Rel
10/23/2009
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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 .
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010
1070443
Homer Osborne J o h n s o n and S c h u r l o c k H o l l a n d
v.
Cheryl Neal
Appeal
PER
and C o r b u r t
Chisley
from Macon C i r c u i t
(CV-06-48)
Court
CURIAM.
Homer O s b o r n e J o h n s o n a n d S c h u r l o c k H o l l a n d
collectively
referred
t o as " t h e proponents")
j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e Macon
Macon
Probate
Osborne's
dismiss
will
Court's
admission
("the w i l l " ) .
the appeal.
Circuit
We
Court
appeal
from
a
setting aside the
to probate
vacate
(hereinafter
of
Homer
C.
t h e judgment and
1070443
Facts
Homer
2004,
C.
the
and P r o c e d u r a l
Osborne
died
proponents,
on
July
are
t h e Macon P r o b a t e
petitioned
who
Court
History
17,
two
the proponents
until
they
On
a will
The p e t i t i o n
( " O t h a " ) , on A u g u s t 4, 2 0 0 3 .
O t h a was i n c o m p e t e n t
The w i l l
dated
property
9, 2 0 0 4 ,
November
interests
September
3,
sons,
t h a t had
explained
d i d n o t know o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e w i l l
the p e t i t i o n ,
was
August
Osborne's
d i s c o v e r e d i t a t t h e home o f O s b o r n e ' s
Otha Jewel Osborne
to
of
to probate
p u r p o r t e d l y been e x e c u t e d by Osborne.
that
1 973.
to
8,
and u n a b l e
According to
to communicate.
1962, and l e f t
Johnson,
Holland,
t h e Macon P r o b a t e
Court
other son,
a l l Osborne's
and
Otha.
admitted
On
the w i l l
probate.
On
February
(hereinafter
filed
a
admission
children
first
in
contest
the
of B e t t y
Ruth
The w i l l
Cheryl
referred
Neal
Circuit
to probate.
Osborne
and
t o as
i n the estate
Macon
of the w i l l
cousin.
to
2006,
collectively
"will
deceased,"
24,
Corburt
"the contestants")
of
Homer
Court,
The
C.
Osborne,
contesting
as
who
was
Osborne's
follows:
" ( 1 ) The [ c o n t e s t a n t s ] b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n
p r o b a t e t h e w i l l i n t h i s m a t t e r was u n t i m e l y i n
2
the
contestants are the
Chisley,
contest alleged
Chisley
1070443
t h a t i t was p r e s e n t e d m o r e t h a n f i v e y e a r s a f t e r t h e
d e a t h o f t h e t e s t a t o r , c o n t r a r y t o Code 1975, § 438 - [ 1 6 1 ] , f o r m e r l y Code 1975, § 4 3 - 1 - 7 9 , and e a r l i e r
C o d e 1 9 4 0 , T . 6 1 , § 64.
F u r t h e r , no n o t i c e was g i v e n
i n t h i s m a t t e r t o t h e r i g h t f u l owners o f p r o p e r t y
l o c a t e d o u t s i d e the s t a t e of Alabama t h a t s a i d h e i r s
o f t h e t e s t a t o r a r e now m a k i n g c l a i m [ ; ] t h e r e f o r e ,
the
[contestants],
the
lawful
owners
of
said
property,
were unaware of t h e p e t i t i o n t o p r o b a t e
the w i l l u n t i l r e c e n t l y .
" ( 2 ) A t t h e t i m e o f Homer O s b o r n e ' s d e a t h , t h e
h e i r s w e r e a l l o f l e g a l a g e y e t made no a t t e m p t t o
probate
this
estate
by
filing
for letters
of
administration.
At the time
of the
decedent's
d e a t h , t h e h e i r s were aware t h a t a w i l l e x i s t e d , b u t
did
n o t know o f i t s l o c a t i o n .
Furthermore, the
h e i r s were aware a t t h e t i m e o f h i s d e a t h t h a t t h e
d e c e d e n t m i g h t h a v e owned p r o p e r t y i n t h e s t a t e o f
L o u i s i a n a , b u t made no e f f o r t t o t a k e p o s s e s s i o n o f
the
property.
