Regions Bank v. Ernest Kramer
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Regions Bank, in its fiduciary capacity as trustee or cotrustee of various trusts, Delores Ancell, and David Puckett filed two permissive appeals, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R. App. P., to challenge the Jefferson Circuit Court's orders denying the trustees' motions to dismiss in part Ernest Kramer's and Kenyon R. Kirkland's complaints filed against the trustees. In his complaint, Kramer alleged that the trustees' management of the assets held by the Kramer revocable trust constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, fraud, reckless misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, suppression, violation of the Alabama Securities Act. Finding that the trustees failed to support their argument with relevant legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's orders.
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 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 ((334) 229¬ 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, 2011-2012 1100967 R e g i o n s Bank, i n i t s f i d u c i a r y c a p a c i t y as t r u s t e e o f t h e H e l g a M. Kramer R e v o c a b l e T r u s t , and D e l o r e s A n c e l l v. Ernest Kramer 1100968 R e g i o n s Bank, i n i t s f i d u c i a r y c a p a c i t y as t r u s t e e o r c o t r u s t e e o f t h e Kenyon R. K i r k l a n d I r r e v o c a b l e T r u s t , t h e Kenyon R. K i r k l a n d R e v o c a b l e T r u s t , and t h e Kenyon R. K i r k l a n d Managed IRA T r u s t , and D a v i d P u c k e t t v. Kenyon R. K i r k l a n d Appeals from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CV-10-903818; CV-10-903807) PARKER, Justice. Regions cotrustee and Bank, of various David Puckett hereinafter the trustees' trusts motions Bank, pursuant Circuit the t r i a l The court's permissive cotrustee following t o Rule and P u c k e t t 5, A l a . R. A p p . P., denying the Ernest Kramer's and filed a g a i n s t t h e t r u s t e e s . We orders. relevant facts Regions of four separate are presented Bank trusts, History serves as i n c a s e : 1 ) t h e H e l g a M. K r a m e r R e v o c a b l e of which Ernest Kramer i s the sole (which 1100967); 2) t h e K e n y o n Kirkland irrevocable i s the of Trust, b e n e f i c i a r y ( " t h e Kramer subject of R. K i r k l a n d I r r e v o c a b l e trust"), or t h e management o f w h i c h i s issue i nthis trust") these trustee at revocable are orders and P r o c e d u r a l appeals. Ancell, i n part to dismiss Facts Ancell, Delores Court's K e n y o n R. K i r k l a n d ' s c o m p l a i n t s affirm below, as t r u s t e e o r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e t r u s t e e s " ) f i l e d appeals, Jefferson capacity described (Regions collectively two p e r m i s s i v e from i n i t s fiduciary which appeal no. T r u s t ("the Kirkland i s the 1100967, 1100968 grantor; 3) Kirkland revocable grantor the and Kenyon of grantor appeal trust"), "the Ancell, plaintiffs") (hereinafter appeal alleged that held no. the Kramer fraud, the Kramer duty, On to subject c o l l e c t i v e l y referred to separate Kramer actions as 1100967. assigned his not parties complaint, constituted wantonness, breach of 1975, § requested violation 8-6-1 a jury claims 3 except of contract, negligent of the as t o a l l 6, 2 0 1 0 , t h e K r a m e r d e f e n d a n t s a l l of Kramer's assets Alabama et seq., deceit, trial to Kramer a breach misrepresentation, suppression, and t o as " t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' management o f t h e trust the t o the Kramer referred others In against sued R e g i o n s Bank officer well A c t , A l a . Code January dismiss as negligence, misrepresentation, conspiracy; Kirkland i s both collectively revocable reckless Securities R. the of which K i r k l a n d (hereinafter brought defendants"), fiduciary i s both the Kenyon On N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , K r a m e r permissive ("the (which t r u s t s are the t h e R e g i o n s Bank t r u s t by 4) Kirkland Trust 1100968). revocable trust Kramer Revocable which and and t h e b e n e f i c i a r y no. trustees. of ("the IRA t r u s t " ) , Kramer and K i r k l a n d as Kirkland the b e n e f i c i a r y ; Managed IRA T r u s t the R. filed Kramer's and claims. a motion breach-of- 1100967, 1100968 fiduciary-duty claim. pertinent as part, The Kramer defendants argued, in follows: " [ K r a m e r ' s ] C o m p l a i n t i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y at odds with the Alabama Supreme C o u r t ' s declaration of A l a b a m a l a w i n [ R e g i o n s B a n k v . ] R e e d [ , 60 So. 3d 868 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ] . I n s t e a d of s t a t i n g h i s a l l e g a t i o n s solely in terms of breach of trust, [Kramer] purports to state claims [of] negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, fraud, reckless misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, s u p p r e s s i o n , v i o l a t i o n of Alabama S e c u r i t i e s Act, d e c e i t , and c o n s p i r a c y -- c l a i m s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s attempted to a s s e r t i n R e e d . The A l a b a m a Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that these a l l e g a t i o n s -a l l of w h i c h r e l a t e s o l e l y to the t r u s t e e ' s a c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g the t r u s t s -- c o n s t i t u t e s o l e l y a c l a i m f o r b r e a c h o f t r u s t . I d . T h u s , b a s e d on t h e c a t e g o r i c a l a u t h o r i t y of Reed, the longstanding Alabama precedents followed therein, and the p l a i n language of the [Alabama U n i f o r m T r u s t C o d e ] , a l l counts a l l e g e d i n [ K r a m e r ' s ] C o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t C o u n t One f o r b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y duty ( i . e . , a c l a i m f o r b r e a c h of t r u s t ) , s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . " The Kramer d e f e n d a n t s for a jury On Kirkland the IRA the 2010, Regions irrevocable trust Kirkland permissive sought to s t r i k e Kramer's request trial. O c t o b e r 20, Puckett, also Kirkland Bank defendants"), appeal no. trust t r u s t , the (hereinafter as s u e d R e g i o n s Bank and officer Kirkland collectively well 1100968. 