Case Title: Green v. Morris

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1110779

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL:10/19/2012
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) 229-
0649), 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, 2012-2013
____________________
1110779
____________________
Ex parte George D. Green and Wanda Green
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: George D. Green and Wanda Green
v.
Garth Morris and Paul Battle)
(Monroe Circuit Court, CV-11-51)
SHAW, Justice.
The petitioners, George D. Green and Wanda Green, the
plaintiffs in a personal-injury action pending in the Monroe
Circuit Court, petition for a writ of mandamus directing that
1110779
court to vacate its order transferring the underlying action
to the Conecuh Circuit Court.  We grant the petition and issue
the writ.
Facts and Procedural History  
The complaint seeks damages for assault and battery; it
alleges that the defendants Paul Battle and Garth Morris 
"shot[] [George] with a shotgun."  George seeks damages for
physical injuries and mental anguish; Wanda seeks damages for
loss of consortium.  The complaint further alleges that the
Greens and Morris are residents of Conecuh County and that
Battle is a resident of Pensacola, Florida.
Battle filed a motion seeking, among other things, a
transfer of the case to Conecuh County.  The grounds stated
for the motion were as follows:
"MOTION TO DISMISS
"COMES NOW Paul Battle, by and through his
attorneys of record, and moves this Court to dismiss
the above captioned action. ... [T]his defendant
would state that this cause is filed in an improper
venue and, because of this, is due to be dismissed.
"MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
"In the event that this Court denies the above
Motion to Dismiss, this defendant moves for a change
of venue to the Circuit Court of Conecuh County. As
grounds, the undersigned would show as follows:
2
1110779
"1. Plaintiffs are residents of Conecuh County.
(See Complaint)
"2. Co-Defendant Garth Morris is a resident of
Conecuh County. (See Complaint)
"3. This defendant is a resident of Pensacola,
Florida. (See Complaint)
"4. The alleged incident which forms the basis
of this action occurred in Conecuh County. (See
Complaint)
"Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiffs have
filed this case in the Circuit Court of Monroe
County, Alabama. The parties and the allegations
have no connection with Monroe County and the proper
venue for this action is the Circuit Court of
Conecuh County.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant Paul
Battle moves this Court to transfer the above
captioned action to its proper venue, the Circuit
Court of Conecuh County."
(Capitalization in original.)
Morris, acting pro se, also filed a motion to dismiss, 
stating:
"The alleged 
incident 
and 
facts 
described by 
the
plaintiffs in this complaint occurred in Conecuh
County, none of it occurring in Monroe County.
"None of the parties in this lawsuit live in
Monroe County.
"Monroe County has no claim to jurisdiction and
Monroe County has no claim to venue either and both
claims [are] unfair and improper."
3
1110779
The trial court entered an order stating: "Motion for change
of venue/transfer filed by Battle Paul [sic] is hereby granted
in part. This case is hereby transferred to Conecuh County."
Morris has filed a pleading in this Court asserting that the
trial court has not yet ruled on his motion for a change of
venue.   
1
The Greens petitioned for mandamus review, and this Court
ordered answer and briefs.
"'The proper method for obtaining review of a
denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil
action is to petition for the writ of mandamus.' Ex
parte Alabama Great Southern R.R., 788 So. 2d 886,
888 (Ala. 2000). 'Mandamus is a drastic and
extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is
(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the
order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the
respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to
do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and
(4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex
parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala.
1995). Moreover, our review is limited to those
facts that were before the trial court. Ex parte
National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 (Ala.
1998).
"'The burden of proving improper venue is on the
party raising the issue and on review of an order
transferring or refusing to transfer, a writ of
mandamus will not be granted unless there is a clear
It is unclear whether the trial court transferred the
1
entire 
case, 
including 
the 
claims 
against 
Morris. 
Nevertheless, the Greens have named Morris as a respondent,
and Morris has filed an answer to their petition.  
4
1110779
showing of error on the part of the trial judge.' Ex
parte Finance America Corp., 507 So. 2d 458, 460
(Ala. 1987). In addition, this Court is bound by the
record, and it cannot consider a statement or
evidence in a party's brief that was not before the
trial court. Ex parte American Res. Ins. Co., 663
So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995)."
Ex parte Pike Fabrication, Inc., 859 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.
2002).
In their petition, the Greens contend that the trial
court erred in transferring this case to Conecuh County
because, they say, "[v]enue of a legal action against a
non-resident individual defendant is properly laid in any
county of the State."  In support of this argument, the Greens
cite Ex parte McCord, 896 So. 2d 493, 494 (Ala. 2004)
("Indeed, it is well established that an action against a
nonresident individual can be brought in any county of the
State."), and Ex parte Del Mercado, 723 So. 2d 19, 21 (Ala.
1998) (noting that Rule 82(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., adopted
"'"the common law rule of venue as to actions at law against
nonresident defendants ... [which] allowed suit to be brought
against nonresident individuals in any county in 
the 
state."'"
(quoting Ex parte Jones, 681 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Ala. 1996),
quoting in turn Ex parte Cummings, Gazaway & Scott, Inc., 386
5
1110779
So. 2d 732, 735 (Ala. 1980))).  Both decisions indicate that
venue as to Battle, a nonresident, would be proper in Monroe
County.   Thus, the trial court's transfer of the case to
2
Conecuh County was erroneous.  
In response to the mandamus petition, Battle contends
that the trial court properly transferred the action pursuant
to Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1, the Code section providing for
transfers on the basis of the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.  Battle then provides an argument supporting a
transfer of the case under that doctrine.  However, the Greens
contend that no such argument was raised in the trial court.  
3
Rule 82(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that "[w]here
2
several claims or parties have been joined, the suit may be
brought in any county in which any one of the claims could
properly have been brought."  Thus, "because venue in [Monroe]
County was proper as to [Battle], pursuant to the pendent
venue provision of Rule 82(c), venue there was also proper as
to [Morris] ...."  Ex parte McCord,  896 So. 2d at 494.
In the trial court, both Battle and Morris contended that
3
venue in Monroe County was "improper."  Although both Battle's
and 
Morris's 
motions 
obliquely 
mention 
the 
lack 
of
"connection" between the action and Monroe County, which is
one possible factor to be considered in a transfer on the
basis of forum non conveniens, none of the parties' filings in
the trial court reference the doctrine or cite any applicable
authority.  For all that appears, no evidence supporting the
applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens was
received in the trial court, and the Greens did not have the
opportunity to challenge the invocation of the doctrine.  
6
1110779
In Ex parte Del Mercado, supra, the respondent to a mandamus
petition challenging a transfer of a case based on improper
venue argued that the doctrine of forum non conveniens
provided an alternate basis to support the trial court's
transfer.  However, the forum non conveniens argument was
raised for the first time after the case had been transferred. 
723 So. 2d at 21.  Thus, we held that "[w]hether the forum non
conveniens statute would support the trial court's order is
not an issue before this Court."  Id.  See also Ex parte
Harper, 934 So. 2d 1045, 1048 (Ala. 2006) (refusing to address
an alternate argument that a transfer was proper under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens because "the trial court did
not address this ground for transferring the action in its
order").  We similarly hold that the issue whether the
transfer of this case to Conecuh County on the basis of the
doctrine of forum non conveniens was proper is not before us. 
Conclusion
Venue is proper in Monroe County; the Greens have thus
demonstrated clear error in the trial court's transfer and a
clear legal right to mandamus relief.  We grant the petition
7
1110779
and direct the trial court to vacate its order transferring
the action to the Conecuh Circuit Court. 
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Malone, C.J., and Stuart, Parker, and Wise, JJ., concur.
8