"(3)
The w i l l
was a d m i t t e d f o r p r o b a t e some
t h i r t y y e a r s a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f Homer C. O s b o r n e , a
time w e l l beyond the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r
p r e s e n t a t i o n of w i l l s to probate.
No n o t i c e s w e r e
i s s u e d i n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e h e i r s knew t h a t
t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s i n p r o b a t i n g t h e w i l l were t o l a y
c l a i m to property l o c a t e d i n the s t a t e of L o u i s i a n a ,
a n d t h e h e i r s knew o f t h e s e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s .
The
i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s have y e t t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e
p r o b a t e a c t i o n f i l e d i n A u g u s t 2004.
The i n t e r e s t e d
p a r t i e s have been t o l d by a t h i r d p a r t y t h a t a w i l l
had
been
probated
i n Macon
County,
and
upon
i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e u n d e r s i g n e d , have found t h a t a
w i l l was p r o b a t e d w i t h o u t n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e m .
"Therefore, the i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s , Cheryl Neal
and C o r b u r t C h i s l e y , c h i l d r e n o f B e t t y R u t h O s b o r n e
C h i s l e y , a f i r s t c o u s i n o f t h e d e c e d e n t , Homer C.
Osborne, r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e u n d e r s i g n e d r e s p e c t f u l l y
request that under the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s honorable
3
1070443
c o u r t , t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s and i s s u e s c o n t e s t i n g t h e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i l l be h e a r d , t r i e d , a n d d e c i d e d b y
a bench
trial."
Simultaneously
Circuit
and
Court,
petition
On
contest
upon w h i c h
the
f o r removal"
25,
the w i l l
was
due
relief
of
August
motions
for a
hearing
was
motion
March
order."
motion
hearing
held,
heirs
a
"motion
nor
court
file,
a d m i t t i n g the w i l l
2006.
to
to
dismiss.
On
March
27,
to
reset
their
the
will
contest
contestants
In t h a t motion,
the c o n t e s t a n t s
4
without
f o r another
filed
a
which
Apparently
motion
the
a
set a l l pending
retired
court
say,
probate.
Bryan
circuit
claim
motion
Judge
the
will
beneficiaries
their
H o w a r d F. B r y a n
to
the
to state a
to
probate
5,
contest
the proponents
attached
October
Macon
Court.
but
moved
2007,
on
the
alleged that
because,
entire
Judge
filed
for failure
proponents
2006,
to dismiss
30,
The
and t h e o r d e r
3,
proponents'
proponents
proponents
granted
the
in
i n t h e Macon P r o b a t e
dismissed
The
contest
a " n o t i c e of w i l l
are n e i t h e r Osborne's
copy
On
will
filed
the
c a n be
i n c l u d e d the w i l l
the
the
contest.
his will.
certified
2006,
t o be
contestants
under
filing
the c o n t e s t a n t s
April
dismiss"
with
ruling
2007,
on
the
pending
hearing.
"motion
argued
that
for
On
final
(1) t h a t
the
1070443
proponents' petition
it
was
filed
more
to probate
than
five
testator
in violation
of
that
contestants
were
and
the
thus
had
was
that
filed
Otha
on J u l y 24,
proponents
the l e g a l
D.
after
the
the w i l l .
on
March
On
of death
13,
2006,
because
death
of
the
1975,
and
(2)
i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s under
M a r t i n h e l d a h e a r i n g on
2007.
A f t e r the
submitted
briefs
issues before
positions.
The
April
the
27,
upon the
while
will
2007,
record,"
this
action
to probate
was
failure
occasioned
s t a t u t e of
the
the
contestants
circuit
court,
arguing their
1975;
i t was
and
the
outlining
respective
by
f r a u d and,
and
was
untimely
filed
more t h a n
the p e t i t i o n
5
whether
the
tolled
§
five
could
probate
i f so, whether the
i n § 4 3 - 8 - 1 6 1 was
(3)
to
(1)
under
(2) w h e t h e r t h e p r o p o n e n t s
to t i m e l y f i l e
limitations
4 3 - 8 - 5 , A l a . Code
the w i l l
because
a f t e r Osborne's d e a t h ;
the w i l l
to
t h e c o u r t and
4 3 - 8 - 1 6 1 , A l a . Code 1975,
argue t h a t the
hearing,
a l l pending motions
only issues o u t l i n e d i n those b r i e f s were:
Whether the p e t i t i o n
year
untimely
§ 4 3 - 8 - 1 6 1 , A l a . Code
a "suggestion
died
was
pending.
