Ex parte Kenneth Wayne Sellers and Sharon Kay Sellers. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Kenneth Wayne Sellers and Sharon Kay Sellers v. John W. Hall et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/21/2009 N o t i c e : 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 , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1071716 Ex p a r t e K e n n e t h Wayne S e l l e r s and Sharon Kay S e l l e r s PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : K e n n e t h Wayne S e l l e r s and Sharon Kay S e l l e r s v. John W. H a l l et al.) (Mobile C i r c u i t Court, LYONS, CV-07-901397) Justice. Kenneth plaintiffs Wayne Sellers i n an a c t i o n and Sharon i n the Mobile Kay Circuit Sellers, the Court, have 1071716 filed to a petition direct motion the filed for a writ trial by o f mandamus r e q u e s t i n g t h i s court certain to of vacate the defendants S e l l e r s e s ' demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l . issue the S.C. on Background November Stagner; several 2, DHL, LLC fictitiously following large facts. "dirt the Sellerses jury to strike a the the p e t i t i o n and January 2006, and removed property Counsel i n the T. W. Hall; III; asserting claims owned real p i t on the large DHL's p r o p e r t y The based property defendants and a l l e g e d the owned by that DHL. A common entered amounts the of dirt, "thousands of yards" Sellerses d i d not demand a complaint. r e p r e s e n t i n g each of the defendants appearance John Howard with property Sellerses' property. trial sued Their complaint Sellerses line History l o c a t e d on DHL's p r o p e r t y n e a r t h e In expanding the d i r t Alex named d e f e n d a n t s , The p i t " was line. Sellerses' onto the grant Procedural ("DHL"); a common b o u n d a r y boundary of 2007, and s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s of t r e s p a s s . shared We granting writ. Factual On i t s order Court in late t h e named d e f e n d a n t s 2007 and early answered the 2 2008; complaint filed however, notices none during that of time. 1071716 On M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , a n o n p a r t y , S.C. filed an answer "incorrectly identified Stagner." On defendants i n which June On and Howard July 15, demand a requested been denied relying 2008, they moved They a jury trial, nearly by that four to amended ("Stagner Sellerses complaint any argued that that that none of had as S.C. the named filed "demand[ed] a trial the 17, the complaint of the after that the 2008. Sellerses' jury d i d not defendants t h e demand f o r a j u r y months c o u n s e l , " and had trial had a l l defendants had demand was "due to be t o A.R.C.P." responded their Company they strike to the motion p r i m a r i l y R u l e 3 8 , A l a . R. ("Liberty the Inc., triable." trial, Sellerses Mortgage the before stating so jury pursuant The they 2008 , filed "appeared 13, that a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t on J u n e as u n t i m e l y . request [ i t ] in trial, on a l l i s s u e s DHL i t averred had answered the c o m p l a i n t , the S e l l e r s e s demand f o r a j u r y by j u r y Stagner Contracting, complaint ("Consumer Homes"), and Contracting"). C i v . P. t o add new Mortgage"), S.C. The Stagner amended 3 on July 16, 2008, On J u l y 18, 2008, defendants Liberty Consumer Homes, I n c . Contracting, complaint also Inc. added 1071716 claims of negligence defendants had Sellerses' that Contracting September reasoning, Court Court have "Plaintiffs jury." Stagner subsequently 22, 2008. joined They the t r i a l Howard and answered the the motion court, without to strike stating Sellerses' petitioned o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g Hall, Consumer t h e amended the Sellerses' settled the remaining the t r i a l time to f i l e a complaint petition the claims defendants reply. court to Mortgage, and L i b e r t y was on O c t o b e r pending against DHL, in to f i l e Homes 14, this Howard, On J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , on t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p e t i t i o n Sellerses 1 stated: by C o n t r a c t i n g , a n d S.C. S t a g n e r . ordered briefs the d i r t the the parties Stagner 5, 2 0 0 8 , answered While Court, the so, had converted trial on J u l y granted vacate that order. 2008. Stagner from dirt the o n A u g u s t 1, 2 0 0 8 . f o r a writ subsequently the that On S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e S e l l e r s e s j u r y demand. this demanded to strike amended c o m p l a i n t alleging The a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a n d S.C. DHL's m o t i o n its removed p r o p e r t y and, i n doing heretofor[e] On conversion, negligently was r e m o v e d . have and this answers and and g r a n t e d t h e 1 In t h e i r answer t o t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e r e m a i n i n g defendants a d v a n c e d t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e S e l l e r s e s ' demand f o r a 4 1071716 Standard of Review "A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e v e h i c l e f o r s e e k i n g review by t h i s Court o f a d e n i a l o f a d e m a n d f o r a j u r y t r i a l . 