Johnson v. Neal
Citation | 39 So.3d 1040 |
Decision Date | 11 December 2009 |
Docket Number | 1070443. |
Parties | Homer Osborne JOHNSON and Schurlock Hollandv.Cheryl NEAL and Corburt Chisley. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
William M. Russell, Jr., Tuskegee, for appellants.
Deborah Q. Harding of Harding & Claunch, LLC, Montgomery, for appellees.
Homer Osborne Johnson and Schurlock Holland (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the proponents”) appeal from a judgment entered by the Macon Circuit Court setting aside the Macon Probate Court's admission to probate of Homer C. Osborne's will (“the will”). We vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal.
Homer C. Osborne died on July 17, 1973. On August 3, 2004, the proponents, who are two of Osborne's sons, petitioned the Macon Probate Court to probate a will that had purportedly been executed by Osborne. The petition explained that the proponents did not know of the existence of the will until they discovered it at the home of Osborne's other son, Otha Jewel Osborne (“Otha”), on August 4, 2003. According to the petition, Otha was incompetent and unable to communicate. The will was dated November 8, 1962, and left all Osborne's property interests to Johnson, Holland, and Otha. On September 9, 2004, the Macon Probate Court admitted the will to probate.
On February 24, 2006, Cheryl Neal and Corburt Chisley (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the contestants”) filed a “will contest in the estate of Homer C. Osborne, deceased,” in the Macon Circuit Court, contesting the admission of the will to probate. The contestants are the children of Betty Ruth Osborne Chisley, who was Osborne's first cousin. The will contest alleged as follows:
Simultaneously with filing the will contest in the Macon Circuit Court, the contestants filed a “notice of will contest and petition for removal” in the Macon Probate Court.
On April 25, 2006, the proponents filed a “motion to dismiss” the will contest. The motion alleged that the will contest was due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, the proponents say, the contestants are neither Osborne's heirs nor beneficiaries under his will. The proponents attached to their motion a certified copy of the entire probate court file, which included the will and the order admitting the will to probate.
On August 3, 2006, Judge Howard F. Bryan set all pending motions for a hearing on October 5, 2006. Apparently that hearing was held, but Judge Bryan retired without ruling on the proponents' motion to dismiss. On March 27, 2007, the proponents moved the circuit court to reset their pending motion to dismiss the will contest for another hearing. On March 30, 2007, the contestants filed a “motion for final order.” In that motion, the contestants argued (1) that the proponents' petition to probate the will was untimely because it was filed more than five years after the death of the testator in violation of § 43-8-161, Ala.Code 1975, and (2) that the contestants were interested parties under the will and thus had standing to contest the will. On April 27, 2007, the proponents filed a “suggestion of death upon the record,” stating that Otha died on March 13, 2006, while this action was pending.
Judge Ray D. Martin held a hearing on all pending motions on July 24, 2007. After the hearing, the contestants and the proponents submitted briefs to the circuit court, outlining the legal issues before the court and arguing their respective positions. The only issues outlined in those briefs were: (1) Whether the petition to probate the will was untimely under § 43-8-161, Ala.Code 1975, because it was filed more than five years after Osborne's death; (2) whether the proponents could argue that the failure to timely file the petition to probate the will was occasioned by fraud and, if so, whether the five-year statute of limitations in § 43-8-161 was tolled under § 43-8-5, Ala.Code 1975; and (3) whether the contestants were persons interested in the will under § 43-8-199, Ala.Code 1975, so that they had standing to contest the will.
In their brief, as a “matter of completeness,” the contestants tersely argued that “the will contest was brought in a timely manner in that the [proponents] fraudulently failed to give notice to the [contestants]” and that “it is obvious that no notice of the proceedings [was] ever given to the [contestants] in order to circumvent the provisions or purposes of the laws of Alabama, and it is entirely appropriate that the [contestants] brought this matter before this court as soon as [they] had notice of the proceedings.” The contestants also attached to their brief a title opinion concerning the real property located in Louisiana that allegedly would be affected if the admission of the will to probate was allowed to stand.
On November 20, 2007, the circuit court set aside the probate court's order admitting the will to probate. The circuit court's order stated:
The proponents appealed.
Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Christian v. Murray, 915 So.2d 23, 25 (Ala.2005) (citing State v. American Tobacco Co., 772 So.2d 417, 419 (Ala.2000)).
On appeal, the proponents argue, among other things, that under § 43-8-199, Ala.Code 1975, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the will contest because the will contest was filed in the circuit court more than six months after the will had been admitted to probate. The contestants respond (1) that the proponents failed to preserve that issue for appellate review because they failed to raise the issue before the circuit court and (2) that the time in which to file the will contest was tolled by the fraud provision in § 43-8-5, Ala.Code 1975, because, the contestants say, the proponents fraudulently failed to give notice to the contestants of the proceedings in the probate court. Contestants' brief, at 13, 26-27.
Section 43-8-199, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
“Any person interested in any will who has not contested the same under the provisions of this article, may, at any time within the six months after the admission of such will to probate in this state, contest the validity of the same by filing a complaint in the circuit court in the county in which such will was probated.”
In the present case, the will was admitted to probate on September 9, 2004. Thus, when the will contest was filed on February 24, 2006, the six-month period for contesting the will provided for by § 43-8-199 had passed.
This Court has held that “[j]urisdiction for a will contest is statutorily conferred; thus, a will contest must strictly comply with the statute, including any time limitations.” Christian, 915 So.2d at 26. See also Evans v. Waddell, 689 So.2d 23, 27 (Ala.1997) ( ), and Eustace v. Browning, 30 So.3d 445, 450 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGee v. McGee
...a will contest must be that kind of fraud that would allow relief for “fraud on a court.” ’ Christian, 915 So.2d at 28.”Johnson v. Neal, 39 So.3d 1040, 1044 (Ala.2009) (emphasis added). There are no timeliness issues involved in this case, and, thus, there is no need for the application of ......
-
McGee v. McGee, 1091798
...a will contest must be that kind of fraud that would allow relief for "fraud on a court."' Christian, 915 So. 2d at 28."Johnson v. Neal, 39 So. 3d 1040, 1044 (Ala. 2009} (emphasis added). There are no timeliness issues involved in this case, and, thus, there is no need for the application o......
-
Ex parte Ala. Dep't of Mental Health, 1111621
...is a fraud perpetrated by an officer of the court, and it does not include fraud among the parties, without more."'" Johnson v. Neal, 39 So. 3d 1040, 1044 (Ala. 2009) (quoting Christian v. Murray, 915 So. 2d 23, 28 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn other cases). Fraud on the court is, "'"[i]n a ......
-
CMC Props., LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC (Ex parte Found. Bank)
...its order purporting to do so is void.4 “Any action taken by a trial court without subject-matter jurisdiction is void.” Johnson v. Neal, 39 So.3d 1040, 1045 (Ala.2009).As previously stated, the Bank argues as an additional ground for issuance of the writ that a party desiring to redeem pro......