Forney L. McMichael v. Ronda McMichael

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/8/11 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 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090099 Forney L. McMichael v. Ronda McMichael Appeal from T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court (DR-09-331 and DR-09-331.01) BRYAN, J u d g e . Forney Talladega L. McMichael 3d from an order C i r c u i t C o u r t f i n d i n g h i m i n c o n t e m p t . We I n Ex p a r t e M c M i c h a e l , So. appeals , of the affirm. [Ms. 1090150, S e p t . 24, 2010] ( A l a . 2010), t h e supreme c o u r t recited the 2090099 f a c t u a l and p r o c e d u r a l background o f t h i s appeal: "On A u g u s t 14, 2009, F o r n e y M c M i c h a e l f i l e d i n the Calhoun C i r c u i t Court a complaint f o r a d i v o r c e , seeking to terminate h i s marriage to Ronda McMichael. I n t h e d i v o r c e c o m p l a i n t , Forney sought, among o t h e r t h i n g s , a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g h i m ' a l l r i g h t , t i t l e a n d i n t e r e s t ' i n 'MACS VACS L L C ' ('the L L C ' ) , a b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d i n C a l h o u n C o u n t y . The parties own t h e LLC j o i n t l y with right of survivorship. "The C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d an ex p a r t e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r ('the C a l h o u n TRO'). I n t h e C a l h o u n TRO, t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t ' [ F o r n e y ] , a n d the a s s e t s s u b j e c t t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court, particularly [ t h e ] LLC, and t h e p a r t i e s ' real p r o p e r t y a n d homes ... , may s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e harm w i t h o u t t h e e n t r y o f t h i s O r d e r ' and o r d e r e d , i n pertinent part: " ' 1 . T h a t t h e p a r t i e s be a n d a r e r e s t r a i n e d from d i s p o s i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g , s p e n d i n g , g i v i n g away, o r s e c r e t i n g any p r o p e r t y , w h e t h e r s u c h p r o p e r t y be r e a l , p e r s o n a l , or mixed, t a n g i b l e or i n t a n g i b l e , w h i c h may be s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Court, i n c l u d i n g b u t not l i m i t e d t o money a n d o t h e r l i q u i d f i n a n c i a l a s s e t s , books and r e c o r d s o f b u s i n e s s and p e r s o n a l assets and liabilities, records and s t a t e m e n t s from banks and o t h e r f i n a n c i a l institutions; "'2. That the parties are not r e s t r a i n e d f r o m t h e payment o f r o u t i n e , r e a s o n a b l e , and n e c e s s a r y o r d i n a r y l i v i n g and business expenses b u t each must m a i n t a i n , o r have m a i n t a i n e d i n l e g i b l e form, w r i t t e n r e c o r d s o f such e x p e n d i t u r e s , s u c h r e c o r d s t o be made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y f o r c o p y i n g upon r e q u e s t . ' 2 2090099 "On A u g u s t 25, 2009, t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g Ronda's ' m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s or t r a n s f e r f o r improper v e n u e ' and t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e divorce action ' i n i t s e n t i r e t y ' to the Talladega C i r c u i t Court. "On A u g u s t 26, 2009 -- t h e d a y a f t e r t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t Court t r a n s f e r r e d the divorce a c t i o n t o the Talladega Circuit Court -Forney filed a declaratory-judgment a c t i o n i n the Calhoun C i r c u i t C o u r t , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t Ronda's ' d i s r u p t i v e b e h a v i o r and a c t i o n s , as w e l l as h e r b r e a c h e s o f h e r member's f i d u c i a r y d u t y , have c a u s e d t h e LLC ... damage[] t o its operation and b u s i n e s s . ' In the complaint, F o r n e y s o u g h t 'a d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s a n d d u t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s under t h e LLC's A r t i c l e s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n , O p e r a t i n g Agreement, and t h e L i m i t e d L i a b i l i t y Company A c t [ , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 10-12-1 e t s e q . ] . ' S p e c i f i c a l l y , F o r n e y s o u g h t an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he i s t h e ' s o l e manager' o f t h e L L C ; t h a t Ronda ' i s a member o f t h e L L C , b u t n o t t h e Manager o f [ t h e L L C ] ' ; a n d that '[Forney] and o n l y [Forney] can take t h e n e c e s s a r y and a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n ( s ) t o o p e r a t e t h e LLC.' "On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2009, t h e T a l l a d e g a Circuit C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n f i l e d b y Ronda s e e k i n g t o d i s s o l v e t h e C a l h o u n TRO. On September 28, 2009, t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court entered a consent order concerning various matters i n c l u d i n g m a t t e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e LLC. I n t h e consent o r d e r , t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t d i s s o l v e d t h e C a l h o u n TRO; s t a t e d t h a t F o r n e y w o u l d ' c o n t i n u e t o be t h e Manager of [the] LLC, accompanied w i t h t h e r i g h t s and d u t i e s as s t a t e d i n t h e O p e r a t i n g A g r e e m e n t o f [ t h e ] L L C ' ; and s t a t e d t h a t Ronda i n i t i a l l y w o u l d a s s i s t w i t h t h e p r e p a r a t i o n a n d f i l i n g o f t h e L L C ' s 2007 a n d 2008 f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e t a x r e t u r n s a n d t h e n 'assume a r o l e i n t h e s a l e s d i v i s i o n o f [ t h e ] L L C . ' The order f u r t h e r provided, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 3 2090099 "'2. The p a r t i e s be and a r e r e s t r a i n e d from d i s p o s i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g , spending, g i v i n g away, o r s e c r e t i n g