Adam Dorough, Rufus Dorough, James Dorough, Patrick Dorough, and Robert Dorough v. Denise Scott Ricks

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/1/12 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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, 2011-2012 2101130 Adam Dorough, Rufus Dorough, James Dorough, P a t r i c k Dorough, and Robert Dorough v. Denise S c o t t Ricks Appeal from Autauga C i r c u i t (CV-09-900165) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Adam Dorough, Rufus D o r o u g h , a n d R o b e r t Dorough Dorough, James Dorough, Patrick ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s " ) a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f D e n i s e 2101130 S c o t t R i c k s i n a w i l l c o n t e s t b r o u g h t b y t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s . We r e v e r s e a n d remand. F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On June 9, 2009, J o s e p h P a u l Dorough ("Joseph") executed a w i l l l e a v i n g a l l h i s p r o p e r t y t o R i c k s a n d naming h e r as h i s personal Farmer, representative. Ricks who died i n May dating i n approximately 2009. i s the daughter Joseph of Margaret and F a r m e r had begun 1988 when R i c k s was 14 y e a r s o l d , and t h e y h a d c o n t i n u e d d a t i n g o f f a n d on u n t i l F a r m e r d i e d i n May 2009. R i c k s blood testified or marriage that, although t o Joseph, she was n o t r e l a t e d b y she c o n s i d e r e d him a surrogate f a t h e r and t h a t t h e y had had a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p . Joseph d i e d on A u g u s t 22, 2009. The Dorough b r o t h e r s a r e J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s and n e x t On Probate of k i n . September Court 8, 2009, Ricks t o admit Joseph's w i l l petitioned to probate. the Autauga The A u t a u g a P r o b a t e C o u r t d o c k e t e d R i c k s ' s p e t i t i o n as c a s e number 09-151. On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2009, t h e A u t a u g a P r o b a t e petition Court set Ricks's f o r h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 13, 2009. On S e p t e m b e r 18, 2009, an a t t o r n e y filed a notice of a p p e a r a n c e on b e h a l f o f t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s . On S e p t e m b e r 24, 2 2101130 2009, p u r s u a n t t o a r e q u e s t b y t h e A u t a u g a P r o b a t e C o u r t , t h e Autauga C i r c u i t Court ("the trial court") appointed a local a t t o r n e y as a s p e c i a l p r o b a t e j u d g e t o p r e s i d e i n c a s e number 09-151. On t h e m o r n i n g hearing regarding o f O c t o b e r 13, 2009, s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e Ricks's petition the Dorough petition. The answer d e n i e d t h a t the w i l l constitute a Bullen v. motion f o r a continuance this Brown, complaint 535 So. filed admit probate, not brothers to an asserting 2d 76 a that The Autauga regarding Ricks's Probate October to Ricks's v a l i d but d i d will contest. (holding See that a issue i n d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a contest). Court petition Dorough b r o t h e r s and t h e i r was will to "the c r u c i a l case i s the v a l i d i t y of the W i l l " complaint asserting a w i l l answer ( A l a . 1988) stating the on proceeded October with 13, the 2009, hearing and the a t t o r n e y a t t e n d e d t h e h e a r i n g . On 15, t h e A u t a u g a P r o b a t e C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r "Decree A d m i t t i n g S e l f - P r o v i n g Will to P r o b a t e . " The titled order stated: " T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 13, 2009, t o be h e a r d on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f D e n i s e F a r m e r R i c k s t o a d m i t t o p r o b a t e and r e c o r d t h e l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t o f [ J o s e p h ] , l a t e an i n h a b i t a n t of t h i s County, h e r e t o f o r e f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t . 