Ex parte Estate of James Robert Wells, Jr., by Cathy Wells, Personal Representative. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Estate of James Robert Wells, Jr., by Cathy Wells, Personal Representative v. Janice Motte and Susan Wells)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/18/2013 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2120100 Ex p a r t e E s t a t e o f James Robert W e l l s , J r . , by Cathy W e l l s , Personal Representative PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : E s t a t e o f James Robert W e l l s , J r . , by Cathy Wells, Personal Representative v. J a n i c e Motte and Susan W e l l s ) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900932) THOMAS, J u d g e . 2120100 C a t h y W e l l s , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f her late husband, James Robert Wells, J r . ("the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " ) , p e t i t i o n s t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus ordering the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court t o vacate i t s September 20, 2012, o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e and another, consolidated action initiated by t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a g a i n s t t h e s i s t e r s o f James R o b e r t W e l l s , J r . , J a n i c e M o t t e a n d Susan W e l l s sisters' failure proceeds from ("the s i s t e r s " ) , a r i s i n g f r o m t h e to provide the sale o f items the s i s t e r s i t s share of a n d James h a d inherited Court. We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n a n d i s s u e t h e w r i t . April James's will testamentary. was their with jointly In from the estate father, to the Blount 2010, t h e J e f f e r s o n to probate; I n J u l y 2011, Cathy Circuit Probate Court admitted was issued letters the administration of the estate removed t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court. I n e a r l y 2012, the s i s t e r s sued Cathy i n t h e B l o u n t C i r c u i t Court, seeking a s a l e f o r d i v i s i o n o f c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y i n h e r i t e d i n common by t h e s i s t e r s a n d James, w h i c h r e a l p r o p e r t y C a t h y h a d s i n c e inherited an i n t e r e s t hereinafter i n f r o m James (the s i s t e r s ' a c t i o n i s r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e s a l e - f o r - d i v i s i o n 2 action"). 2120100 I n M a r c h 2012, t h e p e r s o n a l the Jefferson Circuit sisters the estate's certain property sisters and conversion action"). and sued the s i s t e r s i n C o u r t ; she s o u g h t t o r e c o v e r from the share of the proceeds from the s a l e that James representative h a d been from money their had i n h e r i t e d i n common b y father and received The e s t a t e - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a c t i o n were c o n s o l i d a t e d the theories ("the the of conversion a c t i o n and t h e conversion by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ( t h e estate-administration action hereinafter to c o l l e c t i v e l y referred on of and the conversion as "the action are consolidated action"). The s i s t e r s f i l e d which they asserted transferred to the specifically an answer t o t h e c o n v e r s i o n that the Blount conversion Circuit action Court. action, i n should The stated: answer " I n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u d i c i a l economy, t h i s a c t i o n i s due t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o [ t h e ] B l o u n t [Circuit C o u r t ] t o be consolidated with the [ s a l e - f o r d i v i s i o n ] a c t i o n p e n d i n g t h e r e w h i c h was f i l e d p r i o r to the i n s t a n t a c t i o n . [The s i s t e r s ] a s s e r t that venue i s more a p p r o p r i a t e where t h e p e n d i n g a c t i o n on t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y i s b e i n g p r o s e c u t e d ( w h e r e i n the s i s t e r s are C o - P l a i n t i f f s i n Blount County CV-12-900029 and Cathy Wells (Personal R e p r e s e n t a t i v e / P l a i n t i f f i n the i n s t a n t action) i s Defendant)." 3 be 2120100 The sisters also alternative, things, the to filed a motion change v e n u e . sisters to In or, that motion, the requested that t r a n s f e r r e d to the B l o u n t C i r c u i t dismiss conversion in among the other action be Court "for consolidation with the pending [sale-ford i v i s i o n ] a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s (CV-12-900029) w h i c h was f i l e d p r i o r t o t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n and f o r the [ e s t a t e ] t o p e t i t i o n f o r the r e - o p e n i n g of the E s t a t e o f James R o b e r t W e l l s , S r . ( P r o b a t e Case No. 2003-148) i n o r d e r t o c h a l l e n g e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e w a i v e r e x e c u t e d by James R o b e r t W e l l s , Jr. B l o u n t C o u n t y i s where t h e o r i g i n a l e s t a t e was a d m i n i s t e r e d , where t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e was l o c a t e d , where t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y s u i t i s p e n d i n g and i s an a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m f o r t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n t o be h e a r d ( a f t e r c o n s o l i d a t i o n ) . " The personal representative opposed the