Miller filed a breach of contract claim against Cassidy and JBPL based on a director agreement which involved Miller’s contract for employment.  On August 12, 2016, JBPL and Cassidy filed a joint Rule 12(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss Miller's action based on improper venue. They argued that the outbound forum selection clause in the director agreement required Miller to bring her action in Illinois. Subsequently, Miller amended her complaint to include a fraud-in-the-inducement claim. Miller admitted that the director agreement contained a forum selection clause but argued that she would not have entered into the agreement but for the fraud perpetuated by JBPL and Cassidy. The defendants responded, arguing that, in order to void the forum-selection clause, the fraud must be directed to that particular clause and not to the contract as a whole. Following a hearing at which the parties discussed only the arguments related to the defendants' Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. JBPL and Cassidy timely filed a petition for a writ of mandamus.

On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that,"[a]n outbound forum selection clause -- a clause by which parties specifically agree to trial outside the State of Alabama in the event of a dispute -- implicates the venue of a court rather than its jurisdiction.” Further, the Court stated that “an outbound forum-selection clause is enforceable unless the party challenging the clause can clearly establish that enforcement of the clause would be unfair on the basis that the contract was affected by fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power or that enforcement would be unreasonable on the basis that the chosen forum would be seriously inconvenient for the trial of the action.” Finally, the Court held that if the claim of fraud in the inducement is directed toward the entire contract, “the fraud exception to enforcement of the forum-selection clause does not apply."

Because Miller argued that the fraudulent inducement applied to the contract as a whole, rather than to the specific outbound forum selection clause, the Court held that Miller had not sustained her burden.  Accordingly, the Court issued the Writ and held that the outbound forum selection clause was valid and enforceable. 

Jackson appealed a jury verdict awarding breach of contract damages and attorney fees against Jackson based on a contract for the sale of commercial property. On appeal, Jackson argued that the judgment is due to be reversed because the contract was on its face, illegal. Brewer contests the appeal by stating that Jackson waived the illegality defense.

On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the “policy against enforcing illegal contracts so strongly prevails in Alabama that a party can raise the issue even after a jury returns an adverse verdict based on the contract, as is the case in other jurisdictions.” Accordingly, the Court found that Jackson had not waived the illegality defense.

Turning to the merits, the Court held that the record does not disclose any violation of former § 11-52-33(a): “nothing in the record shows that Jackson induced the purchase agreement ‘by reference to or exhibition of’ an unapproved subdivision plat or map.” Accordingly, Jackson had not shown that the contract itself was illegal. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict.