Ex parte Stacey McKenzie. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Tracey Booker v. Stacey McKenzie et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:10/30/2009 Notice: T h i s 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 , A l a b a m a 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080835 Ex p a r t e S t a c e y PETITION (In McKenzie FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS r e : Tracey Booker v. Stacey McKenzie e t a l . ) (Wilcox C i r c u i t Court, BOLIN, Justice. Stacey mandamus order CV-08-44) McKenzie directing denying petitions the Wilcox her motion this Circuit to transfer Court Court for a writ of to vacate i t s t o t h e Monroe Circuit 1080835 C o u r t an the action filed petition and against issue Facts The being and underlying accident the driven McKenzie. Trooper by The July Circuit 14, Court, County. In and an her In her the sued accident Booker stated responsive of Monroe County, a s s e r t e d , defense improper On November motor-vehicle automobile being McKenzie a resident of grant driven State in the occurred that in she Wilcox resided pleading, among o t h e r Wilcox things, 2008, McKenzie filed a motion for the grounds t h a t venue i n W i l c o x County improper the action County where, McKenzie resides due t o be non conveniens. she and, said, should the i n the be support Monroe occurred and where a l t e r n a t i v e , that her 2 was to accident of a transferred t r a n s f e r r e d t o M o n r o e C o u n t y on In the venue. 20, that in McKenzie, c h a n g e o f v e n u e on and by accident. the initial a on A l a b a m a H i g h w a y 4 7 . Booker complaint, Conecuh County. of 2 0 0 6 , b e t w e e n an investigated a l l e g i n g that out automobile occurred 2008, We Background arises J u l y 16, Booker Pedro Dacosta On Procedural on accident by T r a c e y B o o k e r . writ. action that occurred her the motion, the action grounds of McKenzie was forum attached 1080835 the complaint, County and affidavit officer which that from who Officer in Monroe completed following occurred testimony Evergreen, Alabama, venue the which 2009, the is trial on January and he was Officer Dacosta a portion that that of she i n Conecuh Booker's resided County. 26, Booker filed a response She argued that Dacosta's affidavit on personal he "did a c c i d e n t , " and report she stated accident she should support of her and not based personally stricken as witness any aspects inadmissible response, Booker attached that she that had she recently "believes" 3 On an visited the Officer of affidavit accident scene the accident evidence. the in knowledge also argued that O f f i c e r Dacosta's be in 2009. to the motion to t r a n s f e r . because the set the motion f o r a change January not the accident opposition was an the indicates stated court that which Conecuh County; that report located 2009, 26, she in Monroe stated accident i n which for a hearing On who accident, resided in i n Monroe C o u n t y ; and deposition of the County; the Booker resided Dacosta, investigated November 25, that McKenzie occurred accident stated In i n which of the occurred in 1080835 Wilcox County. resident Booker's o f Monroe affidavit filed f o r a change her p e t i t i o n On J u n e to stated that she i s a County. On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , motion also the t r i a l o f venue. On f o r the writ 24, 2009, M c K e n z i e court April denied 7, 2009, o f mandamus w i t h filed i n the t r i a l McKenzie's McKenzie this court Court. a motion s t a y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and t o c o n t i n u e t h e date s e t f o r t r i a l pending this Court's r u l i n g granted the motion on h e r p e t i t i o n . stated Ex p a r t e Kane, 98 9 of Review So. 2d 5 0 9 , 511 the standard of review f o r the denial a change o f venue court to stay. Standard In The t r i a l as ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ), of a motion f o r follows: "'The p r o p e r m e t h o d f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f a d e n i a l o f a motion f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l a c t i o n i s t o p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus.' E x p a r t e N a t i o n a l S e c . I n s . C o . , 727 S o . 