In re: Estate of S.L. Wilson, Sr.
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.
Carolyn Wilson Floyd petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Thomas ap R. Jones of the Hale Circuit Court to set aside his order denying her motion to dismiss the will contest filed by Carlean Wilson Wakefield on the ground that the action was barred by section 43-8-199, Ala. Code 1975, which provides that an action to contest a will must be filed within six months after the admission of the will to probate. Upon review of the matter, the Court concluded that Floyd properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court, and showed a clear legal right to the dismissal of the will contest because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the contest. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus was granted and the circuit court was directed to grant Floyd's motion to dismiss Wakefield's will contest.
Download PDF
REL:09/21/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1111241 Ex p a r t e C a r o l y n Wilson F l o y d PETITION FOR WRIT Of MANDAMUS (In r e : E s t a t e o f S.L. Wilson, S r . v. Honorable Thomas ap R. Jones e t a l . ) (Hale C i r c u i t Court, BOLIN, Justice. Carolyn mandamus Circuit CV-12-0005) Wilson directing Court Floyd petitions Judge t o s e taside Thomas this ap R. h i s order Court Jones f o r a writ of o f t h e Hale denying h e r motion t o 1111241 d i s m i s s the w i l l c o n t e s t f i l e d by C a r l e a n W i l s o n W a k e f i e l d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a c t i o n i s b a r r e d by § 43-8-199, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t an a c t i o n t o c o n t e s t a w i l l must be filed within p r o b a t e . We s i x months a f t e r grant the I. S.L. "the father"), 2010. At the children: Sr. admission Floyd, the will to Procedural History (sometimes hereinafter referred a r e s i d e n t of Hale time of petition. F a c t s and Wilson, the C o u n t y , d i e d on M a r c h of h i s death, Wakefield, to W i l s o n was S.L. Wilson, 17, s u r v i v e d by J r . , Luci Montgomery, I s a a c W i l s o n , and E d d i e W i l s o n . On as his Wilson J u l y 5, 2010, W a k e f i e l d wrote a l e t t e r addressed t o t h r e e Hale County judges (the c i r c u i t j u d g e , t h e d i s t r i c t - c o u r t j u d g e , and t h e p r o b a t e - court judge) estate, probate, expressing inquiring and i f her February personal in On 10, father's been a d m i t t e d to answer. 2011, County Probate March had her going to contest h i s w i l l ; Floyd, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Wilson's the Hale will. 2, regarding father's w i l l i m p l y i n g t h a t she was W a k e f i e l d r e c e i v e d no On concerns 2011, Court named Wilson estate, f i l e d as the a petition seeking to probate Wilson's Wakefield 2 by wrote a second letter 1111241 a d d r e s s e d t o H a l e C o u n t y P r o b a t e Judge L e l a n d A v e r y him, among o t h e r will and things, address added.) this After a that forum issued letters Wakefield Wilson, testamentary contest court." Wakefield admitted to Floyd. (Emphasis obtained father's an estate 2012, to probate On A p r i l order from Floyd moved circuit court on not filed her was admitted 20, 2011, attorney, Wakefield the t r u e i n t e n t of heirs." f i l e d i n the Hale Circuit c o n t e s t i n g w i l l , " and on F e b r u a r y 16, Court. subject-matter the c o n t e s t i n g the w i l l because " i t i s S r . [ ' s ] inheritance to h i s F e b r u a r y 15, the attended, the w i l l f a b r i c a t e d to misrepresent Court a "complaint she circuit which 2011, t h a t she was b e l i e v e d t o be On "wish[ed] to wrote a t h i r d l e t t e r addressed to Floyd's i n f o r m i n g him S.L. in hearing, p r o b a t e c o u r t on M a r c h 22, and she informing the removing the to probate dismiss ground jurisdiction will the contest t o p r o b a t e as administration court the that to complaint the because, the circuit she said, of her Hale Circuit filed in court the lacked Wakefield w i t h i n s i x months a f t e r r e q u i r e d by 2012, the had will § 43-8-199, A l a . Code 1975. W a k e f i e l d o p p o s e d t h e m o t i o n , c l a i m i n g t h a t she d i d n o t learn of the existence of the 3 probate proceeding until 1111241 February 12, 2 0 1 1 , b u t a l s o c l a i m i n g t h a t h e r l e t t e r s H a l e C o u n t y j u d g e s , t o