Massengill v. Massengill, 175 So. 3d 175

Wife filed for divorce April 27, 2013 (DR-13-900171), alleging separation and adultery; sought divorce, property division, alimony, fees, and damages.
Wife obtained entry of default (Aug 12, 2014) and default divorce judgment (Aug 13, 2014); husband moved to set aside and the trial court set aside the default judgment (Aug 17, 2014).
Husband then filed his own divorce complaint (Aug 18, 2014) (DR-14-900387); wife moved to dismiss the husband’s action as a compulsory counterclaim and relying on the earlier default proceedings.
Trial court consolidated/merged the husband’s file into the wife’s file on Oct 30, 2014, treating the husband’s pleadings as responsive; husband moved to reconsider and to dismiss in various filings; the court denied those motions Dec 1, 2014.
Husband petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking vacatur of the consolidation order and the denial of his motion to dismiss; petition was dismissed in part as untimely and denied in part on the merits regarding dismissal for alleged reconciliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Massengill)	Defendant's Argument (Wife/Trial Court)	Held
Timeliness of mandamus attack on Oct 30 order	Petition should be considered despite filing 46 days after order; good cause exists	Petition lacked mandatory statement of good cause in petition body per Rule 21(a)(3)	Dismissed as to Oct 30 order for failure to include good-cause statement in petition
Trial court’s consolidation/transfer of husband’s file into wife’s file	Consolidation was improper and deprived trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction	Transfer was within court’s discretion to treat pleadings as responsive instead of dismissing	Dismissed as to consolidation order (procedural timeliness defect)
Whether reconciliation abrogated wife’s pending divorce (motion to dismiss)	Parties reconciled, which as a matter of law abrogates the cause and requires dismissal	Wife’s affidavit and record do not show resumption of marital life; reconciliation is a factual question	Denied — no clear right to dismissal because husband submitted no evidence proving reconciliation
Standard for proving reconciliation	Short cohabitation or limited contact suffices	Reconciliation requires voluntary resumption of marital cohabitation in the fullest sense (intent to resume married life, sexual relations, joint domicile), and is a question of fact	Court applied standard and found insufficient evidence of full reconciliation; mandamus denied on this point

Ex parte Fiber Transp., L.L.C., 902 So.2d 98 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (untimely mandamus petitions require a good-cause statement)
Ex parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So.2d 547 (Ala. 2003) (failure to include required good-cause explanation in petition cannot be cured later)
Ex parte Pelham Tank Lines, Inc., 898 So.2d 733 (Ala. 2004) (same principle on untimely petitions)
Ex parte A.E.Q., 102 So.3d 388 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 21 timing/contents)
Ex parte Horton, 711 So.2d 979 (Ala. 1998) (standards for issuing mandamus)
Rikard v. Rikard, 387 So.2d 842 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) (reconciliation abrogates cause; defines reconciliation elements)
Pride v. Pride, 631 So.2d 247 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (reconciliation is a factual inquiry; short cohabitation may not establish full reconciliation)
Jones v. Jones, 402 So.2d 1007 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981) (conditional or trial cohabitation is not full reconciliation)
Ex parte Vest, 68 So.3d 881 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (petitioner must produce evidence supporting factual claims to obtain mandamus relief)
Ex parte DeMarco, 628 So.2d 828 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (mandamus requires clear showing of trial-court error to petitioner’s injury)