Ex parte David Scott Owens. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Vasaliki Michelle Owens (Parker) v. David Scott Owens)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/17/10 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 2090899 Ex p a r t e D a v i d S c o t t Owens PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Vasaliki M i c h e l l e Owens (Parker) v. D a v i d S c o t t Owens) (Jefferson Circuit PER Court, DR-07-1405.01) CURIAM. David court Scott Owens ("the f o r m e r husband") p e t i t i o n s f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g theJefferson this Circuit 2090899 Court ("the t r i a l filed for by V a s a l i k i court") to dismiss M i c h e l l e Owens l a c k of subject-matter forth b e l o w , we g r a n t This before 2010] this court. (Parker) jurisdiction. action ("the f o r m e r wife") For the reasons s e t the writ. second time these parties I n Owens v . Owens, have appeared [Ms. 2 0 8 1 1 5 8 , June ___ So. 3 d ___ ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) , t h e f o r m e r appealed for i s the the underlying a judgment f i n d i n g him i n c r i m i n a l and c i v i l failure t o pay c h i l d support. a petition f o ra rule n i s i filed to a foreign child-support order. enforce "the t r i a l enforce court never obtained husband contempt T h a t j u d g m e n t stemmed b y t h e f o r m e r w i f e who We d i s m i s s e d t h e f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s a p p e a l 4, from sought ___ So. 3 d a t ___ . after concluding that subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n to the foreign child-support order" because the former w i f e had f a i l e d t o meet t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s of § 30-3A- 602, 1975, p a r t Interstate A l a . Code of t h e Alabama Family Support Act, 1975, which sets f o r t h the s p e c i f i c procedure f o r r e g i s t e r i n g a codified Uniform foreign child-support court. ___ obtained order So. 3 d a t ___ . subject-matter a t § 30-3A-101 e t seq., f o r enforcement Because jurisdiction 2 the t r i a l over A l a . Code by an A l a b a m a court the former had not wife's 2090899 enforcement So. a c t i o n , we 3 d a t ___ . appeal with We held therefore that the judgment dismissed the former i n s t r u c t i o n s to the t r i a l judgment. So. 3d a t . court court dismissed vacate t h e judgment never obtained foreign to after we child-support concluded court entered husband 21, 2010, t h e former husband f i l e d June 18, 2010, o r d e r , include an o r d e r dismissing enforce a failed 30-3A-602). court's instructions, contempt. finding On June a m o t i o n t o amend t h e t r i a l requesting the action The t r i a l court court that the t r i a l for lack scheduled of court subject- a hearing on f o r m e r h u s b a n d ' s m o t i o n t o b e c o n d u c t e d on A u g u s t 4, 2 0 1 0 . Also leave Civ. of § i n c r i m i n a l and c i v i l court's the to an o r d e r v a c a t i n g t h e j u d g m e n t former jurisdiction. the t r i a l the mother had to this the matter that judgment because On J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 , p u r s u a n t [Ms. with instructionsto jurisdiction meet t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s the t r i a l to vacate i t s ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) the appeal subject-matter ___ husband's See a l s o M a t t e s v . M a t t e s , 2 0 8 1 1 2 2 , M a r c h 12, 2 0 1 0 ] ___ So. 3 d ___ (in which t h i s was v o i d . on J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e f o r m e r w i f e t o amend h e r p l e a d i n g s P., i n o r d e r pursuant filed to Rule t o comply w i t h § 30-3A-602. 3 a motion f o r 15(b), A l a . R. The t r i a l court 2090899 granted June of the former 21, 2010. motion motion t o amend her pleadings The same d a y , t h e f o r m e r w i f e transmittal," wife's wife's which to enroll was filed as notice a f o r e i g n judgment. on filed a "letter of the former The f o r m e r wife i n c l u d e d two c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f two t h e f o r e i g n c h i l d - s u p p o r t judgments On to that June the t r i a l she sought to 22, 2010, t h e f o r m e r court's June June for l a c k of subject-matter the trial June to on scheduled a hearing and enforce petition former husband June a filed On to vacate the action June 23, 2010, on t h e f o r m e r husband's filed nisi. an o b j e c t i o n a motion on A u g u s t foreign for a rule filed to dismiss jurisdiction. 23, 2010, t h e former w i f e enroll husband and a m o t i o n t o v a c a t e t o be c o n d u c t e d verified the 21, 2010, o r d e r , court 1 21, 2010, o r d e r , the motion enforce. 4, 2 0 1 0 . a second judgment The r e c o r d this petition amended and an Also on motion amended indicates that for a writ o f mandamus 25, 2010. The f o r m e r w i f e i n c l u d e d two c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s f o r e i g n d i v o r c e judgment s e t t i n g the former husband's c h i l d - s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , she a l s o i n c l u d e d two c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s of a f o r e i g n contempt judgment t h a t h e l d the former husband i n contempt f o r f a i l i n g to pay h i s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . In her i n i t i a l p l e a d i n g s , the former wife f a i l e d to p r o p e r l y r e g i s t e r e i t h e r of these f o r e i g n c h i l d support judgments. 