4 as In to revocable trust, referred others his assigned David not to as parties complaint, the and "the to Kirkland 1100967, 1100968 a l l e g e d t h a t t h e K i r k l a n d d e f e n d a n t s ' management o f t h e h e l d by t h e K i r k l a n d i r r e v o c a b l e t r u s t , the K i r k l a n d trust, a duty, and the negligence, reckless trust constituted wantonness, breach misrepresentation, suppression, and IRA violation breach of negligent assets revocable of fiduciary contract, fraud, misrepresentation, of the Alabama S e c u r i t i e s A c t , deceit, conspiracy. On motion December to dismiss 9, 2010, Kirkland a l l of K i r k l a n d ' s breach-of-fiduciary-duty argued, the in pertinent part, claim. as defendants claims, The except Kirkland filed Kirkland's defendants follows: " [ K i r k l a n d ' s ] C o m p l a i n t i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y a t odds with t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c l a r a t i o n of A l a b a m a l a w i n [ R e g i o n s B a n k v . ] R e e d [ , 60 So. 3d 868 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ] . I n s t e a d o f s t a t i n g h i s a l l e g a t i o n s solely i n terms of breach of t r u s t , [Kirkland] purports to state claims [of] negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, fraud, reckless misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, suppression, v i o l a t i o n of Alabama S e c u r i t i e s A c t , d e c e i t , and c o n s p i r a c y -- c l a i m s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s a t t e m p t e d t o a s s e r t i n R e e d . The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e Court has made abundantly clear that these a l l e g a t i o n s -- a l l of w h i c h r e l a t e s o l e l y t o t h e t r u s t e e ' s a c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e t r u s t s -- c o n s t i t u t e s o l e l y a c l a i m f o r b r e a c h o f t r u s t . I d . T h u s , b a s e d on t h e c a t e g o r i c a l a u t h o r i t y of Reed, the longstanding Alabama precedents followed t h e r e i n , and the p l a i n language of the [Alabama U n i f o r m T r u s t C o d e ] , a l l c o u n t s a l l e g e d i n [ K i r k l a n d ' s ] C o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t C o u n t One f o r b r e a c h 5 a 1100967, 1100968 of f i d u c i a r y duty (i.e., a claim t r u s t ) , s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . " The Kirkland request for a jury On M a r c h defendants' filed and defendants trial. sought strike motion a response t o d i s m i s s ; on M a r c h orders to strike April 13, t r u s t e e s ' motions the trustees sought claims, i . e . , the alleging negligence, reckless motion to dismiss trustees' motion to and denying dismiss of the wantonness, the t r i a l insofar negligent t r u s t e e s ' motions to dismiss court as the common-law plaintiffs' breach d e c e i t , and c o n s p i r a c y . identical i n part the the d i s m i s s a l of the p l a i n t i f f s ' counts trial. entered Specifically, misrepresentation, suppression, t o t h e Kramer 22, 2011, K i r k l a n d court granting i n part to dismiss. granted Kirkland's K i r k l a n d ' s demand f o r a j u r y 2011, t h e t r i a l i n each case, of 1 15, 2011, Kramer f i l e d motion to a response to the K i r k l a n d defendants' On the also f o r breach complaints of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, The t r i a l insofar as court the denied trustees We n o t e t h a t t h e t r u s t e e s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e same a t t o r n e y s i n both a c t i o n s below and t h a t Kramer and K i r k l a n d were represented b y t h e same a t t o r n e y s b e l o w ; t h e same a t t o r n e y s who a r g u e d t h e c a s e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r before t h i s Court i n these permissive appeals. F u r t h e r , Judge R o b e r t S. V a n c e , J r . , h e a r d b o t h c a s e s b e l o w . 1 6 1100967, sought 1100968 the violations dismissal of the plaintiffs' of the Alabama S e c u r i t i e s A c t ; t h u s , as w e l l as t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s duty, remained pending. The t r u s t e e s ' motions to s t r i k e trials, as claims the those a l l e g i n g b r e a c h of trial court alleging also claims, fiduciary denied p l a i n t i f f s ' requests the for jury follows: "Regions next argues that the breach of f i d u c i a r y duty claim i s purely equitable i n nature, so t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f may n o t s e e k e i t h e r a j u r y o r p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s w i t h r e g a r d t o i t . The C o u r t a g r e e s t h a t no j u r y r i g h t a t t a c h e s t o t h i s c a u s e o f a c t i o n . I f t h e c l a i m b a s e d on t h e A l a b a m a S e c u r i t i e s A c t goes t o t r i a l , however, t h e n a j u r y must d e c i d e any d i s p u t e d i s s u e s o f f a c t common t o t h e c l a i m s . See Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 828 So. 2d 883 ( A l a . 2001 ) , a n d Ex p a r t e T h o r n , 788 So. 2d 140 (Ala. 2000)." 2 On April 27, actions entitled petition the 2011, the trustees "motion to r e c o n s i d e r for permission t r u s t e e s ' motions to to appeal." reconsider, filed motions in both or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , The but trial i t court denied certified for Ex p a r t e T a y l o r i s a p p a r e n t l y c i t e d f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t " ' [ t ] h e t r i a l m u s t be a r r a n g e d so t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e e q u i t a b l e i s s u e s by t h e j u d g e does n o t o p e r a t e t o d e n y a t r i a l by j u r y o f t h e l e g a l i s s u e s . ' " 828 So. 2d a t 885 ( q u o t i n g E v a n s v . E v a n s , 547 So. 2d 4 5 9 , 460 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Ex p a r t e Thorn i s a p p a r e n t l y c i t e d f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t , "when b o t h l e g a l and equitable claims are j o i n e d i n one a c t i o n , t h e n , the t r i a l j u d g e must a r r a n g e the o r d e r of t r i a l so t h a t t h e j u d g e ' s d e c i s i o n on t h e e q u i t a b l e i s s u e s d o e s n o t o p e r a t e t o deny a t r i a l by t h e j u r y o f t h e l e g a l i s s u e s . " 788 So. 2d a t 144. 2 7 1100967, 1100968 permissive appeals interlocutory dismiss. for Rule orders denying Pursuant petitions Court under to 5, Ala. R. App. P., i t s i n p a r t the t r u s t e e s ' motions Rule 5, the trustees then filed f o r p e r m i s s i o n to appeal w i t h t h i s Court, which granted. We the purpose have c o n s o l i d a t e d the of w r i t i n g one permissive to this appeals opinion. Discussion In i t s certification c o u r t must i n c l u d e law. In its on review court. Any Inc. Therefore, question of our ... de novo review "this expansion v. the law Baker, would of the usurp the s t a t e d by the question not only issue identified So. 2d before by 1185, this the 1189 Court trial expand the trial responsibility c o u r t b y R u l e 5 ( a ) [ , A l a . R. A p p . 