Barnett v. Hull
Decision Date | 02 September 2022 |
Docket Number | 1200333,1200437 |
Parties | Gwendolyn Barnett v. Robert Lee Hull, Jr. Gwendolyn Barnett v. Robert Lee Hull, Jr. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeals from Autauga Circuit Court (CV-20-900192)
Gwendolyn Barnett appeals from orders granting relief to Robert Lee Hull, Jr. We reverse and remand.
Barnett and Hull are siblings and the sole legal heirs of their father, Robert Lee Hull, Sr. ("Robert"), who died testate. Pursuant to Robert's will, Hull and Barnett were listed as beneficiaries entitled to equal shares of his estate and Barnett was named personal representative of his estate. In August 2019, Barnett obtained letters testamentary from the Autauga Probate Court. The administration of Robert's estate ("the estate administration") was later removed to the Autauga Circuit Court and assigned case no. CV-19-900322 following Hull's filing of a verified petition for removal.
While the estate administration continued, Hull commenced the underlying action, a separate civil action against Barnett in the Autauga Circuit Court ("the tort action") which was assigned case no. CV-20-900192. Hull's complaint in the tort action alleged that Barnett, in her role as "a partial caretaker of [Robert]" before his death, had exerted undue influence over Robert and had gained control of Robert's personal property and assets. According to Hull, in the absence of Barnett's purported misconduct, items that Barnett allegedly misappropriated would "have become part of [Robert's] estate." Among other relief, Hull sought the imposition of a constructive trust "in an effort to avoid [Barnett's] further unjust enrichment." In other words, in the tort action, Hull was attempting to collect and preserve the estate's assets for himself as a beneficiary. Hull's claims in the tort action were asserted against Barnett in her "individual capacity" rather than in her capacity as the personal representative of Robert's estate. The tort action was assigned to a different judge than the judge presiding over the estate administration.
Barnett filed a motion seeking to dismiss the tort action. In her motion, Barnett asserted that Hull's complaint in the tort action realleged claims purportedly "identical" to claims that Hull had previously asserted in the estate administration, which had been dismissed.[1] Barnett argued both that principles of res judicata barred the tort action and that "because [the estate administration] remains pending … the initiation of [the tort action] creates a substantial likelihood of conflicting judgments between the two matters."
Before the scheduled hearing date on Barnett's motion, Hull filed a "Motion to Preserve Status Quo" in which he requested that Barnett be required to preserve any assets gained from Robert within the last three years of his life that remained in her possession; that Barnett be required to provide money to be held in trust equal in value to any such asset that had been previously disposed of; and that Barnett be required to provide a full accounting of all such assets as well as their present location.
The trial court subsequently entered an order granting Hull's motion in full ("the injunctive order"). Barnett timely filed a notice of appeal from the injunctive order to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, see Rule 4(a)(1)(A), Ala. R. App. P.; that court subsequently transferred the appeal to this Court (appeal no. 1200333) based on its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction.
Hull thereafter filed a response opposing Barnett's motion to dismiss. In particular, Hull alleged that, in support of her earlier effort to dismiss his purportedly "identical" claims from the estate administration, Barnett had argued that Hull "'failed to file a separate action or claim against other parties which [sic] this honorable Court may grant any relief.'" Hull thus characterized the gravamen of Barnett's dismissal request in the estate administration as follows:
The trial court subsequently denied Barnett's motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Barnett filed an answer to Hull's complaint in which she alleged that, following removal of the estate administration to the circuit court, "all litigation regarding whether or not property rightfully belongs in the estate has occurred in [that] case…." Barnett also filed a "Motion to Transfer and Consolidate," in which she argued that, "[b]ecause the issues in [the tort action] hinge entirely upon whether or not disputed property should be included in the Estate …, these issues would be better heard as a part of the Estate administration."
While Barnett's motion for consolidation remained pending, Hull filed a "Motion to Show Cause" alleging that Barnett had failed to timely perform the accounting required by the injunctive order and seeking related sanctions. Before ruling on that motion, the trial court denied Barnett's consolidation request.
Thereafter, Barnett filed a response to Hull's show-cause motion in which she argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the tort action and that both Hull's show-cause motion and the injunctive order failed to comport with Alabama law; in the alternative, she sought to stay operation of the injunctive order. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order ("the show-cause order") directing Barnett to provide the missing accounting as to certain specified funds within 10 days, taxing her with Hull's attorneys' fees stemming from the show-cause motion, and denying Barnett's motion seeking to stay operation of the injunctive order. Consequently, Barnett timely filed a second notice of appeal, challenging the show-cause order, to this Court (appeal no. 1200437). This Court has consolidated the appeals for the purpose of issuing one opinion.
On appeal, among other things, Barnett contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Hull's claims in the tort action, which she describes as "central to the administration of the estate," while the estate administration remains separately pending. In her filings to this Court, Barnett characterizes Hull's claims as "seek[ing] to identify property which he alleges should have been considered property of the Estate ... in the [first-filed] estate administration." We agree.
As to the administration of an estate, this Court has recently explained:
Segrest v. Segrest, 328 So.3d 256, 266 (Ala. 2020) (footnote omitted; emphasis added).
In Segrest, we further observed the following with regard to the process of removing the administration of a decedent's estate from a probate court to a circuit court:
To continue reading
Request your trial