Patricia Ann Worrell v. Joseph C. Shell and Gwynne Shell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/18/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090905 P a t r i c i a Ann W o r r e l l v. Joseph C. S h e l l and Gwynne S h e l l Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900041) BRYAN, Judge. Patricia Escambia Ann W o r r e l l Circuit Court County from ("the c i r c u i t a p p e a l from a condemnation Escambia appeals a judgment ofthe court") dismissing her judgment o f t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t o f ("the p r o b a t e c o u r t " ) . We a f f i r m . 2090905 On filed S e p t e m b e r 10, in the condemnation probate of right-of-way") 2009, J o s e p h C. a court a right-of-way pursuant S h e l l and complaint across Gwynne Shell seeking Worrell's the land ("the t o § 18-3-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. A n s w e r i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t , W o r r e l l d e n i e d t h a t t h e S h e l l s were e n t i t l e d to the condemnation of the r i g h t - o f - w a y . F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , the probate g r a n t i n g the probate S h e l l s ' complaint. court commissioners compensation c o u r t , on M a r c h 5, 2010, signed to to a A l s o on M a r c h 5, second determine which 1 s i g n e d an the W o r r e l l was order amount 2010, appointing of entitled. 2 order the three damages On March and 15, I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 18-3-3, A l a . Code 1975, provides t h a t " t h e same p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l be had [ i n c a s e s s e e k i n g c o n d e m n a t i o n o f a r i g h t - o f - w a y by a p r i v a t e p a r t y ] as i n c a s e s o f c o n d e m n a t i o n o f l a n d s f o r p u b l i c u s e s as p r o v i d e d by c h a p t e r 1 [ A ] o f t h i s t i t l e . " ( S e c t i o n 18-3-3 was n o t amended when C h a p t e r 1 o f T i t l e 18, A l a . Code 1975, was r e p e a l e d and r e p l a c e d by C h a p t e r 1A. See A l a . A c t s 1985, A c t No. 85-548.) I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 18-1A-276, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , " w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g [ r e g a r d i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g c o n d e m n a t i o n , t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ] s h a l l make an o r d e r g r a n t i n g or r e f u s i n g the complaint." 1 I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 18-1A-279, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , " [ i ] f t h e c o m p l a i n t be g r a n t e d , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r t h e c o m p l a i n t i s g r a n t e d , t h e j u d g e o f p r o b a t e must a p p o i n t t h r e e c i t i z e n s o f t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e l a n d s s o u g h t t o be condemned a r e s i t u a t e d " as c o m m i s s i o n e r s t o a s s e s s t h e damages and c o m p e n s a t i o n t o w h i c h t h e condemnee i s entitled. 2 2 2090905 2010, W o r r e l l r e c e i v e d by f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n a c o p y o f t h e M a r c h 5, On 2010, March probate order g r a n t i n g the 16, 2010, the court i n w r i t i n g Shells' commissioners t h a t they had c o m p e n s a t i o n i n t h e amount o f $ 3 , 0 0 0 . probate 2010, court signed another order g r a n t i n g the On M a r c h 25, the probate 2010, court's order Shells' 25, 2010, g r a n t i n g the the reported the damages assessed to and On M a r c h 23, 3 2010, March 23, probate 2010, order. That i n the c i r c u i t had pursuant same two that, in writing compensation], regarding their the probate day, of orders c o u r t had to § not 18- in pertinent part, " w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s [ a f t e r t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s make report and which provides, of t o § 18-1A-276, A l a . s i g n e d an o r d e r c o n d e m n i n g t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y p u r s u a n t 1975, copy c o u r t . As signed Code 1 9 7 5 ; h o w e v e r , as o f t h a t d a t e , t h e p r o b a t e 1A-282, A l a . Code 5, complaint. court S h e l l s ' complaint the i d e n t i c a l to the March Worrell received a c e r t i f i e d W o r r e l l f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal March complaint. assessment of the their damages c o u r t must i s s u e an o r d e r that I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 