A.J. Brown v. Emily Brown

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/16/11 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 be 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100205 A.J. Brown v. Emily Brown Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t (CV-06-282) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . A . J . Brown ("A.J.") a p p e a l s deeds executed 2006, on by R o b e r t the ground that Barry they f r o m a j u d g m e n t c a n c e l i n g two Brown ("R.B.") had r e s u l t e d e x e r c i s i n g undue i n f l u e n c e o v e r R.B. on J u l y 2 1 , from A.J.'s We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l i n 2100205 p a r t and a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l R.B. and E m i l y Brown court. ("Emily") m a r r i e d 1 i n 1952 and had four c h i l d r e n ; A.J. i s the youngest of those four c h i l d r e n . M a r c h 12, 2006, R.B. s u f f e r e d a s t r o k e . On M a r c h 28, 2006, t h e DeKalb Probate Court Robert Donald guardians appointments R.B.; extended executed two 25, 2006, conservator executed On 26, and last an the On o t h e r was was f o r R.B. their July of their 2006, of the a quitclaim August and appointments 21, appointed On siblings, conservators l a n d t o A . J . ; one attorney guardian of h i s extension 2006, and beyond t h a t date. d e e d and one temporary the deeds c o n v e y i n g a warranty July as however, e x p i r e d on May were n o t was a p p o i n t e d A . J . and Brown, t o s e r v e for On to 7, R.B. deeds deed. serve 2006, On as R.B. a deed c o n v e y i n g p r o p e r t y t o E m i l y . August 29, 2006, Emily sued A.J. and R.B. in the T h i s i s t h e s e c o n d t i m e A . J . and h i s m o t h e r , E m i l y Brown, have been b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t . R.B., who was A . J . ' s f a t h e r and E m i l y ' s h u s b a n d , d i e d on O c t o b e r 12, 2007, and E m i l y f i l e d i n the DeKalb Probate Court a p e t i t i o n to probate a w i l l t h a t R.B. had e x e c u t e d i n 1957. A . J . f i l e d a c o n t e s t o f t h e 1957 w i l l i n t h e D e K a l b P r o b a t e C o u r t . The w i l l c o n t e s t was l a t e r removed t o t h e D e K a l b C i r c u i t C o u r t . The D e K a l b C i r c u i t C o u r t t h e n e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f E m i l y , and A . J . a p p e a l e d . I n Brown v. Brown, 21 So. 3d 1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s c o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Emily. 1 2 2100205 DeKalb Circuit stated claims Court. In her complaint, seeking the cancellation 2006, d e e d s c o n v e y i n g property seeking A.J. claims damages seeking from of f r o m R.B. based on of the cancellation as amended, the two to A.J. various July Emily July and claims theories. 21, 21, 2006, Her deeds a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e d e e d s were due t o be c a n c e l e d on t h e g r o u n d s (1) that property they purported i n which she to convey, without her owned a h o m e s t e a d i n t e r e s t ; consent, (2) that t h e y had r e s u l t e d f r o m A . J . ' s e x e r c i s i n g undue i n f l u e n c e o v e r R.B.; and (3) t h a t t h e y were e x e c u t e d the r e q u i s i t e mental R.B., who and A.J. allegations when he lacked competency. was guardian, by R.B. of E m i l y ' s represented filed by separate complaint. his conservator answers In a d d i t i o n , denying they and the jointly f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m s t a t i n g a c l a i m seeking the cancellation o f t h e A u g u s t 7, f r o m R.B. E m i l y and 2006, d e e d c o n v e y i n g property to c l a i m s s e e k i n g damages f r o m E m i l y b a s e d on various d i e d on Probate theories. R.B. Court appointed a October 12, 2007, and the special a d m i n i s t r a t o r of DeKalb his estate. The s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r moved t o s u b s t i t u t e R.B.'s e s t a t e as 3 a 2100205 p a r t y i n t h i s a c t i o n , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t On March summary 13, 2008, judgment cancellation f r o m R.B. the s p e c i a l with respect a d m i n i s t r a t o r moved t o R.B.'s claim Although for a seeking o f t h e A u g u s t 7, 2006, d e e d c o n v e y i n g to Emily. motion. the property t h e r e c o r d does n o t a p p e a r t o contain a p l e a d i n g i n which the s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r a s s e r t e d a claim seeking deeds the c a n c e l l a t i o n conveying property from o f t h e two J u l y R.B. to 2 1 , 2006, A.J., the record c o n t a i n s a m o t i o n t h a t was f i l e d b y t h e s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r on A p r i l such order 2, 2008, s e e k i n g a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o a c l a i m . On May 23, 2008, granting the special the t r i a l court entered an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s summary-judgment motion w i t h respect t o h i s c l a i m seeking the c a n c e l l a t i o n of the August represented therefore, deed. 7, 2006, deed on by a c o n s e r v a t o r the ground and g u a r d i a n l a c k e d t h e power t o e x e c u t e However, t h e May administrator's 23, 2008, order that R.B. was on t h a t d a t e a n d , t h e A u g u s t 7, denied the 2006, special summary-judgment m o t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s c l a i m s e e k i n g t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f t h e two J u l y 2 1 , 2006, deeds because the represented trial by a court concluded conservator that and g u a r d i a n 4 R.B. on was the date not he 2100205 executed t h o s e deeds a n d t h a t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r R.B. was m e n t a l l y c o m p e t e n t when he executed those deeds. Subsequently, Emily was appointed e x e c u t r i x o f R.B.'s e s t a t e , a n d h i s e s t a t e was r e a l i g n e d as a p l a i n t i f f . A . J . t h e n moved f o r a j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o R.B.'s estate on t h e g r o u n d t h a t R.B.'s e s t a t e h a d n o t p l e a d e d c l a i m s a g a i n s t A . J . , and t h e t r i a l any court granted that motion. On J u l y 2, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t b i f u r c a t e d t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s f o r t r i a l . The t r i a l court ordered that Emily's s e e k i n g c a n c e l l a t i o n o f t h e two J u l y 2 1 , 2006, d e e d s property sitting claims conveying f r o m R.B. t o A . J . w o u l d be t r i e d b y t h e t r i a l without adjudicated, a jury a l l other and t h a t , pending after claims those would court claims were be t r i e d by a jury. Emily's claims seeking c a n c e l l a t i o n o f t h e two J u l y 2 1 , 2006, d e e d s were t r i e d i n a b e n c h t r i a l on F e b r u a r y and April filed 27 a n d 28, 2010. I n May 2010, E m i l y posttrial entitled briefs. to prevail and A . J . In a d d i t i o n to arguing on t h e m e r i t s with 18 a n d 19, respect each t h a t he was to Emily's c l a i m s s e e k i n g c a n c e l l a t i o n o f t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, d e e d s , A . J . 