Ex parte Charles E. Chatham III. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Janie Chatham v. Charles E. Chatham III)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/19/2012 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 2110979 Ex p a r t e C h a r l e s E. Chatham I I I PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : J a n i e Chatham v. Charles E. Chatham I I I ) (Calhoun C i r c u i t Court, DR-12-900138) THOMAS, J u d g e . Charles court E. Chatham I I I ("the husband") p e t i t i o n s f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e Calhoun this Circuit 2110979 C o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s June 8, 2012, order g r a n t i n g the t o I n t e r p l e a d F u n d s " f i l e d by J a n i e Chatham ("the grant t h e p e t i t i o n and On March divorce. On 5, i s s u e the 2012, M a r c h 6, the 2012, wife"). We writ. wife the "Motion filed trial a complaint court entered for an a order r e s t r a i n i n g the husband from " d i s p o s i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g , g i v i n g away, spending, or ... and/or the [husband], whether i n d i v i d u a l l y exception of assets dissipating indirectly the any otherwise such directly or monies b e l o n g i n g sums t h a t are to the necessary expenses 7, to the wife filed a "Motion [wife] or j o i n t l y , n o r m a l and c u s t o m a r y day t o day l i v i n g 2012, or to with maintain " Interplead On June Funds," r e q u e s t i n g the t r i a l c o u r t to r e q u i r e the husband t o p l a c e any f u n d s r e c e i v e d as a r e s u l t o f h i s i n h e r i t a n c e f r o m h i s f a t h e r into the entered trial an F u n d s " and order court. granting On June the 8, wife's 2012, the "Motion trial to court Interplead r e q u i r i n g the husband "to d e p o s i t the check i n the amount o f $100,000.00 r e p r e s e n t i n g [husband] regarding a partial payment t o the h i s i n h e r i t a n c e from h i s f a t h e r i n t o the C i r c u i t Court of Calhoun County, Alabama." 2 2110979 On June 11, 2012, amend, o r v a c a t e June 12, alter, a 2012, the t r i a l Vacate styled and to hearing as Motion vacate an On June 29, 2012, "Amended M o t i o n 8, 2012, alter, order. again to the husband Alter, On order and The trial court On J u l y 12, 2012, the or trial requesting denied a the the husband f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h t h i s Standard filed Amend, requesting 2012, motion. h u s b a n d ' s amended m o t i o n . a timely petition c o u r t ' s June 8, f o r Hearing," the a motion to c o u r t d e n i e d the husband's motion t o i t s June regarding husband f i l e d trial amend, o r v a c a t e . motion court the the filed court. of Review "'"Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r 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 r e s p o n d e n t t o perform, 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 ; and (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 parte Novartis 2007)(quoting 307, 309-10 Corp., 672 Ex Pharm. parte 2d 497, 975 So. 2d 297, P e r f e c t i o n S i d i n g , Inc., ( A l a . 2003), So. Corp., 499 quoting i n turn (Ala. 1995)). w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e p r o p e r Ex 882 parte "A p e t i t i o n v e h i c l e for seeking 3 299 (Ala. So. 2d Integon for a review of 2110979 an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order." (Ala. Ex p a r t e T . J . , 89 So. 3d 744, 746 2012). Discussion In contends "Motion his petition that the t r i a l to Interplead moneys he r e c e i v e d trial court. June 8, for a writ court erred Funds" the husband i n granting the wife's and r e q u i r i n g h i m t o as a r e s u l t o f h i s i n h e r i t a n c e Specifically, 2012, o f mandamus, order i n t o the he a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l is in "complete derogation p r o c e d u r e s p r e s c r i b e d b y R u l e 22," A l a . R. C i v . P. deposit court's of the We a g r e e . 1 R u l e 2 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : "(a) P l a i n t i f f or Defendant. Persons having claims against the p l a i n t i f f may be j o i n e d as d e f e n d a n t s and r e q u i r e d t o i n t e r p l e a d when t h e i r c l a i m s a r e s u c h t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s o r may be exposed t o double or m u l t i p l e l i a b i l i t y . I t i s not ground f o r o b j e c t i o n t o the j o i n d e r t h a t the claims o f t h e s e v e r a l c l a i m a n t s o r t h e t i t l e s on w h i c h t h e i r c l a i m s d e p e n d do n o t have a common o r i g i n o r are n o t i d e n t i c a l b u t a r e a d v e r s e t o and independent o f one a n o t h e r o r t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f a v e r s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s n o t l i a b l e i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t t o any or a l l of t h e c l a i m a n t s . A defendant exposed t o The h u s b a n d makes s e v e r a l o t h e r a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e impropriety of the t r i a l court's June 8, 2 0 1 2 , o r d e r . However, b e c a u s e we f i n d t h e h u s b a n d ' s f i r s t a r g u m e n t t o be d e t e r m i n a t i v e , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e h u s b a n d ' s o t h e r a r g u m e n t s . See Ex p a r t e W r i g h t B r o s . C o n s t r . Co., 88 So. 3d 817, 822 ( A l a . 2012) ( p e r t e r m i t t i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' r e m a i n i n g arguments because o f t h e d i s p o s i t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e venue i s s u e ) . 