Ronnie Lamar Still and Sandra Gilliland v. BankTrust, f/k/a BancTrust Company, Inc. (Appeal from Escambia Circuit Court: CV-09-45) Application For Rehearing Overruled.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 09/23/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100285 Ronnie Lamar S t i l l and Sandra Gilliland v. BankTrust, f / k / a BancTrust Company, Inc. Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-45) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g MOORE, Judge. On Sandra erred application Gilliland i n concluding f o r rehearing, ("the c o n t e s t a n t s " ) Ronnie argue that they had f a i l e d Lamar that Still this and court t o argue t h a t John L . 2100285 Still ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as t o make t h e inter vivos Specifically, substantially "cit[ing] authorities the trust arguing their deed with the Still's and on they referenced regarding The with brief trust Ala. to case this court a l l the d o c u m e n t s , and trust. the record, aside" Still at issue original submission the t r u s t or "the four to by have the to parts court, -title specific this that and d i d not deed t r a n s f e r r i n g They c i t e by contention set documents the P., of be that they App. their should that R. parts of case. of in documents" i n t h e i r which argument capacity. contestants referring to next and testamentary the signed further that a revocable that brief capacity to deed because in scheme." argue in their Still's d o c u m e n t s , and prepared 28, i n support to "testamentary capacity" when Rule appropriate in this house to the brief argue to regard trust first capacity in this argument in their capacity will, and issue contestants the Court l a c k e d the t r a n s f e r s at complied the "Still") furtherance Citing they on trust, 2 s u c h as original execute " a l l the of secondary used the the submission will, the documents were [Still's] sources, the one term they i n the general argue present 2100285 case, i s a testamentary legal standard not set is capacity their of execute a without the deed a further will, trust the trial throughout so Still's court considered (which they did submission to this standard legal that, the be 888 v. capacity and a l l overruled. is, the for because trust, that to the the are deed the and a l l the will the will, the set aside one positions facts and for the same that the documents parties together litigation. due trust that would f r u s t r a t e the considered we Belcher argue the others rehearing, Belcher, the intertwined documents, the Having to of p r o v i s i o n to are regarding the original out of b o t h p a r t i e s . They a l s o argue t h a t the arguments and also point will. s e t t i n g aside goals on elements "pour-over" and They to execute a deed brief the contestants contains and in one to The trust, for capacity forth court) trust. the contestants' arguments on conclude that t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n for rehearing So. 2d Q u e e n , 39 Our 472, So. a g r e e m e n t i s an therefore, subject supreme 477 3d inter court (Ala. 2003), held and in Queen 1038 (Ala. 2009), vivos conveyance of p r o p e r t y , [competency] 3 v. reiterated in 1023, to the is standard that "[a] and governing 2100285 c o n v e y a n c e s " as opposed t o t h e s t a n d a r d f o r c a p a c i t y wills. In the contestants' failed original brief to this the deed i n v i o l a t i o n properly lacked Still's the house they to consider to execute inter vivos to the trust. fails particular issue, issue, function to cite this any argument the trust transfer City to perform APPLICATION Pittman, may f o r i t i s neither by Thus, that documents deed of o f Birmingham v. any a u t h o r i t y Court documents and 2 8 , A l a . R. C i v . P. I n v . C o . , 722 S o . 2 d 7 4 7 , 752 appellant that of Rule declined the capacity effectuate Realty court, t o c i t e c a s e l a w g o v e r n i n g t h e c a p a c i t y r e q u i r e d t o make the i n t e r v i v o s t r a n s f e r s e v i d e n c e d by t h e t r u s t court governing an a p p e l l a n t ' s Still or to title to Business ( A l a . 1998 ) ("When a n f o r an a r g u m e n t affirm this this the judgment Court's legal duty on a as t o nori t s research."). FOR R E H E A R I N G OVERRULED. Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n the result, 4 without 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.