Judge A v e r y , a n d t o F l o y d ' s l a w y e r were notice of her i n t e n t t o contest the w i l l of and t o seek removal t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e and/or t h e w i l l c o n t e s t t o the circuit action Code court. Wakefield contesting the w i l l 1975 (will filed filed after further claimed will that Code admitted p e r i o d o f § 43-8-199. dismiss Wakefield's t h i s Court that her admitted c o n t e s t from limit probate Wakefield tolling t o § 43-8-5, to limitations The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d F l o y d ' s will contest. (will i n § 43-8-199 i s fraud pursuant she s a y s , to F l o y d then motion petitioned f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. II. A petition which will to probate). the six-month 1975, t h e r e b y , claimed § 43-8-199, A l a . Code 1975 i n a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e she a l l e g e d Ala. before (transfer of a w i l l c o u r t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t ) , and contest therefore was t i m e l y u n d e r § 43-8-190, A l a . contest p r o b a t e ) , § 43-8-198 to t o the Standard for a writ o f Review o f mandamus i s a proper means b y to review questions of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . p a r t e Punturo, to 928 So. 2d 1030 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . "'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l 4 Ex 1111241 r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Ex p a r t e P e r f e c t i o n S i d i n g , I n c . , 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 ( A l a . 2003). In Newman v. S a v a s , this Court motion 878 So. 2d 1147, 1148-49 s e t out the standard of review ( A l a . 2003), of a r u l i n g to dismiss f o r lack of subject-matter on a jurisdiction: "A r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s r e v i e w e d without a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s . Nance v. M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 1993) . T h i s C o u r t must a c c e p t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t as t r u e . C r e o l a L a n d Dev., I n c . v. B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285, 288 ( A l a . 2002) . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r whether the p l e a d e r w i l l u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l b u t w h e t h e r t h e p l e a d e r may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . Nance, 622 So. 2d a t 299." III. In her p e t i t i o n that the c i r c u i t refusing to Discussion for a writ o f mandamus, F l o y d contends c o u r t exceeded t h e scope o f i t s a u t h o r i t y by dismiss Wakefield's will contest f o r lack of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e , she s a y s , t h e c o n t e s t was not filed within s i x months o f t h e a d m i s s i o n of the w i l l p r o b a t e as r e q u i r e d b y § 43-8-199, A l a . Code 1975. 5 to Wakefield, 1111241 on the the other hand, c l a i m s t h a t her j u d g e s o f H a l e C o u n t y and Judge A v e r y her 2010, M a r c h 10, constituted a contest admitted to probate, J u l y 5, of the letters to letter to 2011, will before as p r o v i d e d i n § 43-8-190. c l a i m s t h a t h e r l e t t e r s , w h i c h were d a t e d b e f o r e was admitted the will and to seek of f a t h e r ' s e s t a t e and/or the w i l l In o t h e r words, W a k e f i e l d a d e q u a t e p l e a d i n g and probate claims the contest a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of c o n t e s t to the c i r c u i t t h a t her will her court. letters constitute documentation of a w i l l contest in the court. Alabama law and the were n o t i c e o f h e r i n t e n t t o removal was Specifically, she to probate, i t p e r t a i n i n g to w i l l contests i s well settled long-standing: " I n A l a b a m a a w i l l may be c o n t e s t e d i n two ways: (1) u n d e r § 43-8-190, Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, before p r o b a t e , a c o n t e s t may be i n s t i t u t e d i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t o r (2) u n d e r § 43-8-199, Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, a f t e r probate and w i t h i n s i x months t h e r e o f , a c o n t e s t may be i n s t i t u t e d by f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e w i l l was probated." S t e v e n s v. G a r y , 565 So. 2d 73, 74 ( A l a . 