J u d g e Ray
years
years
standing to contest
the proponents
stating
the w i l l
five-
under
contestants
§
were
1070443
persons
1975,
i n t e r e s t e d i n the w i l l
so t h a t
In
their
contestants
in
a
the
of
court
of
the
allegedly
contest
[proponents]
was
laws
fraudulently
[ w a s ] ever
Alabama,
" i ti s
given
to
the p r o v i s i o n s
to circumvent
of
or
and
would
as [ t h e y ] h a d n o t i c e
also
attached
real
be
to their
property
i t
of the
brief
located
in
a f f e c t e d i f the admission
allowed
to
November
20,
probate
court's
order
circuit
court's
order
the
brought
is
entirely
that the [ c o n t e s t a n t s ] brought t h i s matter
the
was
the w i l l .
completeness,"
"the w i l l
the
A l a . Code
t o t h e [ c o n t e s t a n t s ] " and t h a t
i n order
as s o o n
concerning
On
43-8-199,
to contest
"matter
i n that
notice
contestants
probate
a
argued that
manner
[contestants]
appropriate
The
as
§
t h a t no n o t i c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
purposes
this
brief,
to give
obvious
had s t a n d i n g
tersely
timely
failed
they
under
before
proceedings."
a title
opinion
Louisiana
that
of the w i l l
to
set aside
the
stand.
2007,
the c i r c u i t
admitting
court
the w i l l
to probate.
stated:
"The m a t t e r s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t a r e t h e i s s u e s o f
w h e t h e r a w i l l s u b m i t t e d f o r p r o b a t e more t h a n f i v e
y e a r s a f t e r t h e t e s t a t o r ' s d e a t h was e f f e c t i v e , a n d
further,
whether
or not the [ c o n t e s t a n t s ]
had
standing
to bring the w i l l
contest.
After
oral
arguments and t h e s u b m i s s i o n
of b r i e f s
f o r both
6
The
1070443
p a r t i e s , t h e o r d e r a d m i t t i n g t h e w i l l t o p r o b a t e and
r e c o r d i s s u e d by t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t of Macon C o u n t y
on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 0 4 , i s s e t a s i d e .
" I t i s t h e r e f o r e ordered, adjudged,
follows:
as
and
decreed
"1.
"2.
The
The S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 0 4 , o r d e r o f t h e P r o b a t e
Court
of
Macon
County
admitting
the
N o v e m b e r 1962 w i l l o f Homer C. O s b o r n e t o
p r o b a t e a n d r e c o r d i s no l o n g e r i n e f f e c t .
The
P r o b a t e C o u r t o f Macon C o u n t y
amend i t s r e c o r d s a c c o r d i n g l y . "
proponents
appealed.
Standard
Questions
shall
of
Murray,
915
So.
American
Tobacco
law
2d
are
23,
Co.,
of
Review
reviewed
25
So.
772
(Ala.
2d
de
novo.
2005)
417,
Christian
(citing
419
v.
State
v.
(Ala. 2000)).
Discussion
On
under
appeal, the proponents
§
43-8-199,
A l a . Code
argue,
1975,
among o t h e r t h i n g s ,
the
circuit
subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n
over the w i l l
will
the
contest
months
after
was
filed
in
the
will
had
contestants respond
that
the
issue
issue
court
admitted
the
review because
circuit
c o u r t and
7
lacked
c o n t e s t because
(1) t h a t t h e p r o p o n e n t s
for appellate
before
been
circuit
court
that
to
than
six
probate.
failed
they
(2)
more
The
to preserve
failed
that
the
the
to
raise
time
in
1070443
which
to
file
provision
in
contestants
the
§
will
contest
was
tolled
Ala.
Code
1975,
43-8-5,
say, the proponents
notice
to the contestants
court.
Contestants' brief,
Section
43-8-199,
by
the
because,
fraudulently failed
of the proceedings
fraud
to
i n the
the
give
probate
a t 13, 26-27.
