Carter v. Beck
Decision Date | 22 May 1992 |
Citation | 598 So.2d 1390 |
Parties | William C. CARTER, Jr. v. Virginia B. BECK as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Vaughn. 1910289. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Salem Resha, Jr. of Roden & Hayes, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
A. Stewart O'Bannon, Jr. of O'Bannon & O'Bannon, Florence, for appellee.
The plaintiff, William C. Carter, Jr., appeals from a summary judgment for the defendant, Virginia B. Beck, as administratrix of the estate of Thomas Vaughn. 1 We reverse and remand.
Thomas Vaughn died on February 27, 1990. On March 5, 1990, Beck was appointed as administratrix of Vaughn's estate and was issued letters of administration. On February 26, 1991, Carter, through his attorney, sent a letter to Vaughn's tractor company stating that he had suffered personal injuries on July 15, 1989, as the result of a defect in a tractor that he had previously purchased from Vaughn. Carter maintained that the defect was the result of a modification that Vaughn had made to the tractor. Shortly thereafter, Carter's attorney received a telephone call from an insurance adjuster who identified himself as a representative of Vaughn's tractor company. Carter's attorney and the insurance adjuster communicated with each other from time to time thereafter concerning Carter's claim; however, for some reason, the adjuster apparently never informed the attorney of Vaughn's death. On July 15, 1991, Carter filed a suit against Vaughn, d/b/a Tom Vaughn Tractor Company, seeking damages for his injuries. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Beck on the ground that Carter had failed to file a claim against Vaughn's estate within six months from the grant of letters of administration, as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 43-2-350 (the non-claim statute).
Conceding that he did not file a claim against Vaughn's estate within six months of the grant of letters of administration to Beck, Carter contends that his claim was not barred because, he says, he received insufficient notice of Vaughn's death and the institution of administration proceedings. Specifically, he argues that Beck was under a statutory duty to provide him with actual notice of the administration proceedings so that he could file his claim; the constructive notice by publication, Carter insists, violated his due process rights.
The summary judgment was proper in this case if there was no genuine issue of material fact and Beck was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P. The burden was on Beck to make a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that she was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. If that showing was made, then the burden shifted to Carter to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, so as to avoid the entry of a judgment against him. In determining whether there was a genuine issue of material fact, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to Carter and must resolve all reasonable doubts against Beck. Knight v. Alabama Power Co., 580 So.2d 576 (Ala.1991).
Alabama Code 1975, § 43-2-60, provides in pertinent part:
Alabama Code 1975, § 43-2-61, states in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Singer Asset Finance Co. v. Estate Of Richard H. Rutherford
...ascertainable creditor on two grounds. First, citing American Home Assurance Co. v. Gaylor, 894 So.2d 656 (Ala.2004), and Carter v. Beck, 598 So.2d 1390 (Ala.1992), Singer asserts that King had a duty to inquire into the basis for CGLIC's issuance of the “death benefit” check to the estate.......
-
American Home Assur. Co. v. Gaylor
...holding in Pope in other cases. See Jefferson Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Birmingham v. Clark, 540 So.2d 61 (Ala.1989), and Carter v. Beck, 598 So.2d 1390 (Ala.1992). In Carter v. Beck, 598 So.2d 1390 (Ala.1992), William Carter, Jr., was injured as the result of modifications Tom Vaughn Tract......