Rel: 08/2 9/2014

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
. 

# SUPRE ME CO URT O F ALA BAMA

SPECI AL TE RM, 2 014

_____ _____ _____ _____ 11303 02

_____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte E lizab eth A . Mor ton
PETIT ION F OR WR IT OFMAND AMUS (In r e: An nie P . Wat kins

v.
Eliza beth A. Mo rton) (Gree ne Ci rcuitCour t, CV -13-9 00042 )

PARKE R, Ju stice
. Eliza beth A. Morto n petit ions this Court for a writ of
manda mus direc ting the Green e C i rcuit Court to vacat e its11303 02

order denyi ng Morto n's motio n to trans fer this c a s e to
Jeffe rson Count y on the groun d of forum non conve niens and to
enter an order grant ing the motio n. We grant the petit ion and
issue the writ.
Facts and Proce dural Hist ory The relev ant facts o f t h is case are undis puted
. On
A u gust 26, 2011, Morto n, a resid ent of Green e Count y, a n d
Ann i e P
. Watki ns, a resid ent of Jeffe rson Count y, were inv o l v ed in a motor -vehi cle colli sion in Jeffe rson Count y. Follo wing the colli sion, Watki ns was treat ed at a hospi tal in
Jeffe rson Count y andsubs equen tly r eceiv ed me dical trea tment
at fo ur he alth- care facil ities loca ted i n Jef ferso n Cou nty.
On Augus t 26, 2013, Watki ns fil e d a compl aint in the
Green e Circu it Court again st Morto n, asser ting claim s arisi ng

o u t o f the Augus t 26, 2011, motor -vehi cle colli sion. O n Sep t e m ber 26, 2013, Morto n filed a motio n to trans fer this

case to th e Jef ferso n Cir cuit Court purs uant to th e doc trine
of forum non conve niens , as codif ied in § 6-3-2 1.1(a ), Ala.
Code 1975. On Octob er 1, 2013, Watki ns filed a respo nse. On

1
As she now argues in her petit ion, Morto n argue d in her 1 motio n that the inter est-o f-jus ti c e prong of § 6-3-2 1.1(a ) compe lled the Green e Circu it Court to trans f e r this case to the J effer son C ircui t Cou rt. 211303 02

Octob er 30, 2013, the Green e Circu it Court enter ed an order denyi ng Morto n's motio n, stati ng: "Afte r revie w of [Watk ins's ]
respo nse, the Motio n to Trans fer Venue of defen dant, Eliza beth
A. Morto n, is he r e b y denie d on autho rity of Ex parte Coley , 942 S o. 2d349 ([Ala .] 20 06)." On Decem ber 1 1, 20 13, M orton
filedthis peti tion for a writ of m andam us. Stand ard o f Rev iew
"'The prope r metho d fo r o b taini ng revie w of a denia l of a motio n for a change of venue in a civil actio n is to petition for the writ of manda mus.' Ex parte Alaba ma Great South e rn R.R., 788 So. 2d 886, 888 (Ala. 2000)
. 'Man damus is a drast ic and extra ordin ary writ, to be issue d only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petit ioner to the order sou g h t ; (2) an imper ative duty upon the respo ndent to perfo rm, accom panie d by a refus al to do so; (3) the lack of another adequ ate remed y; and (4) prope rly invok ed juris dicti on of the court .' Ex parte Integ o n C o rp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995)
. Moreo ver, our revie w is limit ed to those facts that were befor e the trial court
. E x parte Nati o n a l S ec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 (Ala. 1998)
. "'The burde n of provi ng impro per venue is on the party raisi ng the issue and o n r e view of an order trans ferri ng or refus ing to trans fer, a writ of manda mus will not be grant ed unles s there is a clear showi ng of error on the part of the trial judge .' Ex parte Finan ce Ameri ca Corp. , 5 07 So. 2d 458, 460 (Ala. 1987)
. In addit ion, this Court is bound by the r e c o rd, and it canno t consi der a state ment or evide nce in a party 's brief that was not before the trial court
. Ex parte Am e r ican Res. Ins. Co., 663 So. 2 d 932 , 936 (Ala . 199 5)."