875 trial q u e s t i o n of Court w i l l beyond the q u e s t i o n of law such appeal, of the c o n t r o l l i n g a permissive appeal, e n t r u s t e d to the t r i a l BE&K, permissive a statement conducting presented for (Ala. i s the P.]." 2003). following court i n i t s Rule certifications: " W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f [ s ] , as b e n e f i c i a r [ i e s ] o f a t r u s t , may m a i n t a i n a c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e t r u s t e e u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a S e c u r i t i e s A c t , A l a . Code [1975,] § 8-6-1 e t s e q . , o r w h e t h e r t h e o n l y s t a t e l a w c l a i m t h a t may be a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t a t r u s t e e i s f o r b r e a c h of f i d u c i a r y duty under the Alabama U n i f o r m T r u s t Code." 8 5 1100967, The 1100968 answer necessity The 868 to the f i r s t answer the second trustees ( A l a . 2010), trustees equity's briefs, a t p. denying claims new, The their trusts that Reed i n Reed that "'all a t 882 Spragins, (quoting 475 trusts The trustees' argument is to allow an 19. dispositive matters of the at-law The "a claim trustees' focuses on the pertaining to t r u s t s ... R e e d , 60 So. o f H u n t s v i l l e , N.A. v. Alabama Bank ( A l a . 1985)). not address the issue i n making presented to this I n f a c t , t h e o n l y a u t h o r i t y r e l i e d upon by t h e t r u s t e e s Reed and t h e c a s e s and s t a t u t e s r e l i e d upon by Reed. 3 is creates jurisdiction.'" exclusive S o . 2 d 5 1 2 , 514 does court's plaintiffs' The p o r t i o n o f R e e d r e l i e d u p o n b y t h e t r u s t e e s their remain the t r i a l as t o t h e I d . , a t p. First and Securities Act i n order argument within equity's The to us. 3d repeatedly Court held argue that So. to the equitable j u r i s d i c t i o n entire 3d 60 3 jurisdiction." the t u r s t e e [ s ] [are] v. Reed, pertaining the Alabama against language Bank motions to dismiss under of "this trustees additional exception administration Regions a l lmatters 15. of part. i n Reed, exclusive brought posed w i l l i s d i s p o s i t i v e of the issue before that within of the question argue that argue t h a t , unequivocally order part 9 1100967, Court the 1100968 by t h e t r i a l issue i n Reed concurrent Jefferson Probate Court's The language i n Reed the Reed, the determination relied before Court involving Court upon us. by An of the of which hinged trustees examination Reed in does 19-3B-203 4 not o f Reed will answering the us. set forth the following pertinent history: Section on 1975. "According to [the b e n e f i c i a r i e s of certain t r u s t s s u i n g R e g i o n s as t h e t r u s t e e a n d / o r c o t r u s t e e of those trusts], i n 2008 several class action l a w s u i t s were f i l e d i n Tennessee f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s a g a i n s t R e g i o n s ... a s t h e t r u s t e e o f c e r t a i n t r u s t s f o r a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of s e c u r i t i e s laws relating to investments made by Regions in 4 the and t h e o f § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 3 , A l a . Code inapplicability this one of the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t c u r r e n t l y before procedural jurisdictional interpretation demonstrate In a Court, the question question was jurisdiction this answer court's c e r t i f i e d question of law. Instead, provides: "(a) E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) , t h e circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings i n t h i s s t a t e b r o u g h t by a t r u s t e e or beneficiary concerning the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a trust. "(b) A p r o b a t e c o u r t g r a n t e d s t a t u t o r y e q u i t a b l e jurisdiction has c o n c u r r e n t jurisdiction with the circuit court in any proceeding involving a testamentary or i n t e r v i v o s trust." 10 1100967, 1100968 [ a l l e g e d l y u n s t a b l e and u n s u c c e s s f u l ] f u n d s In response to the Tennessee c l a s s a c t i o n s , Regions f i l e d i n the [ J e f f e r s o n ] probate c o u r t a ' P e t i t i o n f o r I n s t r u c t i o n s and D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment' r e l a t i n g to Alabama t r u s t s f o r which Regions served as a t r u s t e e . Regions requested t h a t the probate court appoint a t r u s t e e ad l i t e m t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e class-action litigation and to represent the i n t e r e s t s of the t r u s t a c c o u n t s . The p r o b a t e c o u r t g r a n t e d R e g i o n s ' s r e q u e s t . Upon r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e o f the appointment of the trustee ad litem, the [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] f i l e d motions to i n t e r v e n e i n the probate court proceeding to protect their own i n t e r e s t s . The p r o b a t e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n s t o intervene, but i t allowed b e n e f i c i a r i e s of the s u b j e c t t r u s t s t o opt out o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by the t r u s t e e a d l i t e m . The [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] subsequently e x e r c i s e d t h e i r r i g h t to opt out. "On N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 8 , R e g i o n s f i l e d a ' P e t i t i o n for F i n a l Settlement' i n the probate c o u r t ('the f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n ' ) p u r s u a n t to § 19-3B-205, Ala. Code 1975, c o n c e r n i n g the t r u s t s f o r which i t s e r v e d as t r u s t e e o r c o t r u s t e e "On N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] f i l e d the above-referenced a c t i o n i n the c i r c u i t court ('the circuit court a c t i o n ' ) . The [beneficiaries s u e d ] R e g i o n s ... a n d a l l e g e d b r e a c h o f fiduciary duty, negligence, wantonness, b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , f r a u d , n e g l i g e n t indemnity, v i o l a t i o n of the Alabama S e c u r i t i e s A c t , c o n s p i r a c y , and a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g b r e a c h e s o f d u t y and law. The claims encompassed b o t h t h e t r u s t s f o r w h i c h R e g i o n s s e r v e d as t r u s t e e o r c o t r u s t e e as w e l l as t h e two t r u s t s f o r w h i c h i t s e r v e d as a g e n t a n d c u s t o d i a n The g r a v a m e n o f the complaint i s t h a t