Beam v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 14 February 2014
• Docket Number: 1120679.,1120678
• Parties: Michael D. BEAM v. Ellen Ann Beam TAYLOR et al
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

149 So.3d 571

Michael D. BEAM
v.
Ellen Ann Beam TAYLOR et al

1120678
1120679.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 14, 2014.

149 So.3d 571

Brandon C. Stone and D. Jason Britt of Stone & Britt, LLC, Millbrook, for appellant.

Jack Owen of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery, for appellee James D. Beam.

Joseph A. Fawal of Fawal & Spina, Birmingham, for appellees Ellen Ann Beam Taylor and Carol Sue Beam Rickels.

Opinion

149 So.3d 572

BRYAN, Justice.¹

In appeal no. 1120678, Michael D. Beam appeals from orders entered by the Chilton Circuit Court in a conservatorship proceeding. In appeal no. 1120679, Michael appeals a will-contest proceeding that is currently pending in the Chilton Circuit Court. For the reasons set forth herein, we dismiss both of Michael's appeals.

Procedural History

On November 18, 2004, Willodene Beam, the wife of James Troy Beam, and Michael, one of James and Willodene's sons, were appointed by the Chilton Probate Court as co-guardians of James and co-conservators of his estate. Before that, the probate court had appointed Fletcher D. Green as James's guardian ad litem. In January 2008, Willodene died, and, in March 2008, Michael was appointed as James's sole guardian and conservator. On March 31, 2008, at Michael's request, the Chilton Probate Court appointed Janice Hull to conduct an accounting of any and all financial transactions handled by Michael and Willodene from the date of their appointment on November 18, 2004, through March 20, 2008. In January 2009, James died and Fletcher Green, James's guardian ad litem, filed a motion for a final settlement of the conservatorship. On February 2, 2009, at Michael's request, the Chilton Probate Court ordered James's conservatorship to employ the accounting firm of Hull & Russell, P.C., to “perform and complete the final accounting” that was required following James's death. See § 26–5–7, Ala.Code 1975 (providing that “a final settlement of the conservatorship must be made” upon the death of the ward).

On January 26, 2009, James Daniel Beam (“Jim”), another son of James and Willodene, petitioned the Chilton Probate Court to probate James's will. On February 18, 2009, Ellen Ann Beam Taylor and Carol Sue Beam Rickels, James and Willodene's daughters, filed a will contest, a petition for appointment of a special administrator ad colligendum, and a “notice of removal” of the will contest pursuant to § 43–8–198, Ala.Code 1975.² On the same day, the Chilton Probate Court entered an order transferring the will-contest proceeding to the Chilton Circuit Court; that action was assigned case no. CV–09–0025. On May 21, 2009, the Chilton Circuit Court entered an order appointing David Karn as a special administrator ad colligendum in the will-contest proceeding.

In August 2009, Karn filed a motion in the Chilton Probate Court to remove the conservatorship to the Chilton Circuit Court. Karn's motion stated that his request was made pursuant to § 26–2–2, Ala.Code 1975, and he attached an affidavit stating that he was the administrator ad colligendum for the estate of James Troy Beam and that, in his opinion, the conservatorship could best be administered in the Chilton Circuit Court. On August 5, 2009, the Chilton Probate Court entered an order purporting to “transfer and remove” the conservatorship action to the Chilton Circuit Court. On August 27, 2009, the Chilton Probate Court transferred the conservatorship file to the Chilton Circuit Court, and, on the same day, the Chilton Circuit Court assigned that action case no. CV–09–0114. The Chilton Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) immediately ordered Michael “to provide a full statutory accounting of the conservatorship of James

149 So.3d 573

Troy Beam.” On August 31, 2009, at the request of Carol Sue and Ellen Ann, the circuit court consolidated the conservatorship action and the will-contest action.

