Harper v. Taylor

Decision Date11 June 2021
Docket Number1180868, 1180869, 1180915 and 1180916
Citation343 So.3d 1
Parties William C. HARPER v. Alice Lynn Harper TAYLOR William C. Harper v. Alice Lynn Harper Taylor Alice Lynn Harper Taylor v. William C. Harper Alice Lynn Harper Taylor v. William C. Harper
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

343 So.3d 1

William C. HARPER
v.
Alice Lynn Harper TAYLOR

William C. Harper
v.
Alice Lynn Harper Taylor

Alice Lynn Harper Taylor
v.
William C. Harper

Alice Lynn Harper Taylor
v.
William C. Harper

1180868, 1180869, 1180915 and 1180916

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 11, 2021


William R. Stokes, Jr., of Stokes & Stokes, P.C., Brewton; and Broox G. Garrett, Jr., and J. Kirkman Garrett of Thompson, Garrett & Hines, L.L.P., Brewton, for appellant/cross-appellee William C. Harper.

Peter F. Burns of Burns, Cunningham & Mackey, P.C., Mobile; and K. Donelson Foose, Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellant Alice Lynn Harper Taylor.

MITCHELL, Justice.

These appeals arise from a will-contest dispute between siblings. After their mother died, William C. Harper and Alice Lynn Harper Taylor disagreed about which version of their mother's will governed the disposition of her assets. After a purported transfer of the will contests from probate court to circuit court, the siblings submitted their dispute to a jury, which returned a verdict for Alice Lynn. William appealed and Alice Lynn cross-appealed. Because jurisdiction never properly vested in the circuit court, we dismiss these appeals.1

Facts and Procedural History

Alice Earle Harper died on March 1, 2013. She left three surviving children -- Alice Lynn, William, and James -- each of whom has been a party to this case. During her lifetime, Alice Earle drafted several wills, including one in 1995 and another in 2007. After her death, the children disagreed about which of her wills governed. William and James said that her 2007 will was valid, while Alice Lynn said that the 1995 will was the proper document to probate.

Alice Lynn filed a petition in the Monroe Probate Court to probate her mother's 1995 will. William moved to dismiss his sister's petition because he was attempting to probate the 2007 will in Escambia County. The Monroe Probate Court granted that motion. But following an appeal to this Court, Alice Lynn's petition to probate the 1995 will was allowed to proceed. See Taylor v. Harper, 164 So. 3d 542 (Ala. 2014).

Each sibling challenged the validity of the will favored by the other. Eventually, in accordance with § 43-8-190, Ala. Code 1975, the contests of the 1995 and 2007 wills were filed in the Monroe Probate Court. Alice Lynn sought to transfer the contests from the probate court to the Monroe Circuit Court under § 43-8-198, Ala. Code 1975. The probate court transferred the documents pertaining to the will contests to the circuit court. But that

343 So.3d 3

transfer lacked a certification from the probate court.

The will contests were tried to a jury. William presented evidence in favor of the 2007 will, then Alice Lynn presented evidence in support of the 1995 will. The jury found for Alice Lynn, and the circuit court entered a judgment in her favor.

William appealed the judgment, arguing, among other things, that it is void for lack of jurisdiction. Alice Lynn cross-appealed.

Standard of Review

Subject-matter jurisdiction is an unwaivable issue that this Court must consider ex mero motu. See MPQ, Inc. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 78 So. 3d 391, 393 (Ala. 2011). "Matters of subject-matter jurisdiction are subject to de novo review." DuBose v. Weaver, 68 So. 3d 814, 821 (Ala. 2011). If a circuit court's jurisdiction was not properly invoked, its judgment is void and nonappealable. MPQ, 78 So. 3d at 394.

Analysis

The dispositive issue in this case is whether the circuit court ever obtained jurisdiction over the will contests in light of the probate court's failure to certify the papers and documents pertaining to the contests.2 Based on the plain language of the relevant statute, our precedent, and the record before us, it is clear that the circuit court did not obtain jurisdiction.

We begin with the text of the relevant statute. Section 43-8-198 provides, in relevant part:

"Upon the demand of any party to the contest, ... the probate court, or the judge thereof, must enter an order transferring the contest to the circuit court of the county in which the contest is made, and must certify all papers and documents pertaining to the contest to the clerk of the circuit court, and the case shall be docketed by the clerk of the circuit court and a special session of said court may be called for the trial of said contest or, said contest may be tried by said circuit court at any special or regular session of said court."

(Emphasis added.) Over the past several decades, our Court has held that strict compliance with the requirements of § 43-8-198 is necessary for jurisdiction to attach. Jones v. Brewster, 282 So. 3d 854, 858 (Ala. 2019) ("In a long line of cases, this Court has held that strict compliance with the statutory language pertaining to a will contest is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate court."). In other words, "[a] court cannot depart from the procedures delineated in the statute and still retain jurisdiction." See Kaller ex rel. Conway v. Rigdon, 480 So.2d 536, 539 (Ala. 1985). There are numerous cases from our Court affirming this principle. See, e.g., Jones, 282 So. 3d at 860 (holding that the circuit court never obtained subject-matter jurisdiction over a will contest under § 43-8-198 because the record was devoid of a transfer order from the probate court); Burns v. Ashley, 274 So. 3d 970, 974 (Ala. 2018) ("[A] circuit court cannot assume jurisdiction over a will contest pending in probate court absent strict compliance with the procedural requirements of § 43-8-198." (emphasis added)); Marshall v. Vreeland, 571 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Ala. 1990) ("The requirements of § 43-8-198 must be complied with exactly, because will contest jurisdiction is statutorily conferred upon the circuit court." (emphasis added)); Bullen v. Brown, 535 So. 2d 76, 78 (Ala. 1988) ("It is clear that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT