Title: Ex parte Kenneth Gene Wall. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Anita Denise Wall v. Kenneth Gene Wall)

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 10/05/2007
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, 2007-2008
____________________
1061381
____________________
Ex parte Kenneth Gene Wall
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Anita Denise Wall
v.
Kenneth Gene Wall)
(Elmore Circuit Court, DR-02-29;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2060857)
STUART, Justice.
Anita Denise Wall and Kenneth Gene Wall were divorced on
May 5, 2005.  The final judgment required Kenneth Wall, among
1061381
It appears that the total amount Kenneth Wall was ordered
1
by the trial court to pay consists of $120,588.07, which
represents the $96,880 unpaid equity in the marital estate
plus interest; $24,894.30, which represents the unpaid
attorney fee of $20,000 plus interest; and $3,865.95, which
represents another attorney fee of $3,200 plus interest. 
2
other things, to pay Anita Wall within 90 days of the
judgment, "the balance of the equity in the marital estate,
the sum of $96,880.00," and "the sum of $20,000.00 as attorney
fees."  In March and May 2007, Anita Wall filed show-cause
motions with the trial court, requesting the trial court to
order Kenneth Wall to show cause why he had not complied with
the May 5, 2005, order.  On June 13, 2007, the trial court
found Kenneth Wall in contempt and placed him in custody
"until [he] pays Anita Wall the sum of $149,348.32."   On June
1
19, 2007, Kenneth Wall filed a motion to alter, amend, or
vacate the order of contempt.  In his motion, Kenneth Wall
argued that the trial court erred in ordering him incarcerated
because § 20, Ala. Const. 1901, and Dolberry v. Dolberry, 920
So. 2d 573 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), prohibit incarceration for
nonpayment of this type debt.   Additionally, Kenneth Wall
argued that holding him in civil contempt was improper
because, he says, he lacks the ability to pay the debt.  The
1061381
3
motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment of contempt was
denied by operation of law.  See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.
On June 25, 2007, Kenneth Wall filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus with the Court of Civil Appeals, asking that
court to order the trial court to vacate the June 13, 2007,
contempt order and to order him freed from custody.  On June
26, 2007, the Court of Civil Appeals denied the petition
without an opinion.  Ex parte Wall (No. 2060857), ___ So. 2d
___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)(table).
On June 27, 2007, Kenneth Wall filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus with this Court, requesting this Court to
order the trial court to vacate its June 13, 2007, contempt
order and to order that Kenneth Wall be freed from custody
immediately.  This Court ordered answers and briefs and
granted Kenneth Wall's motion to stay enforcement of the
contempt order pending resolution of this petition.  
Standard of Review
"'The standard for determining whether a writ of
mandamus will issue is as follows:
"'"A 
writ 
of 
mandamus 
is 
an
extraordinary remedy, and it will be
'issued only when there is (1) a clear
legal right in the petitioner to the order
sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the
1061381
4
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
United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d
501, 503 (Ala. 1993).  A writ of mandamus
will issue only in situations where other
relief is unavailable or is inadequate, and
it cannot be used as a substitute for
appeal.  Ex parte Drill Parts & Serv. Co.,
590 So. 2d 252 (Ala. 1991)."
"'Ex parte Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 720 So. 2d
893, 894 (Ala. 1998).'"
Ex parte Silver Chiropractic Group, Inc., [Ms. 1050980, June
15, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007)(quoting Ex parte
Sawyer, 892 So. 2d 898, 901 (Ala. 2004)).
Discussion
Kenneth Wall contends that the trial court exceeded the
scope of its discretion when it "acted in contravention of
Alabama law in holding [him] in contempt of court and ordering
[him] imprisoned for non-payment of a debt."  According to
Wall, Dolberry, supra, and § 20, Ala. Const. 1901, prohibit
the trial court from ordering him to be incarcerated for
failure to pay a debt.
Kenneth Wall, however, cannot satisfy the requirements
for issuance of a writ of mandamus because he has another
adequate remedy available.  
1061381
5
Rule 70A(g)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:
"Where Contemnor Is in Custody.  An adjudication of
[civil] contempt is reviewable by appeal if the
person found in contempt is being held in custody
pursuant that adjudication, unless the writ of
habeas corpus is an available remedy."
Therefore, the trial court's order of contempt is reviewable
by appeal or by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, if the
circumstances satisfy the requirements for a writ of habeas
corpus.  See Peterson v. Roden, 949 So. 2d 948 (Ala. Civ. App.
2006)(father filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
seeking his immediate release from incarceration based on
finding of contempt for failing to pay child support);
Dolberry, supra (appeal of trial court's order finding husband
in contempt and ordering weekend incarceration);  G.W. v.
Sheriff of Jefferson County, 885 So. 2d 807 (Ala. Civ. App.
2004); and Ex parte Boykin, 656 So. 2d 821 (Ala. Civ. App.
1994).  Accordingly, relief by writ of mandamus is not proper.
Conclusion
A writ of mandamus will issue only when this Court's
jurisdiction is properly invoked, the petitioner has a clear
legal right to the relief requested, the trial court has
refused to perform an act that it is required to do, and no
1061381
6
other legal remedy is available.  Kenneth Wall has another
legal remedy available; therefore, his petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Woodall, Smith, Bolin,
Parker, and Murdock, JJ., concur.