2 d 7 88 , 78 9 (Ala. 1998). A w r i t o f mandamus i s a p p r o p r i a t e when the p e t i t i o n e r can demonstrate '(1) a c l e a r legal r i g h t t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) a n 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 , 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) t h e 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 the court.' E x p a r t e BOC G r o u p , I n c . , 823 S o . 2 d 1270, 1272 ( A l a . 2001 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s Court r e v i e w s mandamus p e t i t i o n s c h a l l e n g i n g a r u l i n g o n v e n u e on t h e b a s i s o f f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s b y a s k i n g whether the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n . Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 955 S o . 2 d 414 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ; E x p a r t e 4 we 1080835 Verbena United Methodist Church, 953 So. 2d 395 (Ala. 2006). Our r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o o n l y those f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t . Ex parte P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , I n c . , 859 So. 2 d 1 0 8 9 , 1091 (Ala. 2 00 2)." "'The raising the refusing unless burden issue to there is a judge.'" 1089, 1091 So. proving and on improper review of venue an i s on order Ex c l e a r showing parte Pike of error on not the 458, 460 (Ala. be party granted part of the 859 So. 2d F a b r i c a t i o n , Inc., ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e F i n a n c e 2d the t r a n s f e r r i n g or t r a n s f e r , a w r i t o f mandamus w i l l trial 507 of America Corp., 1987)). Analysis Venue of 3-2, Ala. erred Code when the that County, Wilcox County and "believes" 1 under motion shows i s based t h a t the argues i s not that on that the trial § a resident the only the accident County, did not occur in connection the a c t i o n has to of i n the Booker occurred McKenzie complains that Booker's Rule 6(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., 5 was accident averment affidavit of W i l c o x 6¬ court f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e when i t when t h e unsubstantiated i n d i v i d u a l s i s g o v e r n e d by McKenzie McKenzie evidence Wilcox against 1975. i n denying her undisputed the actions complaint stating i n Wilcox that County. 1 and she See a f f i d a v i t was untimely which provides that 1080835 § 6-3-2(a)(3), the trial v e n u e on court the A l a . Code erroneously alternative 3-21.1, A l a . Code 1975, required to t r a n s f e r the convenience of Section of a l e g a l individuals resides the McKenzie denied nature that the m o t i o n f o r a change b e c a u s e , she says, conveniens, § 6¬ was a c t i o n t o M o n r o e C o u n t y b a s e d on the i n the the t r i a l of court p a r t i e s and interest of e q u i t a b l e nature) e i t h e r i n the c o u n t y where the c o u n t y where the It i s undisputed a c t or o m i s s i o n that justice. t h a t venue i n c i v i l ( a s o p p o s e d t o an i s proper f u r t h e r argues g r o u n d o f f o r u m non 6-3-2(a)(3) provides or the occurred. 1975. McKenzie actions against defendant complained resides in of Monroe "opposing a f f i d a v i t s may be s e r v e d n o t l a t e r t h a n one day b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g , u n l e s s t h e c o u r t p e r m i t s t h e m t o be s e r v e d a t some o t h e r t i m e . " I t i s u n c l e a r from McKenzie's p e t i t i o n and a t t a c h m e n t s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h e scheduled hearing, whether McKenzie objected to the filing of the a f f i d a v i t , or whether the t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d the a f f i d a v i t or c o n s i d e r e d the a f f i d a v i t . "With r e s p e c t to the t i m e l i n e s s of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' f i l i n g s , we n o t e t h a t R u l e 6 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., vests discretion i n the trial court concerning the a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e f i l i n g s , and t h i s d i s c r e t i o n has o f t e n b e e n r e c o g n i z e d i n c a s e a u t h o r i t y . " V e s t a F i r e I n s . Co. v . M i l a m & Co. Constr., 901 So. 2 d 84, 10 6 ( A l a . 2004 ) . We will presume t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d Booker's affidavit because n o t h i n g i n the p e t i t i o n or attachments i n d i c a t e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t excluded the a f f i d a v i t . See S i n g l e t o n v. A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f C o r r . , 819 So. 2d 5 9 6 , 598 n. 