1990). S e c t i o n 43-8-190 p r o v i d e s : "A w i l l , b e f o r e t h e p r o b a t e t h e r e o f , may be c o n t e s t e d by any p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d t h e r e i n , o r by any p e r s o n , who, i f t h e t e s t a t o r had d i e d i n t e s t a t e , 6 1111241 w o u l d have b e e n an h e i r o r d i s t r i b u t e e o f h i s e s t a t e , by f i l i n g i n t h e c o u r t where i t i s o f f e r e d f o r p r o b a t e a l l e g a t i o n s i n w r i t i n g t h a t t h e w i l l was n o t d u l y e x e c u t e d , o r o f t h e unsoundness o f mind o f t h e t e s t a t o r , o r o f any o t h e r v a l i d o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o ; and t h e r e u p o n an i s s u e must be made up, u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , between t h e p e r s o n making t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , as p l a i n t i f f , a n d t h e p e r s o n 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 , as d e f e n d a n t ; a n d s u c h i s s u e must, on a p p l i c a t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r t y , be t r i e d by a j u r y . " (Emphasis added.) S e c t i o n 43-8-199 p r o v i d e s has been circuit fora will admitted t o probate, which court. Section 43-8-199 contest a f t e r a w i l l must be b r o u g h t i n the provides: "Any p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d i n any 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 a r t i c l e , may, a t any t i m e w i t h i n t h e s i x months a f t e r the a d m i s s i o n o f such w i l l t o p r o b a t e i n t h i s s t a t e , contest the 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 which s u c h w i l l was p r o b a t e d . " Wakefield (Ala. the cites Ex p a r t e Barrows, 892 So. 2d 914, 918 2004), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t h e r l e t t e r s addressed t o Hale County judges and her letter to Judge Avery c o n s t i t u t e d adequate p l e a d i n g and documentation f o r t h e f i l i n g o f an i n i t i a l w i l l I n Ex p a r t e contest i n the probate court. Barrows, this Court held copy o f a c o m p l a i n t p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d 7 that We disagree. the f i l i n g of the i n the probate court with 1111241 t h e w o r d " p r o b a t e " m a r k e d o u t and t h e w o r d " c i r c u i t " in i t s p l a c e i n the s t y l e and the filing of a inserted circuit-court c o v e r s h e e t c o n s t i t u t e d a d e q u a t e p l e a d i n g and d o c u m e n t a t i o n the filing Specifically, of a will t h i s Court contest in the circuit of court. stated: " A p p l y i n g t h e l a w and t h e r e a s o n i n g s e t f o r t h i n D u n n i n g [v. New E n g l a n d L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co., 890 So. 2d 92 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f i l i n g of t h e c o p y o f t h e c o m p l a i n t p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t w i t h t h e w o r d ' p r o b a t e ' m a r k e d o u t and the word ' c i r c u i t ' i n s e r t e d i n i t s p l a c e i n the s t y l e and t h e f i l i n g o f a c i r c u i t court cover sheet c o n s t i t u t e d a d e q u a t e p l e a d i n g and d o c u m e n t a t i o n f o r the f i l i n g of the w i l l c o n t e s t i n the c i r c u i t court. W h i l e t h e c o m p l a i n t a p p e a r s t o be a x e r o x e d copy o f the complaint o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d i n the probate court, t h e c o m p l a i n t p r o p e r l y c o n t a i n s t h e name o f t h e c o u r t , t h e t i t l e o f t h e a c t i o n , t h e f i l e number, and the d e s i g n a t i o n t h a t i t i s a 'complaint c o n t e s t i n g w i l l . ' See R u l e 10, A l a . R. C i v . P. A d d i t i o n a l l y , a p p l y i n g the p r i n c i p l e of law s e t f o r t h i n Dunning t h a t a s i g n a t u r e may be a f f i x e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways, the a t t o r n e y ' s s i g n a t u r e , although not original, p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d the a l l e g a t i o n s i n the complaint. See R u l e 11, A l a . R. C i v . P. See a l s o D u n n i n g , s u p r a ( n o t i n g t h a t R u l e 11 does n o t p r o v i d e t h e method by w h i c h a p l e a d i n g i s t o be s i g n e d ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , S h i e l d s J r . p r o p e r l y f i l e d a cover sheet pursuant to R u l e 3 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. L a s t l y , t h e d o c k e t f e e was timely f i l e d . " 892 So. 2d a t Clearly, present case. 918. Ex The parte Barrows i s distinguishable c o n t e s t a n t to the w i l l 8 from the i n Ex p a r t e B a r r o w s 1111241 "filed" an actual complaint, albeit containing the necessary a l l e g a t i o n s , not an original, with the c i r c u i t as e v i d e n c e d b y t h e t i m e l y f i l i n g o f t h e d o c k e t f e e . 