1 4 2090899 In his petition, court erred seeking this by failing a petition to dismiss f o r a rule nisi the underlying on J u n e court had determined t h a t the t r i a l subject-matter Thus, any the former husband argues t h a t the t r i a l jurisdiction he a r g u e s , action seeking the t r i a l other than a petition to enforce court 18, 2010, b e c a u s e court never the foreign obtained judgment. d i d n o t have power to dismiss f o r a rule action the former to take wife's action nisi. "This Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d d r a s t i c w r i t a n d t h a t a p a r t y s e e k i n g s u c h a w r i t must meet c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a . We w i l l i s s u e t h e w r i t o f mandamus o n l y when (1) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o the relief sought; (2) t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y t o p e r f o r m a n d h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o ; (3) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s no o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) t h i s C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d . Ex p a r t e M e r c u r y F i n . C o r p . , 715 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , 198 (Ala. 1 9 9 7 ) . B e c a u s e mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, t h e s t a n d a r d by w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether the t r i a l court has c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . S e e E x p a r t e R u d o l p h , 515 S o . 2 d 704 , 706 (Ala. 1987)." Ex parte Our Flint supreme matter court 480 Ex p a r t e (Ala. C o . , 775 S o . 2 d 8 0 5 , 808 has h e l d jurisdiction mandamus." 478, Constr. that "[t]he question i s reviewable by a p e t i t i o n Liberty Nat'l Life 2003) (citing Ex 5 parte (Ala. 2000). of subjectf o ra writ of I n s . C o . , 888 S o . 2 d Flint Constr. Co., 2090899 supra). In support cases i n which trial court of plaintiffs his petition, the Alabama lacked Supreme subject-matter lacked standing determined jurisdiction cites that because a the t o commence t h e u n d e r l y i n g action. ("Cadle II"); and S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y 1025 ( A l a . 1999). In f a i l e d to invoke the trial court, did n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n pleadings 200 6) Cadle Company have action dismissed j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l the case. Cadle court t o amend i t s I I , 4 So. 3d a t 463; 950 So. 2d court standing 2 7 7 , 27 9-80 ( A l a . determined to maintain and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the t r i a l court and that the c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o Shabani, lacked subject-matter supreme held because to allow the p l a i n t i f f I " ) , t h e supreme ("Cadle") ejectment cases, 740 S o . 2 d 740 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 2 9 . Co. v . ("Cadle those t h e supreme c o u r t but dismiss Rainbow D r i v e , of the subject-matter because the t r i a l anything In a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , each plaintiff The Court husband C a d l e C o m p a n y v . S h a b a n i , 4 S o . 3 d 460 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) See do the former that jurisdiction concluded over that the underlying 6 that Cadle the underlying court d i dnot the ejectment action. the appeal was due t o be judgment was due to be 2090899 vacated. I d . a t 280. the trial the ejectment trial court court, complaint. action, Cadle entered Id. court, supreme matter ha[d] trial court at bound at had 462. to understand in i s lacking." Id. The in trial favor court of [Cadle The I d . a t 463 supreme I] that supreme court of [the subject- court d i d not cure jurisdiction subject-matter then the because the jurisdiction ( c i t i n g R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 S o . court concluded of i t s d e c i s i o n i n Cadle I , "the t r i a l th[e] action." Id. that, upon the c o u r t was duty That c o u r t stated: "When t h e a b s e n c e o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction i s n o t i c e d by, or p o i n t e d out t o , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n f u r t h e r motions or pleadings i n the case. I t c a n do n o t h i n g b u t d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n f o r t h w i t h . '"Any o t h e r a c t i o n taken by a c o u r t l a c k i n g s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction 7 the as w e l l as t h e the import amended p l e a d i n g s acquired over to the o f t h a t judgment, t h e supreme failed never The to dismiss remand that C a d l e t o amend i t s judgment lack of subject-matter 1028). issuance summary Cadle's over the proceeding. 2d 3d determination out that court's permitted on " c l e a r that a l l the p a r t i e s , jurisdiction trial So. jurisdiction proceeded court On a p p e a l court's] pointed litigation I I , 4 s t a t e d t h a t i t was trial t h e supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g d i d not have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r and t h e t r i a l subsequently defendants. Despite 2090899 i s n u l l a n d v o i d . " ' R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2d 1029 ( q u o t i n g B e a c h v. D i r e c t o r of Revenue, S.W.2d 3 1 5 , 318 (Mo. C t . A p p . 