Davis v. Burnette
| Citation | 341 So.2d 118 |
| Parties | Moses A. DAVIS, Jr., et al. v. E. J. BURNETTE et al. SC 1433. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1976 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Charles P. Miller, Montgomery, for appellants.
Lawrence F. Gerald, Jr., Clanton, for appellees.
The issue before us in this case is whether a joint tenant with right of survivorship to property is a party who must be joined in an action seeking reformation of a deed to that property.
We reverse the decree, affecting the property, entered in this action absent the joint tenant as a party.
Mr. and Mrs. Moses A. Davis, Jr., brought this action to reform a deed which did not contain a description of land they claim to have acquired by it. That land adjoined property of E. J. Burnette and wife Pearlene who owned their property jointly with right of survivorship. Mrs. Burnette was never made a party to the action.
The evidence was heard Ore tenus; Mrs. Burnette was present and testified after which the court entered a decree of dismissal stating that, from the evidence, the Davises were not entitled to the relief requested. They filed motion for a new trial which was denied.
The Davises say it was error to enter the decree of dismissal and deny their motion for new trial because the findings of the court are against the weight of the evidence. For the reasons set out we reverse and remand, therefore need not reach the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Without Mrs. Burnette as a party the trial court did not have the title to the property, which would be affected by a decree, before it. Morris v. Owens, 292 Ala 159, 290 So.2d 646 (1974). Joinder is governed by the rules of civil procedure.
'JOINDER OF PERSONS NEEDED FOR JUST ADJUDICATION
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. City of Birmingham
...(Ala. 2002) (‘The absence of an indispensable party is a jurisdictional defect that renders the proceeding void.’ (citing Davis v. Burnette, 341 So.2d 118 (Ala. 1976) )); Rogers v. Smith, 287 Ala. 118, 123, 248 So.2d 713, 717 (1971) (‘[T]he absence of necessary or indispensable parties ... ......
-
J. C. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Campbell
...time on appeal by the parties or by the appellate court ex mero motu. Mead Corp. v. Birmingham, 350 So.2d 419 (Ala.1977); Davis v. Burnette, 341 So.2d 118 (Ala.1976). Consideration of the issue of a necessary and indispensable party for the first time on appeal is particularly appropriate w......
-
Mead Corp. v. City of Birmingham
...indispensable party can be raised for the first time on appeal by the parties or by the appellate court on its own motion. Davis v. Burnette, 341 So.2d 118 (Ala.1976); Matthews v. Matthews, 247 Ala. 472, 25 So.2d 259 (1946); Amann v. Burke, 237 Ala. 380, 186 So. 769 (1939); 3A Moore's Feder......
-
Campbell v. Taylor
...(Ala.2002) (“The absence of an indispensable party is a jurisdictional defect that renders the proceeding void.” (citing Davis v. Burnette, 341 So.2d 118 (Ala.1976) )); Rogers v. Smith, 287 Ala. 118, 123, 248 So.2d 713, 717 (1971) (“[T]he absence of necessary or indispensable parties ... is......