311303 02

Ex pa rte P ike F abric ation , Inc ., 85 9 So. 2d 1 089, 1091 (Ala. 2002)
. Discu ssion
Morto n seeks a w r i t of manda mus direc ting the Green e Circu it Co urt t o tra nsfer this case to t he Je ffers on Ci rcuit
Court pursu ant to the forum non conve niens statu te, § 6

- 3- 21.1, whic h sta tes, in pe rtine nt pa rt:
"With respe ct to ci v i l actio ns filed in an appro priat e venue , any court of gener al juris dicti on shall , for the conve nienc e of parti es and witne sses, or i n the inter est of justi ce, trans fer any civil actio n or any claim in any civil actio n to any court of gener al juris dicti on in which the a c t ion might have been prope rly filed and the case shall proce ed as th ough origi nally file d the rein. "
This Court has state d:
"'A party movin g for a trans fer under § 6–3–2 1.1 has the initi al burde n of showi ng, a mong other thing s, one of two facto rs: (1) that the trans fer is justi fied b a s e d on the conve nienc e of eithe r the parti es or the wi t nesse s, or (2) that the trans fer is justi fied "in the inter est of justi ce."' Ex parte India na Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So. 3d 536, 539 (Ala. 2008) ."
Ex parte Wacho via Bank, N.A., 77 So. 3d 570, 573 (Ala. 2011)
. Addit ional ly, t his C ourt has s tatedthat , "'[w] hen venue is appro p riate in more than one count y, the plain tiff' s choic e of venue is gener ally given great defer ence. ' Ex parte Perfe ction Sidin g, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307, 312 (Ala. 2003) (citi ng Ex

411303 02

parte Blood saw, 648 So. 2d 553, 555 (Al a . 1994) ). See also Ex parte Yocum , 963 So. 2d 600, 602 (Ala. 2007) ('The trial court shoul d give defer ence to the plain tiff' s cho ice o f a p roper foru m.'). "
Ex parte J & W Enter s., LLC, [Ms. 11214 23, March 28, 2014]

___ So. 3 d ___ , ___(Ala . 201 4).
A s set forth above , the Green e Circu it Court den i e d
Morto n's motio n to trans fer this ca s e p u r s uant to § 6-3-
2 1
. 1 (a) on the autho rity of Ex parte Coley , 942 So. 2 d 3 4 9 (Ala. 2006 ). I n Col ey, t he pa rents of a dece ased passe nger,

as her perso nal repre senta tives , filed a wrong ful-d eath actio n in the Jeff e r s o n C ircui t Court again st the drive r of the
vehic le follo wing an autom obile accid ent in Perry Count y. The
defen dant filed a motio n to trans fer the case to the Perry
Circu it Court , a rguin g, among other thing s, that the case shoul d be trans ferre d un d e r t h e doctr ine of forum non

conve niens , as codif ied in § 6-3-2 1.1(a ). The Jeff e r s on Circu it Court denie d the defen dant' s motio n, and the defen dant
fileda pe titio n for a wr it of mand amus askin g thi s Cou rt to
direc t the Jeffe rson Circu it Court to trans fer the case to the Perry Circ uit C ourt.

511303 02

This Court held th at the defen dant had not demon strat ed

a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o h a v e t h e c a s e t r a n s f e r r e d u n d e r § 6

- 3

- 2 1
. 1 ( a ) :

"It appea rs that the actio n 'migh t have been prope rl y filed ' in Perry Count y, becau se the accid ent occur r e d there
. See Ala. Code 1975, § 6–3–2
. The parti es d o not argue this point
. Thus, the trial court could prope rly trans fer the case to Perry Count y 'f o r t he conve nienc e of parti es and witne sses, or in the inter est of justi ce.' See Ala. Code 1975, § 6–3–2 1
. 1 (a). As the [plai ntiff s] corre ctly point out, [the defen dant' s] burde n was to show the trial court that Perry Count y is a signi fican tly more conve nient forum than is Jeffe rson Count y. See Ex parte Perfe ction Sidin g, Inc., 882 So. 2d [307] at 312 [(A l a . 2 0 03)] ('The def e n d ant must show that his incon venie nce and expen se in defen ding the actio n in the selec ted forum o utwei gh the plain tiff' s right to choos e the forum ; that is, the defen dant must sugge st trans fer to a count y that is "sign ifica ntly more conve nient " than the count y in which the actio n was fil e d .'). [The defen dant' s ] burde n befor e this Court on manda mus revie w is to show that s h e i s clear ly entit led t o a t ransf er to Perr y Cou nty.