18-1A-282, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s must, w i t h i n 20 d a y s f r o m t h e i r a p p o i n t m e n t , make a r e p o r t i n w r i t i n g t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t s t a t i n g t h e amount o f damages and c o m p e n s a t i o n a s c e r t a i n e d and a s s e s s e d by them " 3 3 2090905 the report be r e c o r d e d a n d t h e p r o p e r t y be condemned upon payment o r d e p o s i t i n t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t o f t h e damages compensation 1975, so a s s e s s e d . " M o r e o v e r , provides, i n pertinent part, and § 18-1A-283, A l a . Code that an appeal from a judgment o f condemnation s i g n e d p u r s u a n t t o § 18-1A-282 i s t o be p e r f e c t e d i n the probate court rendering that "by f i l i n g judgment a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f appeal " (Emphasis added.) On M a r c h 26, 2010, t h e S h e l l s d e p o s i t e d $4,350 i n t o t h e probate court. That 4 same d a y , t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t s i g n e d an order t i t l e d " F i n a l Order of Condemnation," which adopted the report of the commissioners, report and t h e p r o b a t e ordered that the commissioners' c o u r t ' s o r d e r s be r e c o r d e d , awarded f e e s t o t a l i n g $1,350 t o t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s , o r d e r e d t h e S h e l l s to pay t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s ' deposited into compensation Shells the probate found that the Shells had c o u r t t h e $3,000 i n damages and a s s e s s e d by t h e commissioners, had p a i d deposited fees, into a l l court the probate costs, ordered c o u r t by found that the Shells that the t h e $3,000 be p a i d to W o r r e l l , a n d condemned t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y . T h e $4,350 i n c l u d e d $3,000 t o p a y t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s ' a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e damages a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n due W o r r e l l p l u s $1,350 t o c o v e r t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s ' f e e s . 4 4 2090905 On M a r c h 29, 2010, Worrell r e c e i v e d a c e r t i f i e d copy t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s M a r c h 5, 2010, complaint. copy of On the March probate 30, 2010, court's order g r a n t i n g the Worrell M a r c h 26, c o n d e m n a t i o n . A l s o on M a r c h 30, 2010, n o t i c e of appeal i n the On May 3, 2010, circuit the received 2010, a Shells' certified f i n a l order court. Shells over the moved t h e circuit appeal. On May 4, court 2010, moved t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e t h e M a r c h 26, order of condemnation. A l s o notice of appeal i n the of W o r r e l l f i l e d an amended d i s m i s s W o r r e l l ' s a p p e a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n of on May probate 4, 2010, court. On S h e l l s f i l e d an amended m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s May 6, court Worrell 2010, Worrell to final filed a 2010, the that asserted that t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r W o r r e l l ' s a p p e a l on the ground that Worrell accordance w i t h the had not perfected statute governing her appeal such a p p e a l s . 5 Also in on A s n o t e d a b o v e , § 18-1A-283 r e q u i r e s t h a t a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l to the c i r c u i t c o u r t from the p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s order c o n d e m n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o § 18-1A-282 must be f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t . M o r e o v e r , § 18-1A-283 r e q u i r e s t h a t s u c h a n o t i c e be f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e " m a k i n g " o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s o r d e r p u r s u a n t t o § 18-1A-282. I n B o u t w e l l v. S t a t e , 988 So. 2d 1015, 1021 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t a c o n d e m n a t i o n o r d e r i s "made" on t h e d a t e t h e o r d e r s t a t e s i t was "done," i . e . , on t h e d a t e i t was signed. 