any p r o p e r t y , w h e t h e r s u c h p r o p e r t y be r e a l , p e r s o n a l o r m i x e d , t a n g i b l e o r i n t a n g i b l e , w h i c h may be s u b j e c t to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o money and o t h e r l i q u i d f i n a n c i a l a s s e t s , b o o k s and r e c o r d s o f b u s i n e s s and p e r s o n a l a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s , r e c o r d s and s t a t e m e n t s from b a n k s and o t h e r f i n a n c i a l institutions, pendente l i t e . " ' 3 . The p a r t i e s a r e n o t r e s t r a i n e d f r o m t h e payment o f r o u t i n e , r e a s o n a b l e , and n e c e s s a r y o r d i n a r y l i v i n g and b u s i n e s s expenses but each must continue to m a i n t a i n , o r have m a i n t a i n e d i n l e g i b l e form, w r i t t e n r e c o r d s of such e x p e n d i t u r e s , s u c h r e c o r d s t o be made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e other party f o r copying upon request, pendente l i t e . ' "On S e p t e m b e r 29, 2009, Ronda moved t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t Court to d i s m i s s or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , s t a y the declaratory-judgment a c t i o n ('motion t o d i s m i s s ' ) . I n t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , Ronda n o t e d t h a t t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t had e n t e r e d an o r d e r on S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, ' w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o p e r a t i o n of [ t h e ] LLC' and c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e declaratory-judgment action ' i s an attempt to circumvent the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the T a l l a d e g a County Circuit Court, which has properly exercised jurisdiction over [the LLC].' Ronda further contended that 'both Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction of ... [the] LLC, and Talladega [ C i r c u i t C o u r t ] has t h e s o l e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h i s matter'; thus, Ronda argued, 'this [ d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n ] must be d i s m i s s e d o r a t l e a s t s t a y e d . ' The C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r denying Ronda's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s on S e p t e m b e r 30, 2009. 4 2090099 "On O c t o b e r 1, 2009, t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n f i l e d b y F o r n e y s e e k i n g a pendente l i t e o r d e r . On O c t o b e r 2, 2009, t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r p r o v i d i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t F o r n e y i s t h e manager o f t h e LLC, w h i c h , t h e c o u r t n o t e d , ' i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Order e n t e r e d by consent i n t h e p a r t i e s ' d i v o r c e a c t i o n [ i n t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t ] ' ; t h a t , as manager o f t h e L L C , F o r n e y h a s ' t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a l l o w [Ronda] on t h e LLC b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s ... a n d t h e a u t h o r i t y t o t e l l h e r she c a n n o t come o n t o t h o s e p r e m i s e s o r must l e a v e t h o s e p r e m i s e s ' ; t h a t Ronda's d u t i e s i n t h e LLC's s a l e s d e p a r t m e n t 'do[] n o t r e q u i r e h e r p r e s e n c e on t h e LLC's p r e m i s e s ' ; a n d t h a t Ronda 'can come o n t o t h e b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s i f i n v i t e d b y t h e Manager, a n d she must l e a v e i f d i r e c t e d t o do so b y t h e Manager.' "The C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 2, 2009, o r d e r a l s o noted t h a t , d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s day's hearing, i t h a d d e n i e d Ronda's o r a l m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , i n w h i c h she a r g u e d t h a t ' t h e LLC does n o t e x i s t ' b e c a u s e , Ronda s a i d , t h e L L C ' s a r t i c l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n were i m p r o p e r l y f i l e d w i t h t h e P r o b a t e Judge o f C a l h o u n C o u n t y r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e P r o b a t e Judge o f T a l l a d e g a C o u n t y , w h i c h i s t h e c o u n t y where the registered agent f o r t h e LLC, Forney, i s l o c a t e d . I n the order, the Calhoun C i r c u i t Court stated: "'The C o u r t d e n i e d [Ronda's] M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s . A l a . Code [1975,] § 1 0 - 1 2 - 1 2 ( a ) [ , ] provides that an LLC's Articles of O r g a n i z a t i o n a r e t o be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e P r o b a t e Judge, and i f t h e p r o b a t e j u d g e finds that the a r t i c l e s of organization conform t o law, the probate judge s h a l l , pursuant to A l a . Code [1975,] § 1 0 - 1 2 - 1 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ , ] e n d o r s e on t h e a r t i c l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d on e a c h o f t h e c o p i e s t h e w o r d ' F i l e d ' w i t h t h e h o u r , d a y , month and y e a r o f f i l i n g , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 5 2090099 [1975,] § 1 0 - 1 2 - 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , f i l e t h e A r t i c l e s of Organization i n the o f f i c e of the p r o b a t e j u d g e a n d c e r t i f y t h e two c o p i e s . A l a . Code [1975,] § 1 0 - 1 2 - 1 4 ( a ) [ , ] p r o v i d e s t h a t "[U]pon t h e f i l i n g o f t h e a r t i c l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h the probate judge, the l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company's e x i s t e n c e s h a l l b e g i n . " Thus, i f t h e a r t i c l e s a r e f i l e d b y t h e p r o b a t e j u d g e , t h e LLC e x i s t s . The C o u r t has [ n o t ] f o u n d , n o r has c o u n s e l c i t e d the Court t o , anything i n the L i m i t e d Liability A c t [ , ] A l a . Code [1975,] § 10-12-1, e t s e q . [ , ] t h a t c a u s e s t h e L L C ' s e x i