" I n suppo rt of her conte ntion that a trial in Perry Count y w ould be more conve nient for the witne sses, [the defe ndant ] con tends that

" 'the Perry Count y law enfor cemen t perso nnel who inves tigat ed the accid ent and will be calle d to testi fy at trial likel y resid e i n Perry Count y. At least two key witne ss e s expec ted to be calle d at the trial of this case ... are thoug ht to resid e in Perry Coun ty.' "[The defen dant' s] petit ion, p. 11. With respe ct to the c o n v enien ce of the parti es, [the defen dant] state s:

611303 02
"'As of June 28, 2005, [the defen dant] was livin g in Perry Count y. Lastl y it is belie ved that the [plai ntiff s] still resid e in Flori da and have no conne ction to Jeffe rson Count y.' "[The defe ndant 's] p etiti on, p . 11.

" [ T h e defen dant] has not met her burde n. [The defen dant] merel y point s out that the acc i d e nt occur red in P e rry Count y and conte nds that some of the witne sses 'like ly' or are 'thou ght to' resid e in Perry Count y. As for the fact that the [plai ntiff s] resid e in Flori da, the [plai ntiff s] conte nd that it is actua lly more co n v e nient for them to fly into Birmi ngham for t h e trial of the case in Jeffe rson Count y than to trave l by autom obile to Perry Count y. In addit ion, th e [ p laint iffs] conte nd that [the defen dant] now lives i n the Birmi ngham area. [The de f e ndant ] respo nds that she testi fied at her depos ition in June 2005 that she consi ders her home addre ss to be the farm in Unionto wn in Perry Count y but that she is 'livi ng out of a suitc ase.' The fact that s h e is 'livi ng out of a suitc ase' does not suppo rt [the defen dant' s] argum ent that it would be signi fican tly incon venie nt for her to defen d thi s case in Jeffe rson Count y. Nor do her asser tions that certa in witne sses 'migh t' resid e in Perry Count y or the fact th a t t he [plai ntiff s] resid e in Flori da suppo rt her argum ent that Perry Count y is a signi fican tly more conve nient forum than is Jeffe rson Count y."
942 S o. 2dat 3 55.
Morto n a r g u es that Coley addre ssed only the conve nienc e
prong of § 6- 3 -21.1 (a) and, there fore, is inapp osite to her
argum ent t hat t he in teres t-of- justi ce pr ong o f § 6 -3-21 .1(a)

711303 02

compe ls a trans fer of this case to the Jeffe rso n C i r c u it
Court
. We agree that Coley is disti nguis hable on that basis
. In revie wing this case under the inter est-o f

- j ustic e
p r o n g of § 6-3-2 1.1(a ), we must "dete rmine wheth er 'th e inter est of justi ce' overr ides the defe r ence due the plain tiff' s choic e of forum " in t h e p resen t case. J & W
Enter s., ___ So . 3d at ___. We hold that it do es. 2

In Ex parte Wacho via, supra , this Court thoro ughly
discu ssed the appli catio n of the inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6-3-2 1.1(a ) in sever al cases invol ving facts simil ar to
those pres entedin t his c ase:

"In its petit ion for th e w rit of manda mus, Wacho via relie s solel y on the inter est-o f-jus tice prong as a grou nd fo r tra nsfer
. "'"[I ]n a n alyzi ng the inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6–3–2 1.1, this Court focus es on wheth er the 'nexu s' or 'conn ectio n' betwe en the plain tiff' s actio n and the origi nal forum is stron g enoug h to warra nt burde ning the plain tiff' s forum with the actio n." Ex parte First Tenne ssee Bank Nat'l Ass'n , 994 So. 2d [906, ] 911 [(Ala
. 2008) ].... Furth er, in exami ning wheth er it is in the inter est of justi ce to trans fer a case, we consi der "the burde n of pilin g court s e r v ices and resou rces upon the peopl e o f

