Bates v. Stewart
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Three appellate proceedings were consolidated for a single Supreme Court opinion. All three cases appealed the dismissal of their respective cases from the Etowah Circuit Court. The Appellants all sued Donald Stewart individually and as the trustee of the Abernathy Trust and the Abernathy Trust Foundation, in a line of cases arising out of a toxic tort action against Monsanto Company, its parent corporation and a spin-off. The Monsanto Corporations manufactured and disposed of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A jury found the corporations liable on claims of wantonness, outrage, "suppression of the truth," negligence and public nuisance. After 500 trials on damages, the parties reached a settlement in 2003. $21 million was placed into a trust (the Abernathy Trust) established to pay health and education benefits for those Plaintiffs who qualified for assistance. Each plaintiff signed a retainer agreement and received and cashed his or her settlement check. Plaintiffs in this case challenged the settlement agreement and the award of attorneys fees. Further, they asked for a trust accounting regarding the use of the settlement funds. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the cases that asked for an accounting of the use of the trust's funds; one case was dismissed as moot; in the third case, the Court granted a writ of mandamus as to all portions of a circuit court order that sought review of the Abernathy trust document as compared to the terms of the settlement agreement. The circuit court was directed to lift any freeze of distributions from the trust.
Download PDF
R e l : 04/27/2012 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 ( ( 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, 2011-2012 1100063 George Bates and David Joyner v. Donald W. Stewart, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as t r u s t e e o f the Abernathy T r u s t , and the Abernathy T r u s t Foundation Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-10-900165) Court 1101452 Ex p a r t e Donald W. Stewart, Donald W. Stewart, P.C., and Kasowitz, Benson, T o r r e s & Friedman LLP PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Sabrina Abernathy e t a l . v. Monsanto Company e t a l . ) (Etowah C i r c u i t Court, CV-01-832) 1101456 Donald W. Stewart, Donald W. Stewart, P.C., Benson, Torres & Friedman and Kasowitz, LLP v. Sabrina Abernathy e t a l . Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court (CV-01-832) MAIN, Justice. These t h r e e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s have been c o n s o l i d a t e d for purposes the first of w r i t i n g appeal (case Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t David Joyner trustee of Foundation one o p i n i o n . no. CV-10-900165) was filed i n the on A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 , b y G e o r g e B a t e s against Donald the The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g Abernathy W. Stewart, trust, and individually the Abernathy and a n d as Trust ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e F o u n d a t i o n " ) . In a p p e a l no. 1100063, B a t e s and J o y n e r a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f the Etowah C i r c u i t Court d i s m i s s i n g 2 their complaint against 1 1 0 0 0 6 3 ; 1 1 0 1 4 5 2 ; 1101456 Stewart and the Foundation. The underlying h e r e i n a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e f i r s t case will action." The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a p p e a l no. 1101456 was f i l e d i n t h e E t o w a h C i r c u i t C o u r t on J a n u a r y F. Davidson, "the Adams "motion and R o o s e v e l t Boyd plaintiffs"), who (hereinafter filed t o i n t e r v e n e as p l a i n t i f f s other r e l i e f " and 20, 2 0 1 1 , b y L i n d y Adams, E d what referred they t o as entitled a a n d f o r an a c c o u n t i n g a n d f r o m D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , P.C., Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP (hereinafter r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " S t e w a r t a n d K a s o w i t z " ) ( c a s e no. CV-01-832) . long-standing corporation, The Adams p l a i n t i f f s action and a 1101456, S t e w a r t against filed Monsanto spin-off their appeal in a Company, i t s p a r e n t corporation. and K a s o w i t z motion from In appeal no. o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on A u g u s t 22 a n d S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , p u r p o r t i n g to The reopen a final judgment i n t h a t a c t i o n entered a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a p p e a l no. 1101456 w i l l r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e s e c o n d Stewart and K a s o w i t z i n 2003. h e r e i n a f t e r be action." have also filed a petition w r i t o f mandamus a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l in t h e second action t o vacate S e p t e m b e r 9 (no. 1 1 0 1 4 5 2 ) . i t s orders of August This proceeding w i l l 3 fora court 22 a n d hereinafter 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 be r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n . " in the f i r s t remand. a c t i o n , we a f f i r m i n p a r t , As t o t h e a p p e a l reverse i n part, and As t o t h e a p p e a l i n t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l as moot. petition As t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , i n p a r t , deny i t i n p a r t , I. we grant the and i s s u e t h e w r i t . F a c t u a l B a c k g r o u n d and P r o c e d u r a l History These a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e t h e most r e c e n t in a line of cases a r i s i n g out o f a t o x i c - t o r t a c t i o n a g a i n s t Company; i t s p a r e n t c o r p o r a t i o n , Pharmacia Corporation; spin-off corporation, S o l u t i a , Inc. (hereinafter collectively as " t h e M o n s a n t o corporations manufactured biphenyls ("PCBs") corporations"). and Monsanto disposed i n Anniston from of 1935 and a referred to The Monsanto polychlorinated to 1971. The m a n u f a c t u r e and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s s u c h as PCBs were b a n n e d i n t h e U n i t e d 2605(e). In corporations, 1996, States Thomas alleging i n 1976. Long, that Sr., t h e Monsanto See sued 15 U.S.C. § the Monsanto corporations had r e l e a s e d PCBs and o t h e r h a r m f u l c h e m i c a l s i n t o t h e a i r , s o i l , surface w a t e r , and g r o u n d w a t e r n e a r h i s p r o p e r t y C o u n t y and t h a t he s u f f e r e d p h y s i c a l harm and o t h e r a r e s u l t of the release of those chemicals. were filed against the Monsanto 4 i n Calhoun damage as Two o t h e r corporations actions alleging 1100063; 1101452; negligence, 1101456 wantonness, misrepresentation, trespass, deceit, of a private duty and t o warn, fraud, public nuisance, common-law s t r i c t the t o r t of outrage, assault, battery, emotional breach liability, and n e g l i g e n t and i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f distress arising from actions, the (hereinafter r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s " ) , the consolidation (hereinafter action referred l i t i g a t i o n " ) was n o t a c l a s s a c t i o n . 3,500 those The t h r e e however, over of chemicals. consolidated; with release plaintiffs resulting to as from "the The M o n s a n t o were the Monsanto litigation, s t y l e d " S a b r i n a A b e r n a t h y e t a l . v. M o n s a n t o Company e t a l . , " was transferred from Calhoun County t o Etowah County, and Judge J o e l L a i r d , a j u d g e i n t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t , appointed by t h e C h i e f Justice of t h i s Court j u d g e i n Etowah County t o p r e s i d e over t h e c a s e . 7, 2002, a jury trial began on claims as a 1 common was special On J a n u a r y to a l l the Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s a n d on t h e p r o p e r t y - d a m a g e c l a i m s o f 17 o f those p l a i n t i f f s . The j u r y found t h e Monsanto corporations I n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 , Judge D e b o r a h J o n e s t o o k o f f i c e as a j u d g e i n t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t , s u c c e e d i n g Judge L a i r d . The C h i e f J u s t i c e o f t h i s C o u r t t h e n a p p o i n t e d Judge J o n e s as a s p e c i a l j u d g e i n Etowah County t o c o n t i n u e p r e s i d i n g over the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n . 1 5 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 l i a b l e on t h e M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s ' tort of outrage, "suppression t r e s p a s s , n u i s a n c e , and p u b l i c claims of wantonness, the of the truth," negligence, nuisance. A f t e r s e v e n y e a r s o f l i t i g a t i o n , a t r i a l as t o l i a b i l i t y , and approximately parties reached settlement make an payments 500 individual agreement million. The million $275 damages, the i n 2003. The corporations to required i m m e d i a t e payment o f $2.5 on f o r $300 m i l l i o n a settlement trials the Monsanto of $275 used to pay million the and thereafter, for a payment, l e s s d i s b u r s e d t o t h e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s was million claims of each total $35 and t h e i r 10 annual of $300 million, was attorneys and settling Monsanto p l a i n t i f f , t o fund a r e l o c a t i o n / p r o p e r t y - a d j u s t m e n t fund f o r the b e n e f i t of approximately who were 920 M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s property owners and r e s i d e n t s i n t h e a f f e c t e d a r e a , t o p a y attorney fees, and to reimburse t h e Monsanto plaintiffs' a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e c o s t s and e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n t h e M o n s a n t o litigation. The M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s ' p a i d a 40% a t t o r n e y $15 million attorneys f e e f r o m t h e $275 m i l l i o n i n costs and were payment, l e s s expenses, i n addition a t t o r n e y fee from each annual $2.5 m i l l i o n 6 t o be payment. to a 40% 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 The s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t o f t h e $35 m i l l i o n n o t d i s b u r s e d t o t h e M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s $21 m i l l i o n was t o be p l a c e d i n t o a t r u s t ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e A b e r n a t h y trust") established benefits to assistance those with to pay Monsanto medical health-care plaintiffs treatment and and who educational qualified other s e r v i c e s a n d / o r who q u a l i f i e d f o r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h for health-care educational g r a n t s , s c h o l a r s