s t e n c e t o cease, or not b e g i n , i f the o r g a n i z e r s s u b m i t t h e wrong a d d r e s s f o r t h e r e g i s t e r e d o f f i c e a n d r e g i s t e r e d a g e n t . The s t a t u t o r y scheme r e q u i r e s s c r u t i n y b y t h e P r o b a t e Judge t o s e e t h a t t h e a r t i c l e s c o n f o r m t o l a w . I f t h e P r o b a t e Judge f a i l s t o c a t c h s u c h an e r r o r , n e v e r t h e l e s s t h e L L C ' s e x i s t e n c e b e g i n s when t h e P r o b a t e Judge stamps a n d f i l e s t h e A r t i c l e s o f Organization. A c c o r d i n g l y the Motion t o D i s m i s s was d e n i e d . The C o u r t a l s o n o t e s , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t [Ronda] w o u l d be e s t o p p e d t o deny t h e L L C ' s e x i s t e n c e when she s e e k s t h e C o u r t t o a p p o i n t h e r t o manage t h e LLC p e n d e n t e l i t e , that the parties would be estopped by their o p e r a t i o n as an LLC f o r y e a r s , t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a c q u i e s c e d t o t h e f i l i n g i n Calhoun County, t h a t b e i n g w i t h i n t h e c i t y limits of Oxford, which itself is in Calhoun County, i s a s u f f i c i e n t c o n n e c t i o n t o C a l h o u n C o u n t y , t h a t numerous f e d e r a l and state governmental entities have r e c o g n i z e d t h e LLC's e x i s t e n c e , and t h a t i t w o u l d be c h a o t i c f o r t h e C o u r t t o d e c l a r e a n u l l i t y an a s s e t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s a r e contesting i n their Talladega County divorce. If the Talladega County F a m i l y / C i r c u i t Court acquired j u r i s d i c t i o n 6 2090099 o v e r t h e LLC as m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o d i s t r i b u t i o n i n a Judgment o f D i v o r c e , i t w o u l d n o t be f o r t h i s C o u r t t o d e c l a r e t h a t asset a n u l l i t y . ' "On O c t o b e r 2, 2009, Ronda f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r r u l e n i s i i n the Talladega C i r c u i t Court, a l l e g i n g t h a t F o r n e y had v i o l a t e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Ronda a l l e g e d t h a t F o r n e y had v i o l a t e d t h e c o n s e n t o r d e r by ' t r a n s f e r r [ i n g ] $100,000 f r o m [an] ... LLC a c c o u n t and d e p o s i t [ i n g ] s a i d m o n i e s i n t o an a c c o u n t a t a b a n k i n g i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h o u t [Ronda's] c o n s e n t ' ; by ' i n s t r u c t [ i n g ] [Ronda] n o t t o come on the premises of [ t h e ] LLC'; and by a t t e m p t i n g t o have Ronda a r r e s t e d 'when she e n t e r e d the [LLC's] premises f o r work purposes.' The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t r e q u i r e F o r n e y t o a p p e a r and t o show c a u s e why he s h o u l d n o t be f o u n d i n c o n t e m p t of the consent o r d e r . "On O c t o b e r 5, 2009, t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g Ronda's p e t i t i o n f o r r u l e n i s i f o r a h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 6, 2009. F o r n e y f a i l e d t o a p p e a r f o r t h e h e a r i n g ; he c o n t e n d s t h a t he f a i l e d t o a p p e a r b e c a u s e he d i d n o t r e c e i v e p r o p e r n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g . I n any e v e n t , on O c t o b e r 8, 2009, t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r f i n d i n g F o r n e y i n c o n t e m p t o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court found t h a t Forney ' w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d and r e f u s e d t o a b i d e by t h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r by w i t h d r a w i n g $100,000 f r o m [ t h e L L C ' s ] a c c o u n t a t R e g i o n ' s Bank' and t h a t F o r n e y ' w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d and refused to abide by this Court's Order by i n s t r u c t i n g [Ronda] n o t t o come o n t o t h e p r e m i s e s o f [the LLC] on t h r e e (3) o c c a s i o n s ... and by s e e k i n g l a w e n f o r c e m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n t o e n f o r c e same.' 5 " F o r n e y moved t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t v a c a t e i t s O c t o b e r 8, 2009, o r d e r f i n d i n g him 7 to in 2090099 contempt of the consent o r d e r . In the motion, Forney a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court lacked subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e LLC, and, t h u s , F o r n e y a r g u e d , t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r f i n d i n g him i n c o n t e m p t f o r t r a n s f e r r i n g $100,000 f r o m t h e L L C ' s R e g i o n s Bank a c c o u n t i s v o i d . S p e c i f i c a l l y , F o r n e y a r g u e d that the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court, w h i l e p r e s i d i n g over the d i v o r c e a c t i o n , c o u l d not p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e 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 p r o p e r t y of the LLC, i . e . , t h e $100,000, b e c a u s e , F o r n e y s a i d , t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e LLC b e l o n g s n o t t o i t s members ( F o r n e y and Ronda) b u t t o t h e LLC i t s e l f . Forney claimed t h a t the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court a c q u i r e d subject-matter jurisdiction over the parties' 'membership i n t e r e s t [ s ] ' i n t h e LLC b u t n o t o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e LLC. I n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t , F o r n e y c i t e d A l a . Code 1975, § 1 0 - 1 2 - 2 3 ( b ) , w h i c h provides: " ' A l l property o r i g i n a l l y contributed to the limited liability company or subsequently acquired by a limited l i a b i l i t y company by p u r c h a s e o r o t h e r w i s e i s l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company p r o p e r t y . A member has no i n t e r e s t i n s p e c i f i c l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company p r o p e r t y . ' " R e l y i n g on § 1 0 - 1 2 - 2 3 ( b ) , F o r n e y c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court's consent order 'could not r e a c h ' t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e LLC. For a l l t h a t appears, Forney's motion to vacate the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 8, 2009, o r d e r f i n d i n g h i m i n c o n t e m p t o f t h e c o n s e n t o r d e r was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. "On O c t o b e r 9, 2009, Ronda f i l e d i n t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t a m o t i o n f o r a change o f v e n u e , seeking a transfer of the d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t action from the Calhoun Circuit Court t o the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court; i t appears t h a t the Calhoun C i r c u i t C o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h a t m o t i o n . 