Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1983 |
| Citation | 435 So.2d 1235 |
| Parties | Ex Parte JIM SKINNER FORD, INC., a Corporation and Ford Motor Credit Company, a Corporation. (In re: Stephen Elton TOLLISON v. JIM SKINNER FORD, INC., a corporation, and Ford Motor Credit Company, a corporation). 82-370. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Dennis G. Pantazis of Gordon, Silberman, Loeb, Cleveland & Gordon, Birmingham, for petitioners.
William J. Trussell of Church, Trussell & Robinson, Pell City, for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Honorable H.E. Holladay, Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. Petitioners seek dismissal or transfer of the action based on improper venue. The writ is denied.
This action began in August 1982 with the filing of a complaint by Stephen Elton Tollison against defendants (petitioners), Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., and Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC). The relief sought was rescission of an installment sales contract and damages for fraud and breach of warranty. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that neither of them did business by agent in St. Clair County, making venue improper. It was stipulated that Jim Skinner Ford did not do business by agent in St. Clair County. However, the trial court found venue to be proper and denied the motion on the ground that FMCC did conduct business in the county.
It is clear that under Rule 82(c), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the stipulation regarding Jim Skinner Ford has no effect on the proper resolution of the venue question if venue is proper as to the co-defendant, FMCC. 1 Therefore, the sole question presented is whether the trial court's determination was correct with respect to FMCC. The scope of our review of a venue determination by a writ of mandamus is to "determine whether judgment or discretion of the lower court has been abused and exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Ex Parte Wilson, 408 So.2d 94, 96 (Ala.1981).
Since FMCC is a foreign corporation, the applicable statute is Code of 1975, § 6-3-7, which provides in part: "A foreign corporation may be sued in any county in which it does business by agent...." From review of the record, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that FMCC did business by agent in St. Clair County. The following facts support this finding. The Pell City Lincoln-Mercury dealership in St. Clair County was one of the automobile dealerships in the state with which FMCC had an ongoing business relationship. This relationship consisted of FMCC's financing the dealer's floor plan inventory and purchasing from the dealer installment sales contracts. FMCC regularly sent its agents to St. Clair County for various purposes, including the furnishing of forms to the dealer, discussion of particular problems, repossession of cars from defaulting customers for delivery of those cars to the dealer, and checking the dealer's inventory. The FMCC sales representative responsible for St. Clair County visited the Pell City dealer once or twice a month for these purposes, according to the testimony of FMCC's collection supervisor for the Birmingham office. In addition, the owner of the Pell City dealership testified that he periodically attended training sessions held by FMCC in Birmingham and that FMCC agents came to Pell City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nix v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc. (Ex parte Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc.)
...Tuscaloosa Cty., N.A., 619 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Ala. 1993) ; Ex parte Joiner, 486 So.2d 402, 403 (Ala. 1986) ; and Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 435 So.2d 1235, 1237 (Ala. 1983). This principle is based on a long recognized distinction between the exercise of corporate powers that are "mere......
- U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Warwick Development Co., Inc.
-
Ex parte Charter Retreat Hosp., Inc.
...Ex parte Joiner, 486 So.2d 402, 403 (Ala.1986); Peabody, 497 So.2d at 1129; Reliance Ins., 484 So.2d at 417; and Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 435 So.2d 1235, 1237 (Ala.1983). While isolated transactions prior to the filing of the suit are inconclusive to show that the foreign corporatio......
-
Eliott v. Int'l Paper Co.
...1358 (Ala. 1993)). Furthermore, 'isolated transactions' in the past are inconclusive in determining venue. Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 435 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Ala. 1983)."Ex parte Pike Fabrication, Inc., 859 So. 2d 1089, 1093 (Ala. 2002). I believe that the transaction at issue in this ......