Lawler Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Lawler
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.
Lawler Manufacturing Co., Inc., appealed an order requiring Chris Lawler, president of Lawler Manufacturing, among other things, to authorize and give his consent to a pending shipment of goods from China, and to refrain from engaging in conduct that is contrary to the best interest of
Lawler Manufacturing. In 2019, Lawler Manufacturing sued Delmas Lawler, a shareholder, vice president, and alleged former employee of Lawler Manufacturing, and Sandra Lawler, an alleged former employee, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, theft, and conspiracy. Delmas moved the court to order Lawler Manufacturing and Chris, as president of Lawler Manufacturing, to continue the business operations of Lawler Manufacturing in the usual and customary manner in which business affairs had been conducted before the litigation was commenced, which would include authorizing the shipment of an order from China that had been placed earlier. The trial court granted the motion and ordered Chris to act in the best interest of the company. The Alabama Supreme Court determined the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the order. The presiding judge disqualified himself from this case, and no longer had authority to appoint his successor or to enter the order appointing the judge who entered the order requiring Chris Lawler to act in Lawler Manufacturing's best interest. " Therefore, Presiding Judge Woodruff's appointment of Judge Fannin was not a valid judicial appointment, and that order is vacated."
Download PDF
Rel: March 27, 2020 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) 2290649), 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020 ____________________ 1180889 ____________________ Lawler Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Delmas D. Lawler and Sandra Lawler Appeal from Talladega Circuit Court (CV-19-900054) BOLIN, Justice. Lawler Manufacturing Co., Inc., appeals from an order requiring Chris Lawler, president of Lawler Manufacturing, among other things, to authorize and give his consent to a pending shipment of goods from China and to refrain from 1180889 engaging in conduct that is contrary to the best interest of Lawler Manufacturing. Because the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the order, we dismiss the appeal. On February 5, 2019, Lawler Manufacturing sued Delmas D. Lawler, a shareholder, vice president, and alleged former employee of Lawler Manufacturing, and Sandra Lawler, an alleged former employee, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, theft, and conspiracy. The circuit clerk assigned the case to Presiding Circuit Judge Chad E. Woodruff. On February 6, 2019, Presiding Judge Woodruff, realizing that he had a conflict of interest, entered an order recusing himself from consideration of the case and entered a separate order appointing Jeb S. Fannin, a district-court judge, to hear the case as an ex officio circuit judge. On July 2, 2019, Delmas moved the court to order Lawler Manufacturing and Chris, as president of Lawler Manufacturing, to continue the business operations of Lawler Manufacturing in the usual and customary manner in which business affairs had been conducted before the litigation was commenced, which would include authorizing the shipment of an order from China that had been placed earlier. Judge Fannin granted the motion 2 1180889 and ordered Chris to act in the best interest of Lawler Manufacturing, to authorize and consent to the shipment from China, to refrain from engaging in any conduct contrary to the best interest of the company, and to conduct the business affairs of the company in the usual and customary manner the day-to-day operations of the company had been conducted before the filing of the litigation. dissolve the order. Lawler Manufacturing moved to On July 18, 2019, Judge Fannin denied Lawler Manufacturing's motion. Lawler Manufacturing appeals. Initially, we must consider whether the appointment of Judge Fannin to hear this case was valid and vested him with jurisdiction to preside over this case and, as a corollary, vested this Court with jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. In Ex parte K.R., 210 So. 3d 1106 (Ala. 2016), this Court observed that, although the objection to the validity, in that case, of the probate-court judge's appointment to preside over the case was untimely, the objection placed the probate court's jurisdiction at issue, and jurisdictional matters ex mero motu. citing Bush 2014)(holding v. State, void any 171 So. orders 3 3d the Court notices 210 So. 3d at 1112, 679 entered (Ala. by a Crim. judge App. whose 1180889 appointment is not valid as being entered by a judge who lacks authority to enter the orders). Rule 13, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., authorizes the presiding circuit judge of a judicial circuit to temporarily assign circuit- or district-court judges to serve in the courts of that circuit, if such an assignment is deemed necessary to assist in the administration of justice. In Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So. 2d 76 (Ala. 2000), this Court considered whether a presiding judge, who had recused himself pursuant to the Canons of Judicial Ethics from presiding over a case, had the authority to appoint his successor. We held that a presiding judge who recuses himself from a case does not have authority to appoint his successor, stating: "[I]n order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, we hold that after a judge presiding in a particular case has been disqualified from hearing that case, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, either voluntarily or by objection, he or she can take no further action in that case, not even the action of reassigning the case under Rule 13, Ala. R. Jud. Admin. For such a judge to make the reassignment would be contrary to Canon 3(C), because the impartiality of the reassignment might reasonably be questioned." 776 So. 2d at 80. 4 1180889 Additionally, directions with this regard Court to how provided a presiding the following judge who is disqualified should proceed with regard to the appointment of a successor: "[O]nce the presiding judge of a judicial circuit has been disqualified from a case under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, either voluntarily or by objection, the appropriate procedure for initiating a reassignment of the case is as follows: In a circuit with more than one circuit judge, the presiding judge shall enter an order notifying the next senior judge within that circuit of the presiding judge's disqualification. A circuit judge who is so notified but who is also disqualified shall enter an order notifying the next senior judge within that circuit of that judge's disqualification. A circuit judge who is so notified and who is not disqualified shall become the judge to whom the case is assigned, unless that judge assigns the case to another judge within the circuit who agrees to take the case. In a circuit with only one circuit judge, if the district judge within the county in which the action is pending has been temporarily assigned by the presiding circuit judge to serve in circuit court pursuant to Rule 13, Ala. R. Jud. Admin., the circuit judge shall notify that district judge of the circuit judge's disqualification. If no judge with authority to hear the case is available in the county in which the action is pending, the case shall be referred to the [Administrative Office of Courts] for assignment of a judge." Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So. 2d at 80. Because the judge in Ex parte Jim Walter Homes had been appointed by a presiding judge who did not have the authority to appoint 5 1180889 his successor, this Court held that the judicial appointment of the successor was not valid, vacated the presiding judge's orders transferring the case to his successor, and vacated the successor judge's orders in the case. In accordance with Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, when Presiding Judge Woodruff disqualified himself from this case, he no longer had authority to appoint his successor or to enter the order appointing Judge Fannin.1 Therefore, Presiding Judge Woodruff's appointment of Judge Fannin was not a valid judicial appointment, and that order is vacated. parte K.R., 210 So.3d at 1113. Ex Additionally, because Judge Fannin never had jurisdiction over this case, any orders entered by Judge Fannin are void. Id. Furthermore, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, Tidwell v. State Ethics Comm'n, 599 So. 2d 12, 12 (Ala. 1992), this appeal is dismissed with directions for Presiding Judge Woodruff to 1 The propriety of Presiding Judge Woodruff's recusal is not before us. 6 1180889 comply with the procedure set forth in Ex parte Jim Walter Homes for securing a valid judicial appointment to hear this case. TRANSFER ORDER VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED WITH DIRECTIONS. Parker, C.J., and Wise, concur. 7 Sellers, and Stewart, JJ.,
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.