A l a . Code
1975, p r o v i d e s :
"Any p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d i n a n y w i l l who h a s n o t
contested
t h e same u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s
article,
may, a t a n y t i m e w i t h i n t h e s i x m o n t h s
a f t e r the admission of such w i l l t o probate i n t h i s
s t a t e , c o n t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e same b y f i l i n g a
complaint
i n the c i r c u i t court i n the county i n
w h i c h s u c h w i l l was p r o b a t e d . "
In
the present
September
February
will
9, 2 0 0 4 .
This
has
held
i s statutorily
comply
limitations."
Waddell,
"[b]ecause
is
the six-month
f o r by § 43-8-199
Court
strictly
689
the w i l l
that
with
2d
the
a c i r c u i t court's
statutorily
period
conferred
on
"[j]urisdiction
a will
will
contest
must
any
time
See a l s o E v a n s v .
( A l a . 1997)
and l i m i t e d ,
for a
including
jurisdiction
8
was f i l e d
had passed.
statute,
27
on
f o r contesting the
915 S o . 2 d a t 2 6 .
23,
to probate
contest
c o n f e r r e d ; thus,
Christian,
So.
was a d m i t t e d
T h u s , when t h e w i l l
24, 2006,
provided
contest
case,
over
(holding
a will
a proceeding
that
contest
initiated
1070443
u n d e r § 43-8-199 must
comply e x a c t l y w i t h
t h a t s t a t u t e " ) , and E u s t a c e v. B r o w n i n g ,
2009]
So. 3d
"[w]hether
a will
applicable
jurisdiction
with
contest
was
is
that
filed
an
Therefore,
argue
the
Contrary
This
of
to
6,
contestants'
not
waive
by f a i l i n g
jurisdiction
(Ala.
over
the
a
held
will
So.
"subject-matter
3d
issue
that
contest
( A l a . 1983)
jurisdiction
may
(holding
on
of
to comply
appeal,
the c i r c u i t
can
be
480
raised
So.
n o t be w a i v e d
9
"[l]ack
by
of
the p a r t i e s
lack
at
any
536,
2d
[Ms. 1 0 8 0 0 0 6 ,
Smith,
court.
court's
539
February
(holding
c a n n o t be w a i v e d b y t h e
that
the
subject-matter
( A l a . 2009)
t o a r g u e i t a s an i s s u e " ) , a n d E x p a r t e
768
failure
"a c i r c u i t
Rigdon,
,
jurisdiction
case
subject-matter
argument
See a l s o R i l e y v . H u g h e s ,
200 9]
the
subject-matter
court's
to argue i t before
K a l l e r ex r e l . Conway v .
1985).
of
with
that
43-8-199.
the
C o u r t has s p e c i f i c a l l y
time."
issue
i s a f f e c t e d by t h e c o n t e s t a n t s '
did
(holding
i n compliance
circuit
limitations in §
jurisdiction
2009)
the proponents i n the present
the time
proponents
[Ms. 2 0 7 1 2 3 4 , J u l y 2,
( A l a . C i v . App.
statutes
jurisdiction").
correctly
,
the requirements of
that
failure
438 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 ,
subject
and
matter
i t i s the
1070443
d u t y o f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t
jurisdiction
failure
the
or
ex
mero
to present
circuit
release
to consider
motu").
l a c k of subject
Therefore,
the issue of subject-matter
the
proponents'
j u r i s d i c t i o n to
court d i d not waive the issue f o r a p p e l l a t e
this
Court
from
i t s duty
c i r c u i t court lacked subject-matter
matter
to consider
review
whether
the
j u r i s d i c t i o n over the w i l l
contest.