Regions knowingly i n v e s t e d the assets of the trusts i n ... unstable, high-risk funds a f f i l i a t e d w i t h R e g i o n s t h a t were e x p e r i e n c i n g severe f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s . The complaint requests 11 1100967, 1100968 damages o f a t l e a s t a jury trial. $400,000 a n d makes a demand f o r "On N o v e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , S t o c k h a m [one o f t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] f i l e d i n the probate court a motion to d i s m i s s o r t o t r a n s f e r t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t h e final-settlement action on t h e g r o u n d that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the [beneficiaries'] claims against Regions. In i t s response to the motion to dismiss, Regions argued t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, the p r o b a t e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear i n the f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n any c l a i m s b r o u g h t by t h e [beneficiaries] against Regions alleging m a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the assets of the t r u s t s f o r w h i c h i t s e r v e d as t r u s t e e o r c o t r u s t e e , as w e l l any c l a i m s a g a i n s t R e g i o n s a l l e g i n g mismanagement o f t h e a s s e t s o f t h e t r u s t s f o r w h i c h i t s e r v e d as a g e n t and c u s t o d i a n . "On J a n u a r y 8, 2 0 0 9 , R e g i o n s f i l e d a n a n s w e r i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a c t i o n . ... On [ F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 ] , R e g i o n s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o dismiss or to stay the c i r c u i t court action pursuant to § 6 - 5 - 4 4 0 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . I n t h a t motion, Regions again noted that i t b e l i e v e d the probate c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o § 19-3B-203(b), Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 , t o h e a r a l l t h e c l a i m s b r o u g h t i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t a c t i o n . "On M a r c h 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t i s s u e d a n order denying Stockham's motion t o d i s m i s s or t o t r a n s f e r the f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n . In i t s order, the p r o b a t e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t 'Regions' P e t i t i o n f o r F i n a l S e t t l e m e n t was p r o p e r l y a n d t i m e l y f i l e d ' and t h a t by b r i n g i n g i t s a c t i o n 'Regions does n o t c u r t a i l p o t e n t i a l claims against i t . Rather, [the b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] may o b j e c t t o t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f and a s s e r t any c l a i m s a g a i n s t R e g i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the t r u s t s i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n b y t h i s C o u r t . ' The p r o b a t e c o u r t b a s e d i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n on i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 12 1100967, 1100968 19-3B-203(b), probate court finding that the statute gave the "'concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n with the c i r c u i t court i n any proceeding involving a testamentary o r i n t e r v i v o s t r u s t . As a r e s u l t , t h i s C o u r t ... may h e a r a n y m a t t e r concerning a trust's administration, i n c l u d i n g w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n an a c t i o n t o "determine the l i a b i l i t y of a t r u s t e e f o r an a c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e t r u s t a n d t o compel r e d r e s s o f a breach o f t r u s t by any available remedy." A l a . Code [1975,] § 19-3B-201(d)(13).' "The probate c o u r t went on t o s t a t e t h a t ' [ i ] t i s t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t a c t i o n -- f i l e d s u b s e q u e n t l y t o t h i s a c t i o n -- t h a t s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d o r s t a y e d p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code [1975,] § 6-5-440.' "On A p r i l 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ('the mandamus proceeding') seeking an order d i r e c t i n g the probate c o u r t t o withdraw i t s March 26, 2 0 0 9 , o r d e r d e n y i n g S t o c k h a m ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n a n d t o e n t e r an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e e n t i r e f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n . On A u g u s t 11, 2009, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., a n d w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o f R e g i o n s a n d t h e s i s t e r s , t h e mandamus p r o c e e d i n g was t r a n s f e r r e d t o Jefferson Circuit Court Judge M i c h a e l Graffeo's docket and c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h the c i r c u i t court a c t i o n , w h i c h was a l r e a d y p e n d i n g b e f o r e h i m . " A l s o on A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e c i r c u i t court entered an o r d e r granting the [beneficiaries'] petition f o r a writ o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the probate c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s order denying Stockham's motion t o d i s m i s s t h e f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n and t o dismiss i n i t s entirety the final-settlement action without p r e j u d i c e i n order to allow Regions to r a i s e any m a t t e r s i t asserted i n the probate c o u r t as counterclaims i n the c i r c u i t court action. In i t s 13 1100967, 1100968 order, the c i r c u i t c o u r t observed that A r t i c l e VI, § 1 4 2 ( b ) , A l a . C o n s t . 