5 5 2090905 May 6, that 2010, i t no motion the probate longer had c o u r t s i g n e d an jurisdiction to s e t a s i d e the f i n a l 10, 2010, Worrell f i l e d the S h e l l s ' motion to order determining consider Worrell's o r d e r of condemnation. i n the c i r c u i t On c o u r t an o b j e c t i o n t o d i s m i s s . As g r o u n d s f o r h e r May to objection, Worrell asserted: " 1 . Code o f A l a b a m a 1975 § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 ( 4 ) . This s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s the C i r c u i t Courts to s u p e r i n t e n d t h e P r o b a t e and o t h e r l o w e r c o u r t s . [ 6 ] "2. T h a t n o t i c e by t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t i n t h i s m a t t e r was d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t the Probate Court f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e u n d e r Code o f A l a b a m a 1975 § 18-1A-282. S i n c e the n o t i c e from the P r o b a t e C o u r t i s d e f i c i e n t and v i o l a t e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the law, then the n o t i c e of the judgment(s) p r o v i d e d by t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t i s a l s o d e f i c i e n t o r a t l e a s t i n t e r l o c u t o r y , u n t i l t h e P r o b a t e amends i t s o r d e r t o i n c l u d e the n o t i c e . [7] "3. B a s e d upon t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l a l l o w s f o r t h i s m a t t e r t o be h e a r d i n C i r c u i t C o u r t . [ B o u t w e l l v. S t a t e ] , 988 So. 2d 1015 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . S e c t i o n 12-11-30(4) p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l e x e r c i s e a general superintendence over a l l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s , m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s , and p r o b a t e c o u r t s . " 6 I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 18-1A-282 p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] n o t i c e o f e n t r y o f [ t h e o r d e r c o n d e m n i n g t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y ] and t h e amount o f t h e a w a r d s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y be m a i l e d by f i r s t c l a s s m a i l t o e a c h p a r t y whose a d d r e s s i s known, t o g e t h e r w i t h a n o t i c e of the r i g h t t o appeal t h e r e f r o m t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n 30 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f s u c h o r d e r . " (Emphasis added.) 7 6 2090905 "4. T h a t t h e r u l i n g o f t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t i s n o t i n accordance w i t h law and i s t h e r e f o r e s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w . See Ex p a r t e L u l a D e l l C a r t e r , 772 So. 2d 1117 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d Code o f A l a b a m a 1975 § 18-1A282. "5. That t h e r u l i n g v i o l a t e s [ A r t i c l e I,] S e c t i o n 23 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n [ o f 1 9 0 1 ] , which c l e a r l y s t a t e s , '...[B]ut p r i v a t e property s h a l l n o t be t a k e n f o r , o r a p p l i e d t o p u b l i c u s e , u n l e s s j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n be f i r s t made t h e r e f o r e ; n o r s h a l l p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y be t a k e n f o r p r i v a t e u s e , or f o r use o f c o r p o r a t i o n s , other than m u n i c i p a l , w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e owner; p r o v i d e d , however, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may b y l a w s e c u r e t o p e r s o n s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s t h e r i g h t o f way o v e r t h e l a n d s o f o t h e r p e r s o n s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s , and by g e n e r a l laws p r o v i d e f o r and r e g u l a t e t h e e x e r c i s e by p e r s o n s and corporations of the r i g h t s herein reserved; but j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l , i n a l l c a s e s , be f i r s t made t o t h e owner'. C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a 1901 [, A r t . I , ] § 23. [ W o r r e l l ] h a s r e c e i v e d no c o m p e n s a t i o n i n accordance with this C o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandate[;] t h e r e f o r e t h e j u d g m e n t ( s ) r e n d e r e d i n M a r c h o f 2010 by t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t o f E s c a m b i a C o u n t y i s v o i d , o r a t l e a s t i n t e r l o c u t o r y u n t i l s u c h t i m e as payment i s made. "6. C l a i m s o f [ W o r r e l l ] b e f o r e t h i s , t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t , i n v o l v e m a t t e r s o f e q u i t y , and c o r r e c t n e s s o f law, b o t h o f w h i c h a r e under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s C i r c u i t C o u r t . Code o f A l a b a m a 1975 § 12-11-31 and [ B o u t w e l l v . S t a t e ] , 988 So. 2d 1015 ( A l a . 