2110927 "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 any jurisdictional basis, 'there i s nothing in 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 [the d e f e n d a n t ] 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 (defendant need not present evidence of absence of jurisdiction when the 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 parte McNeese Title, LLC, 82 So. 3d at 674 (emphasis omitted). In the p r e s e n t case, f a t h e r were d i v o r c e d by after the divorce, she t h e m o t h e r a v e r r e d t h a t she the and Florida the court child i n 1998 of the mother's petition alleged personal jurisdiction The only jurisdictional w h i c h she a filings. basis for that, moved t o A l a b a m a while over the allegations c l a i m are claimed one visiting with however, have visitation the t h a t the occasion child. a the trial mother's court to exercise supporting the mother's found i n the mother's a f f i d a v i t , recognized with in father. f a t h e r r e g u l a r l y had A l a b a m a t o v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d and a p a r t m e n t on to r e s i d e at the Nothing the child t h a t he had i n October 1999, This court and our that the mere act in 15 the and t h e f a t h e r moved t o M a i n e , where he c o n t i n u e d time and Alabama t r a v e l e d to stayed at presumably is in supreme of her while court, exercising insufficient to 2110927 e s t a b l i s h minimum c o n t a c t s purposes. (Ala. See 2003) motion Coleman v. with the s t a t e f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l Coleman, 864 So. 2d 371, ( d i r e c t i n g the t r i a l dismiss to court to grant although because, 375-76 the husband's the husband had o c c a s i o n a l l y v i s i t e d the c h i l d r e n i n the S t a t e of Alabama, the husband state d i d n o t have to allow jurisdiction So. 2d sufficient an Alabama minimum court to contacts with exercise the personal o v e r h i m u n d e r t h e U I F S A ) ; and Sena v. Sena, 709 48, 51 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) (declaring portion of t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t r e g a r d i n g p a t e r n i t y , c h i l d c u s t o d y , and child support void for lack of jurisdiction because the 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 w i t h A l a b a m a f o r t h e trial court although to exercise i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n he h a d v i s i t e d A l a b a m a s e v e r a l over him," times). A l t h o u g h t h e m o t h e r a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t she and t h e f a t h e r e x e c u t e d an a g r e e m e n t m o d i f y i n g issue before of the this court modification filed that father's do the F l o r i d a visitation not agreement. modification contain The schedule, a mother copy admits agreement w i t h 16 j u d g m e n t on t h e the of materials that that an A l a b a m a alleged she never court or 2110927 w i t h t h e F l o r i d a c o u r t and t h a t she has m i s p l a c e d h e r c o p y o f the alleged modification agreement. Assuming w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g regarding correct the substance and t h a t visitation of with t h a t the mother's a l l e g a t i o n s the m o d i f i c a t i o n the f a t h e r , schedule 2 i n fact, the child question does n o t a l t e r whether the t r i a l over the f a t h e r . court are agreed to modify h i s and, a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d s u c h an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t agreement in lived doing so, i n Alabama, our r e s o l u t i o n of the has p e r s o n a l The m o t h e r ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s jurisdiction regarding the c o n t e n t s o f t h e a l l e g e d m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , w i t h o u t more, are insufficient jurisdiction to subject of the courts the father of the State to the personal of Alabama. Conclusion For the above-stated reasons, the father's p e t i t i o n a w r i t o f mandamus i s g r a n t e d . vacate i t s order for The t r i a l c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o denying the father's motion to dismiss for T h e f a t h e r d e n i e s t h a t he e x e c u t e d s u c h an a g r e e m e n t , and t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t c o n t a i n no o t h e r e v i d e n t i a r y support to e s t a b l i s h the existence of the a l l e g e d m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , i . e . , no a f f i d a v i t s from the witnesses to the execution of that agreement o r o t h e r indicia that the agreement e x i s t s . 2 17 2110927 lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n and and p e r s o n a l jurisdiction 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 m o t h e r ' s a c t i o n . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 18 Bryan, a n d Thomas, 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.