Keelean v. Central Bank of the South
Decision Date | 07 April 1989 |
Citation | 544 So.2d 153 |
Parties | Robert G. KEELEAN and Albert J. Geiger, Jr. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE SOUTH. Thomas V. SLAUGHTER v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE SOUTH. 87-689, 87-690. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Sydney Lavender, Gilbert E. Johnston, Jr. and Robert S. Vance, Jr. of Johnston, Barton, Proctor, Swedlaw & Naff, Birmingham, for appellant Robert G. Keelean.
Lee R. Benton of Schoel, Ogle, Benton, Gentle & Centeno, Birmingham, for appellant Albert J. Geiger, Jr.
Michael J. Evans of Longshore, Evans & Longshore, Birmingham, for appellant Thomas V. Slaughter.
Michael L. Edwards and Martha F. Petrey of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 5(a), A.R.App.P., from an order of the Circuit Court for Jefferson County denying defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
In November 1984, Holdco of Pinellas County, Inc. ("Holdco"), a Florida corporation, executed and delivered to Central Bank of the South ("Central Bank"), an Alabama banking corporation, a promissory note with a principal amount of $4,000,000. All negotiations regarding the promissory note took place either via telephone between representatives of Holdco and Central Bank, or in Florida between representatives of Holdco and Central Bank. The promissory note was guaranteed by several individuals, including appellants/guarantors, Robert G. Keelean, Albert Geiger, Jr., and Thomas V. Slaughter, who all delivered their continuing unlimited guarantees to Central Bank for the debts, obligations, and liabilities of Holdco. No evidence was presented that any of the individual guarantors participated in the promissory note negotiations.
Holdco defaulted on the promissory note. Central Bank filed suit in Jefferson County Circuit Court on the debt on August 11, 1987. 1 Central Bank named Holdco, Keelean, Geiger, and Slaughter as defendants in this action. The guaranty signed by Keelean, Geiger, and Slaughter contained a forum selection clauses, which stated in pertinent part:
Central Bank uses this language to assert that the court has personal jurisdiction in Jefferson County, Alabama, over the guarantors to Holdco's obligation to Central Bank.
Three issues are presented by this appeal:
I. Whether forum selection clauses are void as against public policy in this State.
II. Whether signing a guaranty out of state that will have economic effects in this State will satisfy Alabama's long-arm requirement that a defendant have contacts with Alabama sufficient for an Alabama court to properly exercise jurisdiction over that party.
III. Whether the interests of justice warrant the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The general rule regarding forum selection clauses in this State was articulated in Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Foster, 382 So.2d 554 (Ala.1980), where we wrote:
382 So.2d at 556. We addressed this issue again in Conticommodity Services, Inc. v. Transamerica Leasing, Inc., 473 So.2d 1053 (Ala.1985), in which we affirmed the rule in Redwing Carriers.
Appellants rely on our holdings in Redwing Carriers and Conticommodity Services, to invalidate the forum selection clause in the guaranty contracts. Central Bank, on the other hand, attempts to distinguish and/or redefine our holding in Redwing Carriers by arguing 1) that Redwing Carriers stands for the proposition that a forum selection clause is valid as long as it does not divest an Alabama court of jurisdiction; and 2) that Redwing Carriers applies only to subject matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction. We must disagree with Central Bank on both counts. Our holding in Redwing Carriers, supra, specifically stated:
Thus, we treat forum selection clauses as invalid, and we cannot consider this one valid simply because it does not divest an Alabama court of jurisdiction. We expressly hold, also, that Redwing Carriers, supra, includes personal jurisdiction as well as subject matter jurisdiction.
We next determine whether in this case in personam jurisdiction exists in an Alabama court via Alabama's long-arm rule. Rule 4.2(a)(2), A.R.Civ.P., sets out the bases for personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. It provides:
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), requires that a nonresident defendant have certain minimum contacts with a state in order for that state's courts to acquire personal jurisdiction over that defendant. A twofold analysis is used in this state in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over a nonresident defendant:
1) the determination of whether it is foreseeable to that nonresident defendant that he will be sued in this state; and 2) the determination of the degree of contact that the nonresident defendant has with this state.
See Alabama Waterproofing Co. v. Hanby, 431 So.2d 141 (Ala.1983); Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37 (Ala.1986); and Shrout v. Thorsen, 470 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1985). Appellants/guarantors argue first that although the Central Bank loan to Holdco and Holdco's subsequent default on that loan had a substantial impact on the economy of the State of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
...in Alabama. The Court has similarly found personal jurisdiction over directors or officers of corporations in Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So. 2d 153 (Ala. 1989); Duke v. Young, 496 So. 2d 37 (Ala. 1986); Alabama Waterproofing Co. v. Hanby, 431 So. 2d 141 (Ala. 1983); and View-......
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.)
...in Alabama. The Court has similarly found personal jurisdiction over directors or officers of corporations in Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So.2d 153 (Ala.1989); Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37 (Ala.1986); Alabama Waterproofing Co. v. Hanby, 431 So.2d 141 (Ala.1983); and View–All, I......
-
Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC
...forth in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), and adopted by this Court. See Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So.2d 153, 157 (Ala.1989), overruled on other grounds, Professional Ins. Corp. v. Sutherland, 700 So.2d 347 (Ala.1997); Alabama Waterproofi......
-
Professional Ins. Corp. v. Sutherland
...of subsequent cases. See Conticommodity Services, Inc. v. Transamerica Leasing, Inc., 473 So.2d 1053 (Ala.1985); Keelean v. Central Bank of the South, 544 So.2d 153 (Ala.1989); White-Spunner Constr., Inc. v. Cliff, 588 So.2d 865 (Ala.1991); Disctronics Ltd. v. Disc Manufacturing, Inc., 686 ......