Case Title: Ex Parte Hudson

Citation: 562 So. 2d 248

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1990-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
562 So. 2d 248 (1990)
Ex parte Deborah Hooks HUDSON.
(Re Thomas Clinton HUDSON v. Deborah Hooks HUDSON).
89-559.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 12, 1990.
L. Drew Redden of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Guy Fullan and James M. Fullan, Jr., Birmingham, for respondent.
HOUSTON, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Deborah Hooks Hudson, seeking a review de novo[1] pursuant to Rule 21(e)(1), A.R.App.P., which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The issue before us is whether the trial court correctly held that it had no authority to appoint the private court reporter proffered by Ms. Hudson as the official court reporter.
Ms. Hudson had previously filed a similar petition in the Court of Civil Appeals. After thoroughly reviewing the briefs and the arguments of both parties, we are persuaded that the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion issued regarding that petition correctly states the applicable law:
"French provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"After the court made counsel for both parties aware of the implications of French, [Ms. Hudson's] attorney requested that the court appoint her privately engaged reporter as an official court reporter for the trial of the case. [Ms. Hudson] agreed to pay for the expense of the reporter.
558 So. 2d 394 at 394-95. (Emphasis added.)
Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued only where there is a clear, legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; only where there is an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by refusal to do so; only where there is a lack of another adequate remedy; and only where there is properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Army Aviation Center Federal Credit Union, 477 So. 2d 379 (Ala.1985).
In the case at bar, absent consent by both parties that the trial court appoint an official court reporter (see Ex parte French, 547 So. 2d 547 (Ala.1989)), counsel for Ms. Hudson could have requested that the trial court recommend to and seek approval from the administrative director of courts according to §§ 12-17-271, 12-17-272, and Rule 12, A.R.J.A. Failing to take these steps precludes Ms. Hudson from being heard to complain that the trial court erroneously held that it had no authority to appoint the proffered private reporter as the official court reporter regardless of the expense involved.
Based on the foregoing, we hold that, because Ms. Hudson has no clear, legal right to the order sought, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that it had no statutory authority to appoint the private court reporter proffered by Ms. Hudson to serve as the official court reporter. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
WRIT DENIED.
JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
[1]  Ms. Hudson previously filed a petition for mandamus on the same issue in the Court of Civil Appeals, which denied the petition. See Ex parte Hudson, 558 So. 2d 394 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990).