1996))." at 934 Id. Similarly, in Alabama Department Montgomery County Commission, Alabama did Supreme C o u r t not have held that subject-matter Montgomery County Commission initial complaint, Department the of pertinent which Corrections commissioner defendant. 11 In of the doing ("the ("the so, the 3d Corrections v. 189 (Ala. 2008), the Montgomery C i r c u i t jurisdiction had DOC So. of in the Commission") listed DOC") his as only official supreme allow to the Alabama capacity court " ' " [ I ] n Ex p a r t e B l a n k e n s h i p , 893 So. 2d 3 0 3 , 306-07 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , t h i s Court held that, i f a t r i a l court lacks subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t h a s no p o w e r t o take any action other than to dismiss the complaint. A trial court lacks subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i f the defendant i s immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. L a r k i n s [v. Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 806 So. 2d [358,] 364 (Ala. 2001)] ('"Article I, § 14, of the A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 t h u s the amend i t s a defendant, part: 8 to Court to add as stated, a in 2090899 removes 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 f r o m t h e c o u r t s when an a c t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be one against the State."' (quoting [ A l a b a m a S t a t e D o c k s T e r m i n a l Ry. v . ] L y l e s , 797 So. 2d [ 4 3 2 , ] 435 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] ) ) . Thus, t h i s Court cannot order the t r i a l c o u r t to allow Good Hope to amend i t s complaint because the t r i a l c o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction." "'[Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't of Transp. (In r e ] G o o d Hope [ C o n t r a c t i n g Co. v . A l a b a m a Dep't of T r a n s p . ] , 978 So. 2d [17,] 26 [(Ala. 2007) ("Good Hope")] (emphasis a d d e d ) . A c c o r d Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f T r a n s p . , 990 So. 2d 366 (Ala. 2008).' "[Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't of Transp. (In re] R u s s e l l [ P e t r o l e u m , I n c . v . A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f T r a n s p . ] , 6 So. 3d [ 1 1 2 6 , ] 1128 [ ( A l a . 2008) ( ' R u s s e l l ' ) ] . " R u s s e l l a n d G o o d Hope c o n t r o l t h i s c a s e . The C o m m i s s i o n ' s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t named o n l y t h e DOC a s a d e f e n d a n t . B e c a u s e t h e DOC i s a S t a t e agency, it i s , u n d e r § 14, a b s o l u t e l y immune f r o m suit. B e c a u s e t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t named o n l y a p a r t y that has absolute State immunity, i t failed to trigger the subject-matter jurisdiction of the c i r c u i t court. Consequently, i t was a n u l l i t y . The p u r p o r t e d amendment o f a n u l l i t y i s a l s o a n u l l i t y . See P o r t e r v . C o m m o n w e a l t h , 276 V a . 2 0 3 , 2 2 8 , 661 S . E . 2 d 4 1 5 , 427 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ('A d e f e c t i n s u b j e c t m a t t e r jurisdiction cannot be cured by reissuance of p r o c e s s , p a s s a g e of t i m e , or p l e a d i n g amendment.'). Because the circuit court never acquired subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s a c t i o n , i t s orders and judgments are void, including the judgment t h a t i s the s u b j e c t of t h i s appeal." 9 2090899 Id. at 193. Because the former wife foreign child-support petition for a rule nisi, child-support jurisdiction order, of the failed order properly pursuant to § to court. See id. trial must c o n c l u d e that the amendment o f a nullity, also a that nullity, jurisdiction Corr., her that to the anything 4 So. Therefore, i n an trial than see we conclude allowing the action for former wife's the petition petition that was was did "dismiss not the have action a l s o Alabama Dep't that the the trial former wife attempt to comply w i t h dismiss foreign j u r i s d i c t i o n of court a t 463; her subject-matter original other 3d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by pleadings failing do Cadle, supra. exceeded and to forthwith." purported the that I f the subject-matter the 30-3A-602, the invoke we the trigger p e t i t i o n d i d not court, register which sought to enforce failed trial to lack court to amend § 30-3A-602 and of of by subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, demonstrated that sought, that the it required was we conclude he has trial to do, a that clear court that 10 former legal failed the the to he right dismiss has no husband to the the other has relief action as adequate 2090899 remedy that other this former court's husband. husband's granted, filed than Thompson, Bryan, jurisdiction was p r o p e r l y for a order by t h e former PETITION of the writ Therefore, petition a n d we the issuance we writ the t r i a l conclude of o f mandamus, a n d that mandamus court invoked the i s due to dismiss by t h e former to be the action wife. GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. P . J . , and P i t t m a n J . , dissents, with joins. 