43-8-190 specifically states that "[a] w i l l , court Section before the p r o b a t e t h e r e o f , may be c o n t e s t e d ... b y f i l i n g i n t h e c o u r t where i t i s o f f e r e d f o r probate a l l e g a t i o n s Wakefield's i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e were n o t f i l e d letters i n writing the p r o b a t e c o u r t ; t h e y were n o t s t a m p e d " f i l e d " of the probate addressed Judge Instead, t o and s e n t Avery, general court. t o t h e Hale expressing, concerns they about a were County f o r t h e most family matter. merely part, letters including Wakefield's first d a t e d J u l y 5, 2010, t o t h e t h r e e j u d g e s was s e n t s e v e n before the p e t i t i o n proceeding whatsoever to probate was the w i l l pending. The was f i l e d , second letter, months when no letter, Judge A v e r y , i n d i c a t e d t h a t W a k e f i e l d w i s h e d t o " a d d r e s s forum that court in circuit letter, court." Wakefield We note appeared on t h e d a y t h e p r o b a t e Floyd's petition to probate again that, personally with by t h e c l e r k judges, The " after to this sending i n the probate c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d and g r a n t e d the w i l l . Furthermore, c o m p l a i n t i n Ex p a r t e B a r r o w s c o n t a i n e d , among o t h e r 9 the things, 1111241 the name of the court, the title of the action, the file number, and t h e d e s i g n a t i o n i n t h e c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h a t a c t i o n was a w i l l contest. Floyd's W a k e f i e l d ' s l e t t e r s t o Judge A v e r y and attorney in the present case contain scant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c o m p l a i n t ; t h e y do n o t i n c l u d e t h e of the a c t i o n , the f i l e number, o r any were i n t e n d e d as a w i l l letters can be interpreted as title designation that c o n t e s t . I n s t e a d , the wording showing Wakefield's to they of the position r e g a r d i n g the w i l l , i . e . , her " d e s i r e " to c o n t e s t her f a t h e r ' s will. A c c o r d i n g l y , the drafted pleading letters and/or constitute contest will d i d not filed in a properly the probate court. There concerning probate being her no purported court before t h e r e was court. contesting further the action attempt at admission taken a of will the by Wakefield contest will to in probate, s i m p l y an e s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b e f o r e t h e The the only will provision after 43-8-199, A l a . Code 1975, probate available to Wakefield i t s admission to probate which, as n o t e d a b o v e , states: "Any p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d i n any w i l l who has n o t c o n t e s t e d 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 a r t i c l e , may, a t any t i m e w i t h i n t h e s i x months a f t e r the a d m i s s i o n of such w i l l t o probate i n t h i s s t a t e , 10 the for is § 1111241 contest the 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 which s u c h w i l l was p r o b a t e d . " (Emphasis added.) conferred Because j u r i s d i c t i o n by s t a t u t e , "§ 43-8-199 was additional opportunity to probate." in a will contest i s enacted to provide for contesting a w i l l already an admitted S i m p s o n v. J o n e s , 460 So. 2d 1282, 1284-85 ( A l a . 1984). In Simpson, t h i s Court stated: "Because will contest jurisdiction is s t a t u t o r i l y c o n f e r r e d , p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r § 43-8-190 and § 43-8-199 must c o m p l y e x a c t l y w i t h t h e t e r m s o f the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e . ' I t i s f a m i l i a r law i n A l a b a m a , t h e o n l y way t o q u i c k e n i n t o e x e r c i s e a s t a t u t o r y and l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i s by p u r s u i n g t h e mode p r e s c r i b e d by t h e s t a t u t e . ' Ex p a r t e P e a r s o n , 241 A l a . 