1901, p r o v i d e s c i r c u i t c o u r t s with 'general j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l c a s e s e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y l a w ' a n d p r o v i d e s t h e m with authority 'to r e v i e w d e c i s i o n s of inferior c o u r t s . ' I t n o t e d t h a t § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 , A l a . Code 1975, empowers circuit c o u r t s to 'exercise a general s u p e r i n t e n d e n c e o v e r a l l ... p r o b a t e c o u r t s . ' A f t e r e s t a b l i s h i n g i t s g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y , the c i r c u i t court held that "'the Probate Court has abused i t s discretion by attempting to assert i t s authority over m a t t e r s where i t simply lacks jurisdiction. Specifically, the Probate Court attempts to exert jurisdiction over the c l a i m s at law f o r money d a m a g e s w h i c h [the beneficiaries] have asserted in [the circuit court action], asserting that said claims c o n s t i t u t e compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n the purported accounting action filed by R e g i o n s Bank i n P r o b a t e C o u r t . ' Ala. "The circuit Code 1975, court reasoned that § 12-11-30, "'clearly states ... that "the circuit court shall have e x c l u s i v e jurisdiction o v e r a l l c i v i l a c t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e amount in c o n t r o v e r s y exceeds ten thousand d o l l a r s ($10,000)." Thus, the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e , a c t i n g under the a u t h o r i t y of A l a . Const., A r t . V I , § 142, has c l e a r l y m a n d a t e d t h a t only the Circuit Court shall [have] j u r i s d i c t i o n over c i v i l s u i t s , at law, such as t o r t c l a i m s , f o r money damages w h e r e t h e amount i n c o n t r o v e r s y e x c e e d s t e n t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s ($10,000), which i s the case w i t h regard to the claims brought by [the beneficiaries] in [the circuit court action], sounding in tort, for money damages ' 14 1100967, 1100968 "The circuit c o u r t went 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 3 , A l a . Code 1975, on to find that § "'does not give the Probate Court of Jefferson County jurisdiction to hear actions and claims at law, e.g. tort claims, such as t h o s e a s s e r t e d b y [the beneficiaries] in [the circuit court a c t i o n ] . Rather, this Court construes § 19-3B-203 t o s i m p l y p r e s e r v e t h e equity jurisdiction a l r e a d y b e s t o w e d upon t h o s e C o u r t s m e n t i o n e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (b) o f s a i d s t a t u t e by p r e v i o u s l e g i s l a t i o n , and n o t t o enlarge the j u r i s d i c t i o n of those Probate Courts, such as the Probate Court of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , t o h e a r and a d d r e s s " a t l a w " t o r t c l a i m s f o r money d a m a g e s s u c h a s t h o s e a s s e r t e d by [the b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] i n [the c i r c u i t court action]. I t naturally f o l l o w s t h a t , s i n c e the Probate Court l a c k s jurisdiction to hear those c l a i m s , they cannot be held to be compulsory c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n the a c t i o n which Regions has f i l e d i n t h e P r o b a t e C o u r t . ' fi "Finally, the c i r c u i t c o u r t a l s o found that a l l o w i n g the f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n 'to proceed to conclusion on a nonjury basis, while the [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] i n the [ c i r c u i t c o u r t a c t i o n ] are e n t i t l e d to a d j u d i c a t e t h e i r claims through a j u r y t r i a l , c r e a t e s an u n a c c e p t a b l e a n d u n n e c e s s a r y risk of i n c o n s i s t e n t a d j u d i c a t i o n s . ' " A l s o on A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g R e g i o n s ' F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , motion to d i s m i s s or to s t a y the c i r c u i t court a c t i o n . In i t s o r d e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t adopted the reasoning set forth i n i t s order g r a n t i n g the [beneficiaries'] petition f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t e d to the probate c o u r t . 15 1100967, 1100968 "Regions appealed the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s w r i t of mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t a c t i o n . Regions filed a petition f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h t h i s C o u r t s e e k i n g a n order d i r e c t i n g the c i r c u i t court to vacate i t s A u g u s t 11, 2009, o r d e r d e n y i n g R e g i o n s ' m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a c t i o n . On N o v e m b e r 2, 2009, t h i s C o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i s s u i n g a s t a y o f a l l proceedings i n the c i r c u i t court pending this Court's resolution of Regions' appeal and i t s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus." Reed, 60 S o . 3 d a t 8 7 2 - 7 6 In Reed, 19-3B-203(b), (footnotes omitted). the question before A l a . Code 1975, this Court grants the was "whether probate § court j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear t h e c l a i m s brought by t h e [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] in the c i r c u i t noted that court action." 60 S o . 3 d a t 8 7 8 . This Court A c t No. 1 1 4 4 , A l a . A c t s 1 9 7 1 , "'grants to the Jefferson Probate Court "general j u r i s d i c t i o n concurrent with that of t h e C i r c u i t Courts o f t h i s S t a t e , i n equity, i n the administration of the e s t a t e s o f deceased p e r s o n s , minors and insane o r non compos mentis persons, i n c l u d i n g t e s t a m e n t a r y t r u s t e s t a t e s . " (§ 1.) T h u s , A c t No. 1144 g r a n t s t h e J e f f e r s o n Probate Court broader j u r i s d i c t i o n than i s otherwise granted to the probate courts of this state.'" Reed, 526, 60 S o . 3 d a t 878 529 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . arguments concerning (quoting Jett v. C a r t e r , 758 S o . 2 d This Court then s e t f o r t h the p a r t i e s ' the interpretation 16 o f § 19-3B-203, t h e 1100967, general 1100968 rules of statutory i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , see Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 813-14 ( A l a . 2005), v. and i t s h o l d i n g , Motley, as 909 State So. 2d follows: "Subsection (a) o f § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 3 provides the general r u l e : '[T]he c i r c u i t court has exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n of p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s s t a t e b r o u g h t by a trustee or beneficiary concerning the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a t r u s t . ' Subsection (a) b e g i n s , however, by n o t i n g t h a t s u b s e c t i o n (b) p r o v i d e s an exception to t h i s general r u l e . A p l a i n reading of § 19-3B-203 indicates that subsection (b) acknowledges t h a t c e r t a i n p r o b a t e c o u r t s have been granted broader powers and that the exception referenced i n subsection (a) i s t h a t t h o s e courts t h a t have been g r a n t e d t h o s e b r o a d e r powers have t h e same jurisdiction to hear actions brought by trustees or beneficiaries concerning the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t r u s t s a s do t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s o f this State. "We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 0 p r o v i d e s f o r t h e circuit court to have exclusive original j u r i s d i c t i o n of c i v i l a c t i o n s i n which the matter at c o n t r o v e r s y e x c e e d s $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t this s t a t u t e operates t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f c i r c u i t c o u r t s and d i s t r i c t courts as t o c i v i l a c t i o n s g e n e r a l l y . S e c t i o n 19-3B-203, Ala. Code 1975, specifically addresses actions concerning the administration of trusts. '[A] s p e c i f i c statute r e l a t i n g to a s p e c i f i c subject i s r e g a r d e d as an e x c e p t i o n t o , a n d w i l l p r e v a i l o v e r , a g e n e r a l s t a t u t e r e l a t i n g t o a b r o a d s u b j e c t . ' Ex parte J o n e s M f g . C o . , 589 S o . 