Next,
file
fraud
the contestants
the w i l l
contest
was
argue
that
tolled
by
the time
i n which
to
the a p p l i c a t i o n of the
p r o v i s i o n o f § 4 3 - 8 - 5 , A l a . Code
1975, w h i c h
provides:
"Whenever
fraud
has
been
perpetrated
in
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h any p r o c e e d i n g
o r i n any s t a t e m e n t
f i l e d under t h i s chapter
or i f fraud i s used to
avoid or circumvent
the p r o v i s i o n s or purposes of
t h i s c h a p t e r , a n y p e r s o n i n j u r e d t h e r e b y may o b t a i n
appropriate r e l i e f against the p e r p e t r a t o r of the
f r a u d o r r e s t i t u t i o n from any p e r s o n ( o t h e r t h a n a
bona f i d e p u r c h a s e r ) b e n e f i t t i n g from t h e f r a u d ,
whether innocent
o r n o t . Any p r o c e e d i n g
must be
c o m m e n c e d w i t h i n one y e a r a f t e r t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e
f r a u d o r f r o m t h e t i m e when t h e f r a u d s h o u l d h a v e
b e e n d i s c o v e r e d , b u t no p r o c e e d i n g
may b e b r o u g h t
a g a i n s t one n o t a p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e f r a u d
later
than f i v e years a f t e r the time of the commission of
t h e f r a u d . T h i s s e c t i o n h a s no b e a r i n g on r e m e d i e s
r e l a t i n g t o f r a u d p r a c t i c e d on a d e c e d e n t d u r i n g h i s
lifetime
which
affects
the
succession
of h i s
estate."
In
prior
Christian,
this
Court
d e c i s i o n of the Court
i n d i c a t e d i t s agreement
of C i v i l
10
Appeals,
holding:
with
a
1070443
" [ A ] p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f f o r one i n j u r e d b y t h e f r a u d
c o n t e m p l a t e d b y A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 4 3 - 8 - 5 ,
would
i n c l u d e the t o l l i n g of the time w i t h i n which to f i l e
a w i l l c o n t e s t when ' t h e f a c t s u p o n w h i c h a c o n t e s t
c o u l d be b a s e d were m i s r e p r e s e n t e d
and c o n c e a l e d by
the f r a u d u l e n t a c t s o f t h e proponents' of t h e w i l l . "
Christian,
So.
915 S o . 2 d a t 27
2 d 4 2 9 , 433
conduct
concluded
to
period
that
that
of fraud
the time
court.'" Christian,
"fraud
sufficient
a
"the Legislature
to t o l l
define
fraud
for filing
necessary
kind
Holway v. Wanschek,
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ) .
amounts
limitations
(quoting
that
allow
as
the
contest,
intended
915 S o . 2 d a t 2 8 .
on a c o u r t "
to t o l l
will
for filing
would
In deciding
that
a will
relief
This
whether
six-month
this
Court
the
fraud
contest
must be
f o r 'fraud
on a
Court proceeded to
follows:
" ' T h i s C o u r t has d e f i n e d " f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t "
as t h a t s p e c i e s o f f r a u d t h a t d e f i l e s o r a t t e m p t s t o
defile
the court
itself
or
that
i s a
fraud
p e r p e t r a t e d by an o f f i c e r o f t h e c o u r t , a n d i t does
n o t i n c l u d e f r a u d among t h e p a r t i e s , w i t h o u t m o r e . '
W a t e r s v . J o l l y , 582 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 5 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 )
( c i t i n g B r o w n v . K i n g s b e r r y M o r t g a g e C o . , 349 S o . 2 d
564
( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , a n d S p i n d l o w v . S p i n d l o w , 512 S o .
2d
918
( A l a . C i v . App.
1987 ) ) .
Black's
Law
D i c t i o n a r y 686 ( 8 t h e d . 2 0 0 4 ) d e f i n e s ' f r a u d o n t h e
court'
as f o l l o w s :
'In a j u d i c i a l proceeding,
a
l a w y e r ' s o r p a r t y ' s m i s c o n d u c t so s e r i o u s t h a t i t
undermines or i s intended t o undermine the i n t e g r i t y
of t h e proceeding.'
See Ex p a r t e F r e e ,
910 S o . 2 d
753
( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . The c a s e s i n w h i c h f r a u d o n t h e
c o u r t has been f o u n d , f o r t h e most p a r t , have been
c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e r e was ' t h e m o s t e g r e g i o u s c o n d u c t
11
690
1070443
involving
a
corruption
of
the
judicial
process
itself,'
s u c h as t h e b r i b e r y o f a j u d g e
or
the
employment of c o u n s e l to i m p r o p e r l y i n f l u e n c e
the
c o u r t . 11 C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t e t a l . , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e
& P r o c e d u r e C i v . 2 d § 2870 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . "
Christian,
"[c]ourts
need
on
915
are
So.
to
2d a t 2 8 .
weigh
for finality
the
court's
great,
court,"
Finally,
the
interest
of judgments
and
judgment
"the
interest
a d m i t t i n g the
...
