218 So. 3d 867
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Wife filed for divorce (Jan 2012) seeking alimony, marital-property division (including marital residence in Odenville and Georgia realty), and attorney’s fees.
- Wife filed Chapter 7 in N.D. Ga. (Oct 2012), omitted the marital residence and her divorce-related claims from the bankruptcy schedules; she testified she had deeded the house to husband and was owed nothing; discharge entered (Jan 2013).
- Husband amended his answer in the divorce action (Jan 31, 2013), asserting judicial estoppel, lack of standing, and that the bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest; he moved for partial summary judgment on alimony and property-division claims.
- Wife reopened her bankruptcy (Mar 2013), the trustee was reappointed, and she amended schedules to list the residence and potential alimony claim.
- Trial court denied husband’s partial summary-judgment motion (June 8, 2016) after hearings and later filings; husband petitioned this court for writ of mandamus to review that denial.
- Court denied mandamus: found the general rule that denials of summary-judgment motions are not reviewable by mandamus applies and husband did not show the case fits recognized exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bonds) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is mandamus proper to review the denial of a partial summary judgment? | Mandamus appropriate because wife is judicially estopped/ not real party in interest. | Denial of summary judgment is ordinarily reviewable by appeal, not mandamus. | Denied — mandamus not appropriate; husband failed to show an exception applied. |
| Does judicial estoppel bar wife’s alimony and property-division claims? | Wife omitted claims and assets in bankruptcy and testified she had no claims; thus judicial estoppel should bar her claims. | Wife reopened bankruptcy and amended schedules; factual disputes exist. | Not resolved by mandamus; trial court’s denial of SJ stands and is reviewable on appeal. |
| Is the bankruptcy trustee the real party in interest under Rule 17? | Trustee should be real party in interest for claims that were part of the bankruptcy estate. | Wife later amended and trustee reappointed; factual/timeliness issues. | Not resolved by mandamus; exceptions allowing mandamus review were not shown. |
| Is the wife’s lack of "standing" a jurisdictional defect that permits mandamus review? | Husband cites lack of standing as grounds to obtain mandamus review. | Standing is distinct from real-party-in-interest; Hamm controls. | Court: "standing" claim is not a separate jurisdictional defect here; Hamm shows debtor is not real party in interest, but standing is not at issue for mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Griffin, 4 So.3d 430 (Ala. 2008) (denial of summary judgment generally not mandamus-reviewable)
- Ex parte Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758 (Ala. 2002) (appeal is usually adequate remedy for summary-judgment denials)
- Ex parte DaimlerChrysler Corp., 952 So.2d 1082 (Ala. 2006) (enumerating exceptions to non-reviewability by mandamus)
- Ex parte Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, 167 So.3d 324 (Ala. 2014) (mandamus used to review substitution of bankruptcy trustee as real party in interest)
- Hamm v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 52 So.3d 484 (Ala. 2010) (bankruptcy trustee is real party in interest for estate claims)
- Ex parte Turner, 840 So.2d 132 (Ala. 2002) (failure to respond to mandamus petition permits treating averments as true)
- Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala. 2007) (discussing mandamus in context of standing and summary-judgment challenges)