On November 10, 2009, Michael filed in the circuit court a “Petition for Final Settlement of Conservatorship[;] Claim by Conservator for Compensation [; and] Claim by Conservator for Reimbursement.” Michael asked the circuit court to accept Hull's accounting for the period between November 18, 2004, and March 31, 2008,³ and to accept the final accounting attached to his petition for the period from March 31, 2008, through February 28, 2009. Michael requested, among other things, “fair and just compensation to the Conservator for the faithful execution of his duties as Conservator”; an award “to the Conservator of reimbursement for those funds expended by him individually for benefit of [James] and [Willodene] during the period of the Conservatorship”; and “reasonable compensation for the personal services the Conservator performed for the benefit of [James] and [Willodene] during the period of the Conservatorship.”

Jim filed an objection to Michael's petition for final settlement of the conservatorship estate, arguing (1) that the petition did not contain the vouchers required by statute, (2) that the accounting submitted was “confusing, incomplete, and fail[ed] to account for all receipts and disbursements of the Conservator,” and (3) that the accounting submitted contained “claims for compensation and reimbursements ... which are exorbitant, not supported by vouchers or other records, and on their face are contradictory of other disbursements asserted in the accounting.” Ellen Ann and Carol Sue also filed an objection to Michael's final settlement of the conservatorship and to Michael's claim for compensation and reimbursement. They alleged, among other things, that Michael's final accounting was inconsistent with prior records he had produced and included numerous cash disbursements for which there was no explanation. On September 20, 2010, Ellen Ann and Carol Sue also filed a petition to assess liability against Michael as the conservator of James's estate.

The circuit court conducted an ore tenus hearing on Michael's petition for final settlement, and the objections thereto, on August 24, 2011. On February 8, 2012, the circuit court entered an “Order on Petition for Approval of Conservator's Accounting, Claim for Compensation and Claim for Reimbursement.” The circuit court purported to enter a judgment in favor of James's estate and against Michael in the amount of $352,205, plus the costs of the proceeding.⁴ The circuit court also purported to rule on Michael's request for compensation and reimbursement of expenses, and it reserved ruling on a request for attorney fees by Jim, Ellen Ann, and Carol Sue.

In May 2012, Jim, Ellen Ann, and Carol Sue filed petitions seeking attorney fees related to their objections to Michael's petition for final settlement. Michael objected to the requests for attorney fees and filed a “motion to reopen and reconsider order on petition for approval of conservator's accounting.” On September 25, 2012, the circuit court conducted a hearing and entered an order denying Michael's motion

149 So.3d 574

to reopen and reconsider the order “for approval of conservator's accounting.”

On October 2, 2012, the circuit court entered an order awarding Ellen Ann, Carol Sue, and Jim attorney fees they had incurred in contesting Michael's final settlement of James's conservatorship. The attorney for Ellen Ann and Carol Sue was awarded $25,000; the attorney for Jim was awarded $14,763.87. The circuit court ordered the administrator ad colligendum to pay those amounts from the estate in trust to the attorneys. The circuit court then entered a judgment in favor of James's estate against Michael in the sum of $39,763.87 to reimburse the estate for the attorney fees and expenses awarded to Ellen Ann, Carol Sue, and Jim.

On October 25, 2012, within 30 days of the entry of the October 2, 2012, order, Michael filed a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., challenging, among other things, the assessment of attorney fees. Michael's motion was denied by operation of law on January 23, 2013. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 5, 2013, within 42 days of the day his postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law, Michael filed a notice of appeal in case no. CV–09–0144, the conservatorship proceeding (appeal no. 1120678), as well as in case no. CV–09–0025, the will-contest proceeding (appeal no. 1120679). This Court consolidated Michael's appeals on June 10, 2013, for the purpose of writing one opinion.

Jurisdiction

It is well settled that, except in limited circumstances not applicable here, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal taken from a nonfinal judgment. See, e.g., James v. Rane, 8 So.3d 286, 288 (Ala.2008) (holding that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a nonfinal judgment); and Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So.2d 354, 362 (Ala.2004) (“When it is determined that an order appealed from is not a final judgment, it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the appeal ex mero motu. ” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is undisputed that the circuit court has not entered a final judgment, or even conducted a trial, in case no. CV–09–0025, the will-contest proceeding. Because this Court does not have...