Martin v. Martin

• Decision Date: 18 December 2020
• Docket Number: 1181002
• Parties: Thomas John MARTIN v. Sheila MARTIN, as personal representative and trustee under the will of Henry Thomas Martin, deceased
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

329 So.3d 1242

Thomas John MARTIN

v.Sheila MARTIN, as personal representative and trustee under the will of Henry Thomas Martin, deceased

1181002

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 18, 2020

Jesse P. Evans III and Albert C. Boykin III of Evans & Evans, Birmingham, for appellant.

Steve A. Baccus and R. Keith Worsham of Almon McAlister Baccus & Worsham, LLC, Tuscumbia, for appellee.

MITCHELL, Justice.

Thomas John Martin ("Thomas") appeals from a judgment of the Colbert Circuit Court dismissing his declaratory-judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because we determine that the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alabama Uniform Trust Code, we reverse the judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

Henry Thomas Martin ("Henry") died and was survived by his wife, Sheila Martin ("Sheila"), and his two children, Thomas and Dawn Michelle Martin ("Dawn"). Henry's will was admitted to probate in the Colbert Probate Court.

Among other dispositions, Henry's will created a testamentary trust for the benefit of Dawn ("the testamentary trust"). The will directed the trustee to hold 25% of Henry's residuary estate in trust and to pay Dawn, in estimated equal monthly installments, the net income from the trust along with any surplus net incomes. Following Henry's death, Dawn died without a will. Henry's will was silent, however, about what happened to the principal of the testamentary trust upon Dawn's death.

While the Colbert Probate Court proceedings were pending, Thomas filed a complaint in the Colbert Circuit Court seeking a judgment declaring the following:

"a. [t]he amount and nature, if any, of [his] interest in the reversions held by [Henry's] heirs, successors, and assigns;

"b. [t]he proper and timely distribution of any and all property and assets held as such reversionary interest; and

"c. [t]he various rights, titles, and interests of the parties in and to the assets belonging to [Henry] at the time of his death and the allocation of those assets among the various trusts established under the Will."

Sheila, as the personal representative of Henry's estate and the trustee of the testamentary trust, moved to dismiss Thomas's declaratory-judgment action under Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., arguing that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Following briefing and a hearing, the circuit court granted Sheila's motion and dismissed the action, explaining:

"[Thomas] claims a reversionary interest in the principal of a testamentary trust which terminated upon the death of the beneficiary [(Dawn)]. [Thomas] claims the undistributed principal passes by intestacy to the sole surviving heir, [Thomas], pursuant to § 43-8-40 of the Code of Alabama 1975. [Thomas] cites to the Court § 19-3B-203 of the Code of Alabama 1975 in support of his position that this court has jurisdiction. The Court finds § 19-3B-203 to be inapplicable in this case as this proceeding is not being brought by a trustee or a beneficiary under the trust concerning the administration of a trust. [Thomas's] claim is as a sole heir under intestate succession which is under the jurisdiction of the probate court."

Thomas appealed.

Standard of Review

We review issues of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. DuBose v. Weaver, 68 So. 3d 814, 821 (Ala. 2011).

Analysis

The issue presented is which court -- circuit or probate -- has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Thomas's declaratory-judgment action concerning the testamentary trust. Thomas argues that the Colbert Circuit Court has jurisdiction because he seeks an equitable remedy and the Colbert Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief. Sheila argues, however, that the Colbert Probate Court has jurisdiction and that Thomas cannot simply reframe a probate matter as a declaratory-judgment action in an effort to get into circuit court. To resolve this issue, we begin with the statutory framework outlining the subject-matter jurisdiction of both the circuit and probate courts.

Circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over equitable matters that "extend[s] ... [t]o all civil actions in which a plain and adequate remedy is not provided in the other judicial tribunals." § 12-11-31(1), Ala. Code 1975. By contrast, the subject-matter jurisdiction of probate courts "is limited to the matters submitted to it by statute." Wallace v. State, 507 So. 2d 466, 468 (Ala. 1987). Section 12-13-1, Ala. Code 1975, vests probate courts with original and general jurisdiction over controversies involving the administration of a decedent's estate. See § 12-13-1(b)(3) ; Suggs v. Gray, 265 So. 3d 226, 230 (Ala. 2018). As a court of law, the probate court " ‘generally does not possess jurisdiction to determine equitable issues.’ " Suggs, 265 So. 3d at 230 (quoting Lappan v. Lovette, 577 So. 2d 893, 896 (Ala. 1991) ).

