Ex parte Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron). PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jennifer Ann Vest (Herron) v. David Jeremy Vest)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
1/11/13
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, 2012-2013
2100647
Ex p a r t e J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t
(Herron)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In r e : J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t
(Herron)
v.
David Jeremy Vest)
(Elmore C i r c u i t Court, DR-01-492.02
A f t e r Remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme
Court
BRYAN, J u d g e .
The supreme c o u r t h a s r e v e r s e d t h i s c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 2,
2011,
judgment
and
remanded
the
cause
for
further
2100647
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus f i l e d b y
J e n n i f e r Ann V e s t ( H e r r o n ) ( " t h e m o t h e r " ) on A p r i l
14, 2 0 1 1 ,
i n l i g h t o f t h e supreme c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Ex p a r t e V e s t , [Ms.
1110192, September 14, 2012]
So. 3d
( A l a . 2012) ("the
supreme c o u r t ' s S e p t e m b e r 14 d e c i s i o n " ) .
In
the
o u r September 2, 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t , we d i d n o t
issue
defense
revive
1
whether
t h e mother
had waived
her
address
affirmative
b a s e d on § 6-5-440, A l a . Code 1975, a n d h a d f a i l e d t o
i t before
the Elmore C i r c u i t
Court
entered
i t s April
13,
2011, o r d e r , w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e mother's
14,
2 0 1 1 , mandamus
April
petition.
S e c t i o n 6-5-440 p r o v i d e s :
"No p l a i n t i f f
i s e n t i t l e d to prosecute
two
a c t i o n s i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e a t t h e same t i m e
f o r t h e same c a u s e a n d a g a i n s t t h e same p a r t y . I n
s u c h a c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t may r e q u i r e t h e p l a i n t i f f
t o e l e c t w h i c h he w i l l p r o s e c u t e ,
i f commenced
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , and t h e pendency o f t h e former i s a
good d e f e n s e t o t h e l a t t e r i f commenced a t d i f f e r e n t
times."
(Emphasis added.) As n o t e d
by J u s t i c e
Stuart i n her s p e c i a l
For a d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of the procedural h i s t o r y of
t h i s c a u s e b e f o r e t h e m o t h e r f i l e d t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n t h a t
i s now b e f o r e u s , s e e Ex p a r t e V e s t , 68 So. 3d 881 ( A l a . C i v .
App. 2 0 1 1 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e V e s t , [Ms. 2100647, September 2,
2011]
So. 3d
( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) .
1
2
2100647
c o n c u r r e n c e i n t h e supreme c o u r t ' s
5-440 "'"does n o t
of'
jurisdiction
second-filed
Campbell,
turn
First
( A l a . 1998)
over
action
J., concurring
v.
provide
the
So.
the
second-filed
3d
435,
437
J., concurring
court
3d
or
v.
that
at
the
(Stuart,
W a s h i n g t o n Mut.
n.2
Bank,
F.A.
(Ala. 2009), q u o t i n g
Snell,
718
6¬
'is deprived
action,
So.
(quoting
T e n n e s s e e Bank, N.A.
(See,
trial
'is void.'"'"
specially)
24
that
S e p t e m b e r 14 d e c i s i o n , §
So.
2d
in
20,
27
i n the r e s u l t ) ) . Rather, §
6¬
5-440
" ' c o n s t i t u t e s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , and
if
that
defense i s not
r a i s e d by
the
d e f e n d a n t i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , B e n s o n v.
C i t y o f S c o t t s b o r o , 286 A l a . 315, 317,
239
So. 2d 747, 748-49 (1970) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e
d e f e n s e must be
r a i s e d by
a "plea
in
abatement," the p r o c e d u r a l p r e d e c e s s o r of
the
motion to d i s m i s s ) ,
i t i s waived.
C h a p p e l l v. B o y k i n , 41 A l a . App. 137,
141,
127 So. 2d 636, 639
(1960).'"
R e g i o n s Bank v. Reed, 60 So.
Veteto
2001)).
v.
Yocum,
Like
793
other
So.
2d
3d 868,
814,
affirmative
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on
884
815
n.
1
defenses,
(Ala.
(quoting
Civ.
however,
§ 6-5-440 i s w a i v e d ,
r e v i v e d u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . See
2d a t
( A l a . 2010)
App.
if
an
i t can
be
R e g i o n s Bank, 60
So.
884.
