Ex parte Chandler

• Decision Date: 25 July 1986
• Citation: 494 So.2d 63
• Parties: Ex parte Terry W. CHANDLER and Chandler and Associates. (In re: FIRST SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Terry W. CHANDLER and Chandler and Associates, Inc.) 85-518.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 63

494 So.2d 63

Ex parte Terry W. CHANDLER and Chandler and Associates.

(In re: FIRST SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Terry W. CHANDLER and Chandler and Associates, Inc.)

85-518.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 25, 1986.

Richard G. Alexander and Richard D. Yelverton, of Alexander and Knizley, Mobile, for petitioners.

Bradley R. Byrne and Palmer C. Hamilton, of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, for respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

ALMON, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent trial judge to set aside an order requiring petitioners to deposit with the trial court "all documents of title, stock certificates, notes, mortgages, contracts, instruments, deeds, and other documents or instruments evidencing or representing ownership by [petitioners, defendants below], or either of them, in any asset, said assets to be held in escrow by the clerk of this Court," pending execution on the assets by the plaintiff, in whose favor the trial court had entered summary judgment for $818,000.00, or satisfaction of the judgment by petitioners.

Petitioners are Terry W. Chandler and Chandler & Associates, Inc. They were sued by First Southern Development Company on a $2.1 million note executed by a partnership of which Chandler & Associates was 25% owner/partner and First Southern Development was 75% owner/partner. Chandler executed a personal guaranty on the note. This Court has previously issued a writ of mandamus in this action. Ex parte Chandler, 477 So.2d 360 (Ala.1985).

After the trial court entered summary judgment for First Southern Development on January 8, 1986, Chandler, on January 24, sold all of the stock of Chandler & Associates to a third party. On February 6, First Southern Development filed a motion for an order of immediate execution pursuant to Code 1975, § 6-9-22, and Rule 62(a), A.R.Civ.P., or, in the alternative, an order compelling delivery of defendants' assets to court during the automatic stay of execution imposed by Rule 62(a). The motion alleged that First Southern Development had intended to execute on Chandler's stock in Chandler & Associates and that First Southern Development had "no means of ascertaining whether Defendants are liquidating other valuable assets" and was entitled to the relief sought under § 6-9-22. The trial court did not order immediate execution but granted the alternative relief as set forth above.

Chandler is a resident of Florida. He argues that the trial court did not have the authority to order him to bring his assets into Alabama so that First Southern Development could execute on them. This argument is correct. The proper way to execute on property in a state other than that rendering the judgment is to take the judgment to the state where the property lies, sue on it as on a debt, obtain a judgment, and execute on the domestic judgment. Prado North Residences, Ltd. v. Prado North Condominium Association, Inc., 477 So.2d 396 (Ala.1985); French v. Steel, Inc., 445 So.2d 561 (Ala.1984); Continental Auto Ins. Underwriters v. Menuskin, 222 Ala. 370, 132 So. 883 (1931). "Foreign judgments are not liens and are not entitled to execution in the state to which they are brought." Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276, 56 S.Ct. 229, 234, 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935).

An Alabama circuit judge could not order an Alabama sheriff to go to Florida and seize a Florida resident's assets located there, even though the court may have acquired personal jurisdiction over the Florida resident through some contacts he has with Alabama relative to the lawsuit. The order in the instant case, to the extent that it may be read to require Chandler to bring assets from Florida to be held...