Williams v. Faucett

Decision Date29 September 1989
Citation579 So.2d 572
PartiesJerry R. WILLIAMS v. Charlene Knight FAUCETT, et al. James F. WILLIAMS v. Charlene Knight FAUCETT, et al. 87-1519, 87-1520.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Jerry R. Williams, pro se.

Donna Henderson Beard, LaFayette, for appellant James F. Williams.

Edgar C. Gentle III of Schoel, Ogle, Benton, Gentle & Centeno, Birmingham, for appellees Charlene Knight Faucett, Frankie Faye Faucett Schoel and Charles Faucett.

SHORES, Justice.

Jerry R. and James F. Williams, residual legatees, appeal from a judgment in favor of Charlene Knight Faucett, Frankie Faye Faucett Schoel, Charles Faucett, specific legatees, and Citizens National Bank of Shawmut ("Bank"), mortgagee of an interest in certain land; in that judgment the court ordered certain lands sold to satisfy specific bequests and to pay debts of the estate.

Dollie Mae Finch, a widow, died on April 26, 1983, leaving a last will and testament that provided, in pertinent part:

"ITEM 1

"I direct that all of my just debts be paid by my Executor, hereinafter named, as soon after my demise as can conveniently be done.

"ITEM II

"I give and bequeath to my niece, FRANKIE FAYE FAUCETT, and to my nephew, CHARLES FAUCETT, the sum of ONE THOUSAND--($1,000.00)--DOLLARS each.

"ITEM III

"I give and bequeath to my sister, CHARLENE KNIGHT FAUCETT, if she is living at the time of my death, a sum equal to 10% of the appraised value of my estate as accepted by the Internal Revenue Service on my estate tax return.

"ITEM IV

"I give and bequeath to my sister, MARY KNIGHT WILLIAMS, if she is living at the time of my death, a sum equal to 10% of the appraised value of my estate as accepted by the Internal Revenue Service on my estate tax return.

"ITEM V

"All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal or mixed, of which I shall die seized and possessed, or to which I may be entitled at the time of my death, I give, devise and bequeath to my two nephews, namely: JAMES F. WILLIAMS and JERRY R. WILLIAMS, to have and to hold, absolutely and forever, share and share alike.

"ITEM VI

"I nominate, constitute and appoint my nephew, JERRY R. WILLIAMS, to be the Executor of my estate and of this my Last Will and Testament, and I hereby exempt him from making any official bond for the faithful performance of his duties as such Executor; and I further exempt him from filing any inventory of my estate and from making any report to any court of the land. I further authorize and empower my said Executor to sell at public or private sale any or all of the property of which I shall die seized and possessed, at such time and price and upon such terms and conditions (including credit) as he may determine and to distribute the proceeds as in this Will set out; and I direct that in the exercise of such powers he shall be free from the supervision and control of the Probate Court and any other court."

Mary Knight Williams predeceased Dollie Mae Finch and, therefore, did not take under the will.

The will was admitted to probate on June 14, 1983, and letters testamentary were issued to Jerry Williams as the executor.

The Finch estate consisted of household furnishings, farm equipment, various other personalty, and certain lands located in Lee and Chambers Counties. A mortgage covering a parcel of the Lee County property was foreclosed upon. Pursuant to the probate court's authorization, the executor sold the other Lee County property to satisfy some of the estate debts. Thus, the only real property remaining in the estate is approximately 840 acres of land in Chambers County; that land is the subject of this action.

A stipulation regarding the amount of money bequeathed by item III in the will was entered into between the executor and Charlene Knight Faucett, which provided, in pertinent part:

"Williams and Faucett hereby stipulate that said ITEM III entitles Faucett to a devise and bequest (hereinafter, the "Bequest") equal to ten percent (10%) of the appraised value of the total gross estate of Dollie Mae Finch as indicated on line 1 of page one of the Federal Estate Tax Return for the Estate of Dollie Mae Finch, as accepted by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, the Bequest shall not be reduced due to indebtedness, administrative expenses, attorneys' fees or other costs of the Estate of Dollie Mae Finch."

Under this stipulation Charlene Knight Faucett's bequest totalled $55,438.30.

The established debts of the estate totalled $45,300. The Bank held a mortgage in the amount of $94,685.51. However, the Bank's mortgage covered only Jerry Williams's residuary interest in the estate.

Neither the bequests nor the remaining estate debts were satisfied during the 4-5 years following the issuance of the letters testamentary. Attempted sales of parcels of the approximately 840 acres were unsuccessful, and the legatees could not agree on a partition in kind.

On June 24, 1987, Charlene Knight Faucett filed a petition to sell the 840 acres for division to satisfy her claim against the estate, contending that an equitable partition in kind was impossible. The petition was amended, joining the other legatees, Frankie Faye Faucett Schoel and Charles Faucett, and requesting that interest accrue on their bequests until they were paid.

