Daniel v. Moye, 1140819 1140820.
| Decision Date | 10 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1140819 1140820. |
| Citation | 224 So.3d 115 |
| Parties | Susanne Moye DANIEL et al. v. C. Michael MOYE and Barbara Moye Susanne Moye Daniel et al. v. C. Michael Moye and Barbara Moye |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jessica M. McDill of Chason & Chason, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellants.
Charles R. Godwin and Timothy J. Godwin, Atmore, for appellees.
The heirs of Bessie Mae Turner and Claude Wilbur Moye appeal from the Escambia Circuit Court's dismissal of their claims in these separate but almost identical actions contesting, respectively, the validity of Turner's and Moye's wills. We have consolidated these cases for the purpose of writing one opinion.
Bessie Mae Turner was born on July 17, 1914, and resided in Escambia County. Bessie was a widower and had no children. On June 3, 1994, Bessie executed a will leaving her entire estate to a nephew, Claude Wilbur Moye. On May 17, 2010, Bessie executed a new will and revoked all former wills. In the May 2010 will, Bessie left her entire estate to Claude Michael Moye and his wife, Barbara. She also named Michael as the executor of the May 2010 will. Michael was Claude's son and Bessie's grandnephew. Michael testified in his affidavit that Bessie changed her will because Claude, who was 75 years old at the time, was having some health problems and difficulty managing his finances. Claude was also going through a divorce. Michael testified that Bessie owned a certificate of deposit ("CD") in which Claude had an interest and that Bessie did not want her interest in the CD, or any of her property, to become entangled in Claude's divorce. Michael further testified that Bessie knew that Claude had his own estate and did not need any of hers.
Bessie died on January 17, 2012, leaving the following individuals, in addition to Claude, as her heirs at law:
Claude was a resident of Escambia County and had been married several times. Those marriages produced four children in addition to Michael: Susanne Moye Daniel, Mishalene Moye Coker, Garry Duff Moye, and Sherrin Moye Thomas. Michael and Barbara lived in a mobile home located in Claude's backyard. Michael testified that he and Barbara visited with Claude on a daily basis and talked to him several times a day. Michael stated that Claude was "hardly ever out of [their] sight" and that none of his siblings had ever enjoyed as close of a relationship with Claude as he had.
On March 10, 2010, Claude executed his will. Although Claude made provisions in the will for all of his children, the will substantially favored Michael. Claude also named Michael the executor of the will. On February 9, 2012, Claude fell critically ill and subsequently died on February 26, 2012.
On February 11, 2012, Michael petitioned the Probate Court of Escambia County to admit Bessie's will to probate. Despite the existence of numerous other heirs at law of Bessie's, Michael represented in the verified petition to admit the will to probate that he and his wife Barbara were Bessie's only heirs and next of kin. Both Michael and Barbara signed a waiver of notice of the petition to probate the will. On February 14, 2012, the probate court entered an order admitting the will to probate and issued Michael letters testamentary.
On March 28, 2012, Michael petitioned the probate court to admit Claude's will to probate and to issue letters testamentary. On June 26, 2012, the probate court entered an order admitting Claude's will to probate and issuing letters testamentary to Michael.
On June 26, 2012, the same date the probate court admitted Claude's will to probate and issued letters testamentary, Susanne Moye Daniel, a daughter of Claude's and an heir and distributee under the will, filed in the probate court pursuant to § 12–11–41, Ala. Code 1975, a document entitled "Petition for Removal to Circuit Court," alleging that Claude's estate could be better administered in the circuit court in light of her belief that Claude lacked the requisite testamentary capacity at the time he executed his March 10, 2010, will and/or that Claude was under the undue influence of Michael, thereby rendering the will void and unenforceable. The petition seeking removal of Claude's estate from the probate court to the circuit court was designated as a "Petition for Removal to Circuit Court"; was captioned and designated as being "In the Probate Court for Escambia County, Alabama"; stated the title of the case as "Estate of Claude Wilbur Moye, deceased"; and set forth the case number as 1712. The petition seeking removal of Claude's estate from the probate court to the circuit court also provided that the filing fee payable to the "Circuit Court of Escambia County" was being submitted with the document. The probate court did not enter any order with regard to this petition.