In the
p r e s e n t c a s e , on
J u l y 23,
3
2010,
the
mother
filed
2100647
i n the Elmore C i r c u i t Court a motion t o d i s m i s s or t o t r a n s f e r
the
postdivorce
proceeding
("the
father's
p r o c e e d i n g " ) f i l e d b y D a v i d Jeremy V e s t
c o u r t . See Ex p a r t e V e s t ,
2011). Although
postdivorce
("the f a t h e r " ) i n t h a t
68 So. 3d 881, 883 ( A l a . C i v . App.
she a s s e r t e d i n t h a t m o t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s
postdivorce proceeding
was due t o be d i s m i s s e d o r t r a n s f e r r e d
because
proceeding
Mobile
a postdivorce
C i r c u i t Court
she h a d commenced
("the m o t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e
i n the
proceeding")
was a l r e a d y p e n d i n g when t h e f a t h e r commenced h i s p o s t d i v o r c e
proceeding,
she n e i t h e r c i t e d § 6-5-440 t o t h e E l m o r e
Court i n support
asserted
by
constituted
of that a s s e r t i o n nor asserted that the c l a i m
the
a
father
compulsory
postdivorce proceeding
him
Circuit
in
his
postdivorce
counterclaim
in
proceeding
the
mother's
a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t § 6-5-440
from a s s e r t i n g t h a t c l a i m i n h i s p o s t d i v o r c e
barred
proceeding.
2
T h e supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t R u l e 1 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v .
P., w h i c h g o v e r n s c o m p u l s o r y c o u n t e r c l a i m s , when r e a d i n
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h § 6-5-440, makes t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h a
compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m i n the f i r s t - f i l e d a c t i o n a p l a i n t i f f
i n t h a t a c t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-5-440. See Ex p a r t e Breman
L a k e V i e w R e s o r t , L.P., 729 So. 2d 849, 851 ( A l a . 1999) .
"Thus, t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b j e c t t o t h e [ c o m p u l s o r y ] c o u n t e r c l a i m
r u l e who commences a n o t h e r a c t i o n h a s v i o l a t e d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n
i n § 6-5-440 a g a i n s t m a i n t a i n i n g two a c t i o n s f o r t h e same
cause." I d .
2
4
2100647
68
So. 3d a t 885.
After
23,
the Elmore C i r c u i t Court denied
2010, m o t i o n
to dismiss
t h e mother's J u l y
o r t o t r a n s f e r , t h e m o t h e r , on
November 8, 2010, p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus
d i r e c t i n g t h e Elmore C i r c u i t Court t o vacate
i t s order
denying
h e r J u l y 23, 2010, m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r t o t r a n s f e r . 68 So. 3d
a t 882-84. The m o t h e r a s s e r t e d as one o f t h e g r o u n d s o f h e r
November 18, 2010, mandamus p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e c l a i m t h e f a t h e r
had
asserted
i n h i s postdivorce
proceeding
constituted a
compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e mother's p o s t d i v o r c e
and,
proceeding
t h e r e f o r e , t h a t § 6-5-440 b a r r e d h i m f r o m a s s e r t i n g t h a t
claim
i n h i s postdivorce
However, we d e n i e d
petition
proceeding.
68
So.
3d
a t 884.
t h e m o t h e r ' s November 18, 2010, mandamus
i n s o f a r as i t was b a s e d on t h a t g r o u n d b e c a u s e t h e
m o t h e r h a d n e i t h e r c i t e d § 6-5-440 t o t h e E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t
nor
asserted
to that
court
that
the claim
father i n h i s postdivorce proceeding
asserted
by t h e
c o n s t i t u t e d a compulsory
c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h e mother's p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding.
68 So. 3d
a t 885.
A f t e r we d e n i e d
petition,
t h e m o t h e r ' s November 18, 2010, mandamus
t h e mother
filed
two
5
motions
i n the
father's
2100647
postdivorce proceeding;
one o f t h e m o t i o n s was
Motion to Dismiss,"
and
Motion to Dismiss."
As
t h e o t h e r was
one
of the
titled
titled
" S e c o n d Renewed
grounds of those
t h e m o t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e c l a i m t h e f a t h e r had
his
postdivorce
counterclaim
therefore,
proceeding
in
that
the
§
constituted
mother's
the
those
motions
outside
the
with,
among
other
pleadings
that
postdivorce proceeding
("the
On A p r i l
13,
stating:
2011,
the
pursuant
Rule
to
On
a
writ
vacate
April
of
14,
dispositive
or
12(b)[,
Ala.
filed
motion
other
R.
that
i n the
(summary
P.])
was
father's
pleadings").
dispositive
Civ.
supported
an
order
judgment,
motion
filed
not
by
[the
court
for
denied."
2011,
mandamus
its April
been
matter
matter o u t s i d e the
pleadings,
mother] i s hereby
The m o t h e r
things,
and,
from a s s e r t i n g
the Elmore C i r c u i t Court e n t e r e d
"Renewed
j u d g m e n t on
had
compulsory
proceeding
father
that claim i n h i s postdivorce proceeding.
motions,
asserted i n
a
postdivorce
6-5-440 b a r r e d
"Renewed
directing
2011,
the
order.
Elmore
Court
to
had
"Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s "
and
" S e c o n d Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s " w i t h t h e m a t t e r o u t s i d e
the
her motions t i t l e d
6
Because
Circuit
(1) t h e m o t h e r
supported
13,
the mother p e t i t i o n e d t h i s
2100647
p l e a d i n g s and (2) t h e E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t ,
motions,
d i d not expressly
outside
the
converted
pleadings,
decline
those
i n r u l i n g on t h o s e
to consider
motions
were
the matter
automatically
t o m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . See P h i l l i p s
AmSouth Bank, 833 So. 2d 29, 31 ( A l a . 2002) . I n P h i l l i p s ,
supreme c o u r t
v.
the
stated:
"'[W]here
matters
outside
the
pleadings
are
c o n s i d e r e d on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e m o t i o n i s
c o n v e r t e d i n t o a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t ...
r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s d e n o m i n a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t by t h e
t r i a l c o u r t . ' B o l e s v. B l a c k s t o c k , 484 So. 2d 1077,
1079 ( A l a . 1986) . I n d e e d , u n l e s s t h e t r i a l
court
expressly
declines
to consider
the extraneous
material,
i t s conclusions
may be c o n s t r u e d
to
include
t h e e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l . C f . Ex
parte
L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d 758, 763 n.
1 ( A l a . 2002) ( t r i a l c o u r t ' s e x p r e s s
refusal to
consider
extraneous
material
constituted
an
exclusion)."
833 So. 2d a t 31.
When
t h e mother
filed
those
motions
for a
summary
j u d g m e n t , she h a d w a i v e d h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6¬
5-440 b y f a i l i n g
t o a s s e r t i t i n t h e J u l y 23, 2010, m o t i o n t o
dismiss
transfer
or
postdivorce
to
proceeding,
she
see
had
filed
Regions
in
Bank,
the
supra,
father's
and
an
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t h a s b e e n w a i v e d c a n n o t be r e v i v e d b y
raising
and l i t i g a t i n g
i t i n a summary-judgment
7
proceeding,
2100647
see
R e c t o r v.
2001)
("[A]n
Better
Houses,
affirmative
I n c . , 820
defense
the
So.
2d
75,
defendant
79
(Ala.
has
waived
c a n n o t be r e v i v e d by t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s r a i s e d and
litigated
i n a summary-judgment p r o c e e d i n g . " ) . M o r e o v e r ,
materials
before
us
do
not
indicate
that
the
t h e m o t h e r had
revived
that
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n any o t h e r manner b e f o r e a s s e r t i n g i t as
a ground of her motions
f o r a summary j u d g m e n t .
Consequently,
we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r h a d w a i v e d h e r a f f i r m a t i v e
based
on § 6-5-440 and h a d
Circuit
not r e v i v e d i t b e f o r e the
Court denied her motions
therefore,
that
the
Elmore
defense
Elmore
f o r a summary j u d g m e n t
Circuit
Court
did
not
and,
err
in
d e n y i n g t h o s e m o t i o n s i n s o f a r as t h e y were b a s e d on § 6-5-440.