h i p s , o r l o a n s , a n d $14 m i l l i o n was t o be p a i d as $1.5 attorney Of e a c h a n n u a l payment o f $2.5 m i l l i o n , m i l l i o n was t o be p l a c e d i n t o t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t , a n d $1 million 3.g. fees. 40% -- was t o be p a i d as a t t o r n e y f e e s . Paragraphs a n d 3.h. o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t , t h e p r o v i s i o n s t h a t address the requirements Abernathy t r u s t , f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g and f u n d i n g state: "g. Thirty-Five Million Dollars ( $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) , p l u s any i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d on s u c h amount d u r i n g t h e t i m e s u c h money was on d e p o s i t i n the S e t t l e m e n t Account and t h e Escrow Account, s h a l l be paid directly from the Escrow Account t o plaintiffs' counsel and to a corporation, foundation, trust or other appropriate entity d e s i g n a t e d b y [ t h e M o n s a n t o ] p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l as follows: " i . Fourteen M i l l i o n D o l l a r s ($14,000,000.00), p l u s any i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d on s u c h amount d u r i n g t h e t i m e s u c h money was on d e p o s i t i n t h e S e t t l e m e n t A c c o u n t a n d t h e E s c r o w A c c o u n t , s h a l l be p a i d t o 7 the 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 [the M o n s a n t o ] fees; plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' " i i . Twenty-One Million Dollars ( $ 2 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) , p l u s any i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d on s u c h amount d u r i n g t h e t i m e s u c h money was on d e p o s i t i n t h e S e t t l e m e n t A c c o u n t and t h e E s c r o w A c c o u n t , s h a l l be u s e d by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t o r other a p p r o p r i a t e e n t i t y f o r the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l p u r p o s e s , and t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t o r o t h e r e n t i t y w i l l have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e x p e n d f u n d s f o r such p u r p o s e s , b u t w i l l n o t be r e q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m e v e r y such purpose: "(1) To p r o v i d e p r i m a r y h e a l t h c a r e a n d / o r t o a s s i s t i n g a i n i n g a c c e s s t o p r i m a r y h e a l t h c a r e and other h e a l t h care services (including but not l i m i t e d to lab, d e n t a l , outreach, p r e n a t a l care, r a d i o l o g y , c a s e management, p h a r m a c y , p r e v e n t i v e m e d i c i n e , h o l i s t i c m e d i c i n e and o t h e r h e a l t h c a r e p r o g r a m s ) by m a k i n g g r a n t s o r payments f o r t h e a c t u a l b e n e f i t of persons meeting the c r i t e r i a of the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or other e n t i t y ; "(2) To p r o v i d e e d u c a t i o n a l g r a n t s , s c h o l a r s h i p s or loans t o persons meeting the c r i t e r i a of the c o r p o r a t i o n , foundation, t r u s t or other e n t i t y f o r purposes including but not limited to those d e s c r i b e d i n s u b p a r a g r a p h (5) b e l o w ; "(3) To p r o v i d e h e a l t h e d u c a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n t o o r on b e h a l f o f p e r s o n s m e e t i n g t h e c r i t e r i a o f the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or other e n t i t y ; "(4) To p r o v i d e s u c h o t h e r p r o g r a m s o r p a y m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n and community w e l f a r e t h a t would b e n e f i t such persons m e e t i n g the c r i t e r i a of the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or other e n t i t y ; and "(5) To c r e a t e an e d u c a t i o n a l t r u s t f u n d t o endow s c h o l a r s h i p s , g r a n t s o r l o a n s f o r p u r p o s e s i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f and 8 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 development of personal education plans, p r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n program p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a f t e r - s c h o o l program p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t u t o r i n g , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n r e m e d i a l programs or i n d i v i d u a l enrichment programs, computer training programs, SAT/ACT or other e x a m i n a t i o n p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g , v o c a t i o n a l , GED, c o l l e g e or a d u l t e d u c a t i o n a l programs. "h. The a n n u a l payments o f Two M i l l i o n , F i v e H u n d r e d T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ($2,500,000.00) s h a l l be p a i d d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e [Monsanto c o r p o r a t i o n s ] t o [the Monsanto] p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel and to the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or other a p p r o p r i a t e e n t i t y designated by [the Monsanto] plaintiffs' c o u n s e l p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h 3.g. as f o l l o w s : " i . One M i l l i o n D o l l a r s ($1,000,000.00) s h a l l be paid to p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel f o r attorneys' fees; " i i . One M i l l i o n F i v e H u n d r e d T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ($1,500,000.00) s h a l l be p a i d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , foundation, trust or other appropriate entity e s t a b l i s h e d or s e l e c t e d i n accordance w i t h paragraph 3.g. h e r e o f f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o u t l i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 3.g. hereof." Each of Monsanto providing agreement the for settlement agreement settlement, attorney a plaintiffs 40% attorney specifying his fees, and or The a fee; her expenses; cashed h i s or her s e t t l e m e n t check. executed signed and a of the received and agreement acknowledged: "I understand t h a t these shares are shares of total settlement net of the court-approved attorneys' fees and $15 million i n costs 9 signed share settlement by e a c h o f t h e M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s retainer the 40% and 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 expenses (all in accordance with my a g r e e m e n t and t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t ) . " On S e p t e m b e r 12, approving the 2003, t h e settlement trial court entered a g r e e m e n t as "fair i n c l u d i n g t h e payment o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and f o r t h i n the Settlement The was incorporated provided that jurisdiction Settlement taken as Agreement." a the part of trial the court retainer and an reasonable, e x p e n s e s as settlement final order agreement judgment, "retain[ed] set which continuing of t h i s matter f o r the purpose of e n f o r c i n g Agreement." from the (Emphasis added.) No appeals the were judgment. I n 2004, S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z r e c e i v e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e h a l f o f S a r a h A v e r y , one o f t h e M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s , her i n t e n t to f i l e fee and costs litigation. that the settlement entered awarded in S t e w a r t and trial plaintiff a c l a s s a c t i o n to challenge court from f i l i n g agreement. an o r d e r the settlement Kasowitz filed enjoin an On Avery and of the O c t o b e r 29, Monsanto requesting other 2004, t h e t h a t " r e a f f i r m [ e d ] t h a t the recovery the of attorney Monsanto independent a c t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g [and e x p e n s e s ] i n t h e amount o f $15 m i l l i o n , 40% stating the a motion any ( a f t e r c o s t s and 10 on the trial court t a x i n g of costs and the award of e x p e n s e s ) as attorneys' 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 fees, was fair and "all the terms that ... other persons with r e a s o n a b l e " and any from taking enjoined Avery action and to Avery of the S e t t l e m e n t Agreement." interfere filed a m o t i o n t o c l a r i f y o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o r e s c i n d t h e O c t o b e r 29 order, arguing that 'double-dipped'" "deducted a Stewart because, 40% and Avery contingent Kasowitz said, fee had "improperly Stewart from and $300 the Kasowitz million s e t t l e m e n t , and t h e n d e d u c t e d an a d d i t i o n a l 40% f e e f r o m e a c h individual trial Plaintiff's court entered award." an order On December denying 15, the motion Avery's 2004, and f i n d i n g t h a t a 40% a t t o r n e y f e e i n t h e M o n s a n t o l i t i g a t i o n r e a s o n a b l e p u r s u a n t t o t h e 12 c r i t e r i a in Pharmacia 2004) 740, C o r p . v. McGowan, 915 ( q u o t i n g Van 749 So. 2d 549, enumerated 552-53 ( A l a . S c h a a c k v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 530 So. 2d (Ala. 1988)). A. On t h i s Court was April 15, Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s , Foundation, and C i r c u i t Court. The 2010, First Bates Action and Joyner, both f i l e d a complaint against fictitiously original Stewart, the named d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e Etowah The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , that " [ t ] h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n i s a t r u s t o r g a n i z e d under the l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a " and, " [ u ] p o n i n f o r m a t i o n and 11 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 belief," that "Stewart and Defendants A-Z created a trust known as The A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n a n d / o r D e f e n d a n t s 10." 1- B a t e s and J o y n e r s o u g h t an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e A b e r n a t h y 2 trust pursuant states, to § i n pertinent 19-3B-205(a), Ala. Code 1975, which part: "A t r u s t e e may f i l e an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e t r u s t e e ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r u s t i n c o u r t a t any t i m e and s e e k a p a r t i a l o r f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t t h e r e o f o r , upon p e t i t i o n o f an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , a c o u r t may o r d e r a t r u s t e e t o r e n d e r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e t r u s t e e ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r u s t and r e q u i r e a p a r t i a l o r f i n a l settlement thereof. ..." (Emphasis added.) are "interested B a t e s and J o y n e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y parties" under the accounting of the Abernathy t r u s t . statute and demanded an B a t e s and J o y n e r a t t a c h e d as e x h i b i t s t o t h e c o m p l a i n t t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t i n t h e Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s 2003 o r d e r a p p r o v i n g the s e t t l e m e n t . B a t e s and J o y n e r a l s o s o u g h t an a c c o u n t i n g o f the use o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t f u n d s f r o m t h e M o n s a n t o litigation. The terms "the Abernathy T r u s t , " "the Abernathy T r u s t F u n d , " " t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n , " and " t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund B o a r d " a r e u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n b r i e f s f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t and i n documents c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d . We c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e d o c u m e n t s b e f o r e us w h i c h o f t h e s e t e r m s i s c o r r e c t ; t h e r e f o r e , we r e f e r t o t h e t r u s t r e s as " t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t " and t o t h e e n t i t y a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t as " t h e F o u n d a t i o n . " We have n o t c h a n g e d t h e t e r m s u s e d i n t h e d o c u m e n t s we q u o t e i n t h i s o p i n i o n . 2 12 1100063; 1101452; On motion May 17, 1101456 2010, to d i s m i s s the Stewart and complaint, the Foundation alleging that filed Bates a and J o y n e r were a t t e m p t i n g t o r e o p e n a c o u r t - a p p r o v e d s e t t l e m e n t , t h a t t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was " c r e a t e d u n d e r New Y o r k l a w " and, they argued, " t h e r e f o r e i s not governed by t h e Alabama Code." I n t h e i r m o t i o n , S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n s o u g h t t o have t h e c o m p l a i n t d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12(b) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n over 12(b)(6) ("failure granted"). their t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f Rule c a n be S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n a t t a c h e d as e x h i b i t s t o motion litigation, two t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r " ) , and the settlement agreement in the Monsanto t h e 2003 o r d e r a p p r o v i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t , a n d t h e 2004 o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e Monsanto litigation. On May 18, B a t e s and J o y n e r filed a motion to convert S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i n t o a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o deny t h e m o t i o n . B a t e s and J o y n e r f i l e d t h e i r m o t i o n t o c o n v e r t b e c a u s e , said, had i.e., i n t h e i r motion asserted factual they t o d i s m i s s S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n matters not a s s e r t e d i n the complaint, t h a t t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was c r e a t e d u n d e r New Y o r k l a w and t h a t $21 m i l l i o n h a d been u s e d t o f u n d t h e t r u s t . 13 On May 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 24, the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an order setting a scheduling c o n f e r e n c e and a h e a r i n g on a l l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s on A u g u s t 2. On June 17, B a t e s and J o y n e r f i l e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l r e s p o n s e t o S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . On July 29, S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the motion motion. to On response. convert July The 30, trial their Bates motion and to a summary-judgment J o y n e r moved t o c o u r t d i d not rule s t r i k e b e f o r e the h e a r i n g s e t f o r August on strike the motion the to 2, w h i c h t o o k p l a c e as s c h e d u l e d . On the August trial 2, court after h e a r i n g arguments from established a briefing the parties, schedule on " a l l r e l e v a n t i s s u e s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the q u e s t i o n of venue." On August amended m o t i o n S t e w a r t and the 25, S t e w a r t and the Foundation filed an t o d i s m i s s and a s u p p o r t i n g memorandum b r i e f . the Foundation urged the t r i a l complaint because, Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n they argued, court to dismiss the c i r c u i t c o u r t i n the r e t a i n e d c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over the s e t t l e m e n t , making j u r i s d i c t i o n e x c l u s i v e i n Calhoun County. 3 S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n a r e r e f e r r i n g t o E t o w a h Circuit Court case no. CV-01-832, the original case t r a n s f e r r e d t o the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t from the Calhoun C i r c u i t Court. 3 14 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e y a r g u e d , " a t a minimum, t h i s a c t i o n i s due to be transferred Foundation dismissed also continued for lack argued, transferred alleged, Abernathy to Calhoun to County." argue that of subject-matter the "venue the Calhoun f o r an trust] brought Court [ f o r an i n this state Calhoun County pursuant t o § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( i i ) Code 1975. S e c t i o n 19-3B-204(a) be but they should because, accounting lies the should the a c t i o n Circuit action action and jurisdiction, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , that to Stewart of be they the exclusively in and ( i i i ) , " A l a . states: " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n subsection (b), venue f o r a c t i o n s and p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g a t r u s t i s p r o p e r ... ( i i ) i n t h e c o u n t y o f t h i s s t a t e where t h e t r u s t has i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; o r ( i i i ) i n t h e c a s e o f a t r u s t whose p r i n c i p a l place of administration i s i n a j u r i s d i c t i o n other t h a n t h i s s t a t e , i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e s e t t l o r resided at the c r e a t i o n of the t r u s t " I n s u p p o r t o f t h e amended m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , Foundation submitted w h i c h he s t a t e d that the a f f i d a v i t he " e s t a b l i s h e d o f D o n a l d W. Stewart i n the Abernathy Trust s e t f o r t h i n t h e t r u s t document a t t a c h e d We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e r e c o r d S t e w a r t and t h e h e r e t o as E x h i b i t B." on a p p e a l does n o t E x h i b i t B t o S t e w a r t ' s a f f i d a v i t o r any document t h a t t o be t h e t r u s t document. 15 as contain purports 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 On S e p t e m b e r 10, B a t e s and J o y n e r f i l e d a first amended c o m p l a i n t i n w h i c h t h e y a d d e d a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s and c a u s e s of action. They c o n t i n u e d t o r e q u e s t an settlement proceeds in addition to an accounting of accounting the of the A b e r n a t h y t r u s t p u r s u a n t t o § 19-3B-205, and t h e y a l l e g e d t h a t " [ t ] h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n i s a t r u s t o r g a n i z e d under the l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f New the s e t t l e m e n t f u n d s " i n the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n . Joyner also filed on Y o r k and f u n d e d by p r o c e e d s September 10 their from Bates and memorandum in o p p o s i t i o n t o S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n ' s amended m o t i o n t o dismiss. On September 16, S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r amended m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . On September 20, Shaun Elston, Donna Allen, and Tara H u n l e y , a l l o f whom a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y a r e t h e m o t h e r s o f m i n o r children who whose 2010 are checks beneficiaries d i d not of arrive the Abernathy as scheduled trust and (hereinafter r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e i n t e r v e n o r s " ) , moved t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e first in action. The i n t e r v e n o r s attached a proposed complaint i n t e r v e n t i o n i n which they a l l e g e d , i n pertinent part: "11. Shaun E l s t o n , as M o t h e r and N e x t F r i e n d o f F e r n a n d o F o r b e s and D e a n g e l o F o r b e s , c o n t a c t e d t h e o f f i c e o f D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t on September 14, 2010 t o i n q u i r e about the checks t o her c h i l d r e n . She was a d v i s e d t h a t t h e money i n t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t h a d 16 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 b e e n ' f r o z e n ' b e c a u s e o f Mr. B a t e s a n d Mr. J o y n e r . Ms. E l s t o n a s k e d b u t was n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h any p a p e r w o r k s h o w i n g t h a t t h e money h a d b e e n ' f r o z e n . ' "12. Donna A l l e n , as M o t h e r a n d N e x t F r i e n d o f L o u j u a n A l l e n and Tacouya Allen, contacted the o f f i c e o f D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t on September 14, 2010 a f t e r she d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e i r c h e c k s . She was a d v i s e d t h a t t h e c h e c k s were 'on h o l d ' b e c a u s e o f the l a w s u i t f i l e d b y B a t e s a n d J o y n e r . "13. T a r a H u n l e y , M o t h e r a n d N e x t F r i e n d o f J o s h u a R e y n o l d s , c o n t a c t e d t h e o f f i c e o f D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t on S e p t e m b e r 16, 2010. She was t o l d t h a t the t r u s t f u n d h a d b e e n 'put on h o l d ' b e c a u s e o f t h e l a w s u i t f i l e d b y G e o r g e B a t e s a n d a n o t h e r man. She was t o l d t h a t t h e l a w s u i t was p l a c e d a g a i n s t t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund, a n d t h a t t h e t r u s t h a d p u t a h o l d on a l l f u n d s b e c a u s e o f t h e s u i t . She was f u r t h e r a d v i s e d t h a t t h e h o l d w o u l d be r e l e a s e d 'when a j u d g e s e t t l e s t h e c a s e o r t h e l a w s u i t i s dropped.' F i n a l l y , when Ms. H u n l e y a s k e d why t h e p e o p l e who were e x p e c t i n g c h e c k s f o r t h e i r m i n o r c h i l d r e n were n o t n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e t r u s t f u n d was on h o l d p r i o r t o t h e c h e c k s n o t b e i n g m a i l e d t h i s y e a r , she was t o l d b y t h e e m p l o y e e o f Mr. S t e w a r t ' s o f f i c e t h a t ' t h e y d i d n o