Business people with legal disputes often expect that when their legal position is very strong, litigating it to victory should be relatively quick and painless. That’s often not the case, however, as illustrated by a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision involving a real estate lease dispute. In Ex parte Riverfront, LLC, released November 6, 2015, the Court issued a writ of mandamus and ordered the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court to vacate its order transferring a declaratory judgment action back to the Etowah County Circuit Court where it originated. This was the second time this case had made its way to the Alabama Supreme Court, the first being in 2013 when the Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Etowah court to transfer the case to Tuscaloosa as required by the lease document's forum selection clause. The 2015 opinion rests on the concept that the 2013 opinion resolved the issue of which court would hear the case.
While the opinion provides useful analysis for attorneys on principles of mandamus and forum selection clause enforcement, its larger value may be as a tool for transactional lawyers to educate their clients on the potential costs -- in time and money -- of litigating a dispute, regardless of the strength of the client's legal arguments. The dispute in this case has been going on for more than two years, and the only thing that's been determined so far is which court will hear the case! The merits of the actual legal dispute have yet to be addressed. The reader can make his own estimate of how much each side has spent on legal fees, but it can't be insubstantial. To be sure, it can often be worthwhile to litigate over where the case will be heard; the lawyers in this case may be doing a terrific job and using the best possible strategies. But the time and money invested are considerable, and usually unanticipated by the clients on the front end of a dispute.