8 2090099 "The p a r t i e s f i l e d r e s p e c t i v e p e t i t i o n s f o r w r i t s o f mandamus i n t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s ; t h e Court of C i v i l Appeals t r a n s f e r r e d the p e t i t i o n s t o t h i s Court f o rl a c k of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . This Court stayed a l l proceedings i n both the Calhoun C i r c u i t Court and t h e T a l l a d e g a Circuit C o u r t p e n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n s o f t h e s e p e t i t i o n s . ... " F o r n e y ' s c o u n s e l , C h r i s t o p h e r M. H o p k i n s , was p r e s e n t a t t h e O c t o b e r 6, 2009, h e a r i n g . " 5 (Some f o o t n o t e s The supreme omitted.) court proceeded i n Ex p a r t e McMichael t o d e c i d e t h e m e r i t s o f Ronda's mandamus p e t i t i o n a n d t o t r a n s f e r Forney's mandamus p e t i t i o n Ronda's mandamus p e t i t i o n , to this court. With respect to t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "Ronda p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s i n h e r p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. F i r s t , she c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s Court s h o u l d i s s u e t h e w r i t and d i r e c t t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t Court t o r e s c i n d a l l orders regarding the o p e r a t i o n o f t h e L L C , t o make no f u r t h e r o r d e r s r e g a r d i n g i t s o p e r a t i o n , and t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n pending i n that court or stay the proceeding there pending r e s o l u t i o n of the divorce a c t i o n i n the Talladega Circuit Court. Specifically, Ronda contends t h a t , ' [ s ] i n c e t h e Talladega [Circuit] C o u r t h a s t h e powers t o e n t e r o r d e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e assets of the p a r t i e s t o the d i v o r c e a c t i o n , then i t s h o u l d a l s o e n t e r such o r d e r s over t h e p a r t i e s ' LLC, and n o t t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t . ' S e c o n d , Ronda c o n t e n d s t h a t , u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 10-12-9, an LLC 'does n o t come i n t o l e g a l e x i s t e n c e ' u n t i l i t s a r t i c l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n are f i l e d w i t h the probate judge o f t h e county i n which t h e r e g i s t e r e d agent o f t h e LLC i s l o c a t e d ; t h u s , Ronda s a y s , b e c a u s e t h e L L C ' s a r t i c l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n were n o t f i l e d i n t h e 9 2090099 county of Forney's residence ( T a l l a d e g a County) u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 30, 2009 the Calhoun Circuit C o u r t may n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e LLC. " A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h a t t h e r e i s no d i s p u t e as t o t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s 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 t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n o r as t o t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t Court's 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 d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n . Rather, the threshold issue f o r t h i s Court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s whether Forney may simultaneously maintain the d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t and the subsequently f i l e d declaratory-judgment a c t i o n i n t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t . Ronda c o n t e n d s i n h e r mandamus p e t i t i o n , as she d i d i n h e r m o t i o n to d i s m i s s the d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n , t h a t the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h was t h e f i r s t o f t h e two c o u r t s t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s e i s s u e s , i s the p r o p e r forum i n which t o r e s o l v e b o t h the divorce action and the issues raised in the declaratory-judgment action, i . e . , the parties' d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e management and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e LLC. We a g r e e . Co., " I n Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e Insurance 631 So. 2d 865 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "'"It i s uniformly held that where two o r more c o u r t s have c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e one which f i r s t takes cognizance of a c a u s e has t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o entertain and exercise such jurisdiction, to the final d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n and the enforcement of i t s judgment or decrees "'"... 'It is p r i n c i p l e t h a t when 10 a a familiar court of 2090099 c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n has become possessed of a case i t s a u t h o r i t y continues, subject only to the appellate a u t h o r i t y , u n t i l the matter i s f i n a l l y and c o m p l e t e l y disposed o f , a n d no c o u r t o f co-ordinate authority i s at liberty to interfere with i t s action ' "'"... ' A l l t h e a u t h o r i t i e s recognize the importance of c a r e f u l l y p r e s e r v i n g the boundary l i n e between c o u r t s o f c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n order to prevent conflicts, and t o p r e s e r v e i n harmony t h e i r r e l a t i o n s t o e a c h other.'" "'Ex p a r t e B u r c h , 236 A l a . 