3 2101130 "Present were Denise Farmer Ricks, the p r o p o n e n t , h e r c o u n s e l , J a c k Owen, a n d [ t h e Dorough brothers], next o f k i n o f [ J o s e p h ] , and Chip Cleveland, their counsel. " I t h a v i n g b e e n shown t o t h 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 p r o p e r n o t i c e was g i v e n t o e a c h n e x t o f k i n as r e q u i r e d b y l a w , a n d t h a t a l l t h i n g s have b e e n done p u r s u a n t t o t h e l a w s o f t h i s S t a t e , a n d t o a former Order of t h i s Court, a f t e r receiving t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e , "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e s a i d i n s t r u m e n t was made s e l f - p r o v i n g a t t h e t i m e o f i t s e x e c u t i o n b y acknowledgment o f [ J o s e p h ] and t h e a f f i d a v i t s o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , e a c h made b e f o r e an o f f i c e r a u t h o r i z e d t o a d m i n i s t e r oaths and e v i d e n c e d by t h e o f f i c e r ' s c e r t i f i c a t e , under o f f i c i a l s e a l , a t t a c h e d t o o r f o l l o w i n g t h e w i l l i n t h e form r e q u i r e d by l a w ; and f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t t h e r e h a s b e e n no s h o w i n g o f f r a u d , f o r g e r y , undue i n f l u e n c e o r u n s o u n d m i n d o f [Joseph]. "WHEREUPON, t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t instrument of w r i t i n g i s the l a s t w i l l of [ J o s e p h ] , t h a t i t was e x e c u t e d , self-proved, and t h a t [Joseph] at s i g n i n g was o f f u l l age a n d s o u n d m i n d memory a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . the aforesaid and testament a t t e s t e d and t h e time of and d i s p o s i n g "Therefore, the Court being s a t i s f i e d of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n h e r e i n , i t i s o r d e r e d , adjudged and decreed by the Court that s a i d instrument of w r i t i n g p u r p o r t i n g t o be t h e l a s t w i l l a n d t e s t a m e n t o f [ J o s e p h ] i s h e r e b y d e c l a r e d t o be d u l y s e l f - p r o v e d as t h e l a s t w i l l a n d t e s t a m e n t o f [ J o s e p h ] a n d s u c h i s a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e , a n d o r d e r e d t o be r e c o r d e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s e l f - p r o v i n g s t a t e m e n t s , and a l l o t h e r p a p e r s on f i l e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s p r o c e e d i n g . " (Emphasis added.) 4 2101130 Also motion on O c t o b e r titled 15, 2009, "Motion to t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s Transfer Proceeding filed to a Circuit C o u r t . " The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a r u l i n g on t h a t m o t i o n b y the Autauga Probate Court. Dorough b r o t h e r s However, on O c t o b e r 19, 2009, t h e f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t h a d commenced a g a i n s t R i c k s i n t h e t r i a l 2009. The c o m p l a i n t filed challenging execution, us i n t h i s a p p e a l ; however, (2) undue on the grounds influence, of (1) (3) f r a u d , lack and c a p a c i t y . On November 24, 2009, R i c k s the brothers' amended complaint m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e i r w i l l motion filed December 15, by t h e Dorough 2009, ordered of valid answered denied the contest. I n response t o a brothers, the and contest (4) l a c k o f testamentary Dorough claims t h e amended on O c t o b e r 19, 2009, a s s e r t e d a w i l l the w i l l they c o u r t on A u g u s t 28, commencing t h a t a c t i o n h a d a s s e r t e d that are not before complaint i n an a c t i o n the t r i a l Autauga Probate court, on Court to t r a n s f e r c a s e number 09-151 t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . On J a n u a r y 15, 2010, the Autauga Probate c e r t i f i e d copies Court of the f i l i n g s filed with the t r i a l court i n c a s e number 09-151. The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a s e p a r a t e b e n c h t r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e will c o n t e s t on November 16, 2010, and F e b r u a r y 28, 2011, and 5 2101130 r e c e i v e d evidence ore tenus. The first, Dorough b r o t h e r s their case-in-chief trial, they i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence a copy of the w i l l , which showed t h a t J o s e p h and affidavits 1975, i n the and, the form during that presented phase subscribing witnesses specified by § of had 43-8-132, the signed Ala. Code t h e Code s e c t i o n p r o v i d i n g f o r s e l f - p r o v i n g w i l l s , t h a t a n o t a r y p u b l i c , as an o f f i c e r a u t h o r i z e d t o administer o a t h s , had s i g n e d a