5 2100205 asserted in his posttrial b r i e f that he was entitled to a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t E m i l y h a d n e v e r owned any i n t e r e s t i n the p r o p e r t y deeds, t h a t was t h e s u b j e c t o f one o f t h e J u l y 21, 2006, i . e . , the quitclaim deed, because, e v i d e n c e h a d e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t ( 1 ) R.B. he and E m i l y said, the had e x e c u t e d two d e e d s , one on December 27, 2002, and t h e o t h e r on J a n u a r y 2, 2003, i n w h i c h t h e y h a d d e e d e d t o A . J . and h i s s o n , s u b j e c t to l i f e was estates reserved the subject that Emily and E m i l y , the property could 27, not 2002, reserve and a life January 2, estate 2003, deeds. Thus, A . J . i n t e r e s t i n the property t h a t was J u l y , 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d r e g a r d l e s s J u l y 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d was On A u g u s t 12, 2010, the t r i a l adjudicating Emily's claims 21, 2006, judgment estate and A . J . and h i s s o n became t h e owners o f t h e e n t i r e fee-simple the and, i n i t i n the a r g u e d , upon R.B.'s d e a t h on O c t o b e r 12, 2007, h i s l i f e expired that o f t h e J u l y 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d and ( 2 ) h a d n e v e r owned an i n t e r e s t i n t h a t p r o p e r t y therefore, December by R.B. deeds. seeking In p e r t i n e n t states: 6 the subject of of whether the valid. court entered a judgment c a n c e l l a t i o n of the J u l y part, the August 12, 2010, 2100205 " [ R . B . ] d i e d on O c t o b e r 12, 2007. On M a r c h 12, 2006, he s u f f e r e d a m a s s i v e s t r o k e t h a t l e f t him s e v e r e l y p a r a l y z e d . As a r e s u l t o f t h e s t r o k e , he was initially h o s p i t a l i z e d at Erlanger Medical C e n t e r i n C h a t t a n o o g a , T e n n e s s e e , l a t e r moved t o S i s k i n R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C e n t e r , and t h e n t o S t a n d i f e r Place Nursing Home in Chattanooga, where he remained, except f o r a four-day stay w i t h A.J. i n May 2006, u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 28, 2006, a t w h i c h t i m e he r e t u r n e d t o h i s home i n D e K a l b C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . "[R.B.] accumulated s u b s t a n t i a l land holdings i n D e K a l b C o u n t y d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e , some by p u r c h a s e and some by i n h e r i t a n c e f r o m h i s f a m i l y . The deeds t h a t t h e c o u r t i s a s k e d t o s e t a s i d e c o n v e y e d 1285 a c r e s o f f a r m l a n d t o A . J . v a l u e d a t 1.5 to 2 million dollars. Other property remaining in [ R . B . ' s ] name a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h c o n s i s t e d o f a cabin, two undeveloped lots, and a tract c o n t a i n i n g 114 a c r e s . The m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d on 6 9 - a c r e t r a c t was c o n v e y e d by [ R . B . ] t o [ E m i l y ] , p r i o r to h i s death. " [ R . B . ] and [ E m i l y ] were m a r r i e d i n 1952 and had f o u r c h i l d r e n : C i n d y Brown Meadows, R o b e r t D o n a l d Brown, C h r i s Brown, and A r t h u r James Brown, a/k/a A.J. Over t h e years, [ R . B . ] and [ E m i l y ] Brown conveyed v a r i o u s t r a c t s of property to their c h i l d r e n , and t h e y a l l l i v e d on f a m i l y p r o p e r t y i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o e a c h o t h e r . [ R . B . ] , a l s o known as ' B e a r ' was a b i g man w i t h a s t r o n g p e r s o n a l i t y and was c o n s i d e r e d h e a d o f t h e Brown f a m i l y . O w n e r s h i p o f l a n d was i m p o r t a n t t o him, and h i s use o f t h e l a n d was h i s and [ E m i l y ' s ] p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f income f o r s e v e r a l years p r i o r to the time of h i s s t r o k e . T h i s income c o n s i s t e d o f s e l l i n g f i s h i n g and h u n t i n g r i g h t s on t h e l a n d , s e l l i n g t i m b e r f r o m t h e l a n d , and r e c e i v i n g payments f r o m t h e U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e [ ( ' t h e U S D A ' ) ] by p l a c i n g c e r t a i n l a n d i n t o i t s f a r m and t i m b e r p r o g r a m s . [R.B. and E m i l y ] s o l d a t r a c t o f l a n d i n 1992 f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l sum, u s i n g t h e p r o c e e d s t o pay o f f a l o a n and t o b u i l d 7 2100205 the m a r i t a l residence. "The f i r s t b a s i s a s s e r t e d b y [ E m i l y ] f o r s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e s u b j e c t conveyances i s t h a t t h e lands c o n v e y e d b y [ R . B . ] t o A . J . were p a r t o f [R.B. a n d E m i l y ' s ] h o m e s t e a d a n d c o u l d n o t be c o n v e y e d b y [ R . B . ] w i t h o u t h e r a s s e n t . A . J . i n s i s t s , however, that t h e homestead i s l i m i t e d to the marital r e s i d e n c e a n d t h e 6 9 - a c r e t r a c t upon w h i c h i t i s l o c a t e d , a t r a c t t h a t i s s e p a r a t e and a p a r t from and not c o n t i g u o u s t o t h e lands conveyed t o him by [R.B.] " [ E m i l y ] maintains that a [']homestead['] i s the home where a f a m i l y r e s i d e s a n d a n y a d j o i n i n g o r appurtenant l a n d used f o r t h e f a m i l y ' s comfort and sustenance. She p o i n t s to the fact that a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f [R.B. a n d E m i l y ' s ] annual income a t t h e t i m e o f [R.B.'s] s t r o k e came f r o m USDA payments, and t h a t t h e l a n d t h a t produced t h e s e p a y m e n t s i s a p o r t i o n o f t h e l a n d t h a t was c o n v e y e d by [R.B.] t o A . J . on J u l y 2 1 , 2006. Once t h e s e c o n v e y a n c e s t o A . J . o c c u r r e d , t h e USDA p a y m e n t s went to him. [Emily] maintains t h a t because t h e l a n d conveyed t o A . J . was u s e d f o r the family's s u s t e n a n c e , i t i s p a r t o f t h e homestead. "By s t a t u t e , no c o n v e y a n c e o f t h e h o m e s t e a d b y a married person shall be v a l i d without the v o l u n t a r y s i g n a t u r e and assent o f t h e husband o r w i f e . S e c t i o n 6-10-3, Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) . I