Ex parte Rich

• Decision Date: 04 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2210228
• Parties: Ex parte Angel Rich v. Angel Rich In re: Raymon Brian Johnson
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Ex parte Angel Rich

In re: Raymon Brian Johnson
v.
Angel Rich

No. 2210228

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

March 4, 2022

Covington Circuit Court, DR-18-152.02

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MOORE, JUDGE.

Angel Rich ("the mother"), the mother of B.J. ("the child"), has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court issue a writ directing the Covington Circuit Court ("the trial court") to set aside all

1

orders it has entered in this case and to quash service. We deny the petition.

Procedural History

On June 22, 2021, the child's father, Raymon Brian Johnson ("the father"), filed in the trial court a petition to register a Tennessee child-custody order in which the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee ("the Tennessee court"), had awarded the father "primary custody" of the child but had reserved ruling on all issues relating to child support.^[1] In the registration petition, the father requested that the trial court register and enforce the Tennessee child- custody order, establish child support, and order that the father be allowed to claim the child as his dependent for income-tax purposes. Also on June 22, 2021, the attorney for the father sent the mother, via certified mail, notice of the filing of the registration petition. On July 1, 2021, the trial court entered an order indicating that notice of the registration petition had been mailed to the

2

mother and setting the matter for a hearing to take place on August 9, 2021. On July 29, 2021, the father filed a notice asserting that he had perfected service on the mother at her home address, an apartment in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, by certified mail, "restricted delivery." He attached to the notice a United States Postal Service certified-mail return receipt, but the signature on the receipt was illegible and the spaces for the date of the delivery and for the printed name of the recipient remained blank.

On August 6, 2021, the mother filed a motion to continue the scheduled hearing on the registration petition, alleging that she had not been properly served. In her motion, the mother noted the discrepancies on the certified-mail return receipt and alleged that those discrepancies rendered service ineffective. The mother requested that the trial court reset the matter only after the father had perfected service on her and she had been allowed time to respond to the registration petition.

On August 13, 2021, the father amended the registration petition and reissued notice of the registration petition to the mother. On August 30, 2021, the trial court entered an order rescheduling the hearing on the

3

registration petition to October 5, 2021. That order also stated that the court would hear any objections to the registration petition during that hearing. On September 28, 2021, the mother filed a motion requesting that the October 5, 2021, hearing be held as a virtual hearing because she and several persons employed by her attorney had tested positive for COVID-19 coronavirus. The trial court denied that motion on September 29, 2021. The October 5, 2021, hearing proceeded as scheduled; the mother did not appear at that hearing, and the mother's attorney appeared solely for the purpose of contesting service of the notice of the registration petition.^[2]

On November 18, 2021, the trial court entered an order stating:

"This matter came before the Court on October 5, 2021 on the [father's] 'Petition to Register Tennessee Custody Order and Petition to Establish Child Support.' The [father] was present with his attorney of record, the Hon. Maci Jessie. The [mother] was not present. However, she was represented at the hearing by her attorney, the Hon. Jared Arnold.

4

"The [mother], through counsel, objected to the registration of the Tennessee order on the ground[] that she was not served with the notice of registration required by Ala. Code [1975, ] § 30-3B-305(b)(2). The Court proceeded to hear argument on the [mother]'s objection.

"Based on the evidence, the Court is of the opinion that the [mother] has received adequate notice of the registration. This is based on the following facts:

"1. The [mother] was sent notice of the registration by certified mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt appears to have been delivered to the [mother]'s address and some person signed for it. (Doc. 13).

"2. The [mother] failed to present any affirmative evidence, either by testimony or affidavit, in support of her objection.

"3. The [father] sent an amended petition to the

...