Alabama Appellate Watch : Blog Published by Lightfoot Franklin & White : Alabama Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Appellate, Alabama Supreme Court (Supreme Court of Alabama)

A group of tenants filed an action against AIG in Jefferson County.  Venue, however, was not proper in Jefferson County.  AIG answered, but did not  object to Jefferson County as an improper venue.  AIG also asserted counterclaims against some of the tenants. 

The tenants then moved to transfer venue pursuant to Ala. Code 6-3-21.1(a), the forum non conveniens statute, asserting that Baldwin County would be more convenient and that the transfer would be in the interest of justice.  AIG objected to the transfer, arguing that because venue was improper in Jefferson County, the forum non conveniens statute did not apply.  The tenants argued that AIG waived its right to say that venue was improper in Jefferson County because it did not object to venue.

The trial court granted the motion to transfer, and ordered the case transferred to Baldwin County.  The Supreme Court reversed.  The Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition that, by its terms, the non conveniens statute only applies where the action was filed in a county in which venue was appropriate.  Slip Op. pp. 7-8.  The Court also noted that case law indicates that the venue must be proper at the time of filing for the forum non conveniens statute to apply.  Slip Op. p. 8.  Thus, because it is undisputed that venue in Jefferson County was inappropriate, the forum non conveniens statute has no application and cannot support a transfer.

The Supreme Court also rejected the tenants' argument that AIG waived the right to say that venue was improper when it failed to object to venue in its answer.  The Supreme Court determined that becuase the forum non conveniens statute says that it applies only when the case is "filed in an appropriate venue," post-filing actions, such as the failure to object to venue, does not allow the statute to be invoked when it is not authorized by the legislature. 

Therefore, the trial court exceeded its discretion in transferring the case, and the sent was sent back to the original, albeit improper, venue.

Justice Murdock wrote a dissenting opinion, with which Chief Justice Cobb concurred.

In Ex parte Indiana Mills, a truck crash in Lee County, Alabama killed the driver of the truck.  The Plaintiff filed sued in Macon County against the manufacturer of the truck and the manufacturer of the seat belts in the truck alleging that the truck and seat belts were defective.  The Plaintiff also filed suit against the decdent's co-employees.  The employer was located in Tallapoosa County.  Venue technically was proper in Macon County because the employer conducted business in Macon County and a defendant lived there.

The trial court denied the motion to transfer venue to Lee County, but the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the transfer to Lee County because it was "in the interest of justice."  Ala. Code sec. 6-3-21.1.  Section 6-3-21.1 provides, in part, that  the courts "shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein." (emphasis added).

The Plaintiff argued that the interest of judtice did not require a transfer because none of the parties were located in Lee County, and she alleged, it would be less convenient to litigate the case in Lee County.

The Supreme Court, however, fosused on the "nexus" or "connection" the case had with Lee County.  The Court noted that the accident occurred in Lee County, and the accident was investigated by Lee County authorities.  The Supreme Court stated that the forum non conveniens statute states that  the courts "shall" transfer a case when it is in the interest of justice, and that the Court saw "no reason for Macon Countym with its weak connection with this case, to be burdened with an action that arose in Lee County simply because one of several defendants reside there.   Instead, Lee County clearly has a strong connection with this case."

The lone dissenter was Chief Justice Cobb.  Chief Justice Cobb advocated a rule reuiring that the defendant show a significant likelihood of injustice before warranting a change in venue in the interest of justice.  However, the majority did not find support for such a rule in the statute.