662, 665, 184 So. 694, 697 ( 1 9 3 8 ) . "'These p r i n c i p l e s have b e e n r e s t a t e d numerous t i m e s : " ' " [ W ] h e r e two c o u r t s have e q u a l and c o n c u r r e n t 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 exercise of 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 t h e p r e f e r e n c e a n d i s not 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 powers by a court of coordinate jurisdiction." "'Ex p a r t e S t a t e e x r e l . U s s e r y , 285 A l a . 279, 2 8 1 , 231 So. 2d 314, 315 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . "631 So. 2d a t 867. "In this case, the concurrent exercise of j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t and t h e 11 2090099 C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t has r e s u l t e d i n i n c o n s i s t e n t o r d e r s . The C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 2, 2009, o r d e r p r o v i d e s t h a t F o r n e y i s t h e manager o f t h e LLC and, as t h e manager, t h a t F o r n e y may, among o t h e r t h i n g s , r e f u s e Ronda e n t r y o n t o t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e LLC a n d o r d e r h e r t o l e a v e t h o s e p r e m i s e s . The Talladega Circuit Court's September 28, 2009, consent order a l s o provides t h a t Forney i s the manager o f t h e L L C ; h o w e v e r , i t does n o t a u t h o r i z e F o r n e y t o make d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g i f a n d when Ronda may e n t e r upon t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e L L C . As a r e s u l t , F o r n e y has b e e n f o u n d t o be i n c o n t e m p t o f t h e c o n s e n t o r d e r f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , i n s t r u c t i n g Ronda n o t t o come upon t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e L L C ; however, under t h e C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 2, 2009, o r d e r , i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e f o r F o r n e y t o e x c l u d e Ronda f r o m t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e L L C . T h i s i s the very type of c o n f l i c t the p r i n c i p l e s e t f o r t h i n t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d a u t h o r i t i e s s e e k s t o a v o i d . See 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 a t 867 ( ' " ' A l l the a u t h o r i t i e s recognize the importance of carefully p r e s e r v i n g t h e boundary line between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, i n order t o prevent c o n f l i c t s ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u r c h , 236 A l a . a t 665, 184 So. a t 697 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) ) . "We c o n c l u d e t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court initially e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , i t must be allowed t o pursue and e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o the e x c l u s i o n of a l l coordinate t r i b u n a l s ; thus, the Calhoun C i r c u i t Court e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Ronda's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i n s o f a r as i t denied the a l t e r n a t i v e r e l i e f requested i n the motion, namely, an order staying the declaratory-judgment a c t i o n pending r e s o l u t i o n of the d i v o r c e a c t i o n i n the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court. See 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., s u p r a ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e Murphy, 886 So. 2d 90, 94 ( A l a . 2003) ( ' " I t must be r e c o g n i z e d ... t h a t a l l m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o a m a r r i a g e may come w i t h i n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g i n e q u i t y when t h e p a r t i e s 12 2090099 submit themselves t o i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e f i l i n g of a s u i t f o r d i v o r c e . " ' ( q u o t i n g O l i v e r v. O l i v e r , 431 So. 2d 1271, 1276 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n Owens v . Owens, 281 A l a . 239, 201 So. 2d 396 (1967) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) ) . " A c c o r d i n g l y , Ronda's [mandamus] p e t i t i o n due t o be g r a n t e d as t o t h i s i s s u e . " So. 3d a t . The supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t i t d i d n o t have to review Forney's mandamus p e t i t i o n ... i s mandamus transferred that t o t h i s c o u r t , a n d h e l d t h a t we s h o u l d treat t h a t mandamus p e t i t i o n . As t h e supreme petition, jurisdiction as a t i m e l y f i l e d court appeal. s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e So. 3d a t McMichael: " F o r n e y p r e s e n t s s e v e n i s s u e s i n h i s mandamus petition; t h o s e i s s u e s c a n be c o m b i n e d i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g two i s s u e s : (1) Whether t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court 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 t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e LLC s u c h t h a t i t c o u l d p r o p e r l y f i n d F o r n e y i n c o n t e m p t o f i t s September 28, 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t r a n s f e r r i n g $100,000 f r o m an LLC bank a c c o u n t ; a n d (2) i f t h e Talladega Circuit C o u r t d i d have subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e LLC, whether the c o u r t e r r e d by f i n d i n g Forney i n contempt o f t h a t c o u r t ' s September 28, 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r . " So. 3d a t With Talladega . respect to the f i r s t Circuit Court issue, we had subject-matter f i n d Forney i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g 13 conclude that the jurisdiction to i