Marjorie Bell Smith, as personal representative of the estate of Timothy Edward Bell, deceased v. N.C., a minor, by and through Brenda J. Pierce, his guardian ad litem

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/01/2012 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, 2011-2012 2110596 M a r j o r i e B e l l Smith, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Timothy Edward B e l l , deceased v. N.C., a minor, by and through Brenda J . P i e r c e , h i s guardian ad l i t e m Appeal from Mobile Probate (10-1882) Court MOORE, J u d g e . This this i s t h e second time these court. p a r t i e s have been See S m i t h v . N.C., b y a n d t h r o u g h before P i e r c e (No. 2110596 2100626, O c t . 26, 2 0 1 1 ) , So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) (table). T h i s c a s e was i n i t i a t e d on A u g u s t 10, 2010, when M a r j o r i e Bell Smith f i l e d letters i n the Mobile of administration Probate Court a p e t i t i o n f o r of the estate o f h e r son, Timothy E d w a r d B e l l , who h a d b e e n d e c l a r e d d e a d on A p r i l 26, 2010. On S e p t e m b e r 7, 2010, S m i t h asserting referred minors that that T.C., N.C., to collectively a n d were filed claiming a "Motion a n d C.T. for Instructions" (sometimes as " t h e a l l e g e d hereinafter children") were t o be B e l l ' s c h i l d r e n ; she d e n i e d T.C., N.C., o r C.T. were B e l l ' s c h i l d r e n a n d r e q u e s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t a s t o what n o t i c e she was r e q u i r e d t o g i v e them. L e t t e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were to 10, 2010. Smith on S e p t e m b e r subsequently appointed was h e l d , Guardians represented withdrawing the "Motion f o r I n s t r u c t i o n s . " it was shown t h a t married to B e l l N.C. had been b o r n w h i l e and t h a t , i n p r i o r divorce N.C.'s m o t h e r , B e l l ad l i t e m f o r the alleged c h i l d r e n . a t which Smith's attorney had represented that b o r n o f B e l l ' s m a r r i a g e t o N.C.'s m o t h e r . 2 issued A were hearing t h a t he was At that hearing, h i s mother was proceedings with T.C. h a d a l s o been 2110596 On December i n which 1, 2010, t h e 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 i t s t a t e d t h a t Smith had withdrawn her "Motion f o r I n s t r u c t i o n s " and t h a t t h e o n l y p a t e r n i t y i s s u e r e m a i n i n g was as to C.T.; the probate inventory, a "handbook regarding her court ordered certificate," investigation into 2, 2010, S m i t h filed the probate c o u r t ' s December the probate c o u r t t o r e q u i r e DNA and a certain a l l e g e d l y been i m p r o p e r l y t a k e n from On December Smith DNA file status funds an report that had Bell. a motion to set aside 1, 2010, o r d e r ; she a l s o testing moved of a l l persons were a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e y were B e l l ' s c h i l d r e n . 2011, to who On J a n u a r y 31, Smith f i l e d a l e t t e r b r i e f i n support of her request f o r t e s t i n g ; she a s s e r t e d t h a t proper 2011, forum for a paternity the probate motion court the probate c o u r t was adjudication. entered an not a On F e b r u a r y order denying t o s e t a s i d e as w e l l h a s h e r r e q u e s t f o r DNA 3, Smith's testing. On M a r c h 11, 2011, S m i t h f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m that o r d e r t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ; t h a t c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e appeal to t h i s and this October court, pursuant court assigned that 26, 2011, t h i s t o § 12-2-7, A l a . Code appeal case no. court dismissed that 3 1975, 2100626. On a p p e a l as b e i n g 2110596 from a nonfinal judgment. subsequently issued See Smith, i t scertificate supra. This court of judgment i n case no. 2100626 on November 15, 2011. On O c t o b e r was issued 28, 2011, b e f o r e t h e c e r t i f i c a t e i n c a s e no. 2100626, t h e p r o b a t e judgment d e t e r m i n i n g , based that C.T. i s an h e i r on t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . 9, testing, 2011, Smith 28, 2011, j u d g m e n t The supreme c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y t r a n s f e r r e d that appeal to t h i s Code 1975, and t h i s o f DNA On December f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l from the October Ala. court entered a the r e s u l t s of B e l l . o f judgment c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 12-2-7, c o u r t a s s i g n e d t h a t appeal case no. 2110596. "Although neither party has raised the [probate] court's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , issue of the 'jurisdictional m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero motu.'" So. 3d 1053, 1055 ( A l a . C i v . App. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 that "[o]nce jurisdiction an appeal 2010) ( A l a . 1987)). i s taken, Fuller the v. F u l l e r , 51 ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. " ' I ti s well settled trial loses to act except i n matters e n t i r e l y the appeal."'" L a n d r y v. L a n d r y , 4 court collateral to [Ms. 2100861, M a r c h 9, 2012] 2110596 So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. A l a b a m a S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n, 863 App. 2003), q u o t i n g 797 2012) (quoting P o r t i s So. 2d 1125, 1126 i n t u r n Ward v. Ullery, 412 ( A l a . C i v . App. v. (Ala. Civ. So. 2d 796, 1982)). " [ U ] n t i l an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e n t e r s i t s c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t , i t s d e c i s i o n i s n o t y e t f i n a l and i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a case i s not t e r m i n a t e d . See R u l e 4 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P. (an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s ' c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t ... s h a l l i s s u e 18 d a y s a f t e r the e n t r y of judgment u n l e s s the time i s s h o r t e n e d o r e n l a r g e d by o r d e r ' ) . " L a n d r y v. L a n d r y , So. 3d a t This court's c e r t i f i c a t e was . o f j u d g m e n t i n c a s e no. i s s u e d on November 15, 2011, reacquire j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t d i d n o t over the case u n t i l that date. when t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s O c t o b e r 28, 2011, "the still judgment of t h i s had c o u r t was jurisdiction not over t h i s yet f i n a l matter." 28, C i v . App. 2011, 2000). judgment was Because the entered judgment i s v o i d . Landry, will an not support So. appeal. 3d a t Id. 5 probate without We, and Thus, judgment, this court P l a n t a t i o n South Condo. A s s ' n , I n c . v. P r o f i l e Mgmt. C o r p . , 783 (Ala. 2100626 So. 2d 838, court's October jurisdiction, . 841 that A v o i d judgment therefore, dismiss 2110596 Smith's appeal, a l b e i t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the probate c o u r t to s e t a s i d e i t s v o i d judgment. 1 Id. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , concur. We n o t e t h a t a l l o f S m i t h ' s a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l i n c a s e no. 2110596 p e r t a i n t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 3, 2011, o r d e r d e n y i n g h e r r e q u e s t f o r DNA t e s t i n g . She d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 28, 2011, judgment d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t C.T. i s an h e i r o f B e l l . Smith a p p a r e n t l y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h a t i s s u e r e s o l v e d a l l the r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s i n the case, t h e r e b y making t h a t j u d g m e n t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t f r o m w h i c h t o a p p e a l . We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e r e w i l l be no f i n a l j u d g m e n t f r o m w h i c h S m i t h may a p p e a l u n t i l t h e r e i s a f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t o f B e l l ' s e s t a t e . See M o n t i e l v. E s t a t e o f M o n t i e l 976 So. 2d 1043 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . Thus, S m i t h may n o t c h a l l e n g e on a p p e a l t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 3, 2011, o r d e r d e n y i n g h e r r e q u e s t f o r DNA t e s t i n g u n t i l t h e r e i s a f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e e s t a t e o r u n t i l t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t c e r t i f i e s i t s F e b r u a r y 3, 2011, o r d e r as f i n a l , 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. Id. 1 6

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.