2007). " I t i sthe claim of [Worrell] that appeal t o the Circuit Court was and i s p r o p e r under [§] 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 ( 4 ) w h i c h s t a t e s , 'The c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l e x e r c i s e general superintendence over a l l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s , m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s and p r o b a t e c o u r t s . ' " A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t i s the claim of [Worrell] 7 that 2090905 t h e n o t i c e o f t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t was d e f i c i e n t i n that the Court failed to comply w i t h section 18-1A-282. ... T h i s s e c t i o n i s c l e a r i n [ s t a t i n g t h a t ] i t i s necessary t h a t the c o u r t g i v e n o t i c e of the r i g h t to a p p e a l . The P r o b a t e C o u r t has y e t t o provide this required notice to [Worrell][;] t h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r d a t e c a n n o t be v a l i d . " [ 8 ] On their May 25, 2010, the S h e l l s submitted, m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , a c o p y o f t h e May the probate c o u r t h o l d i n g t h a t i t no 6, in support 2010, l o n g e r had order o r d e r o f c o n d e m n a t i o n and the probate had 2010, a copy of a r e c e i p t i n w h i c h c o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d r e c e i v i n g t h e $4,350 t h e S h e l l s d e p o s i t e d i n the probate Following dismiss, the a jurisdiction. hearing circuit W o r r e l l ' s appeal The c o u r t on M a r c h 26, regarding court entered the a 2010. Shells' judgment motion See supra on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t lacked c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment s t a t e d : note 7. 8 to dismissing "This matter comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on the m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f i l e d by t h e a p p e l l e e s J o s e p h C. S h e l l and Gwynne S h e l l . An o r d e r o f c o n d e m n a t i o n was e n t e r e d by t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t o f E s c a m b i a C o u n t y on M a r c h 26, 2010 and payment was made i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e o r d e r o f c o n d e m n a t i o n on t h e same d a t e . P a t r i c i a Ann W o r r e l l f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m p r o b a t e c o u r t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t on M a r c h 25, 2010. T h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d i n the Escambia 8 of jurisdiction t o c o n s i d e r W o r r e l l ' s m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e M a r c h 26, final of 2090905 C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t . On May 4, 2010, P a t r i c i a Ann W o r r e l l f i l e d a notice of appeal i n the probate court. " S e c t i o n 18-1A-283 o f t h e A l a b a m a Code s t a t e s t h a t a n y o f t h e p a r t i e s may a p p e a l f r o m t h e o r d e r o f condemnation t o the c i r c u i t court of the county w i t h i n t h i r t y days from t h e making o f t h e o r d e r o f condemnation by filing i n the probate court r e n d e r i n g t h e judgment a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . I n Pace v . The U t i l i t i e s B o a r d o f t h e C i t y o f F o l e y , 752 So. 2d 510 ( [ A l a . C i v . App.] 1 9 9 9 ) , t h e f a c t s were i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . The o r i g i n a l n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d i n c i r c u i t c o u r t w i t h i n t h e t h i r t y day time p e r i o d and a l a t e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t a f t e r t h e t h i r t y day time p e r i o d had e x p i r e d . I n Pace, t h e Court o f C i v i l Appeals found t h a t the requirements o f S e c t i o n 18-1A-283 a r e m a n d a t o r y a n d t h e f a i l u r e t o p e r f e c t an a p p e a l i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n deprives the c i r c u i t court of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear an a p p e a l . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was filed i n t h e Probate Court o f Escambia County t h i r t y - n i n e days a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r o f condemnation. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t does n o t have jurisdiction t o e n t e r t a i n the appeal from t h e probate court's judgment of condemnation. Accordingly, i t i s "ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f i l e d b y J o s e p h C. S h e l l a n d Gwynne G. Shell i s granted." On J u n e 25, 2010, W o r r e l l t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s B e c a u s e we l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n , the supreme court. appeal back t o t h i s The supreme court. we t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o court then transferred the c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 9 2090905 1975. The f a c t s p e r t i n e n t to Worrell's March court's appeal from the of 26, 2010, final order condemnation c i r c u i t c o u r t are not i n d i s p u t e . Therefore, us are pure questions Boutwell v. of law, State, 988 and So. our 2d probate the i s s u e s r e v i e w i s de 1015, to 1020 before novo. (Ala. the See 2007) ("Boutwell I I " ) . Worrell Foley, 752 circuit first So. 2d argues 510 that Pace v. (Ala. Civ. App. Utilities 1999), Board case the court r e l i e d on i n determining o f a p p e a l was untimely, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the before us. Specifically, distinguishable brought involves However, by a entity condemnation § Worrell 18-3-3, whereas action Ala. Code the that Worrell's argues b e c a u s e Pace i n v o l v e d a public of now Pace that case is a condemnation the brought case by 1975, notice now action before private provides us parties. that, in c o n d e m n a t i o n a c t i o n s by p r i v a t e p a r t i e s , " t h e same p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l be u s e s as had as provided i n cases of condemnation of lands by Chapter 1[A] of this C h a p t e r 1 o f T i t l e 18, A l a . Code 1975, r e p l a c e d by C h a p t e r 1A. See A l a . A c t s 1985, 9 10 title." for public 9 Moreover, was r e p e a l e d and A c t No. 85-548. 2090905 this c o u r t has held that " [ t ] h e same p r i n c i p l e s set f o r t h t h e E m i n e n t Domain Code g o v e r n i n g a c t i o n s b r o u g h t by t h e t o condemn l a n d i n general will govern a c t i o n s p r i v a t e p a r t y t o condemn a r i g h t - o f - w a y . " So. 2d 287, no merit 289 ( A l a . C i v . App. in Worrell's state b r o u g h t by C a r r o l l v. Ward, 2 0 0 1 ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , we argument t h a t in a 814 find Pace i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e i t i n v o l v e d a c o n d e m n a t i o n a c t i o n b r o u g h t by a p u b l i c entity rather t h a n a c o n d e m n a t i o n a c t i o n b r o u g h t by private parties. W o r r e l l a l s o a r g u e s t h a t Pace i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e , W o r r e l l says, court i n Pace t h e r e probate f a i l e d to g i v e the p a r t i e s t i m e l y n o t i c e of t h e i r to appeal to the § i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e 18-1A-282 10 circuit whereas, c o u r t w i t h i n 30 in the case u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the probate c o u r t such n o t i c e . C i t i n g B o u t w e l l now d a y s as required before f a i l e d to give right us, the i t I I , supra, W o r r e l l f u r t h e r argues the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l should a p p l i e d so as t o e x t e n d t h e p e r i o d f o r h e r t o f i l e h e r of a p p e a l t o May 10 4, See supra note 2010, is parties t h a t , because the p r o b a t e c o u r t d i d not g i v e her n o t i c e of r i g h t to appeal, by the 7. 11 date she filed her her be notice notice of 2090905 appeal i n the probate court. In B o u t w e l l I I , the p r o b a t e judge s i g n e d the judgment o f condemnation p u r s u a n t t o § 18-1A-282 on J a n u a r y 26, 2004, and r e c o r d e d i t i n t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t on J a n u a r y 27, 2004. On February 25, 2004, t h e 3 0 t h day after the probate judge had s i g n e d the judgment o f condemnation, t h e condemnee and r e g a r d i n g the h i s a t t o r n e y c o n t a c t e d the probate deadline for f i l i n g the condemnee's judge notice appeal. The p r o b a t e j u d g e i n f o r m e d them t h a t a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d the n e x t day, the i . e . , F e b r u a r y 26, w h i c h was of t h e 3 1 s t day a f t e r p r o b a t e judge had s i g n e d the judgment of condemnation, be would timely. The condemnee f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on