Court Opinion

ID: 9366782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 22:02:01.694435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.124277
License: Public Domain

REL: January 27, 2023

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
                                _________________________

                                         CL-2022-1228
                                   _________________________

                                             Ex parte N.J.

                      PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

                                               (In re: N.J.

                                                      v.

                                                    T.T.)

                       (Houston Circuit Court, DR-22-364.01)

EDWARDS, Judge.

        On November 1, 2022, N.J. mailed to the Houston Circuit Court

("the trial court") a request, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-305, to

register a judgment entered by the District Court of Bell County, Texas,
CL-2022-1228

on October 19, 2022 ("the Texas judgment"), pursuant to which she was

named the "nonparent joint managing conservator" of N.T.C. ("the

child"). The Texas judgment, which indicates that it was entered by

default, also named T.T. as the "parent joint managing conservator" of

the child.   Pursuant to the Texas judgment, T.T. was permitted to

"designate the primary residence of the child without regard to

geographic location." N.J. was awarded specified visitation periods with

the child, including one weekend per month, certain holiday visitation,

and extended summer visitation.

     Although T.T. filed no response to the request to register the Texas

judgment, the trial court set the matter for a hearing, which was held on

November 17, 2022. As N.J. correctly points out, registration of a sister

state's judgment determining custody is accomplished without a hearing,

unless a person contests the validity of that judgment order within 30

days of receiving the notice provided by the clerk's office upon its receipt

of the request to register the foreign judgment, as set forth in § 30-3B-

305(b), (c)(2), and (e). After the hearing, the trial court entered the

following order on November 22, 2022:

                                     2
CL-2022-1228

           "The matter before the Court is [N.J.'s] motion to
     register [the Texas judgment] concerning child custody
     entered October 19, 2022, in the District Court of Bell County,
     Texas. A hearing was held in this Court on November 17,
     2022. [T.T.] was present as well as [N.J.] Both were pro se.

           "Testimony was taken from the parties. [N.J.] is a Texas
     resident. [T.T.] is a resident of Houston County, Alabama, as
     well as the minor child. A Texas court already ordered that
     the child be returned to [T.T.]"

           "After a telephone conference with Bell County District
     Judge Jack Jones, who issued the [Texas judgment]
     judgment, both judges are in agreement that this Court has
     jurisdiction. Alabama and Texas law disfavors a default
     judgment. Therefore, the [Texas judgment] is set aside. If the
     parties wish to pursue this litigation, one or the other must
     file a new Complaint in this Court. Otherwise, this case is
     hereby dismissed."

     N.J. has filed in this court a petition for the writ of mandamus

challenging the November 22, 2022, order entered by the trial court.

Initially, she argues that the trial court had no ability to hold a hearing

on the registration of the Texas judgment when T.T. had not requested a

hearing on the validity of the Texas judgment. We agree. She further

challenges the November 22, 2022, order insofar as it set aside the Texas

judgment and declined to register that judgment. As she correctly points

                                    3
CL-2022-1228

out, the trial court had no basis upon which to set aside the Texas

judgment.

           " ' "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 A.M.P., 997 So. 2d 1008, 1014 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Ex parte

Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn

Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995)). " '[M]andamus

is the proper remedy to vacate an order the trial court had no power to

enter.' " Ex parte Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 775 So. 2d 181, 183 (Ala. 2000).

     Section 30-3B-305 governs the registration of a child-custody

determination that has been made by a sister state. In its entirety, § 30-

3B-305 provides:

          "(a) A child custody determination issued by a court of
     another state may be registered in this state, with or without
     a simultaneous request for enforcement, by sending to the
     appropriate court in this state:

                  "(1) A letter or other document requesting
            registration;

                                     4
CL-2022-1228

                  "(2) Two copies, including one certified copy,
            of the determination sought to be registered, and
            a statement under penalty of perjury that to the
            best of the knowledge and belief of the person
            seeking registration the order has not been
            modified; and

                 "(3) Except as otherwise provided in [Ala.
            Code 1975, §] 30-3B-209, the name and address of
            the person seeking registration and any parent or
            person acting as a parent who has been awarded
            custody or visitation in the child custody
            determination sought to be registered.