'Mandamus is an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, h o w e v e r , r e q u i r i n g a showing that there i s : "(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the petitioner to the order sought; (2) a n imperative d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, 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 r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . " ' E x p a r t e J a c k s o n , 737 So. 2 d 4 5 2 , 453 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e A l f a b , Inc., 586 S o . 2 d 88 9, 8 91 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ) . Because mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , t h e s t a n d a r d o f review on a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e F i n a n c e A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 S o . 2 d 4 5 8 , 460 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . " Ex p a r t e A t l a n t i s D e v . C o . , 897 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 2 , 1024 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . Analysis Article right R. I, § of t r i a l C i v . P., right. 11, A l a . Const. by j u r y s h a l l establishes I t provides, 1901, p r o v i d e s remain i n v i o l a t e . " the procedures i n relevant that "the R u l e 38, A l a . f o r invoking part: " ( a ) R i g h t p r e s e r v e d . The r i g h t o f t r i a l b y j u r y as d e c l a r e d b y t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o r a s g i v e n b y a s t a t u t e o f t h i s S t a t e s h a l l be p r e s e r v e d to the p a r t i e s i n v i o l a t e . " ( b ) Demand. A n y p a r t y may d e m a n d a t r i a l b y j u r y of any i s s u e t r i a b l e of r i g h t by a j u r y by s e r v i n g upon t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s a demand t h e r e f o r i n jury trial was insufficient. 5 that 1071716 w r i t i n g a t a n y t i m e a f t e r t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n a n d n o t l a t e r t h a n t h i r t y (30) d a y s a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e of the l a s t p l e a d i n g d i r e c t e d t o such i s s u e . S u c h d e m a n d may b e i n d o r s e d u p o n a p l e a d i n g of the party, a n d s u c h d e m a n d s h a l l be d e e m e d t o b e a d e m a n d f o r a s t r u c k j u r y . ... fi "(c) Same: S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f i s s u e s . In the demand a p a r t y may s p e c i f y t h e i s s u e s which the p a r t y w i s h e s so t r i e d ; o t h e r w i s e , t h e p a r t y s h a l l be deemed t o h a v e demanded t r i a l by j u r y f o r a l l t h e i s s u e s s o t r i a b l e . ... " ( d ) W a i v e r . The f a i l u r e o f a p a r t y t o s e r v e a demand as r e q u i r e d b y t h i s r u l e a n d t o f i l e i t as r e q u i r e d by Rule 5(d) c o n s t i t u t e s a w a i v e r by t h e p a r t y o f t r i a l b y j u r y . ... " (Emphasis The the other than Sellerses commencement defendants issues 38(b) had raised after the issue." filed of t h e i r action filed that or served (Emphasis of for a jury trial a n y o f t h e named pleadings directed to the The p l a i n language of Rule " a t any time a f t e r t h e and n o t l a t e r than t h i r t y the last after and b e f o r e t h e d e m a n d be f i l e d of the action service added.) t h e i r demand i n the complaint. requires commencement on h e a d i n g s pleading directed (30) d a y s to added.) "The t e r m ' p l e a d i n g , ' w h i c h i s s p e c i f i c a l l y u s e d i n R u l e 3 8 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i s d e f i n e d t o i n c l u d e an a n s w e r f i l e d b y a d e f e n d i n g p a r t y . Rule 7 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ' I t i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d t h a t w h e r e 6 such 1071716 the c o m p l a i n t and answer a r e t h e o n l y p l e a d i n g s d i r e c t e d t o the i s s u e s , the time f o r making a j u r y demand r u n s f r o m t h e d a t e o f s e r v i c e o f t h e a n s w e r . ' D o r c a l , I n c . v . X e r o x C o r p . , 398 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , 669 (Ala. 1981)." Poff v. Hayes, Charles A. Procedure last demand Wright § 2320 defendants the 7 63 & their 2320 course, and Miller, an i s s u e named may court erred Liberty runs Homes Practice from filed served service their in striking of the that § to the t h e demand. petition, argue & jury answered prior 9 a l lthe See, e.g., 9 W r i g h t , be to the S e l l e r s e s ' see a l s o i n which defendants timely. demand 2000 ) ; Federal the Sellerses was the The t r i a l response Mortgage, Because demand (Ala. ... t h e t i m e any o f t h e t h e n complaint, answer."). R. (3d e d . 