t have an a n s w e r t o t h a t question.'" On September 2 1 , B a t e s a n d J o y n e r f i l e d emergency hearing to appoint a receiver t r u s t or f o rother r e l i e f . a motion f o r an f o r the Abernathy That m o t i o n a l l e g e d , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , t h a t , " [ d ] e s p i t e r e q u e s t s t o t h e c u r r e n t t r u s t e e s by t h e beneficiaries f o r accounting Abernathy Trust i t s e l f , or even f o r copies of the t h e c u r r e n t t r u s t e e s have r e f u s e d t o p r o v i d e t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s any a c c o u n t i n g o r even a copy o f 17 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 the Abernathy A portion of the B a t e s a n d J o y n e r r e q u e s t e d was t h a t t h e c o u r t relief Trust." (Emphasis added.) require S t e w a r t a n d t h e F o u n d a t i o n t o "[m]ake an i m m e d i a t e a c c o u n t i n g to t h e [Monsanto] Trust assets, Plaintiffs including, and I n t e r v e n o r s o f t h e A b e r n a t h y but not l i m i t e d t o , t h e immediate p r o d u c t i o n o f a copy o f t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e s a i d Abernathy Trust." On (Emphasis the following added.) day, September 22, t h e t r i a l court e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g S t e w a r t a n d t h e F o u n d a t i o n ' s m o t i o n to for dismiss. The o r d e r d i d n o t s t a t e t h e t r i a l court's reason d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n , a n d t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n order that emergency the t r i a l hearing, court which c o n s i d e r e d the motion alleged that Stewart i n the f o r an and t h e F o u n d a t i o n h a d r e f u s e d t o p r o v i d e B a t e s a n d J o y n e r w i t h a copy of the trust document. Bates and Joyner a p p e a l e d from t h e judgment o f d i s m i s s a l . B. The S e c o n d A c t i o n a n d t h e Mandamus On A p r i l 1, 2 0 1 1 , t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s , Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s , a n d K a t h y Faye Wynn 4 Petition a l l o f whom were filed their motion t o i n t e r v e n e , s e e k i n g t o r e o p e n t h e 2003 j u d g m e n t i n t h a t c a s e Wynn was l a t e r d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e plaintiff. 4 18 she was n o t a M o n s a n t o 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 and r e q u e s t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e f u n d s in settlement of t h e Monsanto litigation, i n c l u d i n g the a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s from t h e A b e r n a t h y trust. The Adams p l a i n t i f f s alleged that the t r i a l never determined whether Sabrina could "fairly plaintiffs' interests reasonableness litigation. retainer and The Abernathy or her attorneys adequately" represent and had never of the attorney Adams fees plaintiffs agreements executed court had held the Monsanto a hearing on t h e awarded i n t h e Monsanto also alleged that the by t h e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s are v o i d because o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "[I]n the event the attorneys negotiate and recommend a c c e p t a n c e o f what t h e a t t o r n e y s , i n t h e i r s o l e d i s c r e t i o n , c o n s i d e r t o be a f a i r a n d e q u i t a b l e settlement of the c l a i m f o r which the attorneys are hereby employed, and i f t h e c l i e n t r e f u s e s t o accept s a i d s e t t l e m e n t , t h e a t t o r n e y s s h a l l t h e r e u p o n have the r i g h t t o withdraw from r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s a i d c l i e n t a n d t h e c l i e n t s h a l l be i n d e b t e d t o s a i d a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s a n d c o s t s a n d e x p e n s e s h e r e i n a b o v e p r o v i d e d b a s e d upon the offer of settlement recommended by t h e attorneys." The Adams accounting trust, plaintiffs asked of the settlement the t r i a l proceeds t o hold a hearing t o review t o order an and o f t h e Abernathy the reasonableness a t t o r n e y f e e i n t h e Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n , 19 court of the t o appoint a s p e c i a l 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 master t o review c l a i m s f o r b e n e f i t s from t h e Abernathy t h a t had been d e n i e d by t h e F o u n d a t i o n , Stewart to f e e , t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s c o u r t t o r e q u i r e Stewart and K a s o w i t z for an a t t o r n e y already a n d t o remove D o n a l d as t r u s t e e o f t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t . the attorney f e e or t o repay received, to allow the reasonableness Adams p l a i n t i f f s S p e c i f i c a l l y , as asked the attorney t h e Adams f e e they had plaintiffs of the requested a l s o asked the t r i a l the t r i a l t o s u b m i t an a p p l i c a t i o n d i s c o v e r y r e g a r d i n g t h e f e e , and t o schedule on trust to take a public hearing attorney fee. The court to set aside the c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n t h e Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n awarding Stewart and Kasowitz $15 m i l l i o n On A u g u s t addressing i n expenses. 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s ' court motion. entered an As t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e motion, t h e t r i a l court stated: " [ B ] a s e d on t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w , t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e A p r i l 27, 2 0 1 1 , h e a r i n g , a n d t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t : "1. T h i s Court f i n d s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y c l a i m s b e t w e e n t h e L i t i g a n t s a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t s have been a s c e r t a i n e d a n d a d j u d g e d a n d t h e a g r e e d upon amounts have been d i s b u r s e d t o t h e [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s . "2. T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y c l a i m s b e t w e e n t h e [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t s have b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d a n d a d j u d g e d a n d 20 order 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 t h e a g r e e d upon amounts have b e e n d i s b u r s e d t o t h e [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s . "3. T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e f u n d s p a i d a n d f u n d s t o be p a i d i n t o t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund have been a s c e r t a i n e d and adjudged. "4. This Court finds that t h e [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s f o r payments and t h e d e n i a l o f c l a i m s f o r p a y m e n t s f r o m t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund have n o t b e e n d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C o u r t a n d i n f a c t are being determined on an o n g o i n g b a s i s b y t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund B o a r d . "This Court f i n d s that the determinations of the Abernathy T r u s t Board a r e n o t f i n a l judgments and are s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t . " I t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: " 1 . The p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n t h i s case i s a f i n a l judgment and t h e a p p e a l time has e x p i r e d . "2. The p e r s o n a l i n j u r y p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n t h i s case i s a f i n a l judgment and the appeal time has e x p i r e d . "3. The T r u s t Fund p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n t h i s case i s a f i n a l judgment and the appeal time has e x p i r e d . "4. The a w a r d s o r d e n i a l o f a w a r d s f r o m t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund a r e n o t f i n a l j u d g m e n t s . Any [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f may f i l e a m o t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f h i s o r h e r award o r d e n i a l o f award from t h e T r u s t Fund B o a r d . "5. A h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e m a t t e r o f t h e method o f a l l o c a t i o n u s e d b y t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund B o a r d i n determining the g r a n t i n g or denying of claims 21 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 s h a l l be h e l d on September 9, 2011 a t 1:30 p.m. i n c o u r t r o o m 250. The p u r p o s e o f t h e h e a r i n g i s f o r t h e C o u r t t o be e d u c a t e d on t h e f o r m u l a u s e d t o issue awards and the process of the same. [Monsanto] Plaintiffs' counsel shall present testimony and d o c u m e n t a t i o n i n support of t h e i r method o f a l l o c a t i o n . " As to attorney-fee the trial court's award, t h e t r i a l jurisdiction court to review stated: " [ A ] f t e r h e a r i n g and a f t e r r e v i e w i n g a l l p l e a d i n g s , all court orders, the court file, and after c o n s i d e r i n g a l l a p p l i c a b l e l a w , t h i s C o u r t makes t h e following findings of fact: "1. The C o u r t has e q u i t a b l e and inherent a u t h o r i t y over t h e g l o b a l s e t t l e m e n t and over t h e p a r t i e s and a t t o r n e y s . "2. The C o u r t has e q u i t a b l e and inherent a u t h o r i t y t o review the contingency fee contracts of t h e [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s a n d t h e a t t o r n e y s . "3. The C o u r t h a s r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s case f o r the purpose of the enforcement of the s e t t l e m e n t agreement and t h e judgment. "4. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e I n t e r v e n e r s ' a l l e g a t i o n s contained i n the request for relief r e g a r d i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be e x t r a o r d i n a r y and e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , which i f p r o v e n w o u l d be an e x t r e m e i n j u s t i c e . "5. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e I n t e r v e n e r s ' r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as a r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f from judgment under t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure, Rule 60(b)(6). "6. The C o u r t finds that each [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s h o u l d be s e r v e d w i t h n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s 22 the 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 a c t i o n a n d g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d , w i t h o r without counsel, or t o waive their right to p a r t i c i p a t e i n said hearing. " I t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED a s follows: " 1 . The a t t o r n e y s s h a l l e a c h s u b m i t t o t h e C o u r t for review a proposed n o t i f i c a t i o n of right to h e a r i n g a n d a w a i v e r o f r i g h t t o h e a r i n g on t h e issue of reasonableness o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be served t o a l l [Monsanto] plaintiffs. Said s u b m i s s i o n s h a l l be f i l e d on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 . "2. The [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y s s h a l l s u b m i t a n y known a d d r e s s c h a n g e s t o t h e l i s t o f a l l [Monsanto] p l a i n t i f f s a n d a d d r e s s e s p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d on September 16, 2003 f o r service of said n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e C i r c u i t C l e r k o f Etowah County. S a i d s u b m i s s i o n s h a l l be f i l e d on September 9, 2 0 1 1 . "3. The C l e r k o f C o u r t o f E t o w a h C o u n t y s h a l l c a u s e t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n t o be s e r v e d t o a l l l a s t known addresses on file o f each [Monsanto] Plaintiff. "4. The c o s t s o f s a i d n o t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be p a i d f r o m t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r s of the Court. Costs shall include postage, s u p p l i e s , and temporary s t a f f , i f n e c e s s a r y , t o accomplish the assignment. "5. A h e a r i n g d a t e s h a l l be s e t b y s e p a r a t e o r d e r upon c o m p l e t i o n o f s e r v i c e o f a l l [Monsanto] Plaintiffs." As t o t h e i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t , the t r i a l court stated: "1. request The C o u r t finds f o r f r e e z i n g of 23 that the the Interveners' trust assets i s 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 a p p r o p r i a t e pending t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e a u d i t and t h e h e a r i n g on t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y fees. Therefore, there i s no need for a constructive trust. "2. The C o u r t finds that the Interveners' request f o r removal of Donald S t e w a r t as t r u s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r i s w i t h o u t any e v i d e n c e t h a t Mr. Stewart has mishandled t h e t r u s t . "3. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no n e e d f o r a S p e c i a l Master as t h e Court s h a l l hear a l l m a t t e r s necessary. " I t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: " 1 . The I n t e r v e n e r s ' r e q u e s t f o r r e m o v a l o f Donald Stewart from t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e T r u s t i s hereby denied. "2. The a s s e t s o f t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t a r e h e r e b y frozen. The C o u r t o r d e r s a l l p a y m e n t s t o m i n o r s t o c o n t i n u e as s c h e d u l e d , i f a n y , a n d any u n s c h e d u l e d p a y m e n t s s h a l l n o t be made u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r s o f t h i s Court. "3. The d e p o s i t s e x p e c t e d no l a t e r t h a n A u g u s t 26, 2 0 1 1 , i n c l u d i n g amounts a l l o c a t e d f o r a t t o r n e y fees, shall be deposited and shall n o t be d i s t r i b u t e d u n t i l f u r t h e r orders of t h i s Court. "4. The I n t e r v e n e r s ' r e q u e s t s f o r an a p p o i n t m e n t of a S p e c i a l Master and c r e a t i o n o f a c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t are hereby denied." Moreover, the t r i a l c o u r t ordered t h a t c e r t a i n records o f the Abernathy accounting t r u s t be u n s e a l e d . firm's report that 24 Those r e c o r d s i n c l u d e d an contained t h e names of the 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 Monsanto medical plaintiffs and or educational their (e.g., corresponding PCB-related learning-disability) problems, as w e l l as t h e p a y m e n t s t h e y h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e A b e r n a t h y trust. Stewart and K a s o w i t z f i l e d a motion t o v a c a t e t h e August 22 order. The t r i a l court orally h e a r i n g h e l d on S e p t e m b e r 9. process of mailing would begin Stewart from the The t r i a l the notices on S e p t e m b e r 13. and K a s o w i t z records on denied motion t o redact plaintiffs court agreed t o allow certain with at a court stated that the t o t h e Monsanto The t r i a l file that medical the court information so that the i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d c o n t a i n t h e names o f a d u l t s who h a d r e c e i v e d payments from t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t f o r PCB-related medical or e d u c a t i o n a l problems, but not t h e i r s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s or the amount t h e y r e c e i v e d . The t r i a l court d i r e c t e d S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z t o p r o v i d e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n b y S e p t e m b e r 13. and Kasowitz orders on injunctive appealed from the basis that relief the August the t o t h e Adams trial Stewart 22 a n d S e p t e m b e r court plaintiffs. had granted Stewart and Kasowitz also f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o ra writ t h i s Court t o require the t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s A u g u s t 22 25 o f mandamus 9 asking 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 and S e p t e m b e r 9 o r d e r s a n d t o s t a y f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e trial court pending t h e outcome o f t h e mandamus p r o c e e d i n g . This Court granted t h e motion and f o r a s t a y and o r d e r e d answer briefs. II. Standards o f Review A. A p p e a l i n t h e F i r s t A c t i o n (No. 1100063) I n P o n t i u s v . S t a t e Farm M u t u a l A u t o m o b i l e I n s u r a n c e Co., 915 So. 2d 557, 563 standard of review ( A l a . 2005), applicable this Court to a ruling stated the on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n f o r a l a c k 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 n Newman v . S a v a s , 878 So. 2d 1147 ( A l a . 2003), t h i s Court s e t o u t t h e s t a n d a r d o f review o f a ruling on a m o t i o n t o dismiss f o r lack of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n : "'A r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s reviewed without a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . Nance v . M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 1993) . T h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t the a l l e g a t i o n s o f the c o m p l a i n t as t r u e . C r e o l a L a n d Dev., I n c . v . B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285, 288 ( A l a . 2002). Furthermore, i n r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r whether the p l e a d e r w i l l u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l but whether t h e p l e a d e r may p o s s i b l y prevail. Nance, 622 So. 2d a t 299.' TT^-,-,^-;v-^^ "878 T T ooo So. 2 d a t 1148-49." 26 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 See a l s o Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 978 So. 2d 17, 21 (Ala. 2007). B. A p p e a l i n t h e S e c o n d A c t i o n When this preliminary Court reviews the grant Holiday or denial i n j u n c t i o n , "'[w]e r e v i e w t h e [ t r i a l ] l e g a l r u l i n g s de novo a n d i t s u l t i m a t e preliminary (No. 1101456) injunction for of a [c]ourt's decision to issue the [an e x c e s s ] of d i s c r e t i o n . ' " I s l e , LLC v. A d k i n s , 12 So. 3d 1173, 1176 ( A l a . 2008) (quoting G o n z a l e s v. O C e n t r o E s p i r i t a Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 428, Beneficente U n i a o do (2006)). "A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s : "'"(1) t h a t w i t h o u t t h e i n j u n c t i o n the [party] would s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y ; (2) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s no a d e q u a t e remedy a t l a w ; (3) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s a t l e a s t a r e a s o n a b l e c h a n c e o f s u c c e s s on t h e u l t i m a t e m e r i t s o f h i s c a s e ; a n d (4) t h a t t h e h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e [ p a r t y o p p o s i n g the preliminary injunction] by the i n j u n c t i o n would not unreasonably outweigh the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g t o t h e [ p a r t y seeking the i n j u n c t i o n ] . " ' " Holiday 869 I s l e , 12 So. 3d a t 1176 ( q u o t i n g Ormco C o r p . v . J o h n s , So. 2d 1109, 1113 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P e r l e y v. T a p s c a n , I n c . , 646 So. 2d 585, 587 ( A l a . 1994) ( a l t e r a t i o n s i n Holiday Isle)). 27 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 C. Mandamus P e t i t i o n (No. 1101452) "'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d 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 p e r f o r m , 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 remedy; 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 court.'" Ex p a r t e P e r f e c t i o n S i d i n g , I n c . , 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 ( A l a . 2003) (quoting (Ala. Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 1995)). "'A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a p r o p e r method f o r a t t a c k i n g t h e g r a n t o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e A & B T r a n s p . , I n c . , 8 So. 3d 924, 931 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . 'In g e n e r a l , t h e d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t o r t o deny a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o ... R u l e 60 i s w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d ... u n l e s s t h e t r i a l c o u r t [exceeded] i t s d i s c r e t i o n . ' Comalander v. S p o t t s w o o d , 846 So. 2d 1086, 1090 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . However, ' [ a ] p a r t y s e e k i n g r e l i e f must b o t h a l l e g e and p r o v e one o f t h e g r o u n d s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 60 i n o r d e r t o be g r a n t e d r e l i e f u n d e r t h a t r u l e . ' Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n R e s . I n s . Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995). Thus, where a 'Rule 60(b) m o t i o n o f f e r [ s ] no p r o p e r b a s i s f o r g r a n t i n g r e l i e f f r o m the j u d g m e n t , ... t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g o f t h a t motion [exceeds i t s ] d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 681 So. 2d 1047, 1050 ( A l a . 1996)." Ex p a r t e W a l l a c e , J o r d a n , R a t l i f f 175, 177-78 ( A l a . 2009). 