F e b r u a r y 26; h o w e v e r , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e condemnee's a p p e a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was condemnee then appealed from the not t i m e l y f i l e d . judgment of the circuit c o u r t . T h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d the judgment o f the c i r c u i t court on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e 30-day p e r i o d f o r t h e condemnee t o his The file n o t i c e o f a p p e a l h a d begun r u n n i n g on J a n u a r y 27, t h e d a t e the p r o b a t e judge r e c o r d e d the judgment o f condemnation minutes of the probate court, i n the r a t h e r t h a n on J a n u a r y 26, 12 the 2090905 date the probate judge s i g n e d t h e j u d g m e n t , and, t h e condemnee's a p p e a l t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t was therefore, filed within 30 d a y s o f t h e " m a k i n g " o f t h e j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 18-1A-283. B o u t w e l l v. Civ. App. On 2005) State, 988 So. 2d 1012, 1015 (Ala. ( " B o u t w e l l I") . certiorari review, the supreme c o u r t i n B o u t w e l l I I a f f i r m e d the judgment o f t h i s c o u r t i n B o u t w e l l I , b u t i t d i d so on t h e b a s i s of a d i f f e r e n t rationale. h e l d t h a t the judgment of condemnation was The supreme c o u r t "made" w i t h i n the m e a n i n g o f § 18-1A-283 on t h e d a t e t h e o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t i t was "done," i . e . , t h e d a t e t h e p r o b a t e judge had signedi t , r a t h e r t h a n on t h e d a t e t h e p r o b a t e j u d g e h a d recorded i t i n the therefore, minutes of the probate c o u r t and condemnee's n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was was filed the judgment. court that, not t i m e l y f i l e d because i t on t h e 3 1 s t day a f t e r t h e p r o b a t e j u d g e h a d further 988 So. 2d held that at the the 1020-21. doctrine However, the of e q u i t a b l e signed supreme estoppel s h o u l d be a p p l i e d so as t o e x t e n d t h e p e r i o d f o r t h e condemnee t o f i l e h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e 3 1 s t day a f t e r t h e p r o b a t e judge had signed condemnee h a d the relied judgment of condemnation because t o h i s d e t r i m e n t on t h e p r o b a t e 13 the judge's 2090905 erroneous statement that the condemnee's notice of appeal w o u l d be t i m e l y f i l e d i f i t was f i l e d on F e b r u a r y 26, t h e day had after the probate c o n d e m n a t i o n . 988 So. judge signed the 31st judgment 2d a t 1021-27. I n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e of date a p r o b a t e c o u r t "makes" a j u d g m e n t o f c o n d e m n a t i o n w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 18-1A-283 i s t h e d a t e t h e p r o b a t e j u d g e s i g n s the judgment of are mindful of condemnation, the the supreme c o u r t potential unfairness that stated, could "we result i f a p r o b a t e c o u r t d r a f t e d and s i g n e d an o r d e r o f c o n d e m n a t i o n , y e t failed to notify the parties of the order, c o m p r o m i s i n g t h e i r t i m e f o r t a k i n g an a p p e a l . " 1021 thereby 988 So. ( e m p h a s i s added; f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . However, t h e c o u r t d i d not a d d r e s s t h e e f f e c t o f a f a i l u r e by c o u r t to n o t i f y the p a r t i e s of t h e i r We disagree mandates that a p p l i e d i n the the doctrine c a s e now her to f i l e her is not entitled to of equitable before us probate appeal. the equitable estoppel unless communication, t o May application she estoppel of 4, 2010. the can p r o v e t h a t she either 14 should so as t o e x t e n d t h e n o t i c e of appeal by words, at supreme w i t h W o r r e l l ' s argument t h a t i n B o u t w e l l for misleading r i g h t to the 2d II be period Worrell doctrine r e l i e d on conduct, of a or 2090905 silence, failure on to the perfect Shelby County In C r e s t "The part Bd. of her the probate appeal. o f E d u c . , 612 Const. Corp., elements So. that Crest See court Const. 2d 425, t h e supreme c o u r t of e q u i t a b l e estoppel 430 caused Corp. her v. ( A l a . 