Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mohabbat v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
Citations: 703 So. 2d 327; 1997 Ala. LEXIS 377Docket: 1961003
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; August 29, 1997; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Equitable Life Assurance Society, Equitable Variable Life Insurance Company, and insurance agent Joe Moore petitioned for a writ of mandamus after the Greene County Circuit Court denied their motion to transfer a case against them to Tuscaloosa County. The case stems from a prior action filed by Dr. M. Omar Mohabbat in Tuscaloosa regarding a variable life insurance policy, which was settled with an agreement to reinstate coverage and release all claims. Mohabbat later alleged that Equitable breached this settlement and made fraudulent misrepresentations, prompting him to file a new action in Greene County. Equitable’s motion to transfer was based on Alabama Code § 6-3-21.1, which allows for transfer for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. The circuit court denied the motion, and Equitable sought a writ of mandamus, arguing that the interest of justice favored litigation in Tuscaloosa due to the connection to the previous settlement. The court noted that transfers under this statute are generally at the discretion of the circuit court. It was determined that there was no clear showing of error in the court's denial of the transfer based on convenience, nor was there evidence to suggest that justice would not be served by keeping the case in Greene County. The litigation in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court lasted over 18 months, during which significant discovery occurred and Equitable filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing was held, and on July 22, 1994, the court issued a detailed 48-page order partly granting and partly denying the motion. The same judge also issued the final judgment based on the parties' stipulation. This extensive involvement granted the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court familiarity with the issues relevant to the settlement agreement. The current petition seeks a change of venue under § 6-3-21.1, not jurisdiction, leaving the question of jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Greene County unaddressed. It is established that the court first assuming jurisdiction should retain it, barring other courts. While the nature of the current case is not definitively classified, it bears resemblance to a Rule 60(b) motion, making the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court the appropriate venue. Consequently, Equitable has demonstrated that transferring the case to Tuscaloosa County serves the interest of justice, leading to the granting of a writ of mandamus. The Circuit Court of Greene County is ordered to vacate its previous denial of the transfer motion and to transfer the case to Tuscaloosa County.