motion to d i s m i s s i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o change v e n u e . in response to the a c t i o n was Code 1975, § 6-3-2, and conversion action proper 20, entered a dismiss but the in Jefferson that order order, argued no basis County under the Ala. f o r a t r a n s f e r of the existed. September lengthy consolidated specifically r e q u e s t t o change venue t h a t venue o f conversion On She or, 2012, granted action Jefferson i n which the to the the motion Blount Circuit Court 4 Jefferson Circuit i t denied the to venue change Circuit Court. Court motion of In analyzed whether, to the that under 2120100 R u l e 42, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e c o n v e r s i o n a c t i o n and t h e s a l e - f o r - d i v i s i o n a c t i o n pending i n the Blount C i r c u i t Court be consolidated. I n the order, the court should s p e c i f i c a l l y noted t h a t t h e two a c t i o n s i n v o l v e d t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y from t h e e s t a t e o f t h e s i s t e r s a n d James's f a t h e r a n d t h a t t h e two actions on i n v o l v e d some o f same f a c t s a n d same p a r t i e s . i t s analysis transferred Court. under Rule 42, t h e J e f f e r s o n the consolidated The p e r s o n a l action Based Circuit Court to the Blount filed representative Circuit seeking a motion r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 20, 2012, o r d e r , b u t she a l s o timely f i l e d this petition f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus w i t h this court. As a preliminary representative matter, has f i l e d we note that a motion t o dismiss the this personal petition. On December 7, 2012, t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t p u r p o r t e d enter an o r d e r transferring Court. that t h e September the consolidated The p e r s o n a l the r e l i e f virtue s e t t i n g aside action representative she r e q u e s t e d o f t h e December 7, 20, 2012, to the Blount to order Circuit i n d i c a t e s i n her motion has been 2012, o r d e r . granted The t o h e r by sisters have n o t i f i e d t h i s c o u r t t h a t t h e y w i l l n o t f i l e an answer b e c a u s e , 5 2120100 they say, the i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h i s p e t i t i o n i s now moot. We disagree. B a s e d on t h e c a s e l a w c o n c e r n i n g t r a n s f e r s o f a c t i o n s , t h e December 7, 2012, 20, 2012, o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o s e t a s i d e the September order transferring the c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n to the Blount C i r c u i t Court i s a n u l l i t y . So. 2d 815, transferred 821 by transferee Ex p a r t e M e d P a r t n e r s , ( A l a . 2001). the court, Once transferor the only court means transfer set aside i s a p e t i t i o n parte MedPartners, 820 So. lacks j u r i s d i c t i o n of an and action has docketed seeking 820 been the have to by the f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. 2d a t 821. to set aside The Ex t r a n s f e r o r court i t s t r a n s f e r order, and the t r a n s f e r e e c o u r t c a n n o t e n t e r t a i n a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o have t h e action t r a n s f e r r e d back MedPartners, 820 So. to the transferor court. 2d a t 821. Thus, b e c a u s e C i r c u i t Court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n 20, 2012, order transferring d e c l i n e to d i s m i s s the T u r n i n g now the Ex parte the J e f f e r s o n t o s e t a s i d e i t s September consolidated action, we petition. to the m e r i t s of the p e t i t i o n , we "'[a] petition for the writ of mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e means by w h i c h to challenge a trial court's order r e g a r d i n g a change o f v e n u e . Ex parte 6 note that 2120100 Sawyer, 892 So. 2d 898, 901 ( A l a . 2004) . The w r i t o f mandamus i s an 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 shows " ' " ( 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 p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d 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 ; 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 o f t h e c o u r t . " ' " Ex p a r t e I n v e r n e s s Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G a t e s , 675 So. 2d 371, 374 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; Ex p a r t e P f i z e r , I n c . , 746 So. 2d 960, 962 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . ' " Ex parte Vest, 68 So. 3d 881, 884 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C h i l d r e n ' s Hosp. o f A l a b a m a , 931 So. 2d 1, 5-6 (Ala. As governs 2005)). the what individuals. personal representative i s the appropriate That s t a t u t e points venue out, f o r actions § 6-3-2 against reads: "(a) I n p r o c e e d i n g s individuals: of a l e g a l nature against "(1) A l l a c t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f land, of the possession thereof or f o r a t r e s p a s s t h e r e t o must be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e l a n d o r a m a t e r i a l p a r t thereof l i e s . "(2) A l l a c t i o n s on c o n t r a c t s , e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e provided, must be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t o r one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e s i f such d e f e n d a n t has w i t h i n t h e s t a t e a permanent r e s i d e n c e . 