2 0 0 8 ) ( " O n answer."). ("Of Arthur are interested, before In So. 2d 2 3 4 , 243 Hall, the Consumer Sellerses' s t a t e m e n t i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h e y h a d " h e r e t o f o r [ e ] demanded t r i a l the new was claims asserted" conversion amended by j u r y " and trial incorporation that by as a j u r y demand f o r i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t , i . e . , t h e negligence complaint demand[ed] "ineffective claims. the Sellerses jury" o f and r e l i a n c e The may fairly on t h e i r 7 statement had be i n the "heretofor[e] read previously as filed an jury 1071716 demand. have Moreover, nothing filed a general, i n Rule timely a new d e m a n d f o r a j u r y t r i a l to restate time this courts Rule an e x i s t i n g Court 38 r e q u i r e s p l a i n t i f f s demand fora jury t r i a l who to file a f t e r amending t h e c o m p l a i n t demand. Although has had o c c a s i o n i n t e r p r e t i n g and a p p l y i n g 3 8 , F e d . R. C i v . P., h a v e this t o comment i s the on t h i s the comparable f e d e r a l reached t h e same or first issue, rule, conclusion. 2 S e e , e . g . , W i l l i a m s v . A g i l e n t T e c h s . , (No. 0 4 - 1 8 1 0 MMC, Dec. 1 0 , 2004 ) (N.D. C a l . 2004 ) ( n o t p u b l i s h e d i n F. S u p p . 2d)("While t h e [ f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t ] included additional l e g a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t , t h e new c l a i m s a r e b a s e d o n t h e 'same m a t r i x o f f a c t s ' a l l e g e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l complaint, and, consequently, p l a i n t i f f s were n o t r e q u i r e d t o r e s t a t e t h e i r j u r y demand a f t e r d e f e n d a n t a n s w e r e d t h e [ f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t ] . " ) ; Auwood v . H a r r y B r a n d t B o o k i n g O f f i c e , I n c . , 100 F.R.D. 8 0 4 , 806 (D.C. C o n n . 1 9 8 4 ) ( " T h e g e n e r a l j u r y d e m a n d i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t ought t o embrace l a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n s of the claim and a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s , so l o n g as t h e character of the s u i t i s not thereby changed. As a p r i o r w a i v e r c a n n o t b e r e s c i n d e d b y a m e n d m e n t s w h i c h do n o t a f f e c t t h e b a s i c c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s u i t , L a n z a v . D r e x e l , 479 F . 2 d 1277 (2d C i r . 1973) (en b a n c ) , n e i t h e r s h o u l d a p a r t y be r e q u i r e d t o r e a s s e r t , on p a i n o f w a i v e r , a p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d j u r y demand i n s u c c e s s i v e amendments, w h e t h e r t h e y a d d p a r t i e s o r n o t , s o l o n g a s t h e same b a s i c i s s u e s r e m a i n a t t h e c o r e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . Once a p a r t y h a s c l a i m e d a j u r y t r i a l , a l l i s s u e s w i t h i n t h a t c l a i m a r e t o be t r i e d t o t h e j u r y w h e t h e r e x t e n d e d t o new p a r t i e s a n d w h e t h e r r e s t a t e d , a s l o n g a s t h e substance o f t h e c l a i m i s unchanged."); Jackson v. Airways Parking C o . , 2 97 F. S u p p . 1 3 6 6 , 1 3 8 3 (D.C. G a . 1 9 6 9 ) ( " O f c o u r s e , h a d a g e n e r a l a n d t i m e l y demand f o r j u r y t r i a l b e e n made b y t h e p l a i n t i f f , no new d e m a n d w o u l d h a v e b e e n n e c e s s a r y e v e n t h o u g h t h e amendment r a i s e s new i s s u e s , 'since the general demand e m b r a c e s a l l i s s u e s i n an a c t i o n t h a t a r e t r i a b l e by a j u r y . ' 5 Moore, 538.41, a t 3 2 6 . " ) ; see a l s o 9 2 8 1071716 "Federal cases c o n s t r u i n g the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure are Rules persuasive authority Civil of Procedure, Civil which i n c o n s t r u i n g the Alabama were p a t t e r n e d a f t e r Procedure." Hilb, Rogal & Beiersdoerfer, 989 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 6 n.3 the of the federal reasoning conclude demand that where for a jury plaintiffs trial, demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l circumstances remain here cases they Office, where " t h e same 38(c). 