c e r t i f i c a t e i n t h e f o r m s p e c i f i e d b y § 8-132, b u t seal i t does n o t show t h a t t h e n o t a r y p u b l i c ' s is affixed to the only evidence regarding b y R i c k s was will and, will r e q u i r e d by the e x e c u t i o n the t e s t i m o n y i n her as § Joseph of had d r a f t e d t h e c a p a c i t y as a n o t a r y p u b l i c , had had their signed affidavits. the subscribing witnesses will and The in attorney the t h a t the signed of that the i n her two capacity as a n o t a r y p u b l i c , had n o t a r i z e d t h e s i g n a t u r e s o f J o s e p h the two subscribing witnesses. w h e t h e r she had the w i l l r e q u i r e d by § as a f f i x e d her However, she was not notary public's o f f i c i a l 43-8-132. No 6 the witnesses' testified presence attorney, The introduced c e r t i f i c a t e r e g a r d i n g J o s e p h ' s and t h e s u b s c r i b i n g execution 43¬ official 43-8-132. of the w i l l o f t h e a t t o r n e y who and and asked seal to party introduced the 2101130 original will into evidence or witnesses to t e s t i f y regarding At the close orally moved findings brothers 1 called the execution of a l l the evidence, the t r i a l the court for a of the w i l l . t h e Dorough judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. asserted that subscribing t h e y were e n t i t l e d brothers on partial The Dorough t o a judgment i n t h e i r f a v o r because, they s a i d , R i c k s had t h e burden o f making a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t t h e w i l l had been v a l i d l y and she had f a i l e d asserted t o meet t h a t burden. I n response, Ricks t h a t s h e h a d i n d e e d made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g the w i l l h a d been v a l i d l y e x e c u t e d of executed the attorney who drafted that (1) t h r o u g h t h e t e s t i m o n y the w i l l , which, Ricks said, e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e w i l l was s e l f - p r o v i n g a n d (2) t h r o u g h t h e Autauga Probate Court's self-proving, which, order Ricks determining said, that h a d become the w i l l a part was of the r e c o r d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t when t h e A u t a u g a P r o b a t e C o u r t filed a c e r t i f i e d c o p y o f t h e o r d e r w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The t r i a l court d i d n o t r u l e on t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s ' m o t i o n at that I n Lawson v. H a r r i s C u l i n a r y E n t e r p r i s e s , L L C , 83 So. 3d 483, 491 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w made a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l the evidence i n a nonjury t r i a l i s properly characterized as a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s . 1 7 2101130 time. On March 25, 2011, the trial court entered an order stating: " T h i s c a u s e c o m i n g on b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t ... and t e s t i m o n y b e i n g t a k e n o r e t e n u s on November 16, 2010 and F e b r u a r y 28, 2011 on t h e s i n g l e i s s u e o f t h e c o n t e s t o f t h e W i l l , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s as f o l l o w s : "1. 2009. T h a t [ J o s e p h ] e x e c u t e d [ t h e w i l l ] on J u n e 9, " 2 . T h a t t h e same was executed before w i t n e s s e s , Shannon S m i t h and K i m b e r l y K e r v i n . two " 3 . T h a t t h e two w i t n e s s e s e x e c u t e d t h e same b e f o r e a N o t a r y P u b l i c , J o y B o o t h , who t e s t i f i e d t o t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e n o t a r y a c k n o w l e d g m e n t and t o making the i n s t r u m e n t f o r [ J o s e p h ] . "4. That the e x e c u t i o n of t h i s i n s t r u m e n t i s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h A l a b a m a Code S e c t i o n 43-8-132, 1975 and s u b p a r a g r a p h (c) makes t h e e x e c u t i o n p r o p e r w i t h o u t f u r t h e r p r o o f , by a p r e s u m p t i o n . "Wherefore, this Court f i n d s the [ w i l l ] i s [ J o s e p h ' s ] L a s t W i l l and i s p r o p e r l y a c c e p t e d as h i s final disposition for his Estate." 