Howard Wells v. Roger Wells, as administrator of the estate of Sarah Frances Wells

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/14/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , Alabama 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 2091021 Howard Wells v. Roger W e l l s , as a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e o f S a r a h Wells Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-07-893.80) Frances Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Howard W e l l s Etowah Circuit ("Howard") a p p e a l s f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e Court i n favor ("Roger"), t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r Wells of h i s brother, of the estate ("the e s t a t e " ) ; S a r a h F r a n c e s W e l l s Roger o f Sarah Wells Frances ("the m o t h e r " ) was 2091021 the p a r t i e s ' mother. been before this This court. pertinent to this With , In ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . the p r i o r Roger, September appeal, this as a d m i n i s t r a t o r 2007 exceptions, deed that incapacity court court's dementia, because there was s u f f i c i e n t finding that that incapable property So. whether t h e s e t aside containing of the t r i a l from of a the court's a chronic of experiencing mental chronic a lucid t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . This judgment. Although evidence t o support t h e mother that of her diagnosis moment a t t h e t i m e she s i g n e d reversed prior judgment i n f a v o r of the estate, transferring she h a d b e e n court court's considered final t h e mother had s u f f e r e d and t h a t , the facts 1 m o t h e r ' s h o u s e t o Howard on t h e b a s i s finding case has [Ms. 2081156, A p r i l 16, 2010] evidence supported the t r i a l of minor appeal are s e t f o r t h i n t h i s o p i n i o n , W e l l s v. W e l l s , 3d i s the second time t h i s suffered from we concluded the t r i a l a chronic that court's mental i n c a p a c i t y , we c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h e I n W e l l s , we s t a t e d t h e summer o f 2007 u n t i l t h e r e c o r d was u n c l e a r i a m i s s t a t e m e n t and t h a t during that period. 1 t h a t t h e m o t h e r was h o s p i t a l i z e d f r o m h e r d e a t h i n O c t o b e r 2007. A l t h o u g h n t h a t c a s e , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h a t was she was i n a n d o u t o f t h e h o s p i t a l 2 2091021 trial c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t she was a lucid interval dementia. all the We s o l e l y b e c a u s e she h a d b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h remanded t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r evidence determine, based experienced a that on had that lucid S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . been which finding the interval that t h a t the mother had she executed judgment, the t r i a l at whether the time to i t and to the mother had she signed the Wells, supra. i t concluded time presented evidence, F o l l o w i n g remand, t h e t r i a l in i n c a p a b l e of e x p e r i e n c i n g the the c o u r t e n t e r e d a new evidence d i d not experienced a l u c i d September court wrote, 2007 i n pertinent judgment support interval deed. at In i t s part: " T h i s c a u s e has b e e n remanded t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t for further f i n d i n g s . Pursuant to the i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d the remaining evidence of r e c o r d i n order to determine whether or not the e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g t h a t [the mother], at t h e t i m e she e x e c u t e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d , was e x p e r i e n c i n g a l u c i d i n t e r v a l s u c h t h a t she was c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . The C o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t such a f i n d i n g . " F i r s t , a l u c i d i n t e r v a l w i l l n o t be assumed i n the face of the f i n d i n g of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of permanent incompetence. The burden was upon [Howard] t o p r o v e [ t h a t t h e m o t h e r ] was l u c i d a t t h e t i m e she e x e c u t e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . Ex p a r t e 3 a 2091021 L a n g l e v T i m b e r & Mgmt. I n c . , 923 (Ala. 2005). So. 2d 1100, 1105 "The o n l y t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d by Howard ... d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h i s i s s u e was t h e t e s t i m o n y o f l e g a l s e c r e t a r y L i n d a G a t t i s . G a t t i s had a one t i m e m e e t i n g w i t h [ t h e m o t h e r ] i n a h o s p i t a l room on t h e o c c a s i o n o f e x e c u t i o n o f t h e d e e d ( t h e a t t o r n e y who p r e p a r e d the deed a l s o t e s t i f i e d , but never had a meeting w i t h the [mother], o n l y w i t h [Howard]). "The t e s t i m o n y [on b e h a l f o f t h e e s t a t e ] on t h e s u b j e c t came f r o m R o g e r ( t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f h i s m o t h e r ' s e s t a t e ) and w i f e S h e r r y W e l l s , who s p e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f t i m e w i t h t h e [mother] and knew h e r b o t h b e f o r e and a f t e r h e r h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and a s s i s t e d l i v i n g p l a c e m e n t became n e c e s s a r y i n A u g u s t o f 2007 ( [ t h e m o t h e r ] d i e d on O c t o b e r 6, 2007). " U n l i k e L i n d a G a t t i s ' s one t i m e e n c o u n t e r w i t h the [mother], S h e r r y W e l l s t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t had b e e n h e r and R o g e r ' s h a b i t t o s p e a k w i t h [the m o t h e r ] e v e r y n i g h t on t h e phone and v i s i t w i t h h e r e v e r y weekend. They a l s o b o u g h t h e r g r o c e r i e s , p a i d h e r b i l l s , and t o o k h e r t o t h e d o c t o r . " A f t e r t h e h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n i n A u g u s t o f 2007, S h e r r y t e s t i f i e d [ t h a t t h e m o t h e r ] was u n r e m i t t i n g l y c o n f u s e d and u n a b l e t o h a n d l e h e r a f f a i r s u n t i l h e r death i n e a r l y October. " S h e r r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t once [ t h e m o t h e r ] was p l a c e d i n t h e h o s p i t a l and t h e n a s s i s t e d living f o l l o w i n g h e r A u g u s t 2007 e p i s o d e , she and R o g e r w o u l d come up a l m o s t e v e r y e v e n i n g and f o u n d [ t h e mother] p e r s i s t e n t l y m e n t a l l y c o n f u s e d about her p e r s o n a l and b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s on e v e r y o c c a s i o n . " B a s e d on t h i s e x t e n s i v e , a l m o s t d a i l y c o n t a c t w i t h [ t h e m o t h e r ] f r o m A u g u s t 2007 t o h e r d e a t h i n O c t o b e r 2007, S h e r r y c o n c l u d e d [ t h a t t h e m o t h e r ] was 4 2091021 not her i n her r i g h t affairs. m i n d t o make d e c i s i o n s o r handle "Roger ... c o n f i r m e d h i s w i f e ' s e x p e r i e n c e and observations, concluding [that the mother] was u n a b l e t o h a n d l e h e r b u s i n e s s , and w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e l e g a l i m p o r t and i m p l i c a t i o n o f h e r s i g n a t u r e on any document s u c h as a d e e d . W h i l e R o g e r s a i d , b a s e d on h i s e x t e n s i v e t i m e w i t h h i s m o t h e r b e t w e e n A u g u s t 2007 and O c t o b e r 2007, t h a t he w o u l d n o t s a y she was u n d e r undue i n f l u e n c e , he d e f i n i t e l y c o u l d s a y [ t h a t t h e m o t h e r ] d i d n o t know what she was doing. " I n c o n c l u s i o n , L i n d a G a t t i s , S h e r r y W e l l s , and R o g e r ... were t h e p e r t i n e n t w i t n e s s e s regarding [the mother's] l u c i d i t y i n the f a c e of her d i a g n o s e d p e r m a n e n t d e m e n t i a b e t w e e n A u g u s t 2007 and her death. The o p i n i o n o f someone t h a t b r i e f l y met t h e d e c e a s e d one t i m e i n h e r l i f e i n a h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g s i m p l y c a n n o t be compared t o t h e d e f e r e n c e t o be a c c o r d e d two caregivers and their lifetime of e x p e r i e n c e w i t h [the m o t h e r ] , p a r t i c u l a r l y h a v i n g m a i n t a i n e d c l o s e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e [mother] b e t w e e n A u g u s t 2007 and O c t o b e r 2007. " "The o r e t e n u s t e s t i m o n y o f S h e r r y and R o g e r W e l l s i s f o u n d t o be c r e d i b l e . W i t h t h e [mother] l a c k i n g s u f f i c i e n t m e n t a l c a p a c i t y w i t h no lucid i n t e r v a l s p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e she e x e c u t e d t h i s d e e d , t h i s s u b j e c t d e e d i s , i f n e c e s s a r y , due t o t h e r e v e r s a l and remand, once a g a i n s e t a s i d e and h e l d f o r naught." Howard f i l e d a t i m e l y a p p e a l from t h a t judgment t o t h i s which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal appellate jurisdiction. The court, t o t h e supreme c o u r t f o r l a c k o f supreme 5 court transferred the 2091021 appeal back t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The the standard trial Because court's judgment the t r i a l evidence, correct, by which t h i s we court's will a n d we presume will court i n this case decision that i s well i s based i t s factual n o t s e t them aside p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong o r u n j u s t . So. i s required to on review settled. ore tenus f i n d i n g s are unless they are See T y l e r v. T y l e r , 990 2d 4 2 3 , 428 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . We do n o t e x t e n d this presumption of correctness t o the t r i a l court's a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o t h e f a c t s , however. 267, See H i n d s v . H i n d s , 271 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . Instead, 887 So. 2d we r e v i e w c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s de novo. of Cedar B l u f f 1253, 1255-56 Howard concluded v. C i t i z e n s C a r i n g f o r Children, a trial See Town 904 So. 2d ( A l a . 2004). contends that that t h e mother the t r i a l was court not erred experiencing when i t a lucid i n t e r v a l a t t h e t i m e she e x e c u t e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . argues t h a t Roger d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e the any e v i d e n c e He concerning c a p a c i t y o f t h e mother a t t h e time she e x e c u t e d t h e deed o r e v e n d u r i n g t h e weeks b e f o r e h e r e x e c u t i o n o f t h e d e e d . 6 He 2091021 argues, i n effect, presented at t r i a l experiencing that the medical d i d not i n d i c a t e was t h e m o t h e r was n o t a t the time she e x e c u t e d t h e t e s t i f i e d at the hearing that interval that that Howard p o i n t s o u t t h a t f i v e w i t n e s s e s deed. a lucid evidence i t had been t h e mother's intent t o convey h e r property t o h i m , a n d he p o i n t s o u t t h a t b o t h G a r y B u r n s , t h e attorney who prepared t h e deed, and L i n d a Gattis, Burns's l e g a l s e c r e t a r y , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was c o m p e t e n t when she e x e c u t e d t h e deed. she met w i t h fully He p o i n t s t o G a t t i s ' s t e s t i m o n y t h e mother, e x p l a i n e d t h e d e e d t o h e r , a n d was s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e t h e deed. He a r g u e s t h a t G a t t i s ' s t e s t i m o n y o f what o c c u r r e d at the exact and t h a t t h e t r i a l the testimony court was t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e time t h e mother s i g n e d t h e deed should n o t have g i v e n any w e i g h t t o o f Roger and h i s w i f e , S h e r r y W e l l s b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t p r e s e n t the that ("Sherry"), a t t h e time t h e mother e x e c u t e d deed. As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , when t h i s c a s e was f i r s t on a p p e a l , this trial court determined that evidence court's conclusion that of record t h e mother sustained the had s u f f e r e d m e n t a l i n c o m p e t e n c e t h a t was p e r m a n e n t i n n a t u r e . 7 from As a r e s u l t 2091021 o f t h a t f i n d i n g , t h e b u r d e n s h i f t e d t o Howard t o by c l e a r and demonstrate, c o n v i n c i n g evidence, t h a t , d e s p i t e the mother's permanent incompetence, she was experiencing a lucid interval a t t h e t i m e she e x e c u t e d t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d , see Ex p a r t e Chris Langley (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) ; A b b o t t v. R o g e r s , App. unaided v o l i t i o n . " So. 2d 573, Our leads the 680 923 So. So. 2d 315, 2d 317 1100, 1105 (Ala. Civ. 578 us to that not e x p e r i e n c e a l u c i d indicated the trial evidence to determine, 2007 678, (1969). conclude September from W i l l i s v. James, 284 A l a . 673, review of the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l sufficient did & Mgmt., I n c . , 1 9 9 6 ) , and t h a t h e r e x e c u t i o n o f t h e d e e d " p r o c e e d e d [her] 227 Timber t h a t they spent had before i t as i t d i d , t h a t t h e m o t h e r interval deed. court court Roger's a t t h e t i m e she and a substantial Sherry's executed testimony amount o f t i m e with t h e m o t h e r , t h a t t h e y s p o k e w i t h h e r by t e l e p h o n e e v e r y n i g h t , and that they v i s i t e d w i t h her almost e v e r y weekend. testimony f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d that they provided a amount of care to the mother, g r o c e r i e s , paying her b i l l s , her business affairs. including Their substantial shopping for her p r e p a r i n g h e r f o o d , and h a n d l i n g Sherry testified 8 t h a t Roger and she 2091021 would visit the work, a p p a r e n t l y mother almost every night after d u r i n g the p e r i o d i n q u e s t i o n . they Both left Sherry and R o g e r t e s t i f i e d t o t h e m o t h e r ' s p r o b l e m s w i t h h e r memory, which were m a n i f e s t e d by her repeating h e r s e l f and t h e m o t h e r was testified t h a t the mother w o u l d not and conveying the testified property doing. w o u l d have s i g n e d Although affairs. to that, Howard, t h e in t h a t was was the p r o p e r t y to signing the deed m o t h e r had not known Roger f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d anything Sherry have known what she e x e c u t e d the deed c o n v e y i n g Roger what she was that unable to handle her business s i g n i n g when she Howard, her They t e s t i f i e d a s k i n g t h e same q u e s t i o n s m u l t i p l e t i m e s . by placed t h a t the mother i n f r o n t of her. B u r n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was competent t o e x e c u t e t h e d e e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o u l d have r e j e c t e d his testimony the mother person. 2 on The on t h i s i s s u e on t h e b a s i s t h a t B u r n s s p o k e w i t h only trial a single court occasion could have and n e v e r met determined that her in Burns I n h i s r e p l y b r i e f , Howard s t a t e s t h a t B u r n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s p o k e w i t h t h e m o t h e r s e v e r a l t i m e s . Our r e v i e w o f B u r n s ' s t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l s t h a t he s t a t e d t h a t he telephoned t h e m o t h e r o n l y o n c e , and h i s t e s t i m o n y does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m o t h e r e v e r c a l l e d him. F u r t h e r m o r e , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he believed that the m o t h e r was competent based on "the c o n v e r s a t i o n " he had had w i t h h e r . 2 9 2091021 s i m p l y d i d n o t know t h e m o t h e r w e l l enough t o know w h e t h e r , the one occasion mother t r u l y reasonable he spoke "'"'had s u f f i c i e n t manner t h e n a t u r e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . Inc., 923 So. 991, 996 the have had g i v e n t h a t he was We witness on the telephone, c a p a c i t y to understand and e f f e c t ' " ' " 1994), trial quoting c o u r t was in other consider t h e a t t o r n e y who cases). any bias prepared i t . t h a t G a t t i s was in t h a t she the competent t o execute i t s role as reject her testimony Smith, 887 So. 257, as being 262 not the deed. fact-finder, credible. ( A l a . C i v . App. signed was See 2003), However, able to free to Smith v. i n which court wrote: "'"The o r e t e n u s r u l e i s g r o u n d e d upon t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y i t has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . " ' Ex p a r t e Anonymous, 803 10 only t e s t i f i e d t h a t , at t h a t e v a l u a t e G a t t i s ' s demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y , and i t was this 2d i n t e s t i f y i n g t o the v a l i d i t y of the deed, t i m e , t h e m o t h e r was 2d the T i m b e r & Mgmt., t o t e s t i f y as t o what h a p p e n e d when t h e m o t h e r court, in a of e x e c u t i n g turn free to r e c o g n i z e , as Howard a r g u e s , trial the ( q u o t i n g W i l s o n v. Wehunt, 631 So. t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d and the her Ex p a r t e C h r i s L a n g l e y 2d a t 1105 (Ala. Furthermore, B u r n s may with on 2091021 So. 2d 542, 546 ( A l a . 