Opinion ID: 2498046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Calhoun Circuit Court or the Talladega Circuit Court is the proper forum to resolve the parties' dispute concerning the management and operation of the LLC

Text: At the outset, we note that there is no dispute as to the Talladega Circuit Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the divorce action or as to the Calhoun Circuit Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment action. Rather, the threshold issue for this Court's consideration is whether Forney may simultaneously maintain the divorce action in the Talladega Circuit Court and the subsequently filed declaratory-judgment action in the Calhoun Circuit Court. Ronda contends in her mandamus petition, as she did in her motion to dismiss the declaratory-judgment action, that the Talladega Circuit Court, which was the first of the two courts to assume jurisdiction over these issues, is the proper forum in which to resolve both the divorce action and the issues raised in the declaratory-judgment action, i.e., the parties' dispute concerning the management and operation of the LLC. We agree. In Ex parte Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 631 So.2d 865 (Ala.1993), this Court stated: `It is uniformly held that where two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the one which first takes cognizance of a cause has the exclusive right to entertain and exercise such jurisdiction, to the final determination of the action and the enforcement of its judgment or decrees.... `... It is a familiar principle that when a court of competent jurisdiction has become possessed of a case its authority continues, subject only to the appellate authority, until the matter is finally and completely disposed of, and no court of co-ordinate authority is at liberty to interfere with its action.... `... All the authorities recognize the importance of carefully preserving the boundary line between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, in order to prevent conflicts, and to preserve in harmony their relations to each other.'  Ex parte Burch, 236 Ala. 662, 665, 184 So. 694, 697 (1938). These principles have been restated numerous times: `[W]here two courts have equal and concurrent jurisdiction, the court that first commences the exercise of its jurisdiction in a matter has the preference and is not to be obstructed in the legitimate exercise of its powers by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.'  Ex parte State ex rel. Ussery, 285 Ala. 279, 281, 231 So.2d 314, 315 (1970).... 631 So.2d at 867. In this case, the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction by the Talladega Circuit Court and the Calhoun Circuit Court has resulted in inconsistent orders. The Calhoun Circuit Court's October 2, 2009, order provides that Forney is the manager of the LLC and, as the manager, that Forney may, among other things, refuse Ronda entry onto the premises of the LLC and order her to leave those premises. The Talladega Circuit Court's September 28, 2009, consent order also provides that Forney is the manager of the LLC; however, it does not authorize Forney to make decisions regarding if and when Ronda may enter upon the premises of the LLC. As a result, Forney has been found to be in contempt of the consent order for, among other things, instructing Ronda not to come upon the premises of the LLC; however, under the Calhoun Circuit Court's October 2, 2009, order, it is permissible for Forney to exclude Ronda from the premises of the LLC. This is the very type of conflict the principle set forth in the above-quoted authorities seeks to avoid. See Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 631 So.2d at 867 (`All the authorities recognize the importance of carefully preserving the boundary line between courts of concurrent jurisdiction, in order to prevent conflicts ....' (quoting Ex parte Burch, 236 Ala. at 665, 184 So. at 697 (emphasis added))). We conclude that, because the Talladega Circuit Court initially exercised jurisdiction over the parties and their property in the divorce action, it must be allowed to pursue and exercise its jurisdiction to the exclusion of all coordinate tribunals; thus, the Calhoun Circuit Court erred in denying Ronda's motion to dismiss insofar as it denied the alternative relief requested in the motion, namely, an order staying the declaratory-judgment action pending resolution of the divorce action in the Talladega Circuit Court. See Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., supra ; see also Ex parte Murphy, 886 So.2d 90, 94 (Ala.2003) (`It must be recognized ... that all matters related to a marriage may come within the authority of the court sitting in equity when the parties submit themselves to its jurisdiction by the filing of a suit for divorce.' (quoting Oliver v. Oliver, 431 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), citing in turn Owens v. Owens, 281 Ala. 239, 201 So.2d 396 (1967) (emphasis added))). Accordingly, Ronda's petition in case no. 1090150 is due to be granted as to this issue.