2 A l t h o u g h i t s M a r c h 25, 2009, o r d e r d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s ' c l a i m s o f undue i n f l u e n c e , f r a u d , and l a c k o f t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t n e c e s s a r i l y r e j e c t e d t h o s e c l a i m s by f i n d i n g t h a t " t h e [ w i l l ] i s [ J o s e p h ' s ] L a s t W i l l and i s p r o p e r l y a c c e p t e d as h i s f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n f o r h i s E s t a t e . " See D u t t o n v. C h e s t e r F. R a i n e s A g e n c y , I n c . , 475 So. 2d 545, 547 ( A l a . 1985) ("While t h e t r i a l c o u r t may n o t have s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d C o u n t F o u r [ o f the defendant's c o u n t e r c l a i m ] , the c o u r t n e c e s s a r i l y r e j e c t e d that c l a i m by r e n d e r i n g a judgment i n f a v o r of [ t h e 2 8 2101130 On A p r i l 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o alter, amend, or vacate o r d e r on t h e g r o u n d , meet h e r b u r d e n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s March 25, 2 0 1 1 , among o t h e r s , t h a t R i c k s h a d f a i l e d t o o f making a prima f a c i e showing that the w i l l h a d b e e n v a l i d l y e x e c u t e d . T h a t same d a y , t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s f i l e d a separate motion a s k i n g the t r i a l March 25, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r as a f i n a l court to c e r t i f y i t s judgment pursuant t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. On A p r i l 28, 2 0 1 1 , R i c k s f i l e d a motion a s k i n g the t r i a l c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . , t o t a k e j u d i c i a l notice of the fact that the Autauga Probate Court had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e w i l l was s e l f - p r o v i n g p u r s u a n t t o § 4 3 - 8 ¬ 132 as e v i d e n c e d b y t h e A u t a u g a P r o b a t e C o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 2009, order finding that the w i l l was self-proving and admitting i t to probate asserted, h a d b e e n made a p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t when t h e A u t a u g a i n c a s e number 09-151, w h i c h , 15, Probate Court had f i l e d a Ricks certified copy o f t h e o r d e r w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t on J a n u a r y 15, 2010. On April 29, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l On July 25, court granted R i c k s ' s motion. 2011, t h e t r i a l plaintiff]."). 9 court entered an order 2101130 denying the Dorough brothers' v a c a t e i t s M a r c h 25, 2011, trial motion to alter, o r d e r , and, on A u g u s t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r c e r t i f y i n g amend, 2, 2011, i t s M a r c h 25, or the 2011, o r d e r 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 ) . On A u g u s t 22, 2011, t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t . Due t o l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h i s c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h e supreme c o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l b a c k to this 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. Analysis The erred partial Dorough b r o t h e r s f i r s t because argue that the trial court i t d i d n o t g r a n t t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on f i n d i n g s at the c l o s e of a l l the evidence. "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e ... t o r u l i n g s on m o t i o n s f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s b y t h e t r i a l court' i s ' [ o ] r d i n a r i l y ... t h e o r e t e n u s standard. ' Burkes Mech., Inc. ^ Ft. James-Pennington, I n c . , 908 So. 2d 905, 910 ( A l a . 2004) ( c i t i n g L o g g i n s v. R o b i n s o n , 738 So. 2d 1268, 1270 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , and G r a n t v. B u l l o c k C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 895 F. Supp. 1506, 1508-09 (M.D. A l a . 1995) ( r e v i e w u n d e r R u l e 52, F e d . R. C i v . P.)). Under t h e o r e t e n u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s a r e p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t , and t h e t r i a l c o u r 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 o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . S o u t h s i d e Cmty. Dev. C o r p . v. W h i t e , 10 So. 3d 990, 991 ( A l a . 2008) . '"'"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , h o w e v e r , 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 10 2101130 to s u s t a i n i t s judgment."'"' 