2 d 208 , 211 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , § 12-11-30 was last amended i n 1 9 9 6 , w h e r e a s § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 3 was e n a c t e d i n 2 0 0 6 . W i t h respect to j u r i s d i c t i o n of a c t i o n s concerning the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t r u s t s , t h e r e f o r e , § 19-3B-203 i s controlling. 17 Farm 806, 1100967, 1100968 "Thus, t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t s o f J e f f e r s o n , M o b i l e , and Shelby Counties have c o n c u r r e n t jurisdiction w i t h the c i r c u i t courts of those counties t o hear any p r o c e e d i n g b r o u g h t b y a t r u s t e e o r b e n e f i c i a r y concerning the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a t r u s t . In other words, the reference i n subsection (b) o f § 19-3B-203 t o p r o b a t e c o u r t s t h a t have been granted ' s t a t u t o r y e q u i t a b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n ' i s an i d e n t i f y i n g r e f e r e n c e , n o t a l i m i t a t i o n on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s so i d e n t i f i e d . I t i s t h o s e p r o b a t e c o u r t s to which subsection (b) grants 'concurrent jurisdiction' with the c i r c u i t courts to hear actions concerning the administration of a trust brought by a t r u s t e e or b e n e f i c i a r y . "The [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] i n s i s t t h a t even i f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t has been g r a n t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n under § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , t o h e a r a n y p r o c e e d i n g i n v o l v i n g an i n t e r v i v o s t r u s t b r o u g h t b y a t r u s t e e or b e n e f i c i a r y , a l l o w i n g t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o hear the c l a i m s they brought i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a c t i o n would deprive them o f t h e i r r i g h t t o a t r i a l b y j u r y , which i s p r o t e c t e d by A r t . I , § 11, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 . The [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] a r g u e t h a t some o f the claims i n their complaint -- s u c h as t h e negligence, wantonness, fraud, n e g l i g e n t indemnity, and conspiracy claims -- a r e t o r t c l a i m s seeking money d a m a g e s t h a t c a r r y w i t h t h e m a r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y . They o b s e r v e t h a t , i n c o n t r a s t , "'"[t]here i s no common l a w r i g h t t o a t r i a l by j u r y i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t . . . . " Ex p a r t e F l o y d , 250 A l a . 1 5 4 , 1 5 7 , 33 S o . 2 d 3 4 0 , 342 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ; H a n k s v . H a n k s , 2 8 1 A l a . 92, 199 S o . 2 d 169 (1 967 ) . The r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l i n p r o b a t e c o u r t depends upon a s t a t u t o r y grant of that r i g h t . ' "Kemp v . K r o u t t e r , 5 3 1 S o . 2 d 8 5 4 , 855 ( A l a . 1988). "The p r o b l e m w i t h t h e [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ' ] a r g u m e n t i s t h a t t h e c l e a r gravamen o f t h e i r c o m p l a i n t i n t h e c i r c u i t court action with regard to t h e i r claims 18 1100967, 1100968 against R e g i o n s as t r u s t e e o r c o t r u s t e e involves ' e s s e n t i a l l y t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r u s t , when a t r i a l by j u r y i s not a l l o w e d . See Ex p a r t e Floyd, [250 Ala. 154, 33 S o . 2 d 340 (1947 ) ] . ' Hanks v. H a n k s , 281 A l a . 92, 98, 199 So. 2d 1 6 9 , 174 (1967). T h e i r c l a i m s of n e g l i g e n c e , wantonness, fraud, and the like are d e r i v a t i v e s of t h e i r claim of the b r e a c h of f i d u c i a r y d u t y . For example, i n t h e i r negligence c l a i m , the [beneficiaries] allege that R e g i o n s ' a c t e d n e g l i g e n t l y ' by ' f a i l [ i n g ] t o manage the a s s e t s h e l d i n t r u s t f o r [the b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] i n the manner t h a t a reasonably prudent investment m a n a g e r w o u l d h a v e m a n a g e d s a i d f u n d s u n d e r t h e same or s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' In t h e i r f r a u d c l a i m , the [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] a l l e g e that Regions 'represented to [the b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] t h a t the investments in The Funds were s o l i d , s a f e , l o w - r i s k i n v e s t m e n t s that would s a f e l y p r o v i d e a secure income stream [to the b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] ' when, i n f a c t , t h i s representation was f a l s e . I n s h o r t , a l l t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t R e g i o n s as trustee involve the maladministration of the a s s e t s of the v a r i o u s trusts. 1 1 " ' I t has l o n g been t h e law i n A l a b a m a t h a t where a t r u s t e e does not p e r f o r m h i s duty to protect the trust, the b e n e f i c i a r i e s may s u e i n e q u i t y t o p r o t e c t their rights. Supervising the administration of trusts is a well-recognized g r o u n d o f e q u i t y , and the r e g u l a t i o n a n d e n f o r c e m e n t o f t r u s t s i s one o f t h e o r i g i n a l and i n h e r e n t p o w e r s o f t h e equity court.' " F i r s t A l a b a m a B a n k o f M o n t g o m e r y , N.A. v. Martin, 425 So. 2d 4 1 5 , 423 ( A l a . 