n c o n s t r u i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f [']homestead['] as u s e d i n t h i s s t a t u t e , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s generally f o u n d i t t o be l i m i t e d to property c o n s i s t i n g o f a home a n d l a n d n o t e x c e e d i n g i n v a l u e $5,000 a n d 160 a c r e s i n a r e a . See Sims v . Cox, 611 So. 2d 339 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . "Given the f a c t that the m a r i t a l residence of [R.B. a n d E m i l y ] a n d t h e 6 9 - a c r e t r a c t on w h i c h i t is located f a r exceeds i n value t h e $5,000 limitation, such residence and acreage being 8 2100205 e s t i m a t e d t o have a v a l u e o f no l e s s t h a n $300,000 t o $350,000, and t h e f u r t h e r f a c t t h a t i t i s l o c a t e d on a t r a c t s e p a r a t e and a p a r t f r o m t h e l a n d t h a t was conveyed to A.J., the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the land c o n v e y e d t o A . J . i s n o t p a r t o f t h e h o m e s t e a d and t h a t the conveyance d i d not r e q u i r e the s i g n a t u r e of [Emily]. "Next, [Emily] contends t h a t the f r o m [R.B.] t o A . J . r e s u l t e d f r o m undue A.J. denies t h i s a l l e g a t i o n . conveyance influence. "The r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e i s g u i d e d by some w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w . The r e l a t i o n o f p a r e n t and c h i l d i s p e r se a c o n f i d e n t i a l one w i t h t h e law p r e s u m i n g t h a t t h e p a r e n t i s t h e d o m i n a n t s p i r i t . I n s u c h i n s t a n c e s , t h e law f u r t h e r p r e s u m e s t h a t any t r a n s a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t and c h i l d i s f r e e f r o m undue i n f l u e n c e . I f , h o w e v e r , i t i s made to appear to the reasonable s a t i s f a c t i o n of the c o u r t t h a t t h e c h i l d , and n o t t h e p a r e n t , i s t h e dominant s p i r i t , then the p r e s u m p t i o n i s r e v e r s e d and t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f s h i f t s t o t h e c h i l d who has b e n e f i t t e d f r o m t h e t r a n s a c t i o n t o show t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n was f a i r , j u s t , and e q u i t a b l e i n e v e r y r e s p e c t and t h a t i t was n o t t h e r e s u l t o f undue i n f l u e n c e . C h a n d l e r v. C h a n d l e r , 514 So. 2d 1307 (Ala. 1 9 8 7 ) ; D i l l a r d v. H o v a t e r , 254 A l a . 616, 49 So. 2d 151 (1950). "Undue i n f l u e n c e w i t h r e s p e c t to g i f t s and c o n v e y a n c e s i n t e r v i v o s may e x i s t without e i t h e r c o e r c i o n o r f r a u d . I t may r e s u l t e n t i r e l y f r o m t h e confidential relation, without activity in the d i r e c t i o n o f e i t h e r c o e r c i o n o r f r a u d on t h e p a r t o f the b e n e f i c i a r y o c c u p y i n g the p o s i t i o n of dominant influence. I t i s upon t h e p e r s o n o c c u p y i n g the p o s i t i o n of dominant i n f l u e n c e not o n l y t o a b s t a i n f r o m d e c e i t and d u r e s s b u t t o a f f i r m a t i v e l y g u a r d t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e w e a k e r p a r t y so t h a t t h e i r d e a l i n g may be upon a p l a n e o f e q u a l i t y and a t arm's l e n g t h . C h a n d l e r v. C h a n d l e r , s u p r a . 9 2100205 " A . J . has c i t e d f o r t h e c o u r t ' s consideration t h e r e c e n t l y d e c i d e d c a s e o f Murphy v. M o t h e r w a y , [[Ms. 2090037, J u l y 23, 2010] So. 3d (Ala. C i v . App. 2010)], f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t there must be i n t e r f e r e n c e by t h e a l l e g e d l y d o m i n a n t p a r t y and s u c h i n t e r f e r e n c e must go b e y o n d mere c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the v o l u n t a r y d i r e c t i o n s of the weaker p a r t y . The Murphy c a s e , however d e a l s p r i m a r i l y w i t h a w i l l c o n t e s t , and i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s i n a w i l l c o n t e s t t h a n i n an i n t e r v i v o s t r a n s f e r . C h a n d l e r v. C h a n d l e r , s u p r a . The c o u r t f i n d s n o t h i n g i n Murphy, s u p r a , t h a t c h a n g e s the well established p r i n c i p l e s set forth in Chandler, supra. " I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r [R.B.] was t h e d o m i n a n t s p i r i t i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n b e t w e e n him and A . J . on J u l y 21, 2006, t h e s t a t e o f [R.B.'s] p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l h e a l t h becomes a p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n . " [ R . B . ] was 72 y e a r s o f age a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . T h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s t r o k e he s u f f e r e d on M a r c h 12, 2006, was a h e m o r r h a g i c s t r o k e t h a t destroyed the thalamus p o r t i o n of h i s b r a i n . The s e v e r e p a r a l y s i s t h a t he suffered l e f t him b e d r i d d e n e x c e p t on t h o s e o c c a s i o n s when he was removed f r o m t h e bed w i t h a l i f t . H i s s p e e c h was i m p a i r e d , and h i s c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n damaged. F o r some p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e s t r o k e he was i n c a p a b l e o f r e c e i v i n g nourishment except through a feeding tube. " D r . W i l l i a m H. Coleman, a m e d i c a l d o c t o r who a l s o h o l d s a m a s t e r s d e g r e e and a PhD i n anatomy, t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n j u r y t o t h e t h a l a m u s s u c h as [R.B.] s u f f e r e d i m p a i r s s h o r t - t e r m memory, d e s t r o y s one's a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m e x e c u t i v e f u n c t i o n s , and a f f e c t s one's ability to reason and understand the ramifications of their decisions. Dr. Coleman t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n h i s o p i n i o n a p e r s o n who s u f f e r e d a stroke like t h e one [R.B.] s u f f e r e d was not c a p a b l e o f m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s a b o u t p r o p e r t y , and t h a t because of the total d e p e n d e n c y c a u s e d by the 10 2100205 stroke, others. one could be very easily influenced by "A letter from one of [R.B.'s] treating p h y s i c i a n s d a t e d A p r i l 18, 2006, s t a t e d t h a t [R.B.] was u n a b l e t o manage any f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s and t h a t he n e e d e d a g u a r d i a n . A . J . and h i s b r o t h e r , R o b e r t D o n a l d Brown, t h e r e a f t e r s e r