10 So.3d a t 991-92 ( q u o t i n g 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 v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f C l u b , I n c . , 985 So. 2d 924, 929 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . See a l s o F i r s t A l a b a m a Bank o f Montgomery, N.A. v. C o k e r , 4 08 So. 2d 510, 512-13 ( A l a . 1982) ('The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s [attendant to ore tenus f i n d i n g s ] 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 p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court t o s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . I n s u c h i n s t a n c e s where t h e proof at t r i a l fails t o support the material a l l e g a t i o n s on w h i c h t h e s u i t i s b a s e d , t h e judgment rendered cannot be upheld on appeal.'). A d d i t i o n a l l y , we n o t e t h a t 'the o r e t e n u s s t a n d a r d i s i n a p p l i c a b l e "where t h e e v i d e n c e i s u n d i s p u t e d , or where t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e . " S a l t e r v. H a m i t e r , 887 So. 2d 230, 234 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . ' B u r k e s M e c h a n i c a l , 908 So. 2d a t 910. I n s u c h c a s e s , a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s de novo. I d . See a l s o R a g s d a l e v. R a g s d a l e , 991 So. 2d 770, 772 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . " Lawson v. (Ala. Harris Culinary Enters., LLC, 83 So. 3d 483, 491 2011). Specifically, t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e trial c o u r t s h o u l d have g r a n t e d t h e i r m o t i o n f o r judgment on p a r t i a l findings prima because, t h e y say, R i c k s had the burden of making facie showing that the w i l l had been v a l i d l y a executed and she f a i l e d t o meet t h a t b u r d e n . T h i s i s s o , a c c o r d i n g t o the Dorough b r o t h e r s , b e c a u s e t h a t t h e w i l l was R i c k s f a i l e d t o make a s e l f - p r o v i n g b e c a u s e she n e i t h e r 11 showing introduced 2101130 the original of the w i l l t o prove t h a t the o f f i c i a l seal of t h e n o t a r y p u b l i c was a f f i x e d t o i t as r e q u i r e d b y § 43-8-132 n o r i n t r o d u c e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e two s u b s c r i b i n g w i t n e s s e s t o p r o v e t h a t t h e w i l l was v a l i d l y The proponent making a prima executed. The of a facie contested showing executed. will that has t h e burden the w i l l was of validly B u r n s v . M a r s h a l l , 767 So. 2d 347, 351 ( A l a . 2000) . requirements f o r the v a l i d execution of a w i l l are set f o r t h i n § 43-8-131, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : " E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d w i t h i n s e c t i o n 43-8-135, every w i l l shall be i n w r i t i n g s i g n e d by t h e t e s t a t o r o r i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s name by some o t h e r person i n the testator's presence and by h i s d i r e c t i o n , a n d s h a l l be s i g n e d by a t l e a s t two p e r s o n s e a c h o f whom w i t n e s s e d e i t h e r t h e s i g n i n g o r the t e s t a t o r ' s acknowledgment o f t h e s i g n a t u r e o r o f the will." Section 43-8-132(a) self-proving provides of the witnesses, authorized to administer execution occurs each oaths and made under may be made as p r o v i d e d i n this 12 before t h e laws evidenced c e r t i f i c a t e , under o f f i c i a l seal Section 43-8-132(c) provides that, self-proved, a will "by a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h e r e o f b y t h e t e s t a t o r a n d affidavits where that by an officer of the state the officer's (Emphasis added.) " [ i ] f the w i l l i s section, compliance with 2101130 signature requirements f o r e x e c u t i o n i s c o n c l u s i v e l y presumed " In Ex p a r t e Helms, 873 So. 2d 1139, supreme court requirements held that a will 1144 does ( A l a . 