1 982). In F i r s t Alabama B a n k o f H u n t s v i l l e , N.A. v . S p r a g i n s , 475 So. 2d 512 (Ala. 1985), this Court provided a thorough e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why e v e n c l a i m s f o r money d a m a g e s a l l e g i n g t h e b r e a c h o f a t r u s t do n o t c a r r y a r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y : 19 1100967, 1100968 "'This case involves two separate appeals: the f i r s t appeal i s from a judgment i n a s u i t by b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f a trust against First Alabama Bank of H u n t s v i l l e , N.A., a c t i n g a s t r u s t e e u n d e r a written trust agreement, claiming mismanagement o f t h e t r u s t f u n d and b r e a c h of a f i d u c i a r y duty, and r e q u e s t i n g removal o f t h e t r u s t e e a n d an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e subject trust "'The Bank s t r e n u o u s l y insists that t h e P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m f o r money d a m a g e s , g r o u n d e d on t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e B a n k , as a professional trustee, breached i t s f i d u c i a r y d u t y i n i t s management o f t h e t r u s t e s t a t e , i s n o t s u c h a c l a i m f o r money damages, c o g n i z a b l e a t common l a w , a s t o e n t i t l e t h e P l a i n t i f f s t o a j u r y t r i a l . We agree. While, g e n e r a l l y speaking, a t r u s t , c r e a t e d by w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , p a r t a k e s o f many o f t h e same l e g a l i n c i d e n t s a s o t h e r w r i t t e n agreements, h i s t o r i c a l l y , remedies to enforce r i g h t s a r i s i n g under a t r u s t have been relegated to the exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n of equity. " ' B o t h [2] S c o t t [ o n T r u s t s § 164 ( 3 d ed. 1967)] and t h e R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T r u s t s (1959) r e c o g n i z e e x c l u s i v e e q u i t a b l e jurisdiction over remedies for a beneficiary against a trustee, with two exceptions: "(1) I f the t r u s t e e i s under a duty to pay money immediately and unconditionally to the beneficiary, the b e n e f i c i a r y c a n m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n a t l a w a g a i n s t t h e t r u s t e e t o e n f o r c e p a y m e n t . (2) I f the t r u s t e e of a c h a t t e l i s under a duty to transfer i t immediately and u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r y and i n breach of t r u s t f a i l s to transfer i t , the 20 1100967, 1100968 b e n e f i c i a r y c a n m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n a t l a w against him." Restatement (Second) of T r u s t s , § 198 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . The c o u r t s o f A l a b a m a have c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d and applied this common law development. Ex parte Garner, 280 Ala. 111, 190 So. 2d 544 (1966). For a case a p p l y i n g the "at law" e x c e p t i o n , s e e Ex p a r t e D a v i s , 465 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 1985). "'Applying this rule to the P l a i n t i f f s ' complaint, the t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t the P l a i n t i f f s were not e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y t r i a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r demands t o r e m o v e t h e B a n k as t r u s t e e a n d t o r e q u i r e an accounting of the B a n k . As to the remaining request for money damages, however, the t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h i s d i d create a legal issue that entitled P l a i n t i f f s t o a t r i a l by j u r y . " ' W h i l e t h e r u l e , as h e r e a p p l i e d , i s g e n e r a l l y c o r r e c t , i t i s not c o r r e c t w i t h respect to trusts. As seen by the h i s t o r i c a l background, the c o u r t of e q u i t y embraced the f u l l j u r i s d i c t i o n of t r u s t s , s a v e f o r t h e two exceptions r e f e r r e d to above, n e i t h e r of which i s a p p l i c a b l e here. "'We r e c o g n i z e t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n of pure l o g i c presents a persuasive argument for including a third exception: a claim f o r money d a m a g e s o n l y , b a s e d on an a l l e g e d b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y d u t y . We a r e p e r s u a d e d , h o w e v e r , t o a d h e r e t o p r e c e d e n t and leave all matters p e r t a i n i n g to t r u s t s , other t h a n t h e two r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n s , w i t h i n equity's exclusive jurisdiction. " ' B e c a u s e r e m e d i e s o f money d a m a g e s b a s e d on a c l a i m f o r b r e a c h o f t r u s t w e r e 21 1100967, 1100968 n o t c o g n i z a b l e a t l a w , we a r e constrained to reverse the judgment from which the f i r s t a p p e a l i s t a k e n and t o remand t h i s cause for further consideration by the trial court.' "475 So. 2d a t 5 1 3 - 1 4 . See a l s o Ex p a r t e H o l t , 599 So. 2d 12, 14-15 ( A l a . 1992) (noting that '"'[t]he b a s i c a l l y e q u i t a b l e n a t u r e o f an a c t i o n ... f o r an accounting i s not c h a n g e d by the i n c l u s i o n of a c l a i m f o r damages. Such a c l a i m o n l y r e s t a t e s the basic equitable a c t i o n , and i n no way creates r i g h t t o t r i a l b y j u r y . I n d e e d i t w o u l d make no s e n s e t h a t t h e c l a i m f o r damages c o u l d c h a n g e an e q u i t a b l e a c t i o n i n t o one a t l a w . Damages c a n only be d e t e r m i n e d a f t e r an a c c o u n t i n g o f w h e t h e r o r n o t money i s owed t o o r f r o m [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] '"' ( q u o t i n g S a n d e r s v . K i r k l a n d & Co., 510 So. 2d 138, 141 (Ala. 1987), quoting in turn Bonnell v. C o m m o n w e a l t h R e a l t y T r u s t , 363 F. S u p p . 1 3 9 2 , 1393 (E.D. P a . 1 9 7 3 ) ) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) ) . "The two exceptions to the general rule d i s c u s s e d i n S p r a g i n s -- a d u t y o f an i m m e d i a t e a n d u n c o n d i t i o n a l money p a y m e n t b y t h e t r u s t e e t o the beneficiary or a duty of an immediate and u n c o n d i t i o n a l t r a n s f e r o f c h a t t e l by t h e t r u s t e e t o the beneficiary -are not applicable here. Moreover, the f a c t t h a t the [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] have c o u c h e d some o f t h e i r c l a i m s i n t e r m s o f t o r t s s u c h as n e g l i g e n c e m a k e s no d i f f e r e n c e . "'We b e l i e v e A l a b a m a l a w t o be c l e a r : that the plaintiff's claims here are exclusively within the realm of equity j u r i s d i c t i o n . This conclusion i s e s p e c i a l l y compelling in this case, i n which the b e n e f i c i a r y of the t r u s t , u n t i l her d e a t h , was a l s o a c o - t r u s t e e . We h a v e d i l i g e n t l y searched for cases that w o u l d make an e x c e p t i o n i n a c a s e w h e r e , as i n t h i s c a s e , t h e b e n e f i c i a r y , t o whom p a y m e n t s w e r e t o 22 1100967, 1100968 be made, was f o u n d none. also a co-trustee, but we have "'We realize, of course, that [the plaintiff's] complaint is based upon SouthTrust's alleged negligence i n f a i l i n g t o e x e r c i s e s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l over Payne or to employ measures s u f f i c i e n t to detect embezzlement of the royalties. H o w e v e r , we f i n d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h i s c a s e and those a l l e g e d i n Spragins "Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f A l a b a m a , N.A., 2d 645, 649 (Ala. 1996). 