Anderson v. Griggs
Decision Date | 24 July 1981 |
Citation | 402 So.2d 904 |
Parties | Gail Griggs ANDERSON and Melanie Grace Marty v. O. C. GRIGGS. 80-57. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Dan Moran and George K. Williams, Huntsville, for appellants.
James P. Smith of Harrison, Burwell, Smith & Sutherlin, Huntsville, for appellee.
This will contest case presents a single issue: The propriety of the trial court's grant of contestant's motion for summary judgment based solely on movant's supportive affidavit by the late Dr. Griggs's lawyer stating that in 1973 he prepared, and Dr. Griggs executed, a "new" will (now lost), revoking the 1972 will offered for probate by proponents.
Proponents (Appellants) are a granddaughter and a great granddaughter of Dr. J. C. Griggs, who died a widower December 8, 1973. The contestant (Appellee) is the late Dr. Griggs's only child.
This case involves multiple efforts on behalf of Appellants to prove that their deceased kinsman died testate favoring them as beneficiaries as opposed to having died intestate, allowing the Appellee to take the entire intestacy estate. Appellants began by filing for probate a 1972 will which was contested by Appellee and moved to the circuit court. The circuit court ruled adversely to Appellants in its February 20, 1979, order, finding that the 1972 will had been revoked by a subsequent duly executed will, which order of judgment concluded:
"... without prejudice to any proceedings which the proponents or any other proper person might institute in the Probate Court to establish the contents of the subsequent will."
Immediately thereafter, Appellants sought to probate "the subsequent (lost) will" in the probate court. Again, the Appellee moved the contest to the circuit court; and, again, on June 20, 1980, the court granted summary judgment adversely to Appellants, finding that, "There's no possibility that the proponents will be able to satisfy the requirements of establishing a lost will (Barksdale v. Pendergrass, 294 Ala. 526, 319 So.2d 267 (1975))." Appellants now appeal from the June 20, 1980, order and state affirmatively in their brief that the only issue presented is the propriety of the trial court's February 20, 1979, order granting summary judgment with respect to the 1972 will.
Disclaiming any precedential value of our procedural holding, because of the sui generis posture of these proceedings, we have elected to construe these attempts to probate various wills and the contests thereof as a single case, thereby construing the February 20, 1979, order as interlocutory, thus treating the June 20, 1980, order as the final judgment. Therefore, we will treat the appeal as timely filed.
Because our resolution of the dispositive issue here presented turns on the legal sufficiency of Mr. Hardy B. Jackson's affidavit in support of the contestant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the revocation of the 1972 will, we now set forth the pertinent portions of that testimony:
The respective contentions of the parties are summarized in Appellee's brief:
The trial court's "Order of Judgment," after summarizing Mr. Jackson's testimony, recites in part:
Code 1975, § 43-1-30, sets out the requisites for a valid will:
"No will is effectual to pass real or personal property, except as otherwise provided in this article, unless the same is in writing signed by the testator or some person in his presence, and by his direction, and attested by at least two witnesses, who must subscribe their names thereto in the presence of the testator."
§ 43-1-44 prescribes the mode of proving a will offered for probate, which, in pertinent part, reads:
As early as 1884, the demands of this statute a codification of the common law were relaxed in cases which attempted to establish and probate lost wills. In Skeggs v. Horton, 82 Ala. 352, 2 So. 110 (1886), the appellant argued that the law required two subscribing witnesses to prove the validity of a will and that a single witness could not prove a lost will. This Court disagreed citing the first appellate decision in the same case which held that a lost will may be established by the testimony of a "single witness, who read and remembers the contents of the will...." Jaques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238 (1884). The lost will exception itself a product of the common law has been preserved and read into the statute by this Court's decisions, so that a "lost will may be established by the testimony of a single witness, who read it, or heard it read, and remembers its contents." Lovell v. Lovell, 270 Ala. 720, 121 So.2d 901 (1960); Martin v. Wagner, 247 Ala. 591, 25 So.2d 409 (1946); Allen v. Scruggs, 190 Ala. 654, 67 So. 301 (1914).
The exclusive methods by which wills may be revoked are set out in § 43-1-33:
Strict adherence to the requirements of this section is necessary to accomplish an effective revocation because "Section 26, Title 61, Code (§ 43-1-33), provides the only method by which a will can be revoked." Kelley v. Sutliff, 257 Ala. 371, 59 So.2d 65 (1952); Parker v. Foreman, 252 Ala. 77, 39 So.2d 574 (1949). See Barker v. Bell, 46 Ala. 216 (1871). This standard of proof, therefore, has been consistently applied by this Court where a party asserts revocation of a will by a subsequent will. Allan v. Allan, 353 So.2d 1157 (Ala.1977); Brooks v. Everett, 271 Ala. 354, 124 So.2d 105 (1960).
Appellee contends that the testimony of Hardy Jackson is sufficient to establish the validity of Dr. Griggs's lost will, despite a lack of any evidence of its contents, and thereby to revoke his prior will. Unquestionably, had the lost will to which Mr. Jackson's testimony alluded been offered for probate, the statement of facts contained in his affidavit would not meet the requisites of the "lost will exception" to § 43-1-44. Our decisions involving the establishment of the validity of lost wills consistently hold that one of the requirements to be met is that the single testifying witness "remember the contents" of the lost will which he read or which was read to him. It must be understood, then,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hansel v. Head
...hand, it is clear that we should give effect to the testators' intent with respect to the disposal of their property. Anderson v. Griggs, 402 So.2d 904, 909 (Ala.1981) (" '[I]t is not to be presumed that the testator intended to die intestate as to any portion of his property, unless the co......
-
Pirtle v. Tucker
...by at least two witnesses, who must subscribe their names thereto in the presence of the testator")(as quoted in Anderson v. Griggs, 402 So.2d 904, 907 (Ala.1981)). ...
-
Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Calhoun
...have been admitted to probate unless it was effectively revoked by strict adherence to the requirements of § 43-8-136. Anderson v. Griggs, 402 So.2d 904 (Ala.1981). Therefore, the issue for our resolution is whether the physical act of removing and discarding the signature page from the bod......
-
Harper v. Taylor (Ex parte Taylor)
...William's argument runs counter to the general rule favoring testacy over intestacy where possible. See, e.g., Anderson v. Griggs, 402 So.2d 904 (Ala. 1981).If Alice's contest of the 2007 will fails, nothing would prevent William, at that time, from requesting that, "in the interest of just......