28 & B r a n d t , L.L.C., 29 So. 3d 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 III. A. We first granting address Stewart and The Analysis First whether the Action the trial Foundation's p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. court motion C i v . P. to the Monsanto litigation and Joyner jurisdiction e n t e r e d a l l orders i n the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n i n Etowah County, the Etowah C i r c u i t has jurisdiction trust. over Moreover, properly filed litigation a l l matters related t o the B a t e s and J o y n e r a r g u e , t h e i r as an action independent because the causes of a c t i o n of also argue jurisdiction settlement complaint in that the agreement f o r an Etowah C i r c u i t the trial Monsanto did not litigation accounting of the Abernathy the was Monsanto they a s s e r t e d arose court's preclude Court complaint a f t e r the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n had been c o n c l u d e d . Joyner in dismiss B a t e s and c o n t e n d t h a t because the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t had over erred to them Abernathy Bates and retention of enforce the from filing trust in a the Court. S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n a r g u e t h a t when a t r i a l court p r e s i d e s o v e r t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f a c a s e and r e s e r v e s c o n t i n u i n g jurisdiction o v e r t h e s e t t l e m e n t , as t h e t r i a l 29 court d i d i n 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n , independent settlement must be dismissed Stewart and t h e F o u n d a t i o n action Bates and impermissible 888 National independent that jurisdiction. in filing attempted to the file such an Monsanto Insurance Life 2d 478 ( A l a . 2003), Insurance outside first the So. action of R e l y i n g on Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l litigation. Co., f o r lack contend Joyner actions challenging the a n d Solomon Co., 953 So. 2d 1211 v. Liberty ( A l a . 2006), S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n argue t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y dismissed the first action f o r lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s s u e d L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l i n t h e Choctaw C i r c u i t C o u r t . of a class (Ala. A l l t h e p l a i n t i f f s were members c e r t i f i e d i n Adams v. R o b e r t s o n , 676 So. 2d 1265 1995), a c l a s s a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e Barbour C i r c u i t t h a t i n v o l v e d o v e r 400,000 p l a i n t i f f s who h a d p u r c h a s e d i n s u r a n c e from L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e case was trial I n s u r a n c e Company. court approved The modified settlement, a n d t h e j u d g m e n t was a f f i r m e d b y t h i s Court i n Robertson. The t r i a l i n which the cancer a provision settled, Court court's order contained the following the trial 30 court retained continuing 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 jurisdiction settlement over and matters "relating the enforcement of t h a t to" the Robertson settlement. "[The Barbour C i r c u i t Court r e t a i n e d ] c o n t i n u i n g jurisdiction over a l l matters relating to the S e t t l e m e n t or the consummation of the Settlement; t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e S e t t l e m e n t ; t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e S e t t l e m e n t and any o r d e r s e n t e r e d pursuant thereto; ... and a l l other matters p e r t a i n i n g to the Settlement or i t s implementation and e n f o r c e m e n t . " Robertson, attached County 676 So. 2d a t 1307 to o p i n i o n ) . This (quoting the t r i a l c o u r t ' s Court a c t i o n i n v o l v e d matters settlement action and sought settlement i t s enforcement to t h a t had attack concluded "relating and several that aspects t h a t the to" the of the Choctaw Robertson Choctaw the order County Robertson been l i t i g a t e d a t a f a i r n e s s h e a r i n g t h a t had b e e n a p p r o v e d by t h e t r i a l court. The Court h e l d follows: "This type of collateral attack is not p e r m i t t e d . The b o u n d a r y l i n e s b e t w e e n c o u r t s o f concurrent jurisdiction must be preserved. '"'[W]here two c o u r t s have e q u a l and concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e c o u r t t h a t f i r s t commences t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a m a t t e r has the preference and i s n o t t o be o b s t r u c t e d i n the l e g i t i m a t e e x e r c i s e o f i t s p o w e r s by a c o u r t o f coordinate j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' " ' Ex p a r t e F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f J a s p e r , 717 So. 2d 342, 350 (Ala. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 631 So. 2d 865, 867 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e S t a t e ex r e l . U s s e r y , 285 A l a . 279, 281, 231 So. 2d 314, 315 (1970))." 31 and as 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 Liberty National, 888 So. 2d at 481. The Liberty C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e Choctaw C o u n t y a c t i o n was "to attack the collaterally Robertson Circuit Robertson In settlement," Court plaintiffs' i n another c i r c u i t court did action, i d . , and not have which was with Solomon, The the subclass that jurisdiction in essence an an attempt portions the to of Choctaw hear attack on the the settlement. the same p l a i n t i f f s who C o u n t y a c t i o n f i l e d an i d e n t i c a l Court. held National trial court i n R o b e r t s o n , and a settlement of the Choctaw a c t i o n i n the Barbour consolidated Robertson a c t i o n , f i l e d the the Circuit newly f i l e d action d e s i g n a t e d t h e s e p l a i n t i f f s as a e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment a p p r o v i n g subclass's claims. This Court held: "[T]he t r i a l court's sua sponte 'consolidation' order did not change t h e status of case no. CV-03-137 [the newly filed action] from an independent a c t i o n to a p r o p e r l y brought a c t i o n within the Barbour Circuit Court's continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r c a s e no. CV-92-021 [Robertson]. Consequently, the trial court did not have 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 o v e r c a s e no. CV-03-137, and i t s o r d e r o f c o n s o l i d a t i o n was v o i d indeed, any a c t i o n i t t o o k i n c a s e no. CV-03-137, o t h e r t h a n a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c l a i m s , was v o i d . " 953 So. 2d a t 1222. A f t e r reviewing well as the other Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l and authority 32 cited by Solomon, as Stewart and the 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 Foundation, we jurisdiction conclude that the r e s e r v a t i o n of c o n t i n u i n g t o e n f o r c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e M o n s a n t o l i t i g a t i o n p r e c l u d e s t h e c l a i m s a d d e d by Bates and J o y n e r request does i n their first amended c o m p l a i n t and f o r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s , not preclude Abernathy This their request f o r an their but i t accounting of the trust. Court discussed subject-matter p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536 jurisdiction i n Ex ( A l a . 2006): " J u r i s d i c t i o n i s '[a] c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e a case or i s s u e a decree.' B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 867 (8th ed. 2004) . Subject-matter jurisdiction c o n c e r n s a c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e c e r t a i n t y p e s o f cases. W o o l f v. McGaugh, 175 A l a . 299, 303, 57 So. 754, 755 (1911) ('"By jurisdiction over the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s meant t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n and o f t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t . " ' ( q u o t i n g Cooper v. R e y n o l d s , 77 U.S. (10 W a l l . ) 308, 316, ( 1 8 7 0 ) ) ) . T h a t power i s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e A l a b a m a Code. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o t t o n , 535 U.S. 625, 630-31 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court's 'statutory or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power' t o a d j u d i c a t e a c a s e ) . " 946 So. 2d a t 538. In Alabama, jurisdiction by law." a circuit court "shall exercise i n a l l c a s e s e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e § 142(b), A l a . Const. of 1901 general provided ( O f f . Recomp.). S e c t i o n 19-3B-203, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , 33 1100063; 1101452; "the c i r c u i t in this 1101456 c o u r t has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f p r o c e e d i n g s s t a t e b r o u g h t by a t r u s t e e o r b e n e f i c i a r y the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a t r u s t . " concerning Pursuant t o § 19-3B-205(a), Ala. Code 1975, "upon p e t i t i o n o f an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , a c o u r t may o r d e r a t r u s t e e t o r e n d e r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e t r u s t e e ' s administration Abernathy parties of a trust, who had trust Bates the and right accounting of the Abernathy that the t r i a l request for " As Joyner beneficiaries clearly to bring trust. an We are action conclude, of the interested seeking therefore, c o u r t had 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 over the an accounting d i s m i s s a l o f t h a t c l a i m was of the Abernathy trust; r e v e r s e d as t o B a t e s and J o y n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e A b e r n a t h y the case with this i s remanded opinion. its error. The j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l i s h e r e b y and an f o r further proceedings trust, consistent As t o t h e o t h e r c l a i m s a l l e g e d by Bates and J o y n e r c o n c e r n i n g m a t t e r s o t h e r t h a n t h e a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e Abernathy t r u s t , t h o s e c l a i m s must be b r o u g h t i n t h e M o n s a n t o l i t i g a t i o n , and we a f f i r m t h e E t o w a h C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c a s e as t o a l l c l a i m s o t h e r t h a n t h e a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e Abernathy trust. 34 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 B e c a u s e we have r e s o l v e d t h e a p p e a l i n t h e f i r s t based on Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , we a r g u m e n t s as t o t h i s action pretermit the p a r t i e s ' other appeal. B. The S e c o n d A c t i o n The Adams p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n be d i s m i s s e d because, they argue, a p p e a l e d from a n o n f i n a l judgment. Stewart injunctive proper. Kappa i n nature This Court addressed Sigma 689-90 and t h a t , Fraternity ( A l a . 