The m o t h e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d
mandamus c o m p e l l i n g t h e
April
13,
2011,
judgment because,
order
she
Elmore
denying
says,
Circuit
her
Court
motions
the proper
venue
to a w r i t
of
to vacate i t s
for
a
summary
f o r the
claim
a s s e r t e d i n the f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e proceeding i s the Mobile
C i r c u i t C o u r t . S e c t i o n 30-3-5, A l a . Code 1975,
determines
the
p r o p e r venue f o r b o t h t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g
and
t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . S e c t i o n 30-3-5 p r o v i d e s :
of
" N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any l a w t o t h e c o n t r a r y , venue
a l l proceedings f o r p e t i t i o n s or other a c t i o n s
8
2100647
seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , or enforcement
of a f i n a l decree awarding custody of a c h i l d or
c h i l d r e n t o a p a r e n t and/or g r a n t i n g v i s i t a t i o n
rights,
and/or
awarding
child
support,
and/or
awarding o t h e r expenses i n c i d e n t t o the support of
a
minor
child
or
children,
and/or
granting
p o s t - m i n o r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r a c h i l d or c h i l d r e n i s
c h a n g e d so t h a t venue w i l l l i e i n : (1) t h e o r i g i n a l
c i r c u i t c o u r t r e n d e r i n g t h e f i n a l d e c r e e ; o r (2) i n
t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f t h e c o u n t y where b o t h t h e
c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t o r , i n the case of p o s t - m i n o r i t y
b e n e f i t s , where t h e most r e c e n t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ,
t h a t parent having custody a t the time of the
child's
attaining
majority,
and
the c h i l d
or
c h i l d r e n have r e s i d e d f o r a p e r i o d o f a t l e a s t t h r e e
consecutive years immediately preceding the f i l i n g
o f t h e p e t i t i o n o r o t h e r a c t i o n . The c u r r e n t o r most
r e c e n t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s h a l l be a b l e t o c h o o s e t h e
p a r t i c u l a r venue as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f
which p a r t y f i l e s the p e t i t i o n or other a c t i o n . "
(Emphasis
The
added.)
record
establishes
the
following
facts
that
are
m a t e r i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r venue f o r t h e c l a i m
asserted
i n t h e f a t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g . The
Elmore
C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i v o r c i n g t h e m o t h e r and t h e
father
on M a r c h
mother
primary
20,
2002.
physical
The
custody
awarded t h e f a t h e r v i s i t a t i o n .
modify
t h e d i v o r c e judgment
September
7,
2005,
and
d i v o r c e judgment
awarded t h e
of the p a r t i e s '
child
and
The f a t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o
i n the Elmore C i r c u i t
the mother
filed
an
Court
answer
on
to the
f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n and a p e t i t i o n f o r a r u l e n i s i i n t h e E l m o r e
9
2100647
Circuit
Court
on September
8, 2005. On O c t o b e r
6, 2006, t h e
m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t m o d i f y i n g t h e
divorce
judgment
and r e s o l v i n g
subject
of
2005
the
t h e d i s p u t e s t h a t were t h e
postdivorce
proceeding.
The
mother
r e m a i n e d t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d . Sometime
b e t w e e n M a r c h 20, 2002, a n d O c t o b e r
the
parties'
October
child
moved
to
6, 2006, t h e m o t h e r a n d
Mississippi.
Sometime
after
6, 2006, t h e f a t h e r moved t o M o b i l e C o u n t y . When t h e
mother f i l e d
her postdivorce proceeding i n the Mobile C i r c u i t
C o u r t on June 10, 2010, she a n d t h e p a r t i e s '
minor c h i l d had
resided i n M i s s i s s i p p i f o r the three-year p e r i o d immediately
preceding
residing
the f i l i n g
of that proceeding,
and t h e f a t h e r
was
i n Mobile County.
Because t h e mother and t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d had n o t r e s i d e d
in
a
county
consecutive
i n Alabama
years
for a
immediately
period
preceding
of
at
least
the f i l i n g
three
of her
p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t , § 30-3-5
dictated
that the proper
proceeding
was
venue
the Elmore
f o r the mother's p o s t d i v o r c e
Circuit
Court,
o r i g i n a l c i r c u i t court rendering the f i n a l
The
fact
that the father,
which
"the
[divorce] decree."
who was n o t t h e c u s t o d i a l
10
was
parent,
2100647
was
residing
i n Mobile
County
when
t h e mother
filed
her
p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g was i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
t h e p r o p e r venue o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p o s t d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r
§
30-3-5.
The
father
subsequently
filed
h i s postdivorce
p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e E l m o r e C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h was t h e p r o p e r
venue
f o r that
Elmore
Circuit
motions
her
proceeding
Court
under
§
30-3-5.
d i d not e r r i n denying
the
the mother's
f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as t h e y were b a s e d
contention that the Mobile C i r c u i t
venue
Therefore,
f o r the claim
asserted
on
C o u r t was t h e p r o p e r
i n the father's
postdivorce
proceeding.