1 4 2110979 s i m i l a r l i a b i l i t y may o b t a i n s u c h i n t e r p l e a d e r by way o f c r o s s - c l a i m o r c o u n t e r c l a i m . The p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s r u l e s u p p l e m e n t and do n o t i n any way limit t h e j o i n d e r o f p a r t i e s p e r m i t t e d i n R u l e 20." (Emphasis added.) As is t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 22(a) designed to aid a plaintiff or a states, interpleader defendant who could p o t e n t i a l l y "be e x p o s e d t o d o u b l e o r m u l t i p l e l i a b i l i t y . " 22(a). Furthermore, the Committee Comments A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 22 i n d i c a t e t h a t R u l e 22(a) on the liberal usage of slight modifications 1973 is a codification o f t h e c o n c e p t o f " i n t e r p l e a d e r as i t d e v e l o p e d i n t h e of e q u i t y , " w i t h o n l y Rule to allow courts f o r more interpleader. "The C o m m i t t e e Comments r e c o g n i z e that this r u l e , as d i d i t s e q u i t y p r e d e c e s s o r ( E q u i t y R u l e 36), e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t s the t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n found in conjunction with early interpleader p r o c e e d i n g s . C e r t a i n e l e m e n t s , h o w e v e r , must be f o u n d t o e x i s t . F i r s t , t h e r e must be g e n u i n e t h r e a t of multiple challenges to a s i n g l e fund. The l i k e l i h o o d of m u l t i p l e c h a l l e n g e s is sufficient, even though the l i k e l i h o o d of m u l t i p l e l i a b i l i t y may be r e m o t e . F o r e x a m p l e , s u p p o s e t h a t c l a i m a n t A has an a l m o s t u n d e n i a b l e c l a i m and c l a i m a n t B, while v i g o r o u s i n a s s e r t i n g h i s c l a i m , has l i t t l e o r no c h a n c e o f r e c o v e r y . The f a c t o f e x p o s u r e t o e x p e n s e and h a r a s s m e n t i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o that effect is ample basis for allowing interpleader." 5 2110979 1 Champ L y o n s , J r . , and A l l y W. P r o c e d u r e A n n o t a t e d § 22.2 In this case, H o w e l l , Alabama R u l e s of ( 4 t h ed. i t is clear 2004) that Civil (emphasis added). there is no risk of m u l t i p l e o r d o u b l e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e p a r t i e s and t h a t t h e r e i s no risk divorce of multiple a c t i o n are t h i r d party from h i s divorce litigation. The t h e h u s b a n d and a l l e g i n g any father. claim the w i f e , to the Moreover, the only parties and there husband's issues t o be to is no inheritance decided i n the a c t i o n i n c l u d e what c o n s t i t u t e s t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l property and what i s an e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e property under the evidence f a c t s of the presented by whether the determine marital the property pursuant to § or the parties, husband's part of the 30-2-51(a), precluding the regardless of the t r i a l case. i s s u e from being court's After considering the trial inheritance husband's Ala. Code court is separate 1975, the w i f e of exposure litigation. -- n o r "to double Rule 22(a). or estate Therefore, future decision regarding t h e h u s b a n d -- the plaintiff i s at multiple liability" or Accordingly, because "[t]he 6 will effectively l i t i g a t e d again. t h e d e f e n d a n t -- the divisible husband's i n h e r i t a n c e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t n e i t h e r the -- marital risk multiple avowed 2110979 p u r p o s e o f i n t e r p l e a d e r has always been t o a v o i d m u l t i p l e and vexatious possible and because litigation, the with circumstances interpleader are double providing lacking in this liability," for case, we an appropriate conclude that the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g the w i f e ' s "Motion to I n t e r p l e a d F u n d s " i n i t s June 8, of Birmingham, (citing 9 So. 2d 744 2d and (1942)). 922, D i c k v. 926 F i r s t N a t ' l Bank (Ala. Civ. his issue Therefore, we grant i t s June 8, 2012, order. petition, the an r e q u i r i n g the order husband also 1976) Ala. 257, the husband's the trial that this 2 requests trial h e r s e l f from the p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e a c t i o n . App. 243 i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus i n s t r u c t i n g court to vacate court So. order. P r a t t v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f F a y e t t e , petition In 334 2012, judge to The m a t e r i a l s recuse filed We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e w i f e had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n g r a n t e d t h e r e l i e f she r e q u e s t e d i n h e r " M o t i o n t o I n t e r p l e a d F u n d s . " S p e c i f i c a l l y , on M a r c h 6, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an order r e s t r a i n i n g the husband from " d i s p o s i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g , g i v i n g away, s p e n d i n g , o r o t h e r w i s e d i s s i p a t i n g d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y ... any a s s e t s o r m o n i e s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e [ w i f e ] and/or the [husband], whether i n d i v i d u a l l y or j o i n t l y , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f s u c h sums t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n n o r m a l and c u s t o m a r y day t o day l i v i n g e x p e n s e s " Thus, the husband i s r e s t r i c t e d from d i s p o s i n g of h i s i n h e r i t a n c e , and any d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s i n h e r i t a n c e o t h e r t h a n " t o m a i n t a i n n o r m a l and c u s t o m a r y day t o day l i v i n g e x p e n s e s " d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e a c t i o n w i l l be i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s M a r c h 6, 2012, order. 2 7 2110979 with this court indicate that t h e husband d i d not f i l e a motion t o r e c u s e w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and, t h u s , t h e i s s u e o f recusal i s not properly before this court. d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e husband's r e q u e s t Therefore, that the t r i a l we judge be r e q u i r e d t o r e c u s e h e r s e l f f r o m p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e p a r t i e s ' divorce action. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , the w r i t o r d e r i n g t h e t r i a l order requiring inheritance divorce we g r a n t and i s s u e c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s June 8, 2012, t h e husband into the t r i a l the p e t i t i o n to interplead court during funds from h i s t h e pendency o f t h e action. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Pittman and Bryan, J J . , concur. Thompson, without P . J . , a n d Moore, writings. 8 J . , concur i n the result,

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.