           "(b) On receipt of the documents required by subsection
    (a), the registering court shall:

                  "(1) Cause the determination to be filed as a
            foreign judgment, together with one copy of any
            accompanying documents and information,
            regardless of their form; and

                 "(2) Serve notice upon the persons named
            pursuant to subsection (a)(3) and provide them
            with an opportunity to contest the registration in
            accordance with this section.

            "(c) The notice required by subsection (b)(2) must state
    that:

                  "(1)    A   registered    determination       is
            enforceable as of the date of the registration in the
            same manner as a determination issued by a court
            of this state;

                                      5
CL-2022-1228

               "(2) A hearing to contest the validity of the
         registered determination must be requested
         within 30 days after service of notice; and

               "(3) Failure to contest the registration will
         result in confirmation of the child custody
         determination and preclude further contest of that
         determination with respect to any matter that
         could have been asserted.

          "(d) A person seeking to contest the validity of a
    registered order must request a hearing within 30 days after
    service of the notice. At that hearing, the court shall confirm
    the registered order unless the person contesting registration
    establishes that:

               "(1) The issuing court did not have
         jurisdiction under Article 2 [of Chapter 3B of Title
         30];

              "(2) The child custody determination sought
         to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or
         modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so
         under Article 2 [of Chapter 3B of Title 30]; or

               "(3) The person contesting registration was
         entitled to notice, but notice was not given in
         accordance with the standards of [Ala. Code 1975,
         §] 30-3B-108, in the proceedings before the court
         that issued the order for which registration is
         sought.

          "(e) If a timely request for a hearing to contest the
    validity of the registration is not made, the registration is
    confirmed as a matter of law and the person requesting

                                  6
CL-2022-1228

     registration and all persons served must be notified of the
     confirmation.

          "(f) Confirmation of a registered order, whether by
     operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes further
     contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have
     been asserted at the time of registration."

     In her petition, N.J. states that she complied with § 30-3B-305 by

mailing a letter requesting registration, three certified copies of the

Texas judgment, "a statement under penalty of perjury that to the best

of [her] knowledge and belief … the [Texas judgment] had not been

modified," her name and address, and the name and address of T.T. N.J.

attached a copy of the letter, a certified copy of the Texas judgment, and

the statement to her mandamus petition.       N.J. also attached to her

mandamus petition a copy of the certified mail receipt indicating that the

trial-court clerk had received the package containing the request for

registration of the Texas judgment on November 3, 2022. T.T. does not

controvert N.J.'s assertion that she fully complied with the requirements

of § 30-3B-305, and we therefore conclude that N.J.'s attempt to register

the Texas judgment was completed properly. See Ex parte Turner, 840

So. 2d 132, 134 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Guaranty Funding Corp. v. Bolling,

                                    7
CL-2022-1228

288 Ala. 319, 327, 260 So. 2d 589, 596 (1972)) (explaining that the

averments of fact in a petition for the writ of mandamus are taken as true

when "[t]he answer does not contain a denial of any of the facts stated in

the petition for mandamus, nor does it contain averments of other facts

sufficient in law to defeat the petitioner's application").

     N.J. asserts, and T.T. does not dispute, that T.T. did not file a

motion in the trial court seeking a hearing on the validity of the Texas

judgment. See Ex parte Turner, 840 So. 2d at 134. Had T.T. requested

a hearing and challenged the validity of the Texas judgment on the

ground that she had not received notice of the Texas proceedings, see §

30-3B-305(d)(3), the trial court could have entertained that argument at

a hearing set for that purpose.1 However, because T.T. never challenged

the validity of the Texas judgment, the trial court acted outside its

authority in holding the November 17, 2022, hearing, in failing to register

     1In her answer to the mandamus petition, T.T. indicates that she
was unaware of the Texas custody action. However, N.J. avers in her
mandamus petition that, in September 2021, T.T. successfully sought a
writ of habeas corpus returning the child to her custody pending
resolution of the Texas custody action. In addition, materials from the
Texas court appended to the mandamus petition indicate that T.T. was
served with the petition in the Texas custody action.
                                    8
CL-2022-1228

the Texas judgment, and in setting aside the Texas judgment.

Accordingly, we grant N.J.'s petition and direct the trial court to set aside

its November 22, 2022, order and to register the Texas judgment as

required by § 30-3B-305.

     PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

     Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur.

                                     9