Steele v. Sullivan
Decision Date | 07 February 1986 |
Citation | 484 So.2d 422 |
Parties | Allen W. STEELE v. C.J. SULLIVAN, as Executor of the Estate of Ira Eugene Steele, deceased. 84-647. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
B. Stephen Sansom, Florala, for appellant.
Harold Albritton of Albrittons & Givhan, Andalusia, for appellee.
Allen W. Steele appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Covington County dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, his action contesting the document offered as the last will (and codicil) of Ira Eugene Steele. We reverse and remand.
The material facts of this case are best stated in the affidavit of Leland Enzor, which, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
The circuit court, relying upon the authority of Allen v. Pugh, 206 Ala. 10, 89 So. 470 (1921), found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the contest, and ordered it stricken from its docket. The appellant contends that in so doing the circuit court erred to reversal. We agree.
Section 43-8-190, Code 1975, reads:
(Emphasis added.)
The jurisdiction of the probate court to entertain a proceeding contesting a will is statutory and limited, and after a will is probated, that jurisdiction ceases to exist. Section 43-8-190, supra; Ex parte Pearson, 241 Ala. 467, 3 So.2d 5 (1941). The jurisdiction conferred upon the circuit court by § 43-8-198, Code 1975 (authorizing transfer), is also statutory and limited, and to warrant the exercise of that jurisdiction, a valid contest must be pending in the probate court when the order to transfer is entered. Ex parte Pearson, supra, (§ 10636, Code 1923) , a predecessor of § 43-8-198.
In Allen v. Pugh supra, the Court, construing § 6196, Code 1907, a predecessor of § 43-8-190, supra, stated:
The appellee argues that the contest was filed subsequent to the examination of the attesting witnesses and was, therefore, untimely.
However, the Court in Ex parte Pearson, supra, stated as follows:
"The jurisdiction of the Probate Court to entertain a proceeding contesting a will is a statutory and limited jurisdiction, and after the proceeding to probate the will has eventuated in a final decree admitting the will to probate the court is without jurisdiction to entertain a contest."
In the more recent case of Cagle v. Reeves, 353 So.2d 787 (Ala.1977), the Court explained:
1
In the present case, it is without dispute that the contest was filed in the probate court subsequent to the examination of the attesting witnesses but prior to the entry of a final decree admitting the will to probate. As previously noted in Allen v. Pugh, supra, the term "probate," when properly defined and strictly used, relates to proving and establishing a will before the officer or tribunal having the jurisdiction to determine its validity. However, as so used, it necessarily includes not only the evidence presented to the court, but also the judicial determination by the court, on that evidence, that the instrument is what it purports to be. In Hooper v. Huey, 293 Ala. 63, 300 So.2d 100 (1974), the Court quoted with approval from Brissie v. Craig:
" " (Emphasis added.)
232 N.C. 701, 62 S.E.2d 330 (1950).
See also Bradley v. Bradley, 119 Md. 645, 87 A. 390 (1913); Reynolds v. Central Health Care Centers, Inc., 669 S.W.2d 74 (Mo.Ct.App.1984), citing Graham v. Graham, 297 Mo. 290, 249 S.W. 37 (1923); In re Will of Lamb, 303 N.C. 452, 279 S.E.2d 781 (1981). Even though the probate judge stated by affidavit that the will had, in fact, been proven and that he intended to enter an order admitting it to probate, our determination in cases such as this, regarding the timeliness of a contest in the probate court, should not be dependent upon such an affidavit. A final judgment is the official and authentic decision of a court of competent jurisdiction and its purpose is to resolve the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action therein litigated and submitted for its determination. Black's Law Dictionary, page 755 (5th Ed.1979). Therefore, in providing for the contest of a will before the probate thereof, we hold that § 43-8-190, supra, requires the filing of the contest in the probate court before a final judgment, order, or decree is rendered admitting the will to probate. 2
Because the contest was timely filed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Barrows
...court clerk of the complaint originally filed in the probate court did not invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Steele v. Sullivan, 484 So.2d 422 (Ala.1986); Ex parte Pearson, supra. Cf. Kelley v. English, 439 So.2d 26, 28 Section 43-8-199, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "Any person inte......
-
Hodges v. Hodges
...been transferred from a probate court pursuant to § 43–8–198 without having adjudicated the merits of the contest. See Steele v. Sullivan, 484 So.2d 422, 425 (Ala.1986) (circuit court had no authority to strike from its docket a will contest that had been timely filed in the probate court; ......