v e d f o r a p e r i o d as t h e i r f a t h e r ' s g u a r d i a n s and c o n s e r v a t o r s , and, i n that capacity, transacted business a f f a i r s that w o u l d n o r m a l l y have b e e n h a n d l e d by t h e i r f a t h e r . A . J . a l s o t r a n s a c t e d some a f f a i r s f o r h i s f a t h e r p u r s u a n t t o a power o f a t t o r n e y . A . J . and h i s b r o t h e r a l s o made h e a l t h d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e i r f a t h e r at h i s request. " T h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t [R.B.] was c a p a b l e a t times a f t e r the stroke of conversing r a t i o n a l l y with f a m i l y members, c a r e g i v e r s , a n d a t t o r n e y s , and t h a t he s c o r e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y on a ' m i n i - m e n t a l exam.' A p s y c h i a t r i s t e x a m i n e d [R.B.] on J u l y 22, 2006, t h e day after t h e c o n v e y a n c e s were executed, and c o n c l u d e d t h a t he d i d n o t have i m p a i r m e n t o f m e n t a l f u n c t i o n s on t h a t d a t e . The p s y c h i a t r i s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t [R.B.] e x p r e s s e d a d e s i r e t o make a w i l l o r o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n o f some l a n d b u t made no m e n t i o n o f h a v i n g made c o n v e y a n c e s t h e day b e f o r e . The p s y c h i a t r i s t was unaware a t t h e t i m e t h a t [R.B.] h a d made t h e c o n v e y a n c e s . " [ R . B . ' s ] c o g n i t i v e s t a t u s was n o t c o n s t a n t . The n u r s e s ' n o t e s a t S t a n d i f e r P l a c e f o r June 28, 2008, r e f l e c t t h a t [R.B.'s] c o g n i t i v e s t a t u s a n d s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y had d e t e r i o r a t e d . Their notes f o r J u l y 10, 2006, s t a t e d t h a t [R.B.] was somewhat c o n f u s e d , and t h e n o t e s f o r J u l y 20, 2006, s t a t e t h a t he h a d d i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g words and f i n i s h i n g t h o u g h t s . "[Emily] t e s t i f i e d t h a t her husband enjoyed playing solitaire prior t o t h e s t r o k e b u t was i n c a p a b l e o f d o i n g so a f t e r w a r d . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t l i k e t o l e a v e h i s room a t S t a n d i f e r 11 2100205 P l a c e , b u t on o c c a s i o n s when he d i d s o a n d she w o u l d r o l l h i m b a c k t o h i s room, he s o m e t i m e s w o u l d n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e room as b e i n g h i s room. One o f t h e s o n s , R o b e r t [ D o n a l d ] Brown, t e s t i f i e d t h a t one d a y h i s f a t h e r f a i l e d t o r e c o g n i z e h i s g r a n d s o n whom he had b e e n v e r y c l o s e t o b e f o r e t h e s t r o k e . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s f a t h e r a c t e d much l i k e a c h i l d . " I t i s undisputed that following the stroke, [R.B.] became t o t a l l y d e p e n d e n t on o t h e r s f o r a l l o f h i s needs, and t h a t c o n d i t i o n c o n t i n u e d u n t i l h i s d e a t h . He r e l i e d upon o t h e r s t o make h i s h e a l t h - c a r e d e c i s i o n s a n d t o a t t e n d t o h i s b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s . One o f t h e p e o p l e he r e l i e d upon most h e a v i l y was A . J . "Considering the evidence as a w h o l e a n d particularly [R.B.'s] s t a t e o f t o t a l d e p e n d e n c e on others f o l l o w i n g the stroke, the court i s reasonably s a t i s f i e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t h i s dominion i n the p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p had ceased a t the time o f t h e conveyances here i n q u e s t i o n and t h a t , i n h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h A . J . , A . J . h a d come t o occupy t h e p o s i t i o n o f dominance. "It follows from t h i s conclusion c o n v e y a n c e s t o A . J . b y h i s f a t h e r on J u l y a r e p r e s u m e d t o be t h e p r o d u c t o f undue and A . J . has t h e burden o f showing t r a n s a c t i o n was f a i r , j u s t , a n d e q u i t a b l e respect. that the 2 1 , 2006, influence that the i n every "A.J. has o f f e r e d c r e d i t a b l e evidence t h a t h i s f a t h e r had e x p r e s s e d h i s i n t e n t i o n f o r [A.J.] t o have t h e l a n d s that were t h e s u b j e c t of the c o n v e y a n c e s b e c a u s e [R.B.] b e l i e v e d t h a t A . J . w o u l d h o l d t h e l a n d s a n d k e e p them t o g e t h e r f o r f u t u r e generations. A.J. t e s t i f i e d that, consistent with t h a t e x p r e s s i o n o f i n t e n t , h i s f a t h e r r e q u e s t e d and i n s i s t e d t h a t he s e c u r e t h e s e r v i c e s o f an a t t o r n e y t o p r e p a r e t h e deeds. "A.J. did, i n fact, make a r r a n g e m e n t s 12 f o r and 2100205 pay an a t t o r n e y t o p r e p a r e t h e d e e d s and t o come t o S t a n d i f e r P l a c e t o o v e r s e e t h e i r e x e c u t i o n by h i s father. " R o b e r t [ D o n a l d ] Brown t e s t i f i e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t A.J. 'hounded' t h e i r f a t h e r t o make d e e d s , and [Emily] t e s t i f i e d t h a t on one o c c a s i o n when she w a l k e d i n t o h e r h u s b a n d ' s room a t S t a n d i f e r P l a c e , A . J . was b e n t o v e r [R.B.] t e l l i n g h i m what p r o p e r t y he s h o u l d d e e d t o [R.B. and E m i l y ' s ] s o n , C h r i s . "Because there i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of [R.B.'s] e x p r e s s e d d e s i r e f o r A . J . t o have t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y , the c o u r t i s not convinced t h a t the conveyances t o A.J. r e s u l t e d from f r a u d or c o e r c i o n . The c o u r t f i n d s , h o w e v e r , t h a t A . J . has failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence and has failed to show that the c o n v e y a n c e s t o him were f a i r , j u s t , and e q u i t a b l e i n e v e r y r e s p e c t . M o r e o v e r , A . J . has f a i l e d t o show t h a t , i n a r r a n g i n g f o r t h e c o n v e y a n c e s t o be made, he was a f f i r m a t i v e l y g u a r d i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s o f h i s father. "By t a k i n g t i t l e t o t h e l a n d s and, thereby, b e c o m i n g t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e USDA p a y m e n t s , A . J . d e p r i v e d h i s f a t h e r and m o t h e r o f t h o s e p a y m e n t s w h i c h had b e e n a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e i r t o t a l income i n t h e recent past. I n 2005, t h e year immediately p r i o r t o [R.B.'s] s t r o k e , [R.B. and E m i l y ' s ] income