2003), not comply of § 43-8-132(a) u n l e s s the o f f i c i a l the with the s e a l of an o f f i c e r a u t h o r i z e d to a d m i n i s t e r oaths i s a f f i x e d to the w i l l . Therefore, will it was was i n order to e s t a b l i s h a prima s e l f - p r o v i n g u n d e r § 43-8-132, and, entitled 43-8-132(c), showing to a presumption Ricks that certified the the had execution affidavits visible the on b r o t h e r s . The by the copy seal of was of of v a l i d burden official witnesses' court f a c i e case of the will to and Autauga Probate a the Court prima who subscribing No seal the what may trial be c i r c u l a r i m p r e s s i o n near the n o t a r y p u b l i c ' s s i g n a t u r e , if i t i s indeed a circular impression, is Dorough f i l e d w i t h the shows § facie public will. i n t r o d u c e d by c e r t i f i e d copy of the w i l l the e x e c u t i o n under notary the the therefore, that making Joseph's affixed the of that a and, i t i s possible that t h a t c i r c u l a r i m p r e s s i o n i s the n o t a r y p u b l i c ' s o f f i c i a l seal; however, i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e a r from the c e r t i f i e d copy of the w i l l t h a t what may be a circular 13 impression near the 2101130 notary public's official signature is indeed the public's s e a l t o meet R i c k s ' s b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a showing t h a t the n o t a r y p u b l i c ' s o f f i c i a l the w i l l . evidence The of original whether of the w i l l , the a f f i x e d t o t h e w i l l , was Ricks argues Autauga Probate and notary that Court notary seal i s affixed which w o u l d be public's official not i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the October finding admitting i t to probate 15, facie is sufficient best seal is evidence. 2009, t h a t the w i l l the to order of the i s self-proving t o make a prima f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i l l i s s e l f - p r o v i n g . S e c t i o n 43-8-169 p r o v i d e s t h a t , when t h e v a l i d e x e c u t i o n o f a w i l l i s p r o v e d i n the probate court by the testimony of the subscribing w i t n e s s e s , " t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s must be r e d u c e d w r i t i n g by [the p r o b a t e with the w i l l , kept for that j u d g e ] , s i g n e d by t h e w i t n e s s e s immediately purpose." recorded Section i n a book p r o v i d e d 43-8-202, A l a . Code provides: "The c i r c u i t c o u r t may, [when a w i l l c o n t e s t i s commenced i n c i r c u i t c o u r t a f t e r t h e w i l l has b e e n a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e by t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ] , d i r e c t an i s s u e t o be t r i e d by a j u r y , and on t h e t r i a l b e f o r e the j u r y , or h e a r i n g before the c i r c u i t judge, the t e s t i m o n y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g by t h e j u d g e o f p r o b a t e , a c c o r d i n g t o s e c t i o n 43-8-169, i s e v i d e n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e j u d g e o r j u r y . " 14 to and, and 1975, 2101130 (Emphasis added.) C a s e l a w d e c i d e d before t h e enactment o f § 43-8-132 h e l d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e p r e d e c e s s o r t o § 43-8-202 made the testimony reduced t o w r i t i n g by of the subscribing witnesses the probate circuit facie court, showing judge admissible the proponent that the in a will of a w i l l will was introducing that w r i t t e n testimony contest i n the c i r c u i t testified court will absence Ferrell could h a d been o f the second v. M i n n i f i e l d , witness a prima executed i n t o evidence by i n the w i l l as two w i t n e s s e s regarding the execution of the w i l l and t h e r e i n the make validly so l o n g c o u r t o r one w i t n e s s h a d t e s t i f i e d the contest had i n the probate regarding the execution of a proper accounting i n the probate f o r the court. See 275 A l a . 388, 3 9 1 , 155 So. 2d 345, 348 (1963) . However, i n H a n c o c k v . F r a z i e r , 264 A l a . 202, 204, 86 So. 2d 389, 390-91 (1956), t h e supreme court stated that, although the testimony of the s u b s c r i b i n g witnesses reduced t o w r i t i n g by t h e p r o b a t e in the c i r c u i t judge i s a d m i s s i b l e i n a w i l l c o u r t , " t h e judgment i n t h e p r o b a t e no p r o b a t i v e v a l u e " i n t h e w i l l contest c o u r t has contest i n the c i r c u i t court. We have n o t f o u n d any c a s e l a w h o l d i n g t h a t a d i f f e r e n t applies i f t h e judgment o f t h e p r o b a t e 15 rule court found t h a t the 2101130 will was self-proving. Accordingly, conclude that Probate Court admitting contest the i t to October finding that p r o b a t e had 15, 