t s S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, 2090099 c o n s e n t o r d e r . I n a d j u d i c a t i n g Ronda's mandamus p e t i t i o n i n Ex parte McMichael, t h e supreme court expressly held that the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court 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 LLC: "Ronda c o n t e n d s i n h e r mandamus p e t i t i o n , as she d i d i n her motion t o d i s m i s s the declaratory-judgment a c t i o n , t h a t t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h was t h e f i r s t o f t h e two c o u r t s t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n over [the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the declaratory-judgment a c t i o n ] , i s t h e p r o p e r forum i n which t o r e s o l v e b o t h t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n and t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e declaratory-judgment action, i . e . ,the parties' d i s p u t e c o n c e r n i n g t h e management a n d o p e r a t i o n o f the L L C . We So. 3d a t agree." . Moreover, t h e supreme c o u r t i m p l i c i t l y held t h a t t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r was a l a w f u l o r d e r : "In this case, the concurrent e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t and t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t C o u r t has r e s u l t e d i n i n c o n s i s t e n t o r d e r s . The C a l h o u n C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 2, 2009, o r d e r p r o v i d e s t h a t F o r n e y i s t h e manager o f t h e LLC and, as t h e manager, t h a t F o r n e y may, among o t h e r t h i n g s , r e f u s e Ronda e n t r y o n t o t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e LLC a n d o r d e r h e r t o l e a v e t h o s e p r e m i s e s . The Talladega Circuit Court's September 28, 2009, consent order a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t Forney i s the manager o f t h e L L C ; h o w e v e r , i t does n o t a u t h o r i z e F o r n e y t o make d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g i f a n d when Ronda may e n t e r upon t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e L L C . As a r e s u l t , F o r n e y h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be i n c o n t e m p t o f t h e c o n s e n t o r d e r f o r , among o t h e r t h i n g s , instructing Ronda n o t t o come upon t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e L L C ; however, under t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s October 14 2090099 2, 2009, o r d e r , i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e f o r F o r n e y t o e x c l u d e Ronda f r o m t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e LLC. T h i s i s the v e r y type of c o n f l i c t the p r i n c i p l e s e t f o r t h i n t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d a u t h o r i t i e s s e e k s t o a v o i d . See 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 a t 867 ( ' " ' A l l the a u t h o r i t i e s r e c o g n i z e the importance of carefully p r e s e r v i n g the boundary line between c o u r t s of concurrent jurisdiction, i n order to prevent c o n f l i c t s ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u r c h , 236 A l a . a t 665, 184 So. a t 697 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) ) . "We conclude t h a t , because the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court initially e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p a r t i e s and t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n , i t must be allowed to pursue and exercise i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n to the e x c l u s i o n of a l l c o o r d i n a t e tribunals " So. 3d at . We supreme c o u r t . See are bound ("The jurisdiction 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r was over the So. contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g 2d 747, 749 that order. (Ala. Civ. App. a l a w f u l o r d e r and to Talladega abide Circuit by i t s lawful Court had See 1986) i n h e r e n t power, a c o u r t o f r e c o r d may failure the Hall v. ("As part its the Forney Hall, of 485 its p u n i s h f o r contemptuous orders."). subject-matter 15 Circuit LLC, T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t had t h e i n h e r e n t power t o f i n d in of decisions " ) . Because the T a l l a d e g a subject-matter S e p t e m b e r 28, holdings s h a l l g o v e r n t h e h o l d i n g s and d e c i s i o n s of the c o u r t s of appeals had those § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1975 o f t h e Supreme C o u r t Court by Therefore, the jurisdiction to 2090099 f i n d F o r n e y i n c o n t e m p t f o r v i o l a t i n g i t s S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, consent order. With respect t o t h e i s s u e whether t h e T a l l a d e g a Circuit C o u r t e r r e d by f i n d i n g Forney i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 28, 2009, c o n s e n t o r d e r , F o r n e y f i r s t that he was denied due p r o c e s s petition f o r a rule n i s i separate and therefore, initiated independent required because, that from he held a hearing Decker, court of that Ronda's action served and, with i n accordance w i t h the Talladega Circuit a Rule Court t h a t p e t i t i o n . However, i n D e c k e r v . 