2009). v. i s d e f i n e d as preventing an a c t i o n . ' " e d . 1999).) Sigma commanded Court h e l d that even though The argue 22 a n d S e p t e m b e r 9 a r e therefore, a similar their appeal i s o r d e r and a p p e a l i n Price-Williams, 40 So. "'[a] court order 3d 683, commanding ( Q u o t i n g B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y Because t h e t r i a l the p a r t i e s court's order t o take i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n specific court's August 22 or 788 i n Kappa action, this to consider the appeal, t h e o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m was n o t a f i n a l trial have The C o u r t i n Kappa Sigma n o t e d t h a t an injunction (7th and K a s o w i t z Stewart and K a s o w i t z t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r s of August should and commanded t h e t r u s t e e o f t h e A b e r n a t h y September t r u s t t o take judgment. 9 orders specific a c t i o n -- t o s t o p m a k i n g c e r t a i n p a y m e n t s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y t h e t r u s t and t o r e l e a s e c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . 35 Because t h e August 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 22 a n d September 9 o r d e r s c l e a r l y command t h e t r u s t e e t o t a k e action, we conclude that D a w k i n s v. W a l k e r , i t i s injunctive 794 So. 2d 333, 335 i n nature. ( A l a . 2001) . Rule 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , A l a . R. App. P., e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t s a p p e a l s orders "granting, continuing, modifying, See from refusing, or d i s s o l v i n g an i n j u n c t i o n , o r r e f u s i n g t o d i s s o l v e o r t o m o d i f y an injunction." consider August Therefore, t h i s the appeal mandamus second i n t h e second has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o action even 22 a n d S e p t e m b e r 9 o r d e r s a r e n o t f i n a l Nevertheless, of Court makes action our r e s o l u t i o n the issues moot, a n d t h a t appeal the judgments. of the p e t i t i o n raised though fora writ i n the appeal i n the i s t h e r e f o r e due t o be dismissed. C. The Mandamus 1. O r d e r S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z trial court to vacate Petition o f August first 22, 2011 ask t h i s Court t o d i r e c t the i t s order o f August 22, 2 0 1 1 . They contend t h a t t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e awarded i n t h e M o n s a n t o l i t i g a t i o n was s e t t l e d i n t h e f i n a l that litigation that d e s p i t e t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s ' their argument e n t e r e d i n 2003. differently, 36 the Stewart efforts Adams judgment i n and K a s o w i t z s a y to characterize plaintiffs are 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 challenging a f i n a l trial c o u r t had Kennels, Inc., quoted the 26, 33 no 646 judgment e n t e r e d i n 2003, a j u d g m e n t a u t h o r i t y to reopen. So. 2d 1343, f o l l o w i n g from 1347 United I n Helms v. the Helms' ( A l a . 1994), t h i s Court S t a t e s v. C i r a m i , 563 F.2d (2d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) : " ' [ L ] i t i g a t i o n must end somewhere, and we r e i t e r a t e our f i r m b e l i e f t h a t c o u r t s s h o u l d not encourage the reopening of f i n a l judgments or c a s u a l l y p e r m i t the relitigation of litigated issues out of a f r i e n d l i n e s s to c l a i m s of u n f o r t u n a t e f a i l u r e s t o p u t i n one's b e s t c a s e . ' " Stewart Ala. and Kasowitz R. P., nor allows Civ. the R u l e 60(b) trial the court contend trial to that court's reopen the neither Rule 60(b), "inherent authority" Monsanto litigation. states, in pertinent part: "On m o t i o n and upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , the c o u r t may r e l i e v e a p a r t y or the p a r t y ' s legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , or proceeding f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: (1) m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , or excusable n e g l e c t ; (2) n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e ... ; (3) f r a u d ... ; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) t h e j u d g m e n t has b e e n s a t i s f i e d , r e l e a s e d , o r d i s c h a r g e d ... ; o r (6) any o t h e r reason j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f from the o p e r a t i o n of the judgment. The m o t i o n s h a l l be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , and f o r r e a s o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , and ( 3 ) , n o t more t h a n f o u r (4) months a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was e n t e r e d o r t a k e n . A m o t i o n under t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n does not a f f e c t the f i n a l i t y of a judgment or suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . " 37 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 (Emphasis added.) The Adams p l a i n t i f f s argue that the t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y reopened t h e judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60(b)(6) because, they say, they p r o v e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f " e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s imposing extreme i n j u s t i c e . " based on t h e i r into signing contention that the settlement T h e i r argument i s t h e y were m i s l e d o r c o e r c e d agreements i n the Monsanto litigation. Stewart and K a s o w i t z argument t h a t t h e y were c o n t e n d t h a t t h e Adams coerced or misled into plaintiffs' signing the s e t t l e m e n t agreements i s unsupported, i s w i t h o u t m e r i t , and i s u n t i m e l y b e c a u s e i t i s an a t t a c k on a f i n a l eight years action. before t h e Adams' p l a i n t i f f s judgment e n t e r e d filed the S t e w a r t a n d K a s o w i t z deny t h a t t h e Adams were m i s l e d o r c o e r c e d i n t o s i g n i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t but they argue that, even i f those t h i n g s were p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Adams plaintiffs agreements, true, I f the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e y were c o e r c e d o r m i s l e d i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a motion brought under s u b s e c t i o n s ( 1 ) , or (3) o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , a f o u r - m o n t h challenge "reasonable under no plaintiffs because of the c l e a r time l i m i t a t i o n s i n Rule 60(b). Adams p l a i n t i f f s ' second Rule time." 60(b)(6) d e a d l i n e c o n t r o l s , a n d any must be According t o Stewart 38 (2), brought within a and K a s o w i t z , t h e 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 Adams p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t f i l e t h e i r m o t i o n w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e o r show a n y e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t w o u l d justified r e o p e n i n g t h e 2003 j u d g m e n t . Rule brought have 60(b) r e q u i r e s within that any R u l e 60(b) motion time." Stewart a "reasonable must be and K a s o w i t z m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e t i m e l i m i t w i t h i n w h i c h t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s could have exceeded. finality filed a Rule 60(b) m o t i o n has l o n g since been Stewart and K a s o w i t z argue t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e o f a judgment, Rule 60(b)(6) motion, "the reason f o r delay" i n f i l i n g "the p r a c t i c a l a b i l i t y t o learn a earlier of t h e g r o u n d s " upon w h i c h e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e l i e f i s s o u g h t , a n d t h e p r e j u d i c e t o t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s a l l w e i g h a g a i n s t t h e Adams plaintiffs' attempts t o reopen t h e 2003 judgment. See Ex p a r t e H i c k s , 67 So. 3d 877, 880 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . Stewart and K a s o w i t z a l s o argue t h a t t h e t r i a l no inherent authority t o reopen t h e 2003 c o u r t had judgment. r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e 2003 j u d g m e n t r e s e r v e s t o t h e t r i a l the authority t o oversee the enforcement agreement; however, t h e y argue, the trial rights after court to alter t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . 39 court of the settlement that authority d i dnot allow t h e judgment g r a n t e d by t h e judgment, They or t o modify especially not eight vested years H e l m s , 646 So. 2d a t 1347. 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z contend t h a t r e o p e n i n g t h e judgment f o r a r e v i e w o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e and expenses, payments t h e t r u s t e e o f t h e A b e r n a t h y make f o r medical as w e l l a s f r e e z i n g t r u s t was o b l i g a t e d t o and e d u c a t i o n a l expenses, i s an improper m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e 2003 j u d g m e n t . Finally, should d i r e c t August showing, and K a s o w i t z the t r i a l 22 o r d e r Abernathy the Stewart maintain that court to vacate that portion unsealing certain trust, this including an records Court of i t s relating to the firm's report accounting among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e names o f t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f Abernathy trust, the PCB-related p a y m e n t s made f r o m t h e A b e r n a t h y trust. illnesses, and t h e Stewart and K a s o w i t z argue t h a t u n s e a l i n g those r e c o r d s w i l l d i s c l o s e t o t h e p u b l i c confidential medical and f i n a n c i a l the Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s . the t r i a l information relating to S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z a l s o argue that c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y f r o z e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s t o be made from t h e Abernathy trust. I t i s c l e a r t o t h i s Court that the t r i a l a u t h o r i t y under Rule 60(b) t o reopen court lacked the the f i n a l 2003 j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o r e o p e n i t was b r o u g h t f a r b e y o n d a reasonable time. T h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d t h e 40 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 elements that a r e used t o determine purposes a reasonable time f o r o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n : "'What c o n s t i t u t e s a " r e a s o n a b l e t i m e " d e