Martin v. Vreeland
| Decision Date | 06 May 1988 |
| Citation | 526 So.2d 24 |
| Parties | Ollie D. MARTIN, as executrix of the Estate of James Samuel Johnson, deceased v. Al VREELAND. 87-12. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Randolph P. Reaves, Montgomery, for appellant.
Richard M. Nolen of Prince, McGuire & Coogler, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
James Samuel Johnson died testate in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, on November 2, 1985. His will was admitted to probate. It named Ollie Doris Martin executrix and sole beneficiary of the estate.
Martin filed a petition to have a special administrator appointed ad colligendum to sell personal property at a private sale. In the petition, Martin alleged that Johnson died seized and possessed of certain perishable property, which consisted of livestock, valued at $800.00 and located in Tuscaloosa County. Martin specifically requested that the probate court grant letters of special administration to Al Vreeland, general county administrator, on the estate of James Samuel Johnson. In its order, the probate court appointed Al Vreeland special administrator ad colligendum to sell at private sale that certain property mentioned in the petition. Additionally, the letters of administration ad colligendum granted to Al Vreeland expressly state that he "has been duly qualified and given bond as special administrator; and is authorized to collect and preserve the property of the estate."
Thereafter, Martin filed a petition to compel an accounting and a settlement from the administrator ad colligendum. In response thereto, Vreeland filed an answer and a petition for settlement. This document was sworn to by Vreeland, and it set out the facts that occurred in his administration of the estate.
After holding a hearing, the probate court issued a decree approving the settlement of the administrator ad colligendum, and as part of its findings, the probate judge held that Vreeland had "collected and protected the assets of the estate having any value ... and ha[d] not used any assets of the estate for his own personal benefit or the benefit of others;" Vreeland was discharged from his appointment as administrator ad colligendum, and he and his surety were discharged from any further liability. Martin's motion to set aside the decree was denied, and she filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court for trial de novo. On the same date this notice was filed, the probate court ordered that all of the probate records concerning the matter be transferred to the circuit court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, for the circuit court's consideration.
An appeal from a final judgment of the probate court to the circuit court is authorized in Ala. Code 1975, §§ 12-22-2 and 12-22-20. Section 12-22-2 provides as follows:
"From any final judgment of the circuit court or probate court, an appeal lies to the appropriate appellate court as a matter of right by either party, or their personal representatives, within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure."
Section 12-22-20 provides as follows:
"An appeal lies to the circuit court or supreme court from any final decree of the probate court, or from any final judgment, order or decree of the probate judge; and, in all cases where it may of right be done, the appellate court shall render such decree, order or judgment as the probate court ought to have rendered."
In Prestwood v. Prestwood, 395 So.2d 8 (Ala.1981), we held that 1 Under these statutory provisions, an appeal to the circuit court should follow the same procedure as an appeal to this Court, i.e., the appeal should be conducted in the manner prescribed by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for a trial de novo with jury. Therefore, in the instant case, because the action was appealed to the circuit court, the circuit court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cashion v. Torbert
...that case that "Broughton could have appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo," this Court later explained in Martin v. Vreeland, 526 So.2d 24, 25 n. 1 (Ala.1988), "[t]hat sentence in Broughton should be read: `Broughton could have appealed to the circuit court,'" thus eliminating ......
-
Womack v. Estate of Womack
...may not substitute its judgment for that of the probate court." Sanders v. Brooks, 611 So.2d 336, 337 (Ala. 1992), citing Martin v. Vreeland, 526 So.2d 24 (Ala.1988); see also Prestwood v. Prestwood, 395 So.2d 8 (Ala.1981), and Smith v. Smith, 596 So.2d 1 In Prine v. Wood, 447 So.2d 725 (Al......
-
Sanders v. Brooks
...rather, the circuit court acts in an appellate capacity and may not substitute its judgment for that of the probate court. Martin v. Vreeland, 526 So.2d 24 (Ala.1988). Where the evidence is presented ore tenus, the probate court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are pla......
-
Patterson v. Patterson
...rather, the circuit court acts in an appellate capacity and may not substitute its judgment for that of the probate court. Martin v. Vreeland, 526 So.2d 24 (Ala. 1988). Where the evidence is presented ore tenus, the probate court's findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are pl......
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...826 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 2002) (circuit court sits as a reviewing court on appeal and may not consider matter de novo); Martin v. Vreeland, 526 So. 2d 24 (Ala. 1988) (no trial de novo available on appeal); McKnight v. Pate, 214 Ala. 163, 106 So. 691 (1925) (outcome on appeal to be based upon re......