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . 6 1080835 County. change The factual of venue issue i s where r a i s e d by M c K e n z i e ' s m o t i o n f o r a the accident occurred. Booker f i l e d her c o m p l a i n t i n W i l c o x County. In response to the complaint, McKenzie r a i s e d the issue of improper In support of her attached Officer the accident motion for a change of Dacosta's accident report, occurred a t t a c h e d an a f f i d a v i t in Monroe from O f f i c e r venue, venue. McKenzie establishing County. McKenzie that also Dacosta, which provided as follows: "On J u l y 16, 2 0 0 6 , I was e m p l o y e d a s a s t a t e t r o o p e r by t h e Alabama Department of P u b l i c S a f e t y . On s a i d d a t e I i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e s c e n e o f a m o t o r vehicle accident on Highway 47 outside of Monroeville. I have r e v i e w e d the a c c i d e n t r e p o r t , which I prepared regarding the accident. I recall i d e n t i f y i n g t h e d r i v e r s o f t h e two v e h i c l e s i n v o l v e d as M r s . S t a c e y M c K e n z i e and Mrs. T r a c e y B o o k e r . B a s e d on my r e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e a c c i d e n t s c e n e on s a i d d a t e , t h e a c c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g Mrs. B o o k e r and Mrs. M c K e n z i e o c c u r r e d i n Monroe County, Alabama. The accident d i d not occur i n Wilcox County, Alabama." In argued personal response to the motion that Officer knowledge f o r a change Dacosta's because, witness any Officer D a c o s t a t o have she of venue, affidavit was said, d i d not a s p e c t s of the a c c i d e n t . " "he There w i t n e s s e d the accident 7 not Booker based on personally i s no t o be need able for to 1080835 testify as t o t h e l o c a t i o n motion that f o r a change an officer testify to observation of the a c c i d e n t of venue. investigating facts derived of the scene not p e r s o n a l l y witness AAA Wood Prods., officer location v. Inc., arriving of the p o i n t Argo-Collier an the 380 So. 2d on t h e s c e n e Lines marks in the vehicles, and of both the So. testify as automobile e.g., officer Brown to t e s t i f y regarding of the car c o l l i s i o n ) ; Corp., 356 So. 2d impact t r a c k s and of d i e s e l fuel and 355 based of both 691 (Ala. t o t e s t i f y as t o p o i n t o f impact 2005)(allowing to h i s c o n c l u s i o n gouge under-carriage So. o b s e r v a t i o n s ) ; and Belew ( A l a . C i v . App. accident Gregory, Sharp as t o p o i n t o f location v. the (Ala. condition Griffin v. 147 the vehicles); 110 i f the highway, on h i s p e r s o n a l 2d personal of 1978)(allowing patrol officer based may ( A l a . 1 98 0 ) ( a l l o w i n g observed the l o c a t i o n s of t i r e pavement held accident See, 784 of the long officer's the a c c i d e n t . 1978)(allowing p a t r o l o f f i c e r to t e s t i f y where o f f i c e r have automobile from of impact Truck courts of the a c c i d e n t , even did first Alabama f o r purposes regarding on the 8 skid 2d v. N e l s o n , patrol what and officer happened yaw in marks 932 to the each 1080835 vehicle the left final In also on t h e p a v e m e n t , t h e damage t o t h e v e h i c l e s , a n d resting place response argued to the motion that inadmissible. of the v e h i c l e s ) . Officer It i s officer investigated by t h e o f f i c e r report (Ala. In A l a . Code contains Dacosta's correct enforcement 32-10-11, f o r a change hearsay. report a an by report automobile i s inadmissible 1975, and t h a t Reeves this v. plaintiff admissible v. Fletcher, 454 So. 2d argued that the p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s evidence 534 under So. accident § the 2d 1107 (1963). ( A l a . 