On the date the hearing on the petition was held, the executor, acting pro se, filed an answer demanding a jury trial, and averring that the stipulation regarding the value of the bequest in item III of the will did not provide for the accrual of interest and that a sale on the courthouse steps would not result in the estate's receiving a fair price for the property. He also filed a motion for change of venue and a motion for the trial judge to recuse. The motion to recuse was premised upon the fact that all judges of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, which included Chambers County, had been recused in an underlying case in which Jerry Williams and Charlene Knight Faucett sued a Chambers County attorney who was allegedly involved in securing the $94,685.51 loan from the Bank, as to which the 840 acres was mortgaged as security. 1

The trial court refused to grant the jury demand, and denied the motions. After the hearing, the court found that the personalty had a market value of approximately $15,000 and that the 840 acres had a market value of approximately $294,000. The trial court entered a judgment ordering the sale of the estate property and payment of the bequest and estate debts.

The real property was purchased at the judicial sale for $255,000. 2 The trial court confirmed the sale, and ordered the proceeds disbursed to pay the claims against the estate and the expenses of the sale. The remainder of the sale proceeds were paid into the court for disbursement to Jerry and James Williams, the residuary beneficiaries.

James and Jerry Williams appeal, contending that the trial court erred in ordering the estate property sold and in ordering that interest accrue on the bequests. We disagree. The trial court's judgment, in pertinent part, reads:

"This is an action (i) to compel the Executor herein, Jerry R. Williams, to pay the Plaintiffs [Charlene Knight Faucett, Frankie Faye Faucett Schoel, and Charles Faucett] their legacies under the Will of Dollie Mae Finch (the 'Will') together with interest thereon pursuant to Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 43-2-580 through 42-2-585 [43-2-585]; and (ii) for the sale of the personalty and the realty of the Estate of Dollie Mae Finch (the 'Estate') for cash for division of the proceeds among the owners thereof pursuant to Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 35-6-20 through 35-6-23. Service has been perfected on all named Defendants, and the time allowed each Defendant to answer under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure expired in December, 1987. Defendant, Jerry R. Williams, was served with a Citation within 10 days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Code of Alabama 1975, § 43-2-582. This matter came on to be heard on March 16, 1988, the day regularly set therefor. The Plaintiffs were represented by Edgar C. Gentle, III, Defendant Citizens National Bank of Shawmut (the 'Bank') was represented by William A. Cleveland and Defendant James F. Williams was represented by Donna Henderson Beard. Defendant, Jerry R. Williams, appeared pro se.

"The Court proceeded to take testimony in Open Court, and upon consideration thereof, the Court makes the following conclusions and findings:

"1. With respect to Plaintiffs' prayer that the Executor be compelled to pay them their legacies, the Court notes that five (5) elements must be established to grant this relief: (i) the Plaintiffs must be legatees under the Will; (ii) six (6) months must have expired from the grant of Letters Testamentary to the Executor; (iii) there must be more than sufficient assets in the hands of such Executor to pay the debts of the deceased; (iv) after the payment of the legacies to the Plaintiffs, there will be a sufficiency of assets to pay off the debts which have been presented against the Estate, and charges and other legacies which are entitled to priority over the plaintiffs' legacies; and (v) the Plaintiffs, as legatees, must each execute a refunding bond. Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 43-2-580 to -585.

"2. The first element has been met herein.... [T]he Will, and the testimony of the Executor both indicate that each of the Plaintiffs is a legatee under the Will.

"3. The second element also has been met. Plaintiffs' Exhibits 3 and 4 and the testimony of the Executor established that the Executor was granted Letters Testamentary on June 14, 1983, or almost five years ago, and certainly more than six months have expired since the date of such Letters.

"4. The third element, a sufficiency of assets in the Estate to pay the debts of the deceased, also has been met herein. The testimony of the Executor, Jerry R. Williams, indicated that there are two assets in the Estate, (i) the so-called Home...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Pepper v. Bentley
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 11, 2008
    ...ad litem to represent an incompetent person when that person is “not otherwise represented” in the action. See, e.g., Williams v. Faucett, 579 So.2d 572, 579 (Ala.1989) (“A review of the record indicates that James was diligently represented by able counsel from the beginning of the case th......
  • Pepper v. Bentley, No. 2070031 (Ala. Civ. App. 5/9/2008)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • May 9, 2008
    ...ad litem to represent an incompetent person when that person is "not otherwise represented" in the action. See, e.g., Williams v. Faucett, 579 So. 2d 572, 579 (Ala. 1989)("A review of the record indicates that James was diligently represented by able counsel from the beginning of the case t......

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