As this Court noted in J & W Enter prise s, "[o]u r inqui ry 2 depen ds on the facts of t he ca se." ___ S o. 3dat ___ (c iting Ex pa rte A DT Se c. Se rvs., Inc. , 933 So. 2d 34 3 (Al a. 20 06)). 811303 02

a count y tha t is not affec ted by the case a nd
... the inter est of the peopl e o f a count y to have a case that arise s in their count y tried close to publi c view in their count y." Ex parte Smi t hs Water & Sewer Auth. , 982 So. 2d 48 4, 49 0 (Al a. 20 07).'
"Ex parte In d i a n a Mills [& Mfg., Inc.] , 10 So. 3d [536] at 540 [(Ala
. 2008) ]. Thus, th e dispo sitiv e quest i o n is wheth er the nexus betwe en this actio n and Macon Count y is 'stro ng enoug h to w a r rant burde ning' Macon Count y with this actio n. F or the follo wing reaso ns, w e hol d tha t it is no t.
"Lee Count y is the situs of all the alleg ed acts or omiss ions givin g rise to the plain tiffs ' claim s. Any alleg edly unaut horiz ed withd rawal s were made from a Wacho via branc h in Lee Count y . P o lice inv e s t i gatio n of the matte r was condu cted in Lee Count y. Lee Count y is Floyd 's place of resid ence, as well as the locat ion of Uniqu e [Imag e Pro Car Care, Floyd 's busin es s ]
. Thus, Lee Count y is the place where all the injur y alleg ed in the c o mplai nt occur red. Al t h ough it is not a talis man, the fact that the injur y occur red in the propo sed trans feree cou nty is often assig ned consi derab le weigh t in an inter est-o f-jus tice analy sis. See Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC, 58 So. 3d 745, 748 (Ala. 2010) ('"[T ]his Court h a s held that 'liti gatio n s h ould be handl ed in the forum where the inj u r y occur red.' "' (quot ing Ex parte India na Mills , 10 So. 3d at 540)) ; Ex parte McKenz ie Oil, Inc., 13 So. 3d 346, 349 ( Ala. 2008) (sam e).
"In sho r t , nothi ng mater ial to this case trans pired in Macon Count y. Macon C o u n t y's sole mater ial c o n t a ct with this case is that the two indiv idual defen dants
... resid e there
. Recen t cases decid ed under the inter est-o f-jus tice prong are dispo sitiv e.

911303 02
"In Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC, for

examp le, this Court issue d a w r i t of manda mus direc ting the Montg o m e r y Circu it Court –- in the inter est of justi ce –- to trans fer the a c t ion to Elmor e Count y. 58 So. 3d at 747. That case arose out of an autom obile accid ent invol ving Lori Lee Wrigh t, a resid ent of Elmor e Count y, and Richa rd Alexa nde r Roger s, a resid ent of Montg omery Count y. The vehic le being opera ted by Roger s at the time of the accid ent was owned by Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC ('Aut auga' ), which had its princ ipal p l a ce of busin ess in Autau ga Count y. The accid ent occur red in Elmor e Count y, and Wrigh t recei ved treat ment at the scene of th e accid ent from emerg ency medic al perso nnel who lived in Elmo r e C ounty
. 58 So. 3d at 749. When an ac t i on was broug ht again st Roger s in the count y of his resid en c e, Roger s sough t the remov al of the actio n to Elmor e Count y, the situs of the alleg ed acts or omiss ions and the pla c e o f the injur y. "This Court concl uded that a trans fer of the case was r equir ed. I n so doing , we said:

"'Alt hough we agree with Wrigh t that t h e c ase has a conne ction with Montg omery Count y becau se Roger s is a r eside nt of Montg omery Count y and [Auta uga] may have some busin ess conne ction s there , ... the overa ll conne ction betwe en M ontgo mery Count y and this case is w e ak and
... the conne ction betwe en the case and Elmor e Count y is stron g. "'... Besides the fact th at Rogers is a resid ent of Montg omery Count y, there was n o other evide nce befor e the trial cour t indic ating a conne ction betwe en the case and M ontgo mery Count y. "'...
.