On that same day, an identical copy of the same petition seeking removal of Claude's estate from the probate court to the circuit court, along with the contents of the probate court's file, was subsequently stamped filed and scanned into the circuit court clerk's office files.1 The circuit clerk assigned the matter case no. CV–2012–57.
On June 29, 2012, Michael responded to the petition to remove Claude's estate to the circuit court, admitting that Claude's estate could be better administered in the circuit court; denying that Claude lacked the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed his March 10, 2010, will; and denying that he had exerted any undue influence upon Claude in making the will. Michael's response to the petition for removal of Claude's estate to the circuit court was stamped filed in both the probate court and the circuit court and was designated as being "In the Probate Court of Escambia County, Alabama." Michael stated that he filed the response to the petition for removal in the probate court because that is where the petition for removal to the circuit court was originally filed. Michael contends that, without his consent or the consent of his attorneys and without notice to him or his attorneys, a member of the probate court's staff walked his response to the petition for removal to the circuit court clerk's office, where it was stamped filed. Although the circuit court never entered an order removing Claude's estate to that court, the parties and the matter moved forward in that court.
On August 7, 2012, Susanne, Mishalene, Garry, and Sherrin (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as "the contestants of Claude's will") filed in the circuit court a petition contesting the validity of Claude's will. The petition was styled "In Re: The Estate of Claude Wilbur Moye, Deceased" and provided:
The petition contesting Claude's will was served upon the attorney of record for Michael.
On August 9, 2012, Michael and Barbara (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as "the proponents of Claude's will") filed their answer to the petition contesting the validity of Claude's will, admitting that the will had been admitted to probate in the probate court, denying that Claude lacked testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will, and further denying that they had exerted undue influence over Claude.
On August 9, 2012, the contestants of Claude's will amended their petition contesting the validity of Claude's will to delete Sherrin as a petitioner, noting that she "wishes to remain a party ... as an interested and/or necessary and/or indispensable party ... pursuant to Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P., but does not wish to join her other three siblings ... as a contestant with respect to the validity" of Claude's will or with respect to any other adversarial allegations against Michael and Barbara. The contestants of Claude's will2 also added a claim alleging that Michael and Barbara, through undue influence, had "availed themselves of certain assets of decedent during his life to the exclusion and/or financial detriment of his other four adult children." Among the relief requested by the contestants of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Segrest v. Segrest
...Transp., 937 So. 2d 56, 58 (Ala. 2006) [,abrogated on other grounds, Ex parte Moulton, 116 So. 3d 1119 (Ala. 2013) ]." Daniel v. Moye, 224 So. 3d 115, 127 (Ala. 2016).Discussion The dispositive question in this appeal is whether the circuit court obtained jurisdiction over the will contest.......
-
Flood v. City of Jacksonville
...is timely filed along with the bona fide intention of having it immediately served. See, Daniel v. Moye , No. 1140819, 224 So.3d 115, 133–34, 2016 WL 6649138, at *15 (Ala. Nov. 10, 2016) ; ENT Assocs. of Alabama, P.A. v. Hoke , No. 1141396, 223 So.3d 209, 215–16, 2016 WL 4585742, at *6 (Ala......
-
Jones v. Brewster, 1170450
...he sought a transfer of the will contest to the circuit court pursuant to § 43-8-198, Ala. Code 1975.2 See, however, Daniel v. Moye, 224 So.3d 115, 131 n. 9 (Ala. 2016) (noting that "there are currently four counties in Alabama—Mobile, Jefferson, Shelby, and Pickens—in which the probate cou......
-
Keshock v. Metabowerke GMBH (Ex parte Austal USA, LLC)
...; we do not consider " ‘whether the pleader will ultimately prevail but whether the pleader may possibly prevail,’ " Daniel v. Moye, 224 So.3d 115, 127 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147, 1149 (Ala. 2003) (emphasis added)); and "[w]e construe all doubts regarding the suffi......