7 2120100 "(3) A l l o t h e r p e r s o n a l a c t i o n s , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t o r one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s has w i t h i n t h e s t a t e a p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n c e , may be commenced i n the county of such residence or i n the county i n which the a c t o r o m i s s i o n c o m p l a i n e d o f may h a v e b e e n done o r may have o c c u r r e d . "(b) I n p r o c e e d i n g s against individuals: of an equitable nature "(1) A l l a c t i o n s where r e a l e s t a t e i s the s u b j e c t matter of the a c t i o n , whether i t i s the e x c l u s i v e s u b j e c t matter of the a c t i o n o r n o t , must be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e same o r a m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n thereof i s situated. "(2) I f the action i s to enjoin p r o c e e d i n g s on j u d g m e n t s i n o t h e r c o u r t s , i t may be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h such p r o c e e d i n g s a r e p e n d i n g or judgment entered. "(3) Except as may be otherwise p r o v i d e d , a c t i o n s must be commenced i n t h e county i n which the defendant or a m a t e r i a l defendant r e s i d e s . "(4) I n t h e c a s e o f nonresidents, a c t i o n s must be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n o r any p o r t i o n o f t h e same was when t h e c l a i m a r o s e o r t h e a c t on w h i c h t h e a c t i o n i s f o u n d e d was t o be p e r f o r m e d . " P u r s u a n t t o § 6-3-2, venue o f b o t h t h e c o n v e r s i o n and the conversion money-had-and-received claim asserted in claim the a c t i o n was p r o p e r i n J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , w h i c h i s t h e 8 2120100 c o u n t y where t h e s i s t e r s r e s i d e and w h i c h i s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e personal representative, omission complained occurred." 1 We do of "the may county have in been which done the or n o t have an a n s w e r f r o m t h e act may or have sisters, but, b a s e d on a r e v i e w o f t h e i r p l e a d i n g s , t h e y n e v e r c l a i m e d that venue was does not proper not p r o v i d e i n J e f f e r s o n County. a b a s i s f o r venue i n B l o u n t S e c t i o n 6-3-2 County of e i t h e r the c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m or the money-had-and-received c l a i m a s s e r t e d i n the conversion a c t i o n . "[Florum non conveniens, under 1975,] § 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 ( a ) [ , ] i s t h e o n l y d o c t r i n e by w h i c h an a c t i o n can be t r a n s f e r r e d when venue i s p r o p e r action 291, is filed." 294 information (Ala. Ex parte 2002). before this i n the State Based [Ala. on c o u r t , we ex Code county i n which r e l . C.M., 828 So. the 2d the materials and the cannot conclude that the We n o t e t h a t " ' u n c o n t r o v e r t e d a v e r m e n t s o f f a c t s t a t e d i n an a n s w e r s h o u l d be t a k e n as t r u e . ' " Ex p a r t e T u r n e r , 840 So. 2d 132, 134 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S h a r p e , 513 So. 2d 609, 610 (Ala. 1987)). The personal representative c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o n v e r s i o n and m o n e y - h a d - a n d - r e c e i v e d c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n t h e c o n v e r s i o n a c t i o n a r o s e when t h e s i s t e r s , t h r o u g h t h e i r a t t o r n e y , r e f u s e d C a t h y ' s demand f o r a s h a r e o f the proceeds from the s a l e of i n h e r i t e d p r o p e r t y i n which James had an interest. The refusal, the personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c l a i m s , o c c u r r e d i n J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , where t h e s i s t e r s r e s i d e and where t h e i r a t t o r n e y m a i n t a i n s an o f f i c e . 1 9 2120100 Jefferson Circuit conversion a c t i o n on § 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 ( a ) , t h e f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s statute. based its order t r a n s f e r r i n g the A l t h o u g h t h e December 7, 2012, o r d e r i s a n u l l i t y , we f i n d c o m p e l l i n g that Court order that the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court's statement i n the s i s t e r s had not provided e v i d e n c e o f a need t o t r a n s f e r t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d the f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e . review of September the pleadings filed 20, 2012, o r d e r , we sufficient action B a s e d on t h a t s t a t e m e n t , a by the s i s t e r s , conclude that C i r c u i t Court t r a n s f e r r e d the consolidated a c t i o n because i t persuaded that c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the conversion the sale-for-division proper basis Jefferson for a Circuit Court vacate i t s September action, that court i s not a Because t h e a proper 20, 2012, o r d e r action t o the Blount C i r c u i t a c t i o n and which an a c t i o n . d i d n o t have transferring the consolidated to was d e s i r a b l e , transferring and t h e the Jefferson was action under basis f o r i s directed transferring Court. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 10 that

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.