Floyd v. Wachovia Bank
77 So. 3d 570
Ala.2011Background
- Unauthorized withdrawal of $3,000 from Unique Image Pro Car Care account triggers investigation in Auburn, Alabama.
- Floyds and Unique sue Wachovia and Sistrunk in Macon County Circuit Court alleging forgery and related claims.
- Wachovia challenges venue in Macon County; files transfer request to Lee County under § 6-3-21.1, arguing interest of justice and convenience.
- Amendments add James Sutherland as a defendant; multiple motions including summary judgment and jury demand issues proceed in Macon County.
- Trial court denies Wachovia’s transfer motion to Lee County; Wachovia petitions for writ of mandamus to compel transfer.
- Alabama Supreme Court grants the writ, holding transfer to Lee County is justified in the interest of justice; Macon County is not the proper nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of transfer was an abuse of discretion under § 6-3-21.1 | Floyd/Unique contend Lee County nexus warrants transfer in interest of justice. | Wachovia argues strong Lee County connection and weak Macon County nexus require transfer. | Transfer to Lee County justified; denial improper. |
| Whether Macon County has a strong nexus to the action given defendant residences | Macon County residences create a permissible forum for venue if other ties exist. | Nexus centered on Lee County; Macon County has weak connection other than residence of some defendants. | Macon County nexus was weak; transfer appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536 (Ala. 2008) (establishes nexus/justice balance for transfer under § 6-3-21.1)
- Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 994 So.2d 906 (Ala. 2008) (transfer compelled when convenience of parties/witnesses or justice warrants)
- Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745 (Ala. 2010) (stronger Lee/Elmore County nexus; weak forum link weighs against Macon)
- Ex parte Harper, 934 So.2d 1045 (Ala. 2006) (notes forum non conveniens distinctions and timeliness considerations)
- Ex parte Smiths Water & Sewer Auth., 982 So.2d 484 (Ala. 2007) (public/private interest factors in venue analysis)
- Ford Motor Co., 47 So.3d 234 (Ala. 2010) (Murdock concurrence on proper use of venue and interest-of-justice factors)
- Ex parte McKenzie Oil, Inc., 13 So.3d 346 (Ala. 2008) (illustrates nexus considerations in county-focused venue questions)
- Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788 (Ala. 1998) (mandamus as review vehicle for denial of transfer under § 6-3-21.1)
- Ex parte First Family Financial Services, Inc., 718 So.2d 658 (Ala. 1998) (venue transfer guidance: private/public-interest balance for forum choice)