Christian,
So.
at
915
and
on
present
any
specific
a claim
of
to
appeal,
[of
that
the
[contestants]."
case,
"the
the
conduct
a will
the
to l i m i t
by
the
probate
probate
is
...
to l i m i t
the
[proponents]
However,
the
in
simply
proponents
the
contest.
contestants
we
fraud
i t to s i x months."
contestants
to t o l l
proceedings
g i v e n t o them, and
of
the
six-month
Before
have
the
made
fraudulently
the
probate
that
12
aware o f any
not
would
limitations
only
court
a
bare
failed
to give
court]
to
the
cited
any
c o n t e s t a n t s have not
are not
have
circuit
a u t h o r i t y r e q u i r i n g t h a t any t y p e o f n o t i c e o f t h e
be
the
29.
sufficient
for filing
allegation
notice
2d
the
amount t o f r a u d
period
will
that
against
as e x p r e s s e d b y t h e a c t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e
c o n t e s t and
stated
justice
in finality
a will
alleged
of
Court
i n examining
time f o r f i l i n g
In
this
such
proceedings
authority.
1070443
The
contestants
conduct
the
by
the
which
with
will."
degree
of
could
the
i t s face,
jurisdiction
after
The
the
will
circuit
court
contest.
See
of
invoking
that
t h a t the
based
at
§
2d
had
had
the
contestants
have not
proponents'
the
the
12
So.
3d
of
jurisdiction
The
interest
probate.
that
over
the
the
will
635-36
(Ala.
establishing
falls
on
have
i n the
s i x months
the
the
party
not
finality
is
great
alleged fraud sufficient
s i x - m o n t h l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d , we
court
s i x months
to
631,
contestants
after
13
of
circuit
admitted
jurisdiction
t h a t the
judgment
and
establishing
burden
jurisdiction").
court's
of
v. W i l l i a m s ,
Considering
misrepresented
more t h a n
been
burden
subject-matter
upon
give
contest
has
"[t]he
"'the
not
facts
the
not
subject-matter
that
have
to
27.
43-8-199 does
contested
how
were
of
such
contestants
specificity
915
So.
to
the
acts
Crutcher
existence
probate
notice
fraudulent
being
(holding
that burden.
give
to e n t e r t a i n a w i l l
contestants
2008)
fraudulent
failing
be
by
specific
Furthermore,
any
Christian,
On
a l l e g e d any
in
contest
a
concealed
the
proponents
contestants.
alleged
the
a l s o have not
conclude t h a t the
to
met
of
and
toll
circuit
1070443
court
d i d n o t have
contest
i n the present
Finally,
not
have
subject-matter
this
jurisdiction
over
the w i l l
case.
Court's
subject-matter
holding that the c i r c u i t
jurisdiction
over
court d i d
the w i l l
contest
makes i t u n n e c e s s a r y f o r us t o a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h e c o n t e s t a n t s
were
"person[s]
standing
interested
t o commence
in
the w i l l
[the] w i l l "
contest
so
as
to
have
under § 43-8-199, A l a .
Code 1 9 7 5 .
Any
action
jurisdiction
taken
i svoid.
by a t r i a l
court without
S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w
740 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 2 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) .
or
judgment
Servs.,
will
I n c . v.
subject-matter
not support
Phillips,
an
Furthermore,
appeal."
991 S o . 2 d
"a v o i d
Gallagher
697 ,
701
Drive,
order
Bassett
( A l a . 2008).
Because the c i r c u i t court l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r
jurisdiction,
its
appeal.
judgment
i s void
and w i l l
not support
this
Conclusion
The
to
judgment
be v a c a t e d .
support
i n favor
of the contestants
Furthermore, because a v o i d
an a p p e a l ,
this
appeal
JUDGMENT VACATED; A P P E A L
14
a n d due
judgment w i l l not
i s dismissed.
DISMISSED.
i s void
1070443
Cobb,
C . J . , and W o o d a l l ,
Smith,
concur.
15
Parker,
and
Shaw, J J . ,
