Ambrose v. Vandeford
| Decision Date | 27 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 21 |
| Citation | 277 Ala. 66,167 So.2d 149 |
| Parties | Claude E. AMBROSE, Jr., v. Kathleen VANDEFORD, Executrix. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ling & Bains, Bessemer, for appellant.
Huey, Stone & Patton, Bessemer, for appellee.
The appellee, Kathleen Ambrose Vandeford, filed a petition in the Probate Court of Jefferson County (Bessemer Division) seeking the probate of the will of her father, Claude E. Ambrose, deceased.
The appellant, Claude E. Ambrose, Jr., filed a sworn plea in abatement to the petition, the plea asserting that the testator was a resident of Bibb County at the time of his death.
When a testator is a resident of Alabama, his will must be probated in the county of which the was an inhabitant at the time of his death. Section 35, Title 61, Code of Alabama 1940. The word 'inhabitant' in the sense of this codal provision is synonymous with 'domiciliary.' Merrill's Heirs v. Morrissett, 76 Ala. 433.
After a full hearing, at which witnesses testified, and documentary evidence was introduced, the Honorable J. Paul Meeks, Probate Judge of Jefferson County, entered an order overruling the plea in abatement, and finding that the testator was a resident of Jefferson County at the time of his death.
An appeal was taken from this order to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. The cause was therein submitted on a bill of exceptions, prepared from notes taken at the hearing in the Probate Court.
Thereafter Hon. E. L. Ball, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, entered an order affirming the order of the Probate Court. This appeal is from that order.
The sole question presented for review is whether Claude E. Ambrose was a resident (domiciliary) of Jefferson County, or of Bibb County, at the time of his death.
Where an appeal is taken to the Circuit Court from an order, judgment, or decree of the Probate Court under the provisions of Section 775 et seq., Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, the Circuit Court sits as a court of review. The findings of the Probate Court based on the testimony of witnesses heard ore tenus is presumed to be correct, and will not be disturbed by this court on appeal unless palpably erroneous. Kelly v. Kelly, 247 Ala. 316, 24 So.2d 265.
The evidence presented in the Probate Court is not in serious conflict. The difficulty is in resolving the question arising from balancing the weight of evidence presented by the appellant, directed toward showing that Mr. Ambrose had acquired a domicil in Bibb County, with that presented by the appellee which tended to show his domicil in Jefferson County, all of which is to be measured in light of the presumption to be accorded the findings of the Probate Court who heard the witnesses ore tenus.
The evidence is not in conflict in showing that Mr. Ambrose was domiciled in Bibb County from 1925 to 1949. He registered to vote in Bibb County in 1925 and paid his poll tax there every year until relieved thereof by age. He and his family lived at a home place in Centreville. This home place consisted of approximately 109 acres. In 1949, he and his wife had marital difficulties and a separation agreement was entered into. Under this agreement Mrs. Ambrose was given the privilege of occupying the home, with one room being reserved therein for Mr. Ambrose. Two months later, in May 1949, Mrs. Ambrose was awarded a decree of divorce and in addition to alimony and child support payments, she was given the right to occupy the residence. A lien was imposed on all the real estate to secure the alimony and support payments decreed.
Thereafter, in 1949, Mr. Ambrose went to Bessemer and acquired a drive-in movie theatre which he operated until he sold it in June 1961. During the time he operated the theatre Mr. Ambrose lived in a small room adjacent to the snack bar of the theatre.
Counsel for appellee contends that the long residence of Mr. Ambrose in Jefferson County, coupled with other evidence to be adverted to later, shows that the domicil of Mr. Ambrose was in Jefferson County, and that this domicil is presumed to continue until a change, facto et animo is shown, and that the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof, which was upon the appellant, to show a change of his Jefferson County domicil.
The evidence introduced by the appellant shows that Mr. Ambrose continued to occupy his room at the theatre until 9 October 1961. It is the activities of Mr. Ambrose during the period of time from 9 October 1961 until his death on 23 March 1962, in connection with other evidence that we consider critical in resolving the question of Mr. Ambrose's domicil at the time of his death.