t a x r e t u r n r e p o r t e d t o t a l t a x a b l e income o f $13,859, o f w h i c h $13,265 came f r o m USDA payments. [Emily] t e s t i f i e d t h a t her husband had f r e q u e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a y m e n t s f r o m USDA w o u l d be t h e i r r e t i r e m e n t i n c o m e . The t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h o s e p a y m e n t s t o [R.B.] and [ E m i l y ] a f t e r t h e c o n v e y a n c e s t o A . J . was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s u c h e x p r e s s i o n s o f [R.B.'s] i n t e n t . T h e r e i s a l s o e v i d e n c e t h a t [R.B.] and [ E m i l y ] had d i s c u s s e d d e v i s i n g t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s t o A . J . a t t h e i r d e a t h s , a s c e n a r i o t h a t w o u l d have a l l o w e d A . J . t o e v e n t u a l l y own t h e l a n d s b u t a l s o a l l o w e d [R.B.] and [ E m i l y ] t o r e t a i n t h e income f r o m 13 2100205 them d u r i n g t h e i r lifetimes. "For the reasons s e t f o r t h , the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e deeds e x e c u t e d by [R.B.] t o A . J . ... on J u l y 21, 2006, were t h e p r o d u c t o f undue i n f l u e n c e on t h e p a r t of A.J. ... and a r e due be s e t a s i d e and vacated. I t i s unnecessary f o r the c o u r t to address t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r [R.B.] was m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t to execute the deeds. " A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s a d j u d g e d and d e c r e e d t h a t t h e deeds e x e c u t e d by R.B. ... t o A . J . ... b e a r i n g d a t e o f J u l y 21, 2006, ... a r e h e r e b y s e t a s i d e and vacated." After the trial court entered the August 12, judgment, A.J. f i l e d a p o s t t r i a l motion a s k i n g the t r i a l to r e c o n s i d e r t h e A u g u s t 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t . He A l a . R. 15(b) i s s u e whether E m i l y alleged that the owned an i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t was court also f i l e d motion pursuant to Rule 15(b), motion C i v . P. 2010, A.J.'s had a Rule ever the s u b j e c t of the J u l y 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d had b e e n t r i e d w i t h o u t objection by that Emily. The Rule 15(b) motion further e v i d e n c e had e s t a b l i s h e d ( 1 ) t h a t R.B. deeds d a t e d December 27, to A.J. and h i s s o n , and E m i l y , the p r o p e r t y in that and E m i l y had J a n u a r y 2, 2003, the executed conveying s u b j e c t t o l i f e e s t a t e s r e s e r v e d by 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d and interest 2002, and alleged t h a t was the (2) that property and, 14 s u b j e c t of the Emily had therefore, R.B. July 21, n e v e r owned could not an have 2100205 reserved a l i f e R.B.'s death expired and entire e s t a t e i n i t . Thus, a c c o r d i n g on October 2007, and A.J. 12, son had fee-simple his interest in R.B.'s life become t h e that to s t a t e a c l a i m by had A.J. the v a l i d . The Rule pleadings n e v e r owned an i n t e r e s t i n t h a t p r o p e r t y and ( 2 ) t o enter the ownership of t h a t the t r i a l t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e A u g u s t 12, 2010, motion. Although because parties' c l a i m s , see C i v . App. of a l l the and j u d g m e n t as a disposed c o u r t had final fewer 889 transferred 15 15(b) not a than So. 2d final a l l the 588, 590 that disposes parties."), not c e r t i f i e d the August judgment pursuant A.J. nonetheless court of f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one t h e supreme c o u r t on November 16, supreme j u d g m e n t was c o n t r o v e r s i e s between the the t r i a l R. C i v . P., j u d g m e n t and h i s R u l e H e a s t o n v. N a b o r s , 2 0 0 4 ) ("A claims and a l t h o u g h 2010, i t had property. court denied A.J.'s motion t h e A u g u s t 12, 2010, judgment (Ala. a determination of Emily On O c t o b e r 6, 2010, the of that an o r d e r d e t e r m i n i n g Ala. had regardless c o u r t ( 1 ) t o amend t h e seeking upon estate owners property w h e t h e r t h e J u l y 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d was 15(b) motion asked the t r i a l to A.J., to Rule 12, 54(b), f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal 2010. the On December 1, appeal to this to 2010, court 2100205 p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. On J a n u a r y 27, 2011, a t t h e b e h e s t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e t r i a l j u d g e e n t e r e d an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g to c e r t i f y the August 12, 2010, j u d g m e n t as a final j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. However, t h e p r e m a t u r e November 16, 2010, n o t i c e o f a p p e a l A . J . had f i l e d had divested the trial court jurisdiction. See B u s b y v. L e w i s , 993 So. 2d 31, 34 App. Consequently, 2008). purporting certify the January (Ala. Civ. 2011, j u d g m e n t as a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) was void. cause to certify the i t s August pursuant certifying on A u g u s t trial to Rule court 2011, f o r seven 12, 2010, 54(b). The the August 9, 4, c o u r t ' s August order 2010, A c c o r d i n g l y , on A u g u s t trial 27, of 12, Id. to the on this days judgment trial 12, 2010, as court c o u r t remanded the so that i t could a final judgment entered j u d g m e n t as a f i n a l an order judgment 2011. Because the t r i a l review i s governed c o u r t r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus, by t h e f o l l o w i n g principles: "'"'[W]hen a t r i a l court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s findings on disputed facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s or m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 16 our 2100205 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). '"The p r e s u m p t i o n of c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l c o u r t to s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985)). ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ore tenus r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the facts.' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC Inc., 985 A.J. July 21, says, to So. 2d 924, 929 v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f Club, ( A l a . 