204 So. 3d 906
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Husband (Glen Ray Glassmeyer) married wife in March 2014; wife had a guardian who filed actions on her behalf.
- In April 2014 the wife’s guardian filed an annulment alleging the husband fraudulently misrepresented his intentions and misappropriated the wife’s funds (annulment action).
- In April 2015 the wife’s guardian filed a separate divorce complaint alleging similar fraud and also incompatibility/irreconcilable breakdown (divorce action).
- The circuit court consolidated the two actions and ordered future filings to be made under one case number, but each consolidated case retained a separate identity.
- The wife died in November 2015. The husband moved to dismiss the divorce action as abated by the wife’s death; the circuit court denied that motion in the annulment docket but did not (based on the record) enter a corresponding order in the divorce docket.
- Husband petitioned this court for mandamus seeking dismissal of the divorce action; the court denied the petition as premature because no order denying the motion to dismiss had been entered in the divorce action.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Guardian/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pending divorce action survived the wife’s death | Divorce abates on death; husband argued the divorce action terminated and must be dismissed | Court below denied dismissal (in annulment docket); respondent implicitly argues proceedings should continue | Petition denied as premature because no order was entered in the divorce docket; merits not reached |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate relief | Husband argued mandamus to compel dismissal | Respondent opposed; court noted procedural defects | Mandamus denied because petition was premature (lack of final/entered order in the divorce case) |
| Effect of consolidation on separate judgments | Husband assumed the consolidation order made rulings in one docket apply to both | Respondent relied on consolidation order requiring filings under one case number | Court held consolidation does not merge causes; each consolidated case needs separate judgments/orders |
| Jurisdictional/timeliness concerns for mandamus | Husband filed petition outside presumptive time but asserted jurisdictional issues | Respondent relied on procedural posture; court noted exceptions for jurisdictional questions but emphasized timely invocation generally required | Court declined to reach timeliness/subject-matter exception because petition was premature; concurrence would have dismissed as untimely if reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 517 So.2d 606 (Ala. 1987) (a pending divorce action abates at death of a party)
- League v. McDonald, 355 So.2d 695 (Ala. 1978) (consolidated actions retain separate identities and require separate judgments)
- Evers v. Link Enters., Inc., 386 So.2d 1177 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) (consolidation does not merge suits into a single cause)
- Ex parte Massengill, 175 So.3d 175 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (standards for issuance of mandamus)
- Ex parte Sharp, 893 So.2d 571 (Ala. 2003) (discussion of appellate consideration of jurisdictional issues)