679 So. "Thus, the [beneficiaries'] claims f o r money d a m a g e s do n o t e n t i t l e t h e m t o a t r i a l b y j u r y . The c l a i m s b r o u g h t by t h e [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] i n t h i s c a s e concern a l l e g e d b r e a c h e s by the trustee of i t s f i d u c i a r y d u t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the t r u s t , claims t h a t s o u n d i n e q u i t y . As a r e s u l t , t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t retains jurisdiction over the [beneficiaries'] c l a i m s a g a i n s t R e g i o n s as t r u s t e e o r c o t r u s t e e . " 'A violation by a trustee of a duty the t r u s t e e owes t o a b e n e f i c i a r y i s a b r e a c h o f t r u s t . ' § 1 9 - 3 B - 1 0 0 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975." 11 Reed, 60 So. Our before opinion 3d holding this at 880-83. in Court. Reed The i n Reed e x p r e s s l y beneficiary Alabama equitable attempts Securities and allows to Act, but did not address trustees argue stated assert the that a law one, that statutory of current "[t]his regardless claim issue Court's of whether claim trusts equitable 23 the is under a the exclusively for breach of 1100967, trust 1100968 against (emphasis Court a trustee." in original). made The trustees' However, no s u c h h o l d i n g brief, as s e t f o r t h a t p. above, claims were nature that jury. We First, we h e l d the asserted would held and normally pursuant holding concerning those various upon asserted: "The in complaint their negligent claims seeking trial by such indemnity, 60 of a was a r i g h t claims were on t h e f a c t trust. So. as that trial claims carry with a t 881. 24 some o f t h e c l a i m s the negligence, and c o n s p i r a c y 3d to a jury t o a t l e a s t some o f t h e c l a i m s money d a m a g e s t h a t jury." those m e n t i o n i n g t h e Alabama S e c u r i t i e s A c t [ b e n e f i c i a r i e s ] argue fraud, court i t was d e p e n d e n t o n l y attendant -- related to This whether we a d d r e s s e d w h e t h e r t h e r e the probate court claims. 60 S o . 3 d a t 8 8 0 . r e l a t e d to the administration in those by them that claim, of a over i n nature; Second, b u t w i t h o u t were to a t r i a l claims circuit equitable they rather the Reed, not dependent common- the J e f f e r s o n Probate Court had with t o § 19-3B-2 0 3 ( b ) . was claims i n Reed because jurisdiction those a plaintiff administration of a trust, concurrent that entitle two t h i n g s that, this i n Reed. I n d e e d , R e e d i s p r e m i s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t v a r i o u s law 10 wantonness, -- a r e t o r t them a r i g h t t o For purposes of that 1100967, 1100968 i s s u e , we c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c common-law t r e a t m e n t o f such in relation claims trust was brought to consider jurisdiction. the in Plaintiffs' allegation that not such a c l a i m 881-82. for 475 money w i t h i n the court's we So. quoted 2d duty the P l a i n t i f f s "the that grounded cognizable on to a j u r y t r i a l . " 60 breached estate, i s S o . 3d a t consider beneficiaries' A l a b a m a S e c u r i t i e s A c t c l a i m when we various as h i s t o r i c a l l y w i t h i n e q u i t y therefore the as c l a i m s question f o r which a j u r y t r i a l cases c a r r y with if claims the are litigated i s s u e we m u s t d e c i d e in the present them a r i g h t case i n order was in a jurisdiction was to a t r i a l probate to decide correct in the described and not a v a i l a b l e , whether the Alabama S e c u r i t i e s A c t claims present the a t common l a w , A l t h o u g h i n R e e d we d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y claims equity upon i n i t s management o f t h e t r u s t f o r money d a m a g e s , a 513, at damages, of and r e l i e d t h e Bank, as a p r o f e s s i o n a l t r u s t e e , fiduciary to e n t i t l e things, Spragins, claim its as them as b e i n g Among o t h e r holding to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n the by j u r y , even court, i s not an that the c i r c u i t court not those dismissing claims. Stated proposition differently, that claims Reed otherwise 25 does not cognizable stand under for the Alabama 1100967, law, 1100968 whether enactment are not (such that of exist those and under maintain Securities could be litigated have failed certified only state trustee is Uniform Trust the Code we simply i n the we their question trustee § held probate claim breach Code" -- of that may fiduciary m u s t be be the of answered first law, Reed with part which of a t r u s t , the et seq.," -- asserted duty in court. under 8-6-1 claims argument answer in administering h e l d that such support [1975,] Act), trustee the second p a r t of i t s q u e s t i o n law for legislative a in as b e n e f i c i a r [ i e s ] against Ala. thus, to a u t h o r i t y ; thus, claim affirmative; by against dismissed, court's Act, or or omissions be legal a law should trustees trial law n o t i o n t h a t we "whether the p l a i n t i f f [ s ] , the common Alabama to the claims relevant the the a c l a i m under the Alabama S e c u r i t i e s Contrary The any by to t h a t t r u s t e e ' s acts a trust. not as available relation do created under i n the may Alabama in the "whether against the is a Alabama negative. Conclusion B a s e d on the the trustees' alleging a foregoing, motions violation to of the trial dismiss the affirmed. 26 court's the Alabama orders denying plaintiffs' claims Securities Act are 1100967, 1100968 1100967 -- AFFIRMED. 1100968 -- AFFIRMED. Malone, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Main, and Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 27 Stuart, Bolin, M u r d o c k , Shaw,
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.