Apparently Mr. Ambrose's health had failed when he left his quarters at the threatre. Prior to his time certain of his personal belongings such as a typewriter, adding machine, guns, and boat motor had been taken to the home of his daughter, Mrs. Kathleen Vandeford in Centreville. During the time Mr. Ambrose lived in Bessemer he made frequent trips to Bibb County. The Probate Judge of Bibb County certified that Mr. Ambrose first paid his poll tax in Bibb County in 1925 and continued to pay it until he became over age, and that he remained a qualified voter of Bibb County, Beat 5, until the time of his death. There is evidence tending to show that Mr. Ambrose participated as a voter in some of the elections in Bibb County. At one time he had the Alabama Power Company alter the proposed route of a power line across his property in Bibb County to avoid a place where he intended to build a lake. Mr. and Mrs. Jess Smitherman were friends of Mr. Ambrose during the time he lived in Bessemer. Mrs. Smitherman testified that Mr. Ambrose frequently visited Bibb County and talked of returning there and going into the hog raising business.
From his quarters at the theatre, Mr. Ambrose entered a hospital in Birmingham on 10 October 1961, where he remained until 30 October. He then went to the home of a sister in Birmingham where he stayed until he could complete thirty days of X-ray treatment. After that he went to the home of Mrs. Vandeford in Centreville for several days, and then returned to his sister's home in Birmingham for two days at Christmas. He then returned to Mrs. Vandeford's home in Centreville where he remained until he again entered a hospital in Birmingham on 19 February 1962. After five days he again returned to his sister's home in Birmingham to be near his doctors. However, on 8 March 1962, he again returned to the hospital where he remained until his death on 23 March 1962.
As noted before, after spending two days at Christmas with his sister in Birmingham, Mr. Ambrose returned to Mrs. Vandeford's home in Centreville where he remained some 52 or 53 days when he again had to be hospitalized. During this time he executed a will.
Mr. J. W. Patton, Jr., the attorney for Mr. Ambrose in the matter, testified that the preparation of the rough draft and the final draft extended over several weeks.
The will executed on 20 February 1962, begins:
'I, Claude E. Ambrose, a resident of the County of Bibb, and State of Alabama, being of sound and disposing memory * * *.'
In this will Mr. Ambrose appointed his daughter, Kathleen Vandeford, executrix.
Mr. Patton testified that the will was read to Mr. Ambrose, or Mr. Ambrose read it himself, and made no comment as to the statment describing him as a resident of Bibb County.
Mr. Patton further testified that since Mrs. Vanderford had brought Mr. Ambrose to his office on each of his visits, and a Bibb County address in Centreville was the only one he had in his file, and the only way he had of getting in touch with Mr. Ambrose, he had assumed Mr. Ambrose was living in Bibb County, and he had never discussed the matter with Mr. Ambrose.
The evidence further shows that Mr. Ambrose, at some time during his stay in Centreville rented a mail box there. He instructed the purchaser of the drive-in theatre to send his payments to that address, and he received some mail from Mr. Patton at that address.
Mr. C. E. Ambrose, Jr., a son, and one of the beneficiaries under the will, testified that when he visited his father in the hospital in October his father told...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hadnott v. Amos
...275 Ala. 80, 152 So.2d 144 (1963) (divorce); Ex Parte Weissinger, 247 Ala. 113, 22 So.2d 510 (1945) (divorce); Ambrose v. Vandeford, 277 Ala. 66, 167 So.2d 149 (1964) (probate matter), (in all of which the court made a finding on the issue of domicile by first determining in which jurisdict......
-
Horwitz v. Kirby
...[to be] a “potent consideration” for a court to take into account when determining one's domicile.’ (Quoting Ambrose v. Vandeford, 277 Ala. 66, 70, 167 So.2d 149, 153 (1964).)”197 So.3d at 953 n. 7. After noting that Harris relied on Ambrose v. Vandeford, 277 Ala. 66, 70, 167 So.2d 149, 153......
-
Kemp v. Kroutter
...in subsequent decisions. The Court has applied the Kumpe interpretation in a long line of cases. See, e.g. Ambrose v. Vandeford, 277 Ala. 66, 167 So.2d 149 (1964); Slagle v. Halsey, 245 Ala. 198, 15 So.2d 740 (1944); Hanson v. First National Bank of Birmingham, 217 Ala. 426, 116 So. 127 (19......
-
Williams v. Williams
...on the word by the courts. See, e. g., Bechtel v. Bechtel, 101 Minn. 511, 112 N.W. 883, 884 (1907) (divorce); Ambrose v. Vandeford, 277 Ala. 66, 167 So.2d 149, 150 (1964). It is possible that the legislature used the term "inhabitant" in the adoption statute in a sense different than that w......