2001) (quoting H a l l v. M a z z o n e , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . Thus, t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e o r e t e n u s r u l e does n o t a p p l y t o t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e she p r e s e n t e d t h e only testimony and, therefore, the f a c t s are undisputed, i s incorrect. The t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d b o t h t h e m o t h e r ' s t e s t i m o n y on d i r e c t examination and on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , and i t h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y . " The trial testimony court was free to give l e s s weight b e c a u s e i t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d to Gattis's t h a t she h a d n e v e r met t h e m o t h e r o r s p o k e n w i t h h e r p r e v i o u s l y and, as a r e s u l t , did n o t have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h truly allowed her to know t h e m o t h e r t h a t w o u l d have whether u n d e r s t o o d what she was e x e c u t i n g . have considered the mother actually The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o c o u l d the p o t e n t i a l b i a s of G a t t i s i n testifying t h a t t h e m o t h e r a p p e a r e d t o have t h e c a p a c i t y t o e x e c u t e t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d , g i v e n t h a t , t o have t e s t i f i e d G a t t i s w o u l d have been a d m i t t i n g otherwise, t h a t she k n o w i n g l y allowed the mother t o e x e c u t e t h e deed d e s p i t e t h e mother's i n a b i l i t y to u n d e r s t a n d what she was doing. The t r i a l c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d that G a t t i s ' s testimony given o f R o g e r and S h e r r y the testimony inability to conduct her business court likewise was exaggerated, as t o t h e m o t h e r ' s affairs, and as c o n f u s i o n and memory p r o b l e m s , and R o g e r ' s t e s t i m o n y 11 to her that the 2091021 m o t h e r was placed i n such a s t a t e t h a t i n f r o n t of We she would s i g n any her. a l s o note t h a t the t e s t i m o n y of the t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l s who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r had, she intended competency t o to leave However, t h a t her for years, t o l d them A l a . 493, 496, t e s t i m o n y d i d not 7 So. require See 2d 259, the trial d e e d any at the more t h a n t i m e she i n Wells executed the i t required the permanent i n n a t u r e . and she was procured lucid largely p r e s e n t e d to her Based on at as for the as experienced trial court to incompetency expressed a d e s i r e to p e r m a n e n t i n c o m p e t e n c e had the a court, I t s i m p l y does n o t f o l l o w t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e m o t h e r p r e v i o u s l y had h o u s e t o Howard, h e r (1942). S e p t e m b e r 2007 c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r had n o t s u f f e r e d f r o m an t h a t was her McKinney 262 t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m o t h e r had a lucid interval that h o u s e t o Howard i s e v i d e n c e o f e x e c u t e t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 d e e d . v. W e a t h e r f o r d , 242 her document time result the of September Howard's leave subsided 2007 deed, efforts, was execution. foregoing, f a i l e d to demonstrate a b a s i s we conclude that Howard f o r f i n d i n g e r r o r i n the 12 has trial 2091021 court's judgment. As a r e s u l t , that j u d g m e n t i s due t o be affirmed. AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 13 writing.

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.