Atchison v. IPC Industries, Inc., 82 So. 3d 670

Atchison bought two residential lots (lots 61 and 81) in Villa Lago subdivision under two purchase agreements requiring a non-refundable deposit of $15,000 each.
The seller identified was C-D Jones & Company, Inc., in Destin, Florida, with McNeese Title, LLC handling escrow and closing.
The agreements provided that closing would occur by a specified date, with time of the essence and a potential 60-day extension if all lots did not close by the Closing Date (¶26(b)).
Atchison later sued multiple parties, including McNeese, Owens, C-D Jones, and 331 Partners, alleging misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct related to the subdivision’s sale/closing activities.
McNeese Title and Owens moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), supported by affidavits denying substantial Alabama contacts; the trial court denied the motions.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted the mandamus petition, directing dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction due to absence of sufficient Alabama-directed activity or contacts by McNeese Title and Owens.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alabama courts have personal jurisdiction over McNeese Title and Owens	Atchison alleges conspiratorial and other conduct by McNeese Title and Owens that targeted Alabama residents.	McNeese Title and Owens show a prima facie lack of Alabama contacts; complaint lacks jurisdictional allegations tying defendants to Alabama.	Yes; lack of in personam jurisdiction; dismissal required.
Whether conspiracy-based allegations can support jurisdiction	Allegations show conspiratorial conduct among Florida entities connected to Alabama transactions.	Conspiracy allegations lack the specificity required to establish jurisdiction.	No; conspiracy theories insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
What is the governing standard for Rule 12(b)(2) when jurisdictional facts are challenged	Plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction absent lack of evidence.	Defendant may prevail if prima facie showing of no jurisdiction is made; plaintiff must counter with evidence.	Plaintiff must substantiate jurisdictional allegations with competent proof when defendant makes prima facie showing; otherwise dismissal is appropriate.

Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 226 (Ala.2004) (explains burden shifting when defendant challenges jurisdiction with affidavits)
Excelsior Fin., Inc. v. Ex parte, 42 So.3d 96 (Ala.2010) (plaintiff must controvert prima facie showings; specifics depend on allegations)
Ex parte Excelsior Fin., Inc., 42 So.3d 96 (Ala.2010) (clarifies burden when complaint lacks jurisdictional allegations)
Ex parte First Western Bank, 898 So.2d 701 (Ala.2004) (mandamus to challenge denial of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, P.C., 866 So.2d 519 (Ala.2003) (establishes mandamus as proper vehicle for challenging denial of jurisdiction)
Hiller Invs., Inc. v. Insultech Group, Inc., 957 So.2d 1111 (Ala.2006) (discusses the significance of the first-contact factor in jurisdiction)