Homer Osborne Johnson and Schurlock Holland v. Cheryl Neal and Corburt Chisley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 . ,

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.