1011303 02
"'The accident under lying this actio n occur red in Elmor e Count y, and the emerg ency perso nnel who respo nded to the accid ent were from Elmor e Count y. The plain tiff herse lf is a re s i d e nt of Elmor e Count y. This Court sees no need to burde n Montg omery Count y, with its weak conne ction to t h e case, with an actio n that arose in Elmor e Count y simpl y becau se the indiv idual defen dant resid es in Montg omery Count y and the corpo rate defen dant does some busin ess there .'
"58 S o. 3dat 7 50 (e mphas is ad ded).
"In so holdi ng, this Court relie d on and discu ssed Ex parte India na Mills & Manuf actur ing, Inc.:
"'Thi s Court addre ssed simil ar facts in Ex parte India na Mills & Manuf actur ing, Inc., supra . In India na Mills , the deced ent was drivi ng a garba ge truck in Lee Count y owned by his emplo yer when the raise d rear door of the truck struc k an overh ead railr oad trest le, causi ng the truck to crash
. The deced ent was kille d when he was eject ed from the truck
. His widow filed a compl aint in Macon Count y again st the manuf actur ers of the garba ge truck and the seat belts in the truck and three emplo yees of the deced ent's emplo yer. The emplo yer's princ ipal place of busin ess was in Talla poosa Count y. The empl o y er condu cted busin es s in Macon Count y, and one of the indiv idual defen dants lived in Macon Count y. The defen dants moved the trial court to trans fer the case to Lee C o unty based on the doct r i n e of forum non conve niens
. The trial court denie d that motio n, and the defen dants petit ioned this Court for manda mus r elief
.
1111303 02 "'Thi s Court grant ed the defen dants ' manda mus petit ion and order ed the trial cour t to trans fer the case from Macon Count y to Lee Count y based on the "inte rest of justi ce" prong of § 6–3–2 1.1. In doing so, this Court noted th a t the accid ent occur red in Lee Count y, that the law-e nforc ement and emerg ency perso nnel who had respo nded to the accid ent w e r e based out of Lee Count y, that the chief deput y coron er who inves tigat ed t he deced ent's death did his work in Lee Count y, and that the recor ds and d ocume nts of the fire depar tment that respo nded to the accid ent were locat ed in Lee Count y. Compa ring this to the fact that only one of the indiv idual defen dants resid ed in Macon Count y and that the emplo y er condu cted busin ess there , there being no other relev ant facts invol ving Macon Count y, this Court held that the nexus betwe en Lee Count y and the case was stron g , that the nexus betwe en Macon Count y a n d the case was weak, and that the trial court thus had excee ded its discr etion in refus ing to trans fer the case to Le e Cou nty.'
"Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & C o o l i n g , 58 So. 3d at 750 (disc ussin g Ex parte India na Mills ) (emph asis added ).
"In this case, as in Autau ga Heati ng & C oolin g and India na Mills , the injur y occur red in the count y to which the trans fer is sough t. Here, as in Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng and India na Mills , no mater ial act or omiss ion occur red in the forum c o u n t y. As in India na Mills , the offic ial inves tigat ion of the incid ent was in the count y to which the trans fer was sough t –- here, Lee Count y."
77 So . 3d at 57 3-75.

1211303 02

As in Wacho via, Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC,
58 So. 3d 745 (Ala. 2010) , and E x p arte India na Mills &
Manuf actur ing, Inc., 10 So. 3 d 536 (Ala. 2008) , Watki ns's injur y occ urredin t he co unty to wh ich t ransf er is soug ht –-
Jeffe rson Count y; Watki ns is also a r e s ident of Jeffe rson
Count y and recei v e d t reatm ent in four separ ate medic al
facil ities loca ted i n Jef ferso n Cou nty. Addi tiona lly, as in
Wacho via and India na Mills , the offic ial inves tigat ion of the
incid ent was condu cted in the count y to which the trans fer is sough t. Furth er m o r e , as in Wacho via, Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, and India na Mills , n o m ateri al act or omiss ion

occur red i n Gre ene C ounty
. Watki ns argue s that Wacho via, Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, and India na Mills are disti nguis hab le becau se each of those

cases invol ved multi ple defen dants resid ing in both the forum
and trans feree count ies. Altho ugh the numbe r and resid ency of
the defen dants may affec t an i ntere st-of -just ice analy sis
under § 6-3-2 1.1(a ) , the fact that the above cases invol ved
multi ple defen dants does not rende r them inapp osite t o the
prese nt cas e invol ving only one defen dant. Consi derin g the
simil ariti es betwe en the above cases and the prese nt one, that