p e n d s on t h e f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e , t a k i n g into consideration the interest of f i n a l i t y , the reason f o r the delay, the p r a c t i c a l a b i l i t y t o learn e a r l i e r of the g r o u n d s r e l i e d upon, a n d t h e p r e j u d i c e t o o t h e r p a r t i e s . Adams v. F a r l o w , 516 So. 2d 528 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 485 U.S. 1010 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d o c t r i n e o f laches, which denies e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f to one guilty of unconscionable delay in a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m , a p p l i e s t o R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n s . W a l d r o p v. W a l d r o p , 395 So. 2d 62 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) .' "Ex p a r t e W.J., 622 So. 2d 358, 361 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . " Hicks, 67 So. 3d a t 880. A f t e r reviewing the facts of t h i s case and t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e elements t h a t d e t e r m i n e a reasonable time f o r purposes of a Rule c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s w i t h i n a reasonable time. cases filing i n which of a a period Rule conclude d i dnot f i l e Moreover, that their we motion t h i s C o u r t h a s f o u n d no o f more t h a n 60(b) m o t i o n 60(b) motion, was the t r i a l eight years deemed Therefore, we court discretion i n r e o p e n i n g t h e 2003 j u d g m e n t . f o rthe reasonable. exceeded i t s Because t h a t t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t f i l e t h e i r R u l e 60(b) we hold motion w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , we n e e d n o t r e a c h t h e i r a r g u m e n t i n 41 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 that motion t h a t they proved e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances justified The that t h e i r attempt t o reopen t h e judgment. Adams properly the t r i a l court r e o p e n e d t h e 2003 j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l court presided fairness that plaintiffs over hearing also argue t h e Monsanto when i t entered that litigation d i d not hold t h e judgment a i n 2003 a n d b e c a u s e t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e a w a r d i n t h e M o n s a n t o l i t i g a t i o n was approved before factors this determining and the t r i a l Court has court took held should the reasonableness Kasowitz into account be a l l the considered o f an a t t o r n e y fee. p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s Stewart are asking that the court apply procedures a p p l i c a b l e only i n a action class setting action. and t h a t t h e Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n 5 The c l a s s - a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s Ala. R. C i v . P., t h e y that there action i n a case t h a t to hold a "fairness hearing" the case. adequately Those c o n c e p t s class- was n e v e r a i n Rule are not a p p l i c a b l e . i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h e named p l a i n t i f f in argue, in We 23, agree i s not a c l a s s or t o determine whether represented the other p a r t i e s are l i m i t e d to class actions. S e e Ex p a r t e M o n s a n t o Co., 862 So. 2d 595, 599 ( A l a . 2003) ("The t r i a l c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e t h r e e a c t i o n s ; t h e r e are c u r r e n t l y over 3,500 p l a i n t i f f s i n the c o n s o l i d a t e d action. T h i s case i s n o t a c l a s s a c t i o n . " (emphasis added)). 5 42 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 This Court has i d e n t i f i e d 12 c r i t e r i a a trial court should c o n s i d e r when d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r an a t t o r n e y f e e i s r e a s o n a b l e . See Pharmacia Corp., trial 915 So. 2d a t 552-53. Even t h o u g h t h e court d i d not d i s c u s s the elements of the a t t o r n e y fee approved i n 2003, reasonable and the court approved held the that the attorney portion of the f e e was settlement a g r e e m e n t a w a r d i n g a 40% a t t o r n e y f e e t o S t e w a r t a n d K a s o w i t z . In 2004, the t r i a l reconfirmed attorney fees challenge trial reasonable. i t s holding that the t h a t h o l d i n g now. The were court I t i s f a r too late to c o u r t i n t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n a l s o r e l i e d on i t s i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y d e r i v e d from t h e c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o enforce in the settlement t h e 2003 agreement r e s e r v e d by t h e t r i a l judgment. continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n However, the sole to enforce the settlement of that agreement d i d not g i v e the t r i a l c o u r t a u t h o r i t y beyond e n f o r c i n g t h e settlement. continuing ensure that The trial jurisdiction the trust court has t h e a u t h o r i t y under i t s t o examine was the Abernathy established g u i d e l i n e s s e t out i n the settlement Any purpose court according trust to to the a g r e e m e n t , b u t no more. e f f o r t s b y t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s t o o b t a i n an a c c o u n t i n g o f 43 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e t r u s t must be b r o u g h t u n d e r § 19-3B205, s u b j e c t t o t h e venue p r o v i s i o n s i n § 19-3B-204. The trial court c l e a r l y exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n in i t s A u g u s t 22 o r d e r when i t r e o p e n e d a f i n a l j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d more than eight years reasonableness before, of judgment, o r d e r e d the scheduled a award attorney-fee hearing in t h a t n o t i c e of the h e a r i n g on the that on t h e 2003 attorney f e e s be m a i l e d t o a l l t h e M o n s a n t o p l a i n t i f f s , delved into administration the of the Abernathy trust for r e v i e w i n g c l a i m s a l r e a d y p a i d or denied, ordered medical be public, and and financial information froze distributions the e x t e n t the t r i a l to accordance with h o w e v e r , t h e o r d e r was enforce We writ terms therefore grant to the from the Abernathy t r u s t . of the settlement w i t h i n the t r i a l the terms of the o f mandamus as to c o u r t ' s o r d e r seeks t o examine the the settlement S t e w a r t and To trust established agreement, court's a u t h o r i t y to agreement. Kasowitz's a l l portions except t h a t p o r t i o n i n which the t r i a l of the petition for a August 22 c o u r t sought t o order review t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t d o c u m e n t s t o see i f t h e y c o m p o r t w i t h 44 of confidential released d o c u m e n t s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was in purpose the the 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 terms o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement, a n d we d i r e c t the t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e a l l o t h e r p o r t i o n s o f i t s A u g u s t 22 o r d e r . 2. O r d e r At orally o f S e p t e m b e r 9, 2011 t h e h e a r i n g on September denied Stewart 9, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l and K a s o w i t z ' s motion court to vacate the o r d e r o f A u g u s t 22 a n d t h e i r m o t i o n t o s t a y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n the trial court pending an a p p e a l . granted the requested r e l i e f writ Because this Court has by g r a n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n o f mandamus as t o most p o r t i o n s f o ra o f t h e A u g u s t 22 o r d e r and h a s s t a y e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e t r i a l court pending the r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e s e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , we n e e d n o t f u r t h e r a d d r e s s t h e September 9 o r d e r . 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n s f r o m t h e A b e r n a t h y Finally, court's Abernathy that t h i s Court notes that i n a d d i t i o n t o the t r i a l order freezing trust, Stewart certain distributions the intervenors i n the f i r s t and K a s o w i t z from t h e Abernathy are Trust trust. had stopped making from action the alleged distributions The C o u r t t a k e s n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e c h i l d r e n a n d a d u l t s who a r e l i k e l y g o i n g w i t h o u t m e d i c a l c a r e o r e d u c a t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e w h i l e t h e s e c a s e s have b e e n i n this Court. On remand of the f i r s t action i n a p p e a l no. 1100063 a n d upon t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e w r i t o f mandamus i n c a s e 45 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 no. 1101452, b o t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d S t e w a r t a n d K a s o w i t z a r e d i r e c t e d to immediately l i f t the Abernathy to any f r e e z e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n s t r u s t and t o r e s t o r e t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f b e n e f i t s t h e e l i g i b l e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s w i t h t h e utmost IV. As from to the f i r s t speed. Conclusion action, we reverse t h e judgment of d i s m i s s a l as t o B a t e s a n d J o y n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a c c o u n t i n g of t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t ; a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l as t o all o t h e r c l a i m s ; a n d remand t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r consistent with this opinion. d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s moot. grant the p e t i t i o n of the August of the Abernathy the proceedings As t o t h e second action, we A s t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , we f o r a w r i t o f mandamus as t o a l l p o r t i o n s 22 o r d e r e x c e p t t h a t p o r t i o n t h a t s e e k s a r e v i e w t r u s t d o c u m e n t s a s compared t o t h e t e r m s o f s e t t l e m e n t agreement, a n d we issue the w r i t . We also d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and Stewart and K a s o w i t z t o i m m e d i a t e l y lift any f r e e z e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n s 1100063--AFFIRMED IN PART; from t h e Abernathy REVERSED IN trust. PART; AND REMANDED. 1101452--PETITION GRANTED WRIT ISSUED. 46 IN PART AND DENIED I N PART; 1100063; 1101452; 1101456 1101456-APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT. Malone, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , and W i s e , J J . , c o n c u r . 47 Stuart, Bolin, P a r k e r , Shaw,
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.