11 and Moore, writing, J J . , concur. which Thomas, J . , 2090899 BRYAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Because filed in by V a s a l i k i Code because are i n support cases i n which jurisdiction commence Alabama Property i n violation those dissent Scott lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs. Therefore, that the the t r i a l o f mandamus subject-matter lacked standing to the an a c t i o n a g a i n s t plaintiff's the State of of sovereign immunity. (Ala. 2008); 893 S o . 2 d 303 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . the present courts never acquired underlying i n those courts 12 State 740 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 5 ( A l a . d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the t r i a l was v o i d ab ("the f o r m e r for a writ 4 S o . 3 d 460 actions case, wife") opinion. Owens or because of the doctrine nisi § 30-3A-602, A l a . t h e main courts actions to assert Blankenship, cases, Court held court") with from by David a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , cases those t o comply f o ra rule ("the f o r m e r ("the t r i a l circuit Co. v . S h a b a n i , Ex p a r t e (Parker) because e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f s purported Cadle the p e t i t i o n of h i s p e t i t i o n the underlying complaint in she f a i l e d authorities cited husband") and Court 1975, I r e s p e c t f u l l y The that M i c h e l l e Owens the Jefferson C i r c u i t initio See I do n o t a g r e e action v. 1999); I find because, subject-matter filed t h e Alabama by the Supreme d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o 2090899 allow the p l a i n t i f f s trial courts dismiss 740 to d i d n o t have the cases. pleadings t o do because the anything 4 So. 3d a t 4 6 2 - 6 3 ; R a i n b o w and B l a n k e n s h i p , I n Owens v . Owens, obtained their jurisdiction Cadle, So. 2d a t 1028-29; (Ala. amend subject-matter that jurisdiction Drive, 893 S o . 2 d a t 3 0 6 - 0 7 . [Ms. 2 0 8 1 1 5 8 , J u n e 4, 2 0 1 0 ] C i v . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) , we h e l d but the t r i a l to enforce So. 3d court never the foreign c h i l d - s u p p o r t order because the former wife f a i l e d to p r o p e r l y r e g i s t e r the f o r e i g n child-support order with the t r i a l However, the former foreign void wife's child-support ab i n i t i o . rule nisi Art. IV, § i n a postdivorce 142(b) otherwise be p r o v i d e d over jurisdiction to because court, i t had n o t been p r o p e r l y 13 court, ("The nisi, generally fora See A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , circuit court except shall as the t r i a l court a c t i o n , b u t i t was foreign the action At the time the former rule the the e n t i r e i n a l lcases the underlying enforce register to entertain a petition by l a w . " ) . for a a circuit proceeding. jurisdiction her petition to properly n o t make ( O f f . Recomp.) general jurisdiction does jurisdiction exercise filed order The t r i a l has s u b j e c t - m a t t e r failure court. wife had without child-support r e g i s t e r e d pursuant may order t o § 30- 2090899 3A-602. So. See M a t t e s v . M a t t e s , 3d. concluded ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) that child-support jurisdiction the trial [Ms. 2 0 8 1 1 2 2 , M a r c h the t r i a l order over court court because could i t never ( i n which this not enforce a obtained the foreign child-support could not modify mother's petition to modify court foreign subject-matter order, the foreign o r d e r because i t d i d n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r the 12, 2010] and that child-support jurisdiction the father's over child-support obligation). "A w r i t o f mandamus a v a i l a b l e when a t r i a l i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y 917 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 , 830 may i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus demonstrate (2) an "'(1) a c l e a r imperative accompanied duty by a r e f u s a l (Ala. 2005). This 1272 (Ala. Because demonstrated court i s able legal sought; right to the order upon the respondent to t o do so; (3) t h e l a c k perform, of another j u r i s d i c t i o n of c o u r t . ' " I d . ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e BOC G r o u p , I n c . , 1270, Ex o n l y when t h e p e t i t i o n e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) t h e p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d the that i s c o u r t has exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " parte Antonucci, to remedy 823 S o . 2 d 2001)). I cannot conclude that had he a that clear 14 the former legal right husband to an has order 2090899 requiring the i.e., the action nisi, for lack the former trial of court on the to dismiss former subject-matter the wife's concurs. 15 petition rule j u r i s d i c t i o n , I would deny of for action, a husband's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t Thomas, J . , underlying mandamus.

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.