467, 469, 3 So. 2d 5, 6 ( 1 9 4 1 ) . Section 43-8-199 mandates t h a t , i n o r d e r t o commence a v a l i d contest of a w i l l already admitted t o probate, a p e r s o n w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n t h e w i l l f i l e a c o m p l a i n t in circuit court and 'quicken' that court's j u r i s d i c t i o n of the contest." 460 So. 2d a t 1284. In t h e p r e s e n t March 22, will" on F e b r u a r y contest 2011. case, Wakefield filed t o p r o b a t e on her "complaint 15, 2012. F l o y d moved t o d i s m i s s b e c a u s e i t was limitation t h e w i l l was a d m i t t e d filed contesting the w i l l w e l l beyond the six-month p r e s c r i b e d i n § 43-8-199. 11 time In her "opposition to 1111241 motion to d i s m i s s , " Wakefield file the will contest was 43-8-5, A l a . Code 1975, argues t h a t the time i n which to tolled which by the a p p l i c a t i o n of § 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 f r a u d i s used to a v o i d or circumvent the p r o v i s i o n s or purposes of t h i s chapter, any person i n j u r e d thereby may obtain a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f a g a i n s t 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 f r o m 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 f r o m t h e fraud, whether innocent o r n o t . Any proceeding must be commenced 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 have 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 be 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 l a t e r t h a n f i v e years a f t e r the time of the commission of the f r a u d . T h i s s e c t i o n has no b e a r i n g on remedies 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 l i f e t i m e which a f f e c t s the s u c c e s s i o n of h i s e s t a t e . " "Section 43-8-5, A l a . Code 1975, extends, under l i m i t e d action relating estate." App. the Section must d i s c o v e r y of the be 2005), the fraudulent 43-8-5 2d states, in within 429, 433 part, one that year I n C h r i s t i a n v. M u r r a y , Court concluded 12 that "the of an an (Ala. Civ. "[a]ny after 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 this and i t time f o r f i l i n g administration So. commenced have been d i s c o v e r e d . " (Ala. e n a c t e d i n 1982, circumstances, H o l w a y v. Wanschek, 690 1997). proceeding to was 915 So. the should 2d 23 Legislature 1111241 intended t h a t the fraud necessary to t o l l a will contest relief f o r ' f r a u d on a c o u r t . ' " v. Jolly, defined must be 582 So. that 2d kind 1048, " f r a u d " on t h e of 915 fraud So. 1055 court" the time f o r that would 2d a t 28. (Ala. filing 1991), allow In Waters this Court as " t h a t s p e c i e s of f r a u d t h a t d e f i l e s or attempts t o defile the court itself or that is 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 , and 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 more." ( C i t i n g Brown v. 1977), App. and Kingsberry S p i n d l o w v. M o r t g . Co., Spindlow, 349 512 So. So. 2d 2d (Ala. (Ala. 918 564 Civ. 1987).) I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n o f § 43-8-5 a p p l i e s when a c o n t e s t a n t will has engaged administration bearing on during his estate." of a will in the shows t h a t fraud estate; in proponent of Code with section "has the the no 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 lifetime 887 administration of the connection that which affects § 43-8-5, A l a . Code 1975. Hudson, amount of So. 2d of e s t a t e , outstanding Holway , s u p r a 923 (Ala. attorney mortgage the See, Civ. succession e.g. In re E s t a t e his of App. 2004) ( d u r i n g for estate misrepresented indebtedness on ( d u r i n g time from a d m i s s i o n of w i l l 13 of property); to probate 1111241 until complaint concealed was the fact filed that i n the w i l l contest, t e s t a t o r ' s s o n was proponents n o t named as a b e n e f i c i a r y o f h i s m o t h e r ' s e s t a t e ) ; B u r c h v . B u r g e s s , 521 So. 2d 921 (Ala. 1988)(son mother's w i l l failed to contest the probate because t h e e x e c u t r i x and s o l e b e n e f i c i a r y had t o l d t h e son t h a t t h e mother had d i e d w i t h o u t he 477 2d 292 (Ala. 1985)(limitations petition to probate father's fraudulent grandfather's 2d assets n e e d n o t go t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ) ; V a n d e g r i f t So. 418 probate will concealment will); The tolled when allegations "complaint to v. Lagrone, period result of existence for filing of proponent's of proponent's period for filing existence petition of t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l Wakefield's will" govern dismiss. The February this 15, was Court's complaint 2012, ruling alleges following: "[Wakefield] to from p r o p o n e n t ) . in contesting motion as and t h a t a n d F u l l e r v. Q u a l l s , 241 A l a . 