984 So. 2d 1216, 1220 held finding regarding divorce personally summons a n d a c o p y o f t h e p e t i t i o n 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., b e f o r e says, argues a new p r o c e e d i n g t h a t was the be he that the f i l i n g constructive ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , o f a contempt p e t i t i o n contempt 1 based on an this seeking a alleged Rule 70A(a)(2)(B), A l a . R. C i v . P., states that "'[c]onstructive c o n t e m p t ' means any c r i m i n a l o r civil contempt o t h e r than a d i r e c t contempt." Rule 70A(a)(2)(A), A l a . R. C i v . P., s t a t e s : 1 " ' D i r e c t c o n t e m p t ' means d i s o r d e r l y o r i n s o l e n t behavior or other m i s c o n d u c t c o m m i t t e d i n open c o u r t , i n the presence of the judge, that d i s t u r b s t h e c o u r t ' s b u s i n e s s , where a l l o f t h e e s s e n t i a l elements of the misconduct occur i n the presence of the c o u r t and a r e a c t u a l l y o b s e r v e d by t h e c o u r t , 16 2090099 v i o l a t i o n o f an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r violation of a final judgment) proceeding that i s separate (as o p p o s e d t o an a l l e g e d does not i n i t i a t e a new a n d i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m t h e one i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r on w h i c h the contempt p e t i t i o n i s based. T h e r e f o r e , t h a t Ronda's f i l i n g a new p r o c e e d i n g F o r n e y ' s argument of her p e t i t i o n f o r a rule n i s i t h a t was s e p a r a t e initiated and independent from t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n h a s no m e r i t . Moreover, because t h e f i l i n g rule n i s i d i dnot i n i t i a t e o f Ronda's p e t i t i o n a new p r o c e e d i n g , fora Rule 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n e d s e r v i c e on F o r n e y o f Ronda's p e t i t i o n a n d the order setting that p e t i t i o n f o r a hearing. In pertinent p a r t , Rule 5(b) p r o v i d e s : "Whenever u n d e r t h e s e r u l e s s e r v i c e i s r e q u i r e d o r p e r m i t t e d t o be made upon a p a r t y r e p r e s e n t e d b y an attorney, the service s h a l l be made upon t h e a t t o r n e y u n l e s s s e r v i c e upon t h e p a r t y i s o r d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t . S e r v i c e upon t h e a t t o r n e y o r upon a p a r t y s h a l l be made ... b y m a i l i n g i t t o t h e a t t o r n e y o r party at the attorney's or party's last known address S e r v i c e by m a i l i s complete upon mailing." It i sundisputed t h a t Ronda's p e t i t i o n was s e r v e d on F o r n e y ' s and where i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l t o p r e v e n t d i m i n u t i o n o f t h e c o u r t ' s d i g n i t y and a u t h o r i t y before the p u b l i c . " 17 2090099 a t t o r n e y s by m a i l on O c t o b e r 2, 2009. A c c o r d i n g l y , merit to Forney's b e c a u s e he was of the argument that he was denied t h e r e i s no due process n o t p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d w i t h a summons and a c o p y petition i n accordance w i t h Rule 4(c)(1) before the Talladega C i r c u i t Court held a hearing regarding that p e t i t i o n on O c t o b e r 6, 2009. F o r n e y a l s o a r g u e s t h a t he was he did not regarding of one Edwards v. of his Edwards, the for a that his attorneys that , notice Ronda's p e t i t i o n undisputed and receive ( A l a . C i v . App. October rule process because 6, nisi. 2009, However, r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of t h a t attorneys [Ms. d e n i e d due attended 2081138, Aug. 2010), t h i s 6, court that hearing i t is hearing hearing. In So. 3d 2010] stated: "[N]otice of a t r i a l date given to a party's attorney i s generally accepted to c o n s t i t u t e notice o f t h e t r i a l d a t e t o t h e p a r t y . See S h i r l e y v. M c D o n a l d , 220 A l a . 50, 53, 124 So. 104, 106 (1929) ( ' [ C ] o u n s e l ' s k n o w l e d g e ... o f t h e d a t e o f t r i a l , must be i m p u t e d t o [ t h e ] d e f e n d a n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . . . . ' ) ; A n d e r s o n v. A n d e r s o n , 250 A l a . 427, 430, 34 So. 2d 585, 587 (1948) (when t h e plaintiff's a t t o r n e y had n o t i c e o f a l l t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , our supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f a l s o had n o t i c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s ) ; and Ex p a r t e Cox, 253 Ala. 647, 650, 46 So. 2d 417, 420 (1950) ( ' I t i s t h o r o u g h l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t [the] d e f e n d a n t ' s i g n o r a n c e of the date of t r i a l or of the order of t h e c o u r t as t o t h e d e f i n i t e t i m e f o r d i s p o s i n g o f t h e c a s e i s n o t a p r o p e r g r o u n d f o r a new trial, 18 2090099 p a r t i c u l a r l y where [ t h e ] d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y o f r e c o r d was i n f o r m e d by t h e c o u r t o r c l e r k as t o t h e t i m e s e t f o r i t s d i s p o s i t i o n . ' ) . See a l s o S a n d e r s v. Flournoy, 640 So. 2d 933, 939 (Ala. 1994) ('Knowledge o f t h e a t t o r n e y w i l l be i m p u t e d t o t h e c l i e n t i f t h e k n o w l e d g e comes t o t h e a t t o r n e y w h i l e engaged i n a s e r v i c e f o r the c l i e n t a f t e r the a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p has commenced.'). I t was undisputed t h a t the mother's a t t o r n e y had r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and d a t e o f t h e h e a r i n g and t h a t t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y was p r e s e n t f o r t h a t h e a r i n g . A p p l y i n g those g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of law t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t r e c e i v e a d e q u a t e n o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and d a t e of the h e a r i n g . " Thus, i n t h e c a s e now before us, we cannot reverse the O c t o b e r 8, 2009, o r d e r o f t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t finding F o r n e y i n c o n t e m p t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t F o r n e y d i d n o t receive notice nisi of the because notice of hearing r e g a r d i n g Ronda's p e t i t i o n i t i s undisputed that hearing appeared at t h a t hearing. Forney because, he also says, argues (1) the that his and that See attorneys he October was 5, of those received denied attorneys due 2009, o r d e r process setting h e a r i n g on Ronda's p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i d i d n o t i n f o r m that he was c o n t e m p t and his attorneys subject (2) the to i n c a r c e r a t i o n i f he Talladega sufficient rule Edwards. that one for a time 19 Circuit to Court prepare was found d i d not and a him in afford present his 2090099 defense Forney to the has not allegations cited any in legal Ronda's petition. authority However, supporting those arguments. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t ' " [ w ] h e r e an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y f o r an a r g u m e n t , t h i s C o u r t may a f f i r m t h e judgment as t o t h o s e i s s u e s , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t ' s duty nor i t s f u n c t i o n to perform a l l the legal research for an a p p e l l a n t . " ' S p r a d l i n v. B i r m i n g h a m A i r p o r t A u t h . , 613 So. 2d 347, 348 ( A l a . 1993) ( q u o t i n g Sea C a l m S h i p p i n g Co., S.A. v. C o o k s , 565 So. 2d 212, 216 (Ala. 1990))." Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So. 2d 638, 653 (Ala. 2006). T h e r e f o r e , we d e c l i n e t o r e v e r s e t h e T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s October 8, 2009, order grounds t h a t the October Ronda's p e t i t i o n was finding Forney in contempt on the 5, 2009, o r d e r s e t t i n g a h e a r i n g on for a rule nisi d i d not i n f o r m him s u b j e c t t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n i f he was that found i n contempt he and t h a t the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court d i d not a f f o r d h i s a t t o r n e y s sufficient time to prepare and a l l e g a t i o n s i n Ronda's p e t i t i o n . present h i s defense to the See M a n t i p l y . Forney a l s o argues t h a t the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g him i n c o n t e m p t b e c a u s e , 5 of i t s October 8, not the s u p p o r t e d by he s a y s , p a r a g r a p h s 2009, o r d e r f i n d i n g evidence. 20 him 4 and i n contempt In paragraphs 4 and 5, are the 2090099 Talladega C i r c u i t Court found: "4. T h a t [ F o r n e y ] has w i l l f u l l y failed and refused to abide by this Court's Order by w i t h d r a w i n g $100,000.00 f r o m a Mac's V a c s , LLC a c c o u n t a t R e g i o n ' s Bank. The w h e r e a b o u t s o f s a i d money i s n o t known, as no e v i d e n t i a r y p r o o f was i n t r o d u c e d by [ F o r n e y ] r e g a r d i n g t h i s t r a n s a c t i o n w h i c h w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e f u n d s . The Court finds that s a i d w i t h d r a w a l was not f o r r o u t i n e , r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y b u s i n e s s e x p e n s e s . "5. T h a t [ F o r n e y ] has w i l l f u l l y failed and refused to abide by this Court's Order by i n s t r u c t i n g [Ronda] n o t t o come o n t o t h e p r e m i s e s o f Mac's V a c s , LLC, ... on t h r e e (3) o c c a s i o n s by and t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , and by s e e k i n g l a w enforcement i n t e r v e n t i o n t o e n f o r c e same. T h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r e l i m i n a t e d the p r o v i s i o n of the Calhoun [Circuit Court] order of August 14, 2009, expressly p r o h i b i t i n g [Ronda] f r o m e n t e r i n g s a i d p r e m i s e s ; and [ F o r n e y ] has no r i g h t t o p r e v e n t t h e owner o f s a i d p r o p e r t y , b e i n g [Ronda], from e n t e r i n g the p r e m i s e s p u r s u a n t t o h i s t i t l e as Manager." However, t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us d o e s n o t c o n t a i n e i t h e r transcript Court the ore tenus r e c e i v e d at the October petition of for a rule nisi or evidence 6, a the 2009, statement p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. Talladega Circuit h e a r i n g on Ronda's of that evidence P. "An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s c o n f i n e d i n i t s r e v i e w t o t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d , t h a t r e c o r d c a n n o t be 'changed, a l t e r e d , o r v a r i e d on a p p e a l by s t a t e m e n t s i n b r i e f s o f c o u n s e l , ' and t h e c o u r t may n o t 'assume e r r o r o r presume t h e e x i s t e n c e o f f a c t s as t o w h i c h t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t . ' Q u i c k v. B u r t o n , 960 So. 2d 678, 680-81 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , when, as 21 a 2090099 i n t h i s c a s e , ' o r a l t e s t i m o n y i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e trial c o u r t i n r e a c h i n g i t s j u d g m e n t and that t e s t i m o n y i s n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e r e c o r d as e i t h e r a t r a n s c r i p t o r R u l e 1 0 ( d ) , A [ l a ] . R. A [ p p ] . P., s t a t e m e n t , i t must be c o n c l u s i v e l y p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y [was] s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e j u d g m e n t . ' R u d o l p h v. R u d o l p h , 586 So. 2d 929, 930 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 1 ) . " Beverly v. B e v e r l y , 28 Thus, i n t h e c a s e now contain either Talladega a So. 3d 4 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). b e f o r e u s , b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d does transcript Circuit 1, Court of the ore r e c e i v e d at h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g Ronda's p e t i t i o n tenus the evidence October 6, for a rule n i s i not the 2009, or a Rule 10(d) s t a t e m e n t o f t h a t e v i d e n c e , we must c o n c l u s i v e l y presume t h a t t h a t e v i d e n c e was paragraphs 4 and Finally, erred s u f f i c i e n t to support the f i n d i n g s i n 5. Forney argues in finding him Talladega Circuit Court over t h e LLC. in t h a t the T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t contempt because, lacked subject-matter However, we have he Court says, the jurisdiction a l r e a d y e x p l a i n e d above why t h a t argument has no m e r i t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m the October T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t Court f i n d i n g Forney 8, 2009, o r d e r o f t h e in contempt. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, 22 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.