The
mother
objection
to
proceeding
pleading
he
also
argues
improper
by
venue
omitting
filed
that
such
the
father
waived
i n the mother's
an
objection
i n the mother's
his
postdivorce
from
postdivorce
the
first
proceeding.
However, t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r w a i v e d h i s o b j e c t i o n t o
the
Mobile
mother's
Circuit
Court
postdivorce proceeding
w h e t h e r she i s e n t i t l e d
Elmore
as t h e venue
Circuit
Court
i s irrelevant
to a writ
t o vacate
for litigating
to the issue
o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e
i t sApril
13, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r
d e n y i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n s b e c a u s e ,
11
the
due t o
2100647
t h e m o t h e r ' s w a i v e r o f h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6-5¬
440,
the father
proceeding
i s entitled
to prosecute
i n the Elmore C i r c u i t
Court
postdivorce
separately
i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f , t h e mother's p o s t d i v o r c e
she
his
from, and
proceeding
unless
s h o u l d r e v i v e a n d a s s e r t h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on
§ 6-5-440 i n t h e f u t u r e . See W a s h i n g t o n M u t u a l Bank, 24 So. 3d
a t 437 n. 2 ( h o l d i n g t h a t § 6-5-440 does n o t d e p r i v e
court
of j u r i s d i c t i o n
over the s e c o n d - f i l e d
the t r i a l
a c t i o n or render
the
s e c o n d - f i l e d a c t i o n v o i d ) ; and R e g i o n s Bank, 60 So. 2d a t
884
( h o l d i n g t h a t § 6-5-440 i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t c a n
be w a i v e d ) . Thus, any a l l e g e d w a i v e r o f t h e f a t h e r ' s
to the Mobile C i r c u i t
mother's p o s t d i v o r c e
father's
the
separate
Elmore C i r c u i t
objection
C o u r t as t h e venue f o r l i t i g a t i n g t h e
p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d have no e f f e c t
and independent p o s t d i v o r c e
on t h e
proceeding i n
C o u r t . I d . Moreover, i f t h e mother
should
r e v i v e a n d a s s e r t h e r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on § 6-5-440
in
the future,
objection
to
the issue
the Mobile
whether the f a t h e r
Circuit
l i t i g a t i n g the mother's p o s t d i v o r c e
irrelevant
regarding
to
the
Elmore
Court
as
had waived h i s
t h e venue f o r
p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d s t i l l be
Circuit
Court's
w h e t h e r § 6-5-440 b a r r e d t h e f a t h e r f r o m
12
determination
prosecuting
2100647
his
postdivorce
because,
as
proceeding
noted
concurrence
by
i n the Elmore
Justice
i n t h e supreme
Murdock
Circuit
Court
his special
September
court's
in
14 d e c i s i o n ,
" [ s ] e c t i o n 6-5-440 does n o t r e q u i r e some i n q u i r y i n t o w h e t h e r
an o t h e r w i s e
v a l i d o b j e c t i o n t o t h e venue o f an e a r l i e r
filed
a c t i o n h a s o r h a s n o t been w a i v e d i n t h a t e a r l i e r a c t i o n . " Ex
parte
Vest,
So.
3d
at
(Murdock,
J . , concurring
specially).
Although
t h e mother
support of her A p r i l
consider
Circuit
(Ala.
court
presents
additional
14, 2 0 1 1 , mandamus p e t i t i o n ,
them b e c a u s e she d i d n o t p r e s e n t
Court.
See Ex p a r t e
2010) ("Because
was
502(b)(3),
arguments i n
presented
M & F Bank,
i t does
with
an
them t o t h e E l m o r e
58 So. 3d 1 1 1 , 117
not appear t h a t
argument
we c a n n o t
the c i r c u i t
concerning
Rule
[ A l a . R. E v i d . , ] we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t argument
as a r e a s o n f o r i s s u i n g t h e w r i t o f mandamus.").
B e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t she h a s
a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e w r i t o f mandamus she s e e k s , we deny
the
mother's
petition.
See Ex
parte
A l a b a m a , 931 So. 2d 1, 5-6 ( A l a . 2005)
is
an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy; i t w i l l
13
Children's
Hosp.
of
("The w r i t o f mandamus
n o t be i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e
2100647
petitioner
to
shows '"'(1)
the order
a clear
sought
l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r
(quoting
Ex
parte
Inverness
C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n
other
cases).
PETITION
DENIED.
Pittman,
Thomas, a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r .
Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s
i n the r e s u l t , without
14
writing.
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.