Currently, only five Alabama probate courts may exercise equitable jurisdiction. See Segrest v. Segrest, 328 So.3d 256 (Ala. 2020). The Jefferson Probate Court and the Mobile Probate Court share equity jurisdiction with circuit courts by local act. See Act. No. 974, Ala. Acts 1961; Act No. 1144, Ala. Acts 1971. And the Shelby, Pickens, and Houston Probate Courts may share equity jurisdiction with circuit courts by local constitutional amendments. See Ala. Const. 1901, Local Amendments, Shelby County, § 4 (proposed by Amend. No. 758); Ala. Const. 1901, Local Amendments, Pickens County, § 6.10 (proposed by Amend. No. 836); Ala. Const. 1901, Local Amendments, Houston County, § 3.50 (proposed by Amend. No. 898). Thus, while all probate courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over general matters of estate administration, only five probate courts in the State have jurisdiction to hear equitable matters and to fashion equitable remedies. See Suggs, 265 So. 3d at 230-31.

With trusts, the Alabama Uniform Trust Code, § 19-3B-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the Alabama UTC"), provides the statutory framework for subject-matter jurisdiction as between circuit and probate courts:

"(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings in this state brought by a trustee or beneficiary concerning the administration of a trust.

"(b) A probate court granted statutory equitable jurisdiction has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court in any proceeding involving a testamentary or inter vivos trust."

§ 19-3B-203, Ala. Code 1975. By its text, § 19-3B-203(a) provides that circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases "brought by a trustee or beneficiary concerning the administration of a trust." See also Regions Bank v. Reed, 60 So. 3d 868, 880 (Ala. 2010) (noting that subsection (a) provides the general rule and subsection (b) acts as an exception to the general rule vesting "those [probate] courts that have been granted those broader [statutory equitable] powers [with] the same jurisdiction to hear actions brought by trustees or beneficiaries concerning the administration of trusts as do the circuit courts of this State").

Although Thomas asserts that he is, in some respect, a beneficiary by virtue of having a reversionary interest in the testamentary trust, it is not necessary to determine whether he actually is for purposes of subsection (a), because this case can be resolved under subsection (b). Subsection (b) establishes that in a proceeding involving a testamentary or inter vivos trust, only those probate courts that have statutory equitable jurisdiction have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts. See § 19-3B-203(b).

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that "[t]he expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others." Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 10, at 107-11 (Thomson/West 2012) (discussing the negative-implication canon). Indeed, the use of negative implication is consistent with this Court's jurisprudence. See, e.g., New Props., L.L.C. v. Stewart, 905 So. 2d 797, 800 (Ala. 2004) (noting that where Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., excuses a losing party from certain objections and motions if the trial court does make findings of fact in a nonjury case, the negative implication of the rule is that no such excuse is permitted when the trial court does not make findings of fact (quoting Ex parte James, 764 So. 2d 557, 560-61 (Ala. 1999) (Lyons, J., concurring in the result))); Southern Guar. Ins. Co. v. First Alabama Bank, 540 So. 2d 732, 734 (Ala. 1989) ("Under Alabama's commercial code, a bank may charge a customer's account only when an item is deemed ‘properly payable.’ Ala. Code 1975, § 7-4-401. Thus, by negative implication, § 7-4-401 imposes liability on a drawee bank that charges a customer's account for items not properly payable.").

When the principle of negative implication is applied to subsection (b), it is clear that those probate courts that have not been granted statutory equitable jurisdiction do not share jurisdiction with the circuit courts in inter vivos or testamentary-trust cases. Thus, where the probate court lacks concurrent jurisdiction, the circuit court must have jurisdiction.

With this jurisdictional framework, we turn to Thomas's claim. In his complaint, Thomas seeks a declaration of whether he has an interest in the testamentary trust and, if so, the amount of his interest, the amount of others’ interests, and the proper and timely distribution of those interests. He brings his claim as an action under § 6-6-225, Ala. Code 1975, which provides:

"Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, infant, incompetent, or insolvent may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto:

"....

"(3) To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills

...