Vest v. Vest
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.
Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision that denied her second petition for a writ of mandamus in a child-custody matter. The Supreme Court granted Jennifer's petition to examine the rationale applied by the Court of Civil Appeals, which appeared to be premised upon a perceived conflict between Ala. Code 1975, section 6-5-440 and Ala. Code 1975, section 30-3-5. Jennifer argued on appeal that the Court of Civil Appeals' rationale conflicted with the mandate of 6-5-440: it did not follow from the principle that venue in child-custody-modification proceedings could be waived and that a forum-shopping parent could "file a postdivorce proceeding in an improper venue and thereby bar the other former spouse from filing a postdivorce proceeding in the proper venue," because the respondent parent could always object in his or her first responsive pleading in the court in which venue is alleged to be improper. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded this case for further consideration of 6-5-440 and any other arguments that may have been pretermitted by the Court of Civil Appeals' analysis.
Download PDF
REL:9/14/12 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 _________________________ 1110192 _________________________ Ex parte Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Ex parte Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) (In re: Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) v. David Jeremy Vest)) (Elmore Circuit Court, DR-01-492.02; Court of Civil Appeals, 2100647) MALONE, Chief Justice. 1110192 Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) petitioned this Court for certiorari review of the decision of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denying her second petition mandamus in a child-custody matter. for a writ of We granted Jennifer's petition to examine the rationale applied by the Court of Civil Appeals, which appeared to be premised upon a perceived conflict between Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-440, Alabama's abatement statute, and Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3-5, the statute providing for venue in proceedings seeking modification of child-custody and child-support orders. this Court that the Court of Civil Jennifer argues to Appeals' rationale conflicts with the mandate of § 6-5-440. In Ex parte Vest, [Ms. 2100647, Sept. 2, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), the Court of Civil Appeals examined what it apparently perceived as tension between §§ 6-5-440 and 30-3-5. The court held, in pertinent part: "[I]n arguing that § 6-5-440 bars the father's postdivorce proceeding because she had previously filed a postdivorce proceeding in the Mobile Circuit Court, the mother is asking this court to hold that one former spouse may race to the courthouse and file a postdivorce proceeding in an improper venue and thereby bar the other former spouse from filing a postdivorce proceeding in the proper venue. The mother has cited no binding precedent that dictates that result. Moreover, if we were to hold that § 2 1110192 6-5-440 dictates such a result, we would be encouraging former spouses to race to the courthouse and forum shop. Consequently, we hold that, under the particular circumstances of this case, § 6-5-440 does not bar the father's postdivorce proceeding in the Elmore Circuit Court." Vest, ___ So. 3d at ___. We reject the race-to-the-courthouse rationale announced by the Court of Civil Appeals in Vest. Venue in a child-custody-modification action can be waived. See, e.g., S.D.F. v. A.K., 875 So. 2d 326, 327-28 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) ongoing (holding that the custody-modification mother had proceedings waived of referring by venue to future proceedings, but not to the proceedings then pending, in objecting to venue); Russey v. Dunlap, 532 So. 2d 630 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) (reversing a trial court's sua sponte dismissal of a child-support-modification action and further determining that the father had waived objections to venue in that court). It does not follow from the principle that venue in child-custody-modification proceedings can be waived that a forum-shopping parent can "file a postdivorce proceeding in an improper venue and thereby bar the other former spouse from filing a postdivorce proceeding in the proper venue," Vest, ___ So. 3d at ___, because the respondent parent can always 3 1110192 object to venue in his or her first responsive pleading in the court in which venue is alleged to be improper. Nor does the requirement that a party object immediately to venue or waive the venue issue constitute a trap for the unwary, because Rule 12, Ala. R. Civ. P., has long provided that a defense of improper venue can be waived if omitted from the first responsive pleading. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand this cause to that court for further consideration of § 6-5-440 and any other arguments that may have been pretermitted by the Court of Civil Appeals' analysis. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Woodall, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, and Main, JJ., concur. Stuart, Murdock, and Wise, JJ., concur specially. 4 1110192 STUART, Justice (concurring specially). The main opinion and Justice Murdock's special concurrence address principles relating to venue in a childcustody-modification proceeding; I write to note an additional principle. Alabama's abatement statute, § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, must be timely raised as a defense to a second-filed action or it is waived. Section 6-5-440 provides: "No plaintiff is entitled to prosecute two actions in the courts of this state at the same time for the same cause and against the same party. In such a case the defendant may require the plaintiff to elect which he will prosecute, if commenced simultaneously, and the pendency of the former is a good defense to the latter if commenced at different times." This Court noted in Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Campbell, 24 So. 3d 435, 437 n.2 (Ala. 2009), that § 6-5-440 is not jurisdictional: "'[Section 6-5-440] does not provide that the trial court "is deprived of" jurisdiction over the second-filed action, or that the second-filed action "is void." Instead, § 6-5-440 provides that when two actions are commenced at different times, the pendency of the first-filed action "is a good defense" to the second-filed action. Thus, a defendant must raise the first-filed action as a defense in a motion to dismiss.'" (Quoting First Tennessee Bank, N.A. v. Snell, 718 So. 2d 20, 27 (Ala. 1998) (See, J., concurring in the result).) 5 "'"[I]f 1110192 that defense is not raised by the defendant in a motion to dismiss, ... it is waived."'" Perdue v. Green, [Ms. 1101337, March 16, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ n.4 (Ala. 2012) (quoting Regions Bank v. Reed, 60 So. 3d 868, 884 (Ala. 2010), quoting in turn Veteto v. Yocum, 793 So. 2d 814, 815 n. 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)). 6 1110192 MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). The main opinion notes two corollary principles in its analysis: "Venue in a child-custody-modification action can be waived" and "the respondent parent can always object to venue in his or her first responsive pleading in [a] court in which venue is alleged to be improper." ___ So. 3d at ___. I write separately to emphasize that the reason for these statements in the main opinion is solely to explain how and why it is that Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-440, Alabama's abatement statute, and Alabama statutes and rules of procedure pertaining to venue and objections to venue do not necessitate a "race to the courthouse." Section 6-5-440 does not require some inquiry into whether an otherwise valid objection to the venue of an earlier filed action has or has not been waived in that earlier action. Why that earlier action may remain pending is between the parties and the court in that action; it is not a matter to be inquired into by the court in the later filed action. called upon or All the court in the later action is authorized to do under § 6-5-440 is to ascertain whether there is pending, for whatever reason, in another court of this state an earlier filed "action ... for 7 1110192 the same cause." So. 2d 1286 See also Ex parte Norfolk Southern Ry., 992 (Ala. 2008) (holding that a party with a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier filed action constitutes a "plaintiff" in that action for purposes of § 6-5-440). If there is, then, under the terms of § 6-5-440, the later filed action must be dismissed. Wise, J., concurs. 8
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.