1992). stated: are: " ' ( 1 ) The p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom e s t o p p e l i s a s s e r t e d , who u s u a l l y must have k n o w l e d g e of the f a c t s , communicates something i n a m i s l e a d i n g way, e i t h e r by w o r d s , c o n d u c t , or s i l e n c e , w i t h the i n t e n t i o n t h a t the c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i l l be a c t e d on; (2) t h e person seeking to assert estoppel, who l a c k s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s , r e l i e s upon t h a t communication; and (3) t h e p e r s o n r e l y i n g w o u l d be harmed m a t e r i a l l y i f t h e actor i s l a t e r permitted to assert a claim i n c o n s i s t e n t with h i s e a r l i e r conduct.'" 612 So. 2d at 425 (emphasis added) (quoting General C r e d i t C o r p . v. S t r i c k l a n d D i v . o f R e b e l Lumber Co., 2d 1240, 1243 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . There that Worrell's on a misleading conduct, or silence, Although Worrell on part of either words, probate the by court. n o t i f y h e r t h a t she h a d a r i g h t t o a p p e a l w i t h i n 30 d a y s , she notice of appeal, of appeal she filed the c a u s e d by h e r not a notice that So. did filed complains communication, the 437 i s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g f a i l u r e t o p e r f e c t h e r a p p e a l was reliance Elec. probate i . e . , t h e M a r c h 30, i n the 15 circuit court 2010, court, amended within 30 2090905 d a y s a f t e r t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t s i g n e d t h e M a r c h 26, 2010, final o r d e r o f c o n d e m n a t i o n -- she j u s t f i l e d i t i n t h e wrong c o u r t . S e c t i o n 18-1A-282 does n o t r e q u i r e t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o n o t i f y the p a r t i e s t h a t t h e i r probate court we n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l must be r a t h e r than i n the conclude t h a t the failure c i r c u i t court. of the probate f i l e d i n the Accordingly, court to notify W o r r e l l t h a t she had a r i g h t t o a p p e a l w i t h i n 30 d a y s does n o t constitute a valid basis should her be estoppel a p p l i e d so as t o e x t e n d t h e p e r i o d f o r h e r notice failure for holding that equitable of appeal t o May the o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o g i v e h e r t h a t n o t i c e does not of appeal, t h e c a s e now Pace b a s e d on the 2010. file Moreover, because e n t i t l e her to the e x t e n s i o n 4, to of the p e r i o d to f i l e her notice b e f o r e us c a n n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m failure of the probate court to give her order of the that notice. W o r r e l l a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e M a r c h 23, 2010, probate court b e c a u s e , she granting says, the i t d i d not § 18-1A-283. However, t h e that Worrell "This Court presented cannot Shell's consider was invalid comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s r e c o r d on that complaint a p p e a l does n o t argument arguments 16 to the of indicate circuit r a i s e d f o r the court. first 2090905 time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to the e v i d e n c e and a r g u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " Andrews v. Merritt Oil T h e r e f o r e , we Worrell 2010, (1) final i t was 2010, any Co., 612 So. 2d do n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s also argues that payment o f compensation (Ala. 1992) . c o u r t ' s March i s v o i d because, seven r e p o r t of the commissioners 410 argument. the probate o r d e r of condemnation s i g n e d more t h a n 409, days a f t e r and (2) i t was to Worrell. she 26, says, the March 16, signed before However, we cannot c o n s i d e r t h o s e a r g u m e n t s b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t W o r r e l l p r e s e n t e d those arguments t o the c o u r t . See Citing 1 1 circuit Andrews. § 12-11-11, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , 11 Worrell appears S e c t i o n 12-11-11 p r o v i d e s : "Whenever i t s h a l l a p p e a r t o t h e c o u r t t h a t any c a s e f i l e d t h e r e i n s h o u l d have b e e n b r o u g h t i n a n o t h e r c o u r t i n t h e same c o u n t y , t h e c o u r t s h a l l make an o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e c a s e t o t h e p r o p e r c o u r t , and t h e c l e r k o r r e g i s t e r s h a l l f o r t h w i t h c e r t i f y t h e p l e a d i n g s , p r o c e s s , c o s t s and o r d e r t o t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h t h e c a s e i s t r a n s f e r r e d , and t h e c a s e s h a l l be d o c k e t e d and p r o c e e d i n t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h i t i s t r a n s f e r r e d , and t h e c o s t s a c c r u e d i n t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h t h e c a s e was o r i g i n a l l y filed s h a l l a b i d e by t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c a s e i n t h e c o u r t to which t r a n s f e r r e d . " 17 to 2090905 argue t h a t the c i r c u i t court erred i n f a i l i n g to t r a n s f e r t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t h e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l she circuit court. because the presented record circuit § court jurisdiction had Worrell that cannot cites c i r c u i t court. 12-11-30(4), not court to failure See that Worrell Andrews. Worrell that determining that i t did not she 1 2 legal the says, probate authority supporting the circuit the court. the court the have circuit However, proposition to exercise o v e r an a p p e a l f r o m a c o n d e m n a t i o n j u d g m e n t t h a t that based on i n accordance with § that has the proposition authority of 18-1A-283, Pace, argument t h a t § 12-11-30(4) a u t h o r i z e d exercise jurisdiction over her appeal no and merit. we reject the circuit despite her t o p e r f e c t h e r a p p e a l i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 18-1A-283. Finally, W o r r e l l argues t h a t the probate c o u r t ' s i n v a l i d b e c a u s e , she 12 indicate the argument argues in over her indicates Worrell's that in also been p e r f e c t e d Accordingly, filed appeal because, erred no consider a p p e a l does n o t § 12-11-30(4) a u t h o r i z e s Pace are we a duty to superintend jurisdiction has on i t to the Citing court However, had to See supra note says, 6. 18 they c o n f l i c t orders with A r t i c l e I, 2090905 Section says, 23, o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, w h i c h , she r e q u i r e d t h a t she be p a i d j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n b e f o r e t h e probate provides court condemned t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y . that, after Section 18-1A-282 t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s make t h e i r report i n w r i t i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e i r a s s e s s m e n t o f damages a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r the condemnation, "the probate c o u r t must i s s u e an order t h a t t h e r e p o r t be r e c o r d e d and t h e p r o p e r t y be condemned upon payment o r d e p o s i t i n t o t h e p r o b a t e compensation ... assessed [by c o u r t o f t h e damages a n d the commissioners] (Emphasis added.) I n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s , t h e p r o b a t e court f o u n d i n i t s M a r c h 26, 2010, f i n a l o r d e r o f c o n d e m n a t i o n t h a t the S h e l l s had a l r e a d y d e p o s i t e d amount of the damages and into the probate compensation court the assessed by the c o m m i s s i o n e r s , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t condemned t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y . The probate court also ordered that compensation d e p o s i t e d i n t o the probate the damages and c o u r t b y t h e S h e l l s be p a i d t o W o r r e l l . I n S t a t e ex r e l . C i t y o f M o b i l e v. W i l l i a m s , 222 A l a . 274, 275, 132 So. 3 2 1 , 322 held that predecessor a condemnation order (1931), signed t h e supreme c o u r t pursuant to a o f § 18-1A-282 s h o u l d " c o n t a i n t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t the condemnation i s e f f e c t i v e 'upon t h e payment o f t h e damages 19 2090905 and c o m p e n s a t i o n so a s s e s s e d the same i n c o u r t [ ] ' cited and r e p o r t e d or the deposit of (Emphasis added.) W o r r e l l h a s n o t any c a s e l a w h o l d i n g t h a t d e p o s i t i n g t h e amount o f t h e damages paying and compensation i n the probate i t t o t h e condemnee b e f o r e court the property rather than i s condemned v i o l a t e s A r t . I , § 23, A l a . C o n s t . 1901. A c c o r d i n g l y , we no m e r i t i n W o r r e l l ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s find orders v i o l a t e d A r t . I , § 23. Because W o r r e l l has n o t p r e s e n t e d a m e r i t o r i o u s argument that the c i r c u i t court e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g her appeal probate court's circuit judgment, we affirm from t h e the judgment o f t h e court. Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 20

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.