2007). argues t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n canceling 2006, undue deeds (1) t h e t r i a l based on the i n f l u e n c e because, c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e wrong s t a n d a r d of he proof d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r A . J . had become t h e d o m i n a n t p a r t y i n h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h R.B. and (2) t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t A . J . had become t h e d o m i n a n t party i n his relationship with In 1987), Chandler the v. supreme Chandler, court R.B. 514 held that So. a 2d 1307, plaintiff c a n c e l an i n t e r v i v o s t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r t y 1308 seeking from a parent c h i l d b a s e d on undue i n f l u e n c e meets h i s o r h e r i n i t i a l of proof by introducing sufficient 17 (Ala. evidence to to to a burden reasonably 2100205 s a t i s f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e c h i l d h a d become t h e d o m i n a n t party i n h i s or her r e l a t i o n s h i p with the parent: "The r e l a t i o n o f p a r e n t a n d c h i l d i s p e r se a c o n f i d e n t i a l one. The l a w p r e s u m e s t h a t t h e p a r e n t i s t h e dominant s p i r i t , b u t t h i s presumption i s not c o n c l u s i v e . 'Where i t i s made t o a p p e a r b y t h e p r o o f t h a t t h e c h i l d , and n o t t h e p a r e n t , i s t h e dominant s p i r i t , then t h e burden of proof i s s h i f t e d t o the former t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f a i r n e s s of the t r a n s a c t i o n , and t h a t i t was n o t t h e r e s u l t o f undue i n f l u e n c e . ' Dowe v . F a r l e y , 206 A l a . 4 2 1 , 422, 90 So. 2 9 1 , 292 ( 1 9 2 1 ) ; T i p t o n v . T i p t o n , 249 A l a . 537, 539, 32 So. 2d 32, 34 ( 1 9 4 7 ) . See a l s o , J o n e s v . B o o t h e , 270 Ala. 420, 119 So. 2d 203 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; O r t o n v . Gay, 285 A l a . 270, 231 So. 2d 305 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; W o l f e v . Thompson, 285 A l a . 745, 235 So. 2d 878 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . ... " "... The p a r t y s e e k i n g t o have t h e d e e d s e t a s i d e n e e d o n l y show t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e g r a n t e e was t h e d o m i n a n t p a r t y in a c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the grantor, whereupon t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e g r a n t e e t o show t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n was ' f a i r , j u s t , a n d e q u i t a b l e i n e v e r y r e s p e c t . ' B r o t h e r s v. Moore,... 349 So. 2d [1107,] 1109 [ ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ] . " (Emphasis added.) I n W i l s o n v. Wehunt, 631 So. 2d 991, supreme c o u r t vivos considered transfer a claim seeking of property discussed the proof necessary from 993 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , t h e to cancel a parent to a an i n t e r child and t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c h i l d has become t h e d o m i n a n t p a r t y i n h i s o r h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e 18 2100205 parent: " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t one a l l e g i n g d o m i n a n c e o f a c h i l d o v e r a p a r e n t must p r o v e t h a t ' t i m e and c i r c u m s t a n c e s have r e v e r s e d t h e o r d e r o f n a t u r e , so t h a t the dominion o f t h e p a r e n t has n o t merely c e a s e d , b u t has b e e n d i s p l a c e d , by s u b s e r v i e n c e t o t h e c h i l d . ' H a w t h o r n e v. J e n k i n s , 182 A l a . 255, 260, 62 So. 505, 506 (1913) ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) . ... B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 486 ( 6 t h ed. 1990) d e f i n e s ' d o m i n a t e ' as ' [ t ] o m a s t e r , t o r u l e , o r t o c o n t r o l . ' Thus, f o r t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f t o s h i f t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t o u r c a s e s r e q u i r e p r o o f o f more t h a n a r e v e r s a l of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e s o f p a r e n t as c a r e g i v e r and c h i l d as c a r e r e c i p i e n t ; t h e y r e q u i r e p r o o f t h a t t h e p a r e n t ' s w i l l has become s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e w i l l o f the c h i l d . I t i s a l s o c l e a r from our cases t h a t the mere r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p a r e n t and c h i l d a l o n e , e v e n when c o u p l e d w i t h some a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e c h i l d i n s e c u r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n of l e g a l papers for the parent, is not sufficient to prove s u b s e r v i e n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e p a r e n t , so as t o s h i f t t o t h e c h i l d t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g an a b s e n c e of undue i n f l u e n c e . " In the case p h y s i c i a n who d e g r e e and witness. Dr. us, Dr. right W i l l i a m H. Coleman, degree but a l s o a d e g r e e i n anatomy, t e s t i f i e d as an Coleman stroke the before n o t o n l y an M.D. a Ph.D. hemorrhagic destroyed has now testified on March lobe of the that 12, R.B. 2006, thalamus had that a a masters expert massive completely of h i s b r a i n . Dr. Coleman t e s t i f i e d t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r i g h t lobe of h i s thalamus, R.B., a f t e r h i s s t r o k e , would not have b e e n a b l e t o b a l a n c e a c h e c k b o o k o r m o n i t o r h i s f i n a n c e s . 19 2100205 According his t o Dr. Coleman, t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r i g h t l o b e o f thalamus information, and arrive that, deprived organize R.B. of the a b i l i t y to a t an o p i n i o n o f h i s own. Dr. Coleman he could D r . Coleman t e s t i f i e d that n e v e r have r e g a i n e d trial court of a influenced. the destruction o f R.B.'s t h a l a m u s c o u l d n o t be r e v e r s e d l o s t as a r e s u l t o f h i s The testified R.B. h a d t h e c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y s e v e n - o r e i g h t - y e a r - o l d c h i l d a n d c o u l d be e a s i l y r i g h t lobe in i t , c o r r e l a t e i t , r e a s o n b a s e d on i t , after h i s stroke, Finally, take of the and t h a t the cognitive a b i l i t i e s he h a d stroke. a l s o had before i t evidence indicating t h a t R.B. n e v e r h a n d l e d a n y o f h i s own b u s i n e s s a f f a i r s after his stroke, his l e f t s i d e , a n d t h a t he was p a r t i c u l a r l y d e p e n d e n t on A . J . The t h a t he was b e d r i d d e n , t h a t he was p a r a l y z e d evidence arrangements deeds and execution established not f o r an a t t o r n e y to by come to R.B. but trial sought court that t o prepare Standifer also arrangements w i t h o u t Emily's the only Place that A . J . had the July to made 26, 2006, oversee A . J . had on their