1 984), u n d e r an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e . the report This explained: "In the case a t b a r , the o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d that a t t h e t i m e t h e w r i t i n g was made he knew t h a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e w r i t i n g were t r u e and c o r r e c t and t h a t he h a d no r e c o l l e c t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l o f t h e e v e n t s r e l a t e d i n t h e r e p o r t . The r e a s o n t h e r e p o r t was i n a d m i s s i b l e i n t h i s c a s e was t h a t t h e o f f i c e r d i d not p e r s o n a l l y observe a l l of the events described i n the report. That i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e report which was based on the o f f i c e r ' s own observations was admissible. The d a t e of the report, the drawing d e p i c t i n g the p o s i t i o n s of the v e h i c l e s a t t h e t i m e t h e o f f i c e r o b s e r v e d them, t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , and t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e weather c o n d i t i o n s were a l l t h i n g s w h i c h t h e 9 law- i s so b e c a u s e King, 946 a was accident 1 9 8 8 ) ; V e s t v . G a y , 2 7 5 A l a . 2 8 6 , 154 S o . 2 d 297 Worsham Booker accident that concerning of venue, was Court 1080835 o f f i c e r saw. Those p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t c o u l d h a v e been admitted. I n f a c t , t h e o f f i c e r was a l l o w e d t o testify without objection to those facts. The o b j e c t i o n s w e r e made t o t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e p o r t w h i c h were b a s e d , i n part, on t h e e v e n t s which t r a n s p i r e d b e f o r e t h e o f f i c e r a r r i v e d on t h e s c e n e . The defendant properly objected to the p o r t i o n of the report describing the accident. That d e s c r i p t i o n was b a s e d on w h a t o t h e r p e o p l e t o l d t h e o f f i c e r , n o t on w h a t he s a w . The r e p o r t d i d n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s made t o t h e o f f i c e r w e r e a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . The d e f e n d a n t a l s o o b j e c t e d t o q u e s t i o n i n g as t o t h e ' c o n t r i b u t i n g circumstances' e n t r y on t h e r e p o r t . I t indicated that there was no improper driving on t h e plaintiff's part and that the defendant was i n a t t e n t i v e and f o l l o w i n g t o o c l o s e l y . Again, those were n o t o b s e r v a t i o n s made b y t h e o f f i c e r . The plaintiff never argued that the o f f i c e r was a n e x p e r t who c o u l d t e s t i f y t o s u c h o p i n i o n s b a s e d o n w h a t he s a w . " 454 S o . 2 d a t 948 (emphasis O f f i c e r Dacosta's report the added). contained l o c a t i o n of the accident, a the report change t h e movant, case, regarding was submitted where t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. c a n be u s e d t o s u p p o r t the motion f o r of venue. As his observations and t h e r e p o r t s o l e l y f o r the purpose of proving Accordingly, In the present McKenzie venue i n Wilcox prima f a c i e showing t h a t venue i n W i l c o x the burden then County shifted was had the burden improper. t o Booker 10 Once of proving McKenzie C o u n t y was to rebut that made a improper, the prima facie 1080835 showing. See Accordingly, resided Ex parte Pike F a b r i c a t i o n , 859 So. 2d at 1092. o n c e M c K e n z i e made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t i n Monroe County and that the accident occurred Monroe County, the burden then s h i f t e d to Booker to p r o v e the accident because occurred her i n Wilcox affidavit, even County. assuming considered by the trial statement that she "believed" that Wilcox County. She court, offered She that offered no the failed to i t was only a accident evidence to she in that do so properly conclusory occurred support in that statement. Conclusion If action venue for m u s t be (Ala. 1999). the trial direct and the court We at hold the is Ex trial court shown parte t h a t , based time of McKenzie's motion to t r a n s f e r the to vacate to be v e n u e was on the 748 evidence i t s ruling, the court f o r a change of venue, i t s order denying the the So. 2d before should and we motion Because under improper i n Wilcox d i s c u s s i o n of McKenzie's 11 improper, Overstreet, a c t i o n to Monroe County. 6-3-2, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , pretermit action transferred. 194 have g r a n t e d an County, a l t e r n a t i v e argument § we that 1080835 the case 1975, s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t h e forum PETITION non c o n v e n i e n s GRANTED; WRIT Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, JJ., based C.J., recuses A l a . Code statute. ISSUED. S m i t h , P a r k e r , M u r d o c k , a n d Shaw, concur. Cobb, on § 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 , herself. 12

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.