Ex parte E3 Pest Control, LLC, etc., [Ms. SC-2024-0224, Sep. 27, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Bryan, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur; Shaw and Sellers, JJ., concur in the result) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Mobile Circuit Court to transfer this action involving termite damage to Timothy and Angela Garfield’s home in Baldwin County.
The Court holds venue was proper only in Baldwin County because of § 6-3-2 (b) “In proceedings of an equitable nature against individuals: “(1) All actions where real estate is the subject matter of the action, whether it is the exclusive subject matter of the action or not, must be commenced in the county where the same or a material portion thereof is situated” and Rule 82(1)(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. “Actions against an individual or individuals having a permanent residence in this state” … (B) Must, if the subject matter of the action is real estate, whether or not exclusively, or if it is for recovery or the possession thereof or trespass thereto, be brought in the county where the real estate or a material portion thereof is situated.”
The Court concludes that “[u]nder the rationale of Ex parte Travis, [573 So. 2d 281 (Ala. 1990)] the statute and procedural rule governing venue as to individuals – § 6-3-2 and Rule 82(b)(1), respectively – apply when an action has been asserted against both an individual and a separate business entity if the subject matter of the action is real property.” Ms. *9. The Court further holds that even assuming without deciding that § 6-3-7 applies to limited liability companies, Rule 82(c)’s pendent venue principles do not “override the mandatory language of Rule 82(b)(1)(B) and § 6-3-2(b)(1).” Ms. *11.
The Court issues the writ directing transfer to Baldwin County because “at least three of the Garfields’ claims are based on alleged duties that they contend were imposed upon the defendants’ work in and on the Garfields’ residence by the common law and by Alabama’s positive law, alleged breaches of those duties, and resulting damage, which they further allege may require a rebuilding of the residence.” Ms. *22.