made those k n o w l e d g e . The e v i d e n c e before a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , on J u l y 9, 2006, A . J . the assistance of the nurses 20 at Standifer Place i n 2100205 removing Emily Although f r o m R.B.'s room. t h e r e was a l s o e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the t r i a l court t h a t c o n f l i c t e d w i t h some o f t h e e v i d e n c e d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , t h e trial court credibility was the sole of witnesses judge of the f a c t s a n d was evidence. See Woods v . Woods, 653 So. 2d 312, 314 ( A l a . C i v . reasonably A.J. The e v i d e n c e to described s a t i s f y the t r i a l the conflicting above was s u f f i c i e n t t o c o u r t t h a t , a f t e r R.B.'s h a d become t h e d o m i n a n t p a r t y R.B. u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s reject the described 1994). and t o accept evidence App. above entitled and o f t h e stoke, i n h i s relationship with s e t f o r t h i n C h a n d l e r v. Chandler, s u p r a , a n d W i l s o n v . Wehunt, s u p r a . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e trial court's judgment i n s o f a r as i t c a n c e l e d t h e J u l y 21, 2006, deeds b a s e d on undue i n f l u e n c e . A.J. also argues that the t r i a l court d e n y i n g h i s R u l e 15(b) m o t i o n a s k i n g t h e t r i a l the p l e a d i n g s A.J. seeking the property quitclaim erred (1) i n c o u r t t o amend t o conform t o t h e evidence by adding a c l a i m by a determination that deed was the subject regardless q u i t c l a i m d e e d was v a l i d that Emily owned no i n t e r e s t i n of the J u l y of whether the J u l y 26, 2006, 21, 2006, a n d (2) i n f a i l i n g t o r u l e on t h a t 21 2100205 claim. R u l e 15(b) s t a t e s : "When i s s u e s n o t r a i s e d b y t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e t r i e d by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y s h a l l be t r e a t e d i n a l l r e s p e c t s as i f t h e y h a d b e e n raised i n the pleadings. Such amendment o f t h e pleadings as may be n e c e s s a r y t o c a u s e them t o conform t o t h e e v i d e n c e and t o r a i s e these i s s u e s may be made upon m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y a t a n y t i m e , e v e n a f t e r j u d g m e n t ; b u t f a i l u r e s o t o amend does not a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e t r i a l o f t h e s e i s s u e s . I f e v i d e n c e i s o b j e c t e d t o a t t h e t r i a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t i s n o t w i t h i n t h e i s s u e s made b y t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e c o u r t may a l l o w t h e p l e a d i n g s t o be amended a n d s h a l l do so f r e e l y when t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a c t i o n w i l l be s u b s e r v e d thereby and t h e o b j e c t i n g p a r t y f a i l s t o s a t i s f y t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f such evidence would prejudice the party i n maintaining the party's a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e upon t h e m e r i t s . The c o u r t may grant a continuance t o enable the o b j e c t i n g party t o meet s u c h e v i d e n c e . An amendment s h a l l n o t be r e f u s e d u n d e r s u b d i v i s i o n (a) a n d (b) o f t h i s r u l e s o l e l y b e c a u s e i t adds a c l a i m o r d e f e n s e , c h a n g e s a c l a i m o r d e f e n s e , o r w o r k s a c o m p l e t e change i n p a r t i e s . The C o u r t i s t o be l i b e r a l i n g r a n t i n g p e r m i s s i o n t o amend when j u s t i c e so r e q u i r e s . " (Emphasis added.) See a l s o R u l e 5 4 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. ("every final judgment s h a l l grant the r e l i e f t o which the party i n whose f a v o r i t i s r e n d e r e d i s e n t i t l e d , e v e n i f t h e p a r t y h a s not demanded s u c h r e l i e f i n the party's "'Rule 15(b) i s n o t p e r m i s s i v e : tried by e x p r e s s or implied consent 22 pleadings"). i t provides shall that issues be t r e a t e d as i f 2100205 raised So. i n the pleadings.'" Ammons v. T e s k e r M f g . C o r p . , 853 2d 210, 216 ( A l a . 2002) (quoting Hawk v. B a v a r i a n Works, 342 So. 2d 3 5 5 , 358 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ) . "'We a determination "as t o w h e t h e r on court's appeal a l s o note that [an] i s s u e h a s b e e n t r i e d b y express o r i m p l i e d consent under Rule the t r i a l Motor 15(b) i s a m a t t e r f o r s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n , w h i c h w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d absent an abuse [of that discretion]."'" Id. (quoting I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rehab. A s s o c s . , I n c . v . Adams, 613 So. 2d 1207, 1214 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , q u o t i n g 521 i n t u r n M c C o l l u m v. R e e v e s , So. 2d 13, 16 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . A.J. argues objection establishes Land S e r v i c e s , R.B. alone that evidence (1) t h a t , that was i n t r o d u c e d on J a n u a r y without 30, 1979, K r a f t I n c . ( " K r a f t " ) , e x e c u t e d a deed c o n v e y i n g t o the property described i n the July 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d a n d (2) t h a t , on December 27, 2002, a n d J a n u a r y 2, 2003, R.B. a n d E m i l y that was d e s c r i b e d A.J. e x e c u t e d deeds c o n v e y i n g t h e p r o p e r t y and h i s son s u b j e c t Emily. i n the July 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d t o to l i f e estates reserved b y R.B. a n d A . J . a r g u e s t h a t t h e 1979 d e e d f r o m K r a f t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t R.B. a c q u i r e d title solely t h a t was d e s c r i b e d i n t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d a n d , 23 i n h i s name t o t h e p r o p e r t y 2100205 that, therefore, Emily never owned any interest in that p r o p e r t y . A . J . f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t , b e c a u s e E m i l y d i d n o t own an i n t e r e s t i n that property, she c o u l d not reserve a life e s t a t e i n t h a t p r o p e r t y i n t h e December 27, 2002, and J a n u a r y 3, 2003, d e e d s . Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o A . J . , e v i d e n c e was without objection that whether t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d was never owned an established interest i n any (1) t h a t , of the admitted regardless valid, property d e s c r i b e d i n t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d and of Emily that was (2) t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , b y v i r t u e o f t h e December 27, 2002, and J a n u a r y 2, 2003, d e e d s , A . J . and h i s s o n became t h e owners o f t h e e n t i r e fee-simple i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d i n t h e J u l y 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d upon R.B.'s d e a t h on O c t o b e r 12, 2007. The flaw i n A . J . ' s argument i s that, although the 1979 d e e d e x e c u t e d b y K r a f t d e s c r i b e s some o f t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t was described i n t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d , i t does n o t describe a l l the property 2006, quitclaim described two deed. tracts t h a t was d e s c r i b e d i n t h e J u l y 21, The of T o w n s h i p 5 S o u t h , Range 10 July 21, property 2006, located quitclaim in Section East: " T r a c t 1 - The N o r t h 1/2 o f t h e SW 1/4 o f S e c t i o n 3, T o w n s h i p 5 S o u t h , Range 10 E a s t c o n t a i n i n g 80 a c r e s , 24 deed 3, 2100205 more o r l e s s . " T r a c t 2 - A l l o f t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e NW 1/4 o f S e c t i o n 3, T o w n s h i p 5 S o u t h , Range 10 [ E a s t ] , l y i n g w e s t o f t h e N o r f o l k S o u t h e r n R a i l r o a d c o n t a i n i n g 105 a c r e s , more o r l e s s . " On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e p o r t i o n o f S e c t i o n 3, T o w n s h i p 5 S o u t h , Range 10 E a s t d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1979 d e e d e x e c u t e d by Kraft i s : "The N o r t h w e s t 1/2 o f t h e E a s t 1/2 t h a t l i e s w e s t o f Brow Road and a l l o f t h e N o r t h 1/2 o f t h e N o r t h w e s t 1/4 and a l l o f t h e SE 1/4 o f t h e NW 1/4 e a s t o f Alabama G r e a t S o u t h e r n R a i l r o a d r i g h t - o f - w a y ; and a l l o f t h e SW 1/4 o f t h e NW 1/4 l y i n g n o r t h w e s t o f V a l l e y Head t o B a t t e l l e Road; and t h e NW 1/4 o f t h e SW 1/4 l y i n g West o f t h e V a l l e y Head t o B a t t e l l e Road;" Thus, the property described in the July 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d i n c l u d e d t h e e n t i r e N o r t h 1/2 o f t h e SW 1/4 S e c t i o n 3, T o w n s h i p 5 S o u t h , Range 10 E a s t , 1/4 o f t h e SW 1/4 and a l l t h e NE 1/4 of i . e . , a l l t h e NW o f t h e SW 1/4, whereas t h e 1979 d e e d e x e c u t e d by K r a f t i n c l u d e d o n l y a p o r t i o n t h e NW 1/4 o f t h e SW 1/4 and none o f t h e NE 1/4 o f t h e SW 1/4. M o r e o v e r , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d described portions o f t h e NW 1/4 of Section 3, Township S o u t h , Range 10 E a s t t h a t were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e 1979 deed e x e c u t e d b y K r a f t . Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e 1979 d e e d e x e c u t e d 25 5 by 2100205 Kraft indicates that R.B. h a d a c q u i r e d name t o some o f t h e p r o p e r t y 21, 2006, q u i t c l a i m d e e d , acquired title described the evidence was t h a t was d e s c r i b e d i n the July i t does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t s o l e l y i n h i s name t o a l l t h e p r o p e r t y upon w h i c h A.J. relies he h a d that i s Consequently, was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o i n i t s e n t i r e t y t h e c l a i m he s o u g h t t o a d d t h r o u g h R u l e 15(b) The solely i n his i n t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, q u i t c l a i m deed. adjudicate his title trial motion. t h a t r e s u l t e d i n t h e August the f i r s t o f two b i f u r c a t e d court's d e n i a l o f A . J . ' s R u l e 15(b) m o t i o n does n o t f o r e c l o s e that y e t . Thus, case; the trial seeking conducted i n this second his has n o t been trials 12, 2 0 1 0 , j u d g m e n t l e a v e t o amend h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m was t h e s u b j e c t of h i s Rule and the f a c t sufficient the s u b j e c t that 15(b) motion to adjudicate the evidence cited before exceeded the posture of this by A . J . was n o t i n i t s e n t i r e t y t h e c l a i m t h a t was o f h i s R u l e 15(b) m o t i o n , we d e c l i n e t o h o l d court trial to state the claim second t r i a l . Given t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o c e d u r a l case the the trial i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n determining the c l a i m t h a t was t h e s u b j e c t that that o f h i s R u l e 1 5 ( b ) m o t i o n was n o t t r i e d b y e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t . See Ammons v. T e s k e r 26 2100205 Mfg. Corp., 853 determination So. 2d at 216 "as t o w h e t h e r ("'We [an] i s s u e also note that h a s been tried a by e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d c o n s e n t under R u l e 15(b) i s a m a t t e r f o r the t r i a l c o u r t ' s s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n , w h i c h w i l l n o t be a l t e r e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t an abuse Finally, concluding 2006, of mentally that discretion]."'"). the t r i a l court erred in t h a t , because i t had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e J u l y 21, deeds product A . J . argues [of t h a t were undue due t o be c a n c e l e d influence, i n c o m p e t e n t when However, t h a t he the because issue signed t h e y were t h e whether t h o s e deeds R.B. was was moot. r u l i n g was n o t a d v e r s e t o A . J . b e c a u s e he was n o t t h e p a r t y c l a i m i n g t h a t R.B. was m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t when he signed t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, deeds. "'A p a r t y cannot e r r o r where no a d v e r s e r u l i n g i s made a g a i n s t h i m . ' " claim Alcazar S h r i n e Temple v. Montgomery C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p ' t , 868 So. 2d 1093, 1094 ( A l a . 2003) (quoting H o l l o w a y v . R o b e r t s o n , 500 So. 2d 1056, 1059 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s A . J . ' s appeal i n s o f a r as he a r g u e s t h a t the t r i a l court ruling t h a t t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r R.B. was m e n t a l l y erred i n incompetent when he s i g n e d t h e J u l y 2 1 , 2006, deeds was moot. See A l c a z a r S h r i n e Temple v. Montgomery C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p ' t , 868 So. 2d 27 2100205 a t 1094-95. I n a l l o t h e r the trial r e s p e c t s , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f court. APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; Thompson, concur. P . J . , and AFFIRMED. Pittman, 28 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

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.