Ex Parte Davis, 2100515 (ala.civ.app. 10-7-2011), 2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 271

Background

This is the second time these parties are before this court; prior opinions Davis I (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) and Davis II (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) frame the custody and support history.
Tennessee granted a joint custody framework in 2003 but did not finalize ongoing child-support obligations; Alabama later modified custody.
The Tennessee court’s mandate regarding custody was not acted on, leading to Alabama filing for modification in 2006 and the Tennessee-Alabama jurisdictional questions.
The Alabama trial court issued a 2006 custody order awarding primary physical custody to the mother with visitation for the father, and ordered child support with a medical-expense credit.
After the Alabama Supreme Court remanded, the father sought modification and later filed motions challenging the 2006 judgment; the Alabama court conducted hearings and remade findings, including arrears and ongoing health-insurance calculations.
The father then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the November 18, 2010 judgment, but this court determined no final judgment existed to support mandamus relief and denied the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is proper to challenge the 2010 judgment	Davis argues lack of finality and jurisdiction defects warrant mandamus relief	Mother argues proceedings complied with jurisdictional rules and relief via appeal is required	Mandamus denied; no final judgment; petition inappropriate relief
Whether Alabama had subject-matter jurisdiction to modify custody	Davis contends lacking registration under UIFSA and UCCJEA deprived Alabama of jurisdiction	Mother contends modification permitted under Ala. law despite registration gaps	Alabama had jurisdiction to modify custody under §30-3B-203; lack of registration did not defeat jurisdiction
Whether §30-3B-206 required stay/dismissal due to another-state proceedings	Davis argues other-state custody proceeding precluded Alabama action	Proceedings had resolved custody; §30-3B-206 not triggered	Not triggered because custody issue had been finally resolved in Tennessee; no stay/dismissal required
Whether information-registration provisions under §30-3B-209(a) affected jurisdiction	Noncompliance with information requirements voids jurisdiction	Noncompliance can be cured; jurisdiction remains	Failure to furnish information is curable; no jurisdictional defect!
Whether the petition for mandamus is appropriate given lack of final judgment	There is a void or voidable judgment and mandamus is proper	No final judgment; mandamus inappropriate; appeal required	No final judgment; mandamus denied; proceedings treated as petition for mandamus but rejected

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Berry, 999 So. 2d 883 (Ala. 2008) (jurisdictional review via mandamus; limits on relief)
Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So. 2d 595 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus elements and review standards)
Ex parte Johnson, 715 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction review in mandamus)
Ex parte Terry, 957 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 2006) (de novo review of legal questions in mandamus context)
Davis v. Blackstock, 47 So. 3d 816 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (remand for custody modification; later proceedings)
Davis v. Blackstock, 47 So. 3d 801 (Ala. 2009) (Ex parte; discussion of jurisdiction under UCCJEA/UIFSA)
Mattes v. Mattes, 60 So. 3d 887 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (UIFSA registration strictness for foreign judgments)