3 was t i m e l y . find to f i l e timely a new basic (D.C. C o n n . issues Brandt 1984). issues they wished to A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e y a r e "deemed t o h a v e f o r a l l the issues As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e i r a jury t r i a l v. likewise Auwood v. H a r r y I n c . , 100 F.R.D. 8 0 4 , 806 by j u r y and We a general, are not required The S e l l e r s e s d i d n o t s p e c i f y w h i c h demanded t r i a l Co. a f t e r amending t h e c o m p l a i n t under t h e presented be t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y . Hamilton ( A l a .2007). filed at the core of the l i t i g a t i o n . " Booking the Federal Rules compelling have of June so t r i a b l e . " 13, 2008, Rule demand f o r A l t h o u g h t h e amended c o m p l a i n t added W r i g h t , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & P r o c e d u r e § 2320 ( " [ I ] f a g e n e r a l d e m a n d a l r e a d y h a s b e e n made, a new d e m a n d a f t e r t h e amendment is not r e q u i r e d . " ) . No p a r t y h a s a s s e r t e d e i t h e r b e l o w o r b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t that the Sellerses raised issues, either i n t h e i r complaint or i n t h e i r amended c o m p l a i n t , t h a t a r e n o t " t r i a b l e o f r i g h t b y a j u r y " w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f R u l e 3 8 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 3 9 1071716 new p a r t i e s a n d a s s e r t e d new c l a i m s , on t h e same f a c t s a s t h o s e a l l e g e d and the character Accordingly, because amended jury new complaint upon not required and L i b e r t y complaint 30-day within asserted period which they of C i v i l (2004). Procedure Annotated, H o w e v e r , t h e new t i m e p e r i o d L i b e r t y Homes r e f e r e n c e previously waived unchanged. to f i l e Homes argue new claims, the f i l i n g were required new Author's that, the of the to f i l e 2 C. L y o n s , Hall, a complaint. from citing based complaint, remained amending t h e i r Mortgage, amended had a were were i n the o r i g i n a l action d e m a n d a s t o t h e new c l a i m s , Rules and trial Consumer the Sellerses the the Sellerses demand f o r a j u r y Hall, of t h e new c l a i m s Alabama Comments § 3 8 . 6 Consumer Mortgage, a r i s e s o n l y when t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s the right to a jury trial. 4 Because t h e S e e , e . g . , E x p a r t e T w i n t e c h I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 558 S o . 9 2 3 , 925 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 4 2d a "This Court has h e l d that the f i l i n g o f an amendment t h a t r a i s e s new l e g a l i s s u e s i n v o k e s t h e 3 0 - d a y p e r i o d s e t o u t i n R u l e 3 8 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] . E x p a r t e R e y n o l d s , 447 S o . 2 d 701 , 7 0 3 ( A l a . 1984). Therefore, upon the f i l i n g o f such an amendment, a p a r t y h a s t h e r i g h t t o demand a j u r y t r i a l , a n d s u c h a d e m a n d i s t i m e l y i f made w i t h i n 30 days a f t e r s e r v i c e o f t h e l a s t p l e a d i n g d i r e c t e d t o t h o s e new i s s u e s . I d . "However, i n Washington 10 v. Walton, 423 So. 2 d 1071716 June 13, 2008 , general jury demand was timely, we c o n s i d e r whether t h e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t r a i s e d new a as case where, complaint, to the r i g h t the issues to a j u r y raised trial has in been need not i s s u e s as i n the original waived. Conclusion The the to Sellerses order sought; (2) an perform, accompanied another adequate of h a v e shown "(1) We by a r e f u s a l remedy; and therefore legal right i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e I n c . , 586 grant the 176 ( A l a . 1982), t h i s comment w i t h a p p r o v a l : t o do s o ; ... to respondent (3) t h e l a c k of (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 t h e c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e A l f a b , 1991). a clear So. 2 d 8 8 9 , Sellerses Court quoted petition the 891 ( A l a . for a following "'"An a m e n d e d o r s u p p l e m e n t a l p l e a d i n g sets i n motion the t h i r t y - d a y time p e r i o d for d e m a n d i n g a j u r y t r i a l f o r new issues raised i n that pleading. However, the s e r v i c e o f an amendment d o e s n o t b r e a t h e new l i f e i n t o a p r e v i o u s l y w a i v e d r i g h t t o j u r y t r i a l i f t h e amendment d e a l s w i t h t h e same issues framed in the original pleadings as to which a waiver has o c c u r r e d . " ' ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d , emphasis i n Washington.) "Washington, s u p r a , a t 179 ( q u o t i n g 2 C. Lyons, Alabama P r a c t i c e - R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure Annotated, A u t h o r ' s Comments § 38.5 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) . " 11 writ 1071716 of mandamus granting and d i r e c t the motion PETITION Cobb, the t r i a l to strike GRANTED; WRIT C . J . , and S t u a r t , court the jury to vacate i t s order demand. ISSUED. Bolin, 12 and Murdock, J J . , concur.

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.