673, 4 So. f r a u d u l e n t l y concealed Floyd's tolled (1941)(limitations will of h i s w o u l d be an h e i r o f t h e d e c e d e n t . . . "[Wakefield] a v e r s t h a t t h e s a i d w i l l was n o t e x e c u t e d i n t h e mode a n d manner p r e s c r i b e d b y l a w . 14 on the 1111241 "2. [ W a k e f i e l d ] a v e r s t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t was o f unsound mind and m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t and d i d n o t p o s s e s s t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y t o make a n d e x e c u t e a w i l l on t h e 1 5 t h d a y o f O c t o b e r , 2009. "3. [Wakefield] avers that t h e w i l l ... was p r o c u r e d t h r o u g h undue i n f l u e n c e e x e r c i s e d upon t h e d e c e d e n t b y one ( o r more) o f t h e d i s t r i b u t e s o f t h e estate o f s a i d d e c e d e n t as s e t f o r t h i n said c o n t e s t e d w i l l , and "4. T h a t a d i s t r i b u t e e o f t h e e s t a t e was i n a c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the decedent. That s a i d d i s t r i b u t e e was d o m i n a n t a n d c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s relationship and e x e r c i s e d undue activity in procuring the execution of the w i l l being contested. Furthermore, that t h e decedent was i n f i r m a n d incompetent. T h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h i s undue influence and while i n this condition and r e l a t i o n s h i p t h e decedent executed t h e w i l l being contested. T h a t t h e d e c e d e n t was p e r s u a d e d t o s i g n the p u r p o r t e d w i l l by a b e n e f i c i a r y o f t h e c o n t e s t e d w i l l , a n d s u c h w i l l , b e c a u s e o f t h i s undue i n f l u e n c e i s n o t t h e t r u e l a s t w i l l and testament o f t h e deceased. "WHEREFORE, [ W a k e f i e l d ] prays that t h i s Court w i l l s e t h i s matter f o r a h e a r i n g and t h a t t h e i s s u e s i n v o l v e d h e r e i n w i l l be made up a n d t r i e d i n t h i s Court t o determine whether t h e s a i d w i l l i s t h e t r u e L a s t W i l l a n d T e s t a m e n t o f t h e s a i d d e c e d e n t . ... " The than i.e., a l l e g a t i o n s i n Wakefield's generalized assertions l a c k o f due e x e c u t i o n complaint o f grounds of the w i l l , are nothing fora will more contest, lack of testamentary c a p a c i t y o f t h e t e s t a t o r , a n d undue i n f l u e n c e i n p r o c u r i n g t h e execution of the w i l l during 15 Wilson's lifetime. These 1111241 allegations neither relate administration equate that of Wilson's to fraud Wilson's will upon estate n o r , more the court. was a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e Wakefield's February to fraud i n connection contest particularly, I t i s undisputed that on M a r c h 22, 2 0 1 1 , a n d i n the c i r c u i t 15, 2012, a l m o s t with the c o u r t was f i l e d 10 months l a t e r . on Accordingly, the t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f § 43-8-5 do n o t a p p l y , b e c a u s e t h e y were not a l l e g e d o r embraced i n W a k e f i e l d ' s IV. Based jurisdiction on the of t h i s Conclusion foregoing, Court, complaint. Floyd properly invoked a n d she h a s shown a c l e a r the legal r i g h t t o t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e w i l l c o n t e s t because t h e c i r c u i t court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n petition court for a writ i s directed Wakefield's w i l l over the c o n t e s t . o f mandamus i s g r a n t e d to grant Floyd's Accordingly, the and t h e c i r c u i t motion to dismiss contest. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Malone, C.J., and W o o d a l l , Murdock, and Main, J J . , concur. 16
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.