1311303 02

factu al disti nctio n in this c a s e –- that Morto n is the sole
defen dant –- is de minim is. See, e.g., Wacho via, 77 So. 3d at
575 ("As in [Auta uga Heati ng & Cooli ng and India na Mills ], the only m ateri al conne ction with the forum count y is a defen dant' s resid ence. To be sure, in t h i s c ase two
defen dants resid e in the forum count y, rathe r than one. Given
the postu re of this case, howev er , t h a t disti nctio n is
incon seque ntial .").
For the reaso ns expla ined above , Jeffe rson Count y has a signi fi cantl y stron ger conne ction to this case than does
Green e Count y, which is conne cted to this case only by the
fact that Morto n resid es there –- a conne ction this Court has
chara cteri zed as "weak ." See Autau ga H e ating & Cooli ng, 58
So. 3 d at 750 ( "This Cour t see s no need to bu rden Montg omery
Count y, wi th it s wea k con necti on to the case, with an a ction
that arose in Elmor e Cou n t y simpl y becau se the indiv idual
defen da nt resid es in Montg omery Count y and the corpo rate
defen dant does some busin ess t here. "); I ndian a Mil ls, 1 0 So.
3 d a t 542 ("We see no need for Macon Count y, with its w e a k

conne ction with this case, to be burde ned with an actio n that

arose in L ee Co unty simpl y bec ause one o f sev eral defen dants

1411303 02

resid es there
. Inste ad, Lee Count y clear ly has a s t r o ng

conne ction with this case. Se e Ex parte Verbe na Unite d
Metho dist Churc h, 953 So. 2d 395, 400 (Ala. 2006) (ho l d i ng that the ' weak nexus ' wit h the coun ty in whic h an actio n was fileddid not ' justi fy bu rdeni ng' t hat c ounty with the trial
of that actio n; thus, the doctr ine of forum non conve n i e ns requi red the case be trans ferre d to a count y that had 'a much
stron ger nexus ').")
. Accor dingl y, the inter est of ju s t i ce

overr ides Watki ns's choic e of forum
. There fore, Morto n has a clear lega l rig ht to the relie f she seek s. Concl usion
Morto n has met her burde n o f showi ng that trans fer of
this actio n to Jeffe rson Count y is justi fied in th e int erest
of justi ce. T h e t r i al court excee ded its discr etion , there fore, in denyi ng the motio n to trans fer the case. Morto n is entit led to a writ of manda mus direc ting the trial court to grant her motio n; thus, w e grant the petit ion and issue the
writ.
PETIT ION G RANTE D; WR IT IS SUED.
Stuar t, Bolin , Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan , JJ., concu r.
Moore , C.J ., an d Mur dock, J., disse nt.

1511303 02

MURDO CK, J ustic e (di ssent ing).
For t h e reaso ns expla ined in my speci al writi ngs in
Ex parte Wacho via Bank, N.A., 77 S o . 3 d 570, 576-7 8 (Ala. 2011) (Murd ock, J., disse nting ), and Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng
& Cooli ng, LLC, 58 So. 3d 745, 751-5 2 ( A l a . 2010) (Murd o c k , J., disse nting ), I disag ree with the propo sitio n that Eliza beth A. Morto n is entit led to a trans fer of this
actio n to Jeffe rson Count y bas ed on the "inte rest- of-ju stice
prong " of § 6

- 3

- 2 1.1, Ala. Code 1975. Addit ional ly, I am

conce rned that , n otwit hstan ding its accep tance of Ex parte Coley , 942 So. 2d 349 (Ala. 2006) , as a case decid ed under the

conve nienc e prong o f § 6-3-2 1.1, some porti ons of the main opini on could be read as furth er expan ding the field of
opera tion of the inter est-o f-jus tice prong to inclu de certa in

conve nienc e-pro ng fa ctors
.

16