252 So. 3d 676
Ala. Civ. App.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Mother (Noy Krukenberg) and two children moved from Texas to Alabama (2012), then to Kentucky (July 2015).
  • Paternal grandmother (Gwendolyn Riggs) obtained a Texas court order (Nov. 2013) granting specific grandparent visitation; she registered that Texas judgment in Lee County, Alabama (2014) and a 2015 Alabama contempt judgment found mother in contempt for denying visitation.
  • Stepparent adoption by mother's husband was filed in Alabama in 2014 and remained pending (transferred to juvenile court; final hearing July 20, 2017; adoption denied).
  • Grandmother filed a new enforcement/contempt action in Lee Circuit Court in June 2017 based on alleged denial of spring/summer 2017 visitation; mother had been served in Kentucky.
  • Mother petitioned for mandamus seeking dismissal on grounds of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and that the earlier registration/December 2015 judgment was void for noncompliance with Ala. Code § 30-3B-305.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Krukenberg) Defendant's Argument (Riggs) Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction over 2017 enforcement action Alabama courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction because mother and children now reside in Kentucky Circuit court retained continuing jurisdiction after registration; earlier enforcement established authority Not reached (court pretermitted this issue after personal-jurisdiction holding)
Personal jurisdiction over mother Mother lacks minimum contacts with Alabama since 2015; neither general nor specific jurisdiction exists Jurisdiction proper because prior Alabama proceedings (registration; pending adoption action) and prior contacts suffice Court held Alabama lacks both general and specific in personam jurisdiction and granted mandamus to dismiss 2017 action
Effect/validity of December 2015 contempt judgment (registration defects) December 2015 judgment is void because grandmother failed to strictly comply with § 30-3B-305 registration requirements Registration was confirmed as a matter of law; December 2015 judgment stands Not decided (court pretermitted this argument after finding lack of personal jurisdiction)
Availability of relief (enforcement of foreign custody order) (argued in concurrence) Alabama lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce a foreign child-custody order when parties/children no longer have any Alabama connection Trial court relied on § 30-3B-306 authority to enforce registered foreign custody orders Concurrence would have granted relief on subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds but majority ruled on personal jurisdiction instead

Key Cases Cited

  • Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805 (Ala. 2000) (mandamus standards)
  • Ex parte Mercury Fin. Corp., 715 So.2d 196 (Ala. 1997) (criteria for issuing mandamus)
  • Ex parte Diefenbach, 64 So.3d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (mandamus review and standards)
  • Ex parte Alamo Title Co., 128 So.3d 700 (Ala. 2013) (Alabama long-arm Rule 4.2 and due-process limits)
  • Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726 (Ala. 2002) (minimum-contacts / foreseeability discussion)
  • Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37 (Ala. 1986) (focus on forum–defendant–litigation nexus for specific jurisdiction)
  • Ex parte J.R.W., 667 So.2d 74 (Ala. 1994) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
  • Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So.3d 1114 (Ala. 2016) (general-jurisdiction domicile discussion citing Daimler)
  • Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (paradigm forum for general jurisdiction)
  • Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction principles)
  • Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment / foreseeability)
  • World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (reasonable anticipation of being haled into court)
  • Steensland v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm'n, 87 So.3d 535 (Ala. 2012) (jurisdiction not ousted by subsequent events)
  • Decker v. Decker, 984 So.2d 1216 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (separate contempt/enforcement action concept)
  • Ex parte Stouffer, 214 So.3d 1192 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (discussion whether Alabama may enforce custody orders after parties leave state)
  • Ex parte Gallant, 221 So.3d 1120 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (perpetuating Stouffer ruling)
Read the full case