2009, the no i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t and, i n the present order will was probative of the case, Autauga self-proving value i n the and will t h e r e f o r e , that that order n o t make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i l l was we did self-proving. B e c a u s e R i c k s d i d n o t make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t the w i l l i s s e l f - p r o v i n g , she c o u l d o n l y meet h e r b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a prima f a c i e showing t h a t the will was validly she made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t s a t i s f i e d t h e o f § 43-8-167, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , in pertinent executed i f requirements part: "(a) Wills offered for probate, except n o n c u p a t i v e w i l l s , must be p r o v e d by one o r more o f the s u b s c r i b i n g w i t n e s s e s , o r i f t h e y be dead, insane or out of the state or have become i n c o m p e t e n t s i n c e t h e a t t e s t a t i o n , t h e n by t h e p r o o f o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g o f t h e t e s t a t o r , and t h a t o f a t l e a s t one o f t h e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e w i l l . Where no contest is filed, the testimony of only one a t t e s t i n g witness i s s u f f i c i e n t . b) I f none o f t h e s u b s c r i b i n g w i t n e s s e s t o s u c h w i l l are produced, t h e i r i n s a n i t y , death, subsequent i n c o m p e t e n c y o r a b s e n c e f r o m t h e s t a t e must be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y shown b e f o r e p r o o f o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g of the testator, or any of the subscribing w i t n e s s e s , can be r e c e i v e d " (Emphasis added.) I n F e r r e l l v. M i n n i f i e l d , 275 16 A l a . a t 391, 155 So. 2d at 2101130 348, t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "Under [ p r e s e n t § 43-8-167, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , a w i l l , upon f o r m a l c o n t e s t , must be p r o v e d b y b o t h s u b s c r i b i n g w i t n e s s e s , o r i f one i s n o t a v a i l a b l e , his absence must be a c c o u n t e d f o r to get i n s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e o f h i s a t t e s t a t i o n , as s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be r e s o r t e d t o o n l y i n t h e a b s e n c e of p r i m a r y p r o o f o f both t h e s u b s c r i b i n g w i t n e s s e s . B a r n e t t v. Freeman, 197 A l a . 142, 72 So. 395 [(1916)]." In the present case, Ricks neither introduced the testimony of the s u b s c r i b i n g witnesses nor accounted f o r t h e i r absence. Because R i c k s d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e t h a t p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e regarding the execution of the w i l l , a t t o r n e y who d r a f t e d t h e w i l l was the testimony of the r e g a r d i n g i t s e x e c u t i o n , which s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e , d i d n o t meet R i c k s ' s b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i l l h a d been v a l i d l y e x e c u t e d pursuant to § 43-8-167. See § 43-8-167 and Ferrell v. Minnifield. Because R i c k s n e i t h e r made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e w i l l was s e l f - p r o v i n g p u r s u a n t t o § 43-8-132 n o r made a p r i m a facie showing that the w i l l had been validly executed by i n t r o d u c i n g p r o o f m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 43-8-167, we c o n c l u d e t h a t s h e f a i l e d t o meet h e r b u r d e n o f m a k i n g a p r i m a facie showing that the w i l l had been v a l i d l y e x e c u t e d and, 17 2101130 therefore, that the t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g to grant the Dorough b r o t h e r s ' m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on p a r t i a l findings. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we r e v e r s e c o u r t and t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s opinion. consistent with this B e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e b a s i s o f t h e Dorough b r o t h e r s ' f i r s t a r g u m e n t , we do n o t r e a c h their other arguments. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 18 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.