Eric DeWayne Taylor v. Jerry Wayne Newman, Fidelity and Deposit Company ofMaryland, and Wendy Marie Newman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/14/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100781 E r i c DeWayne T a y l o r v. J e r r y Wayne Newman, F i d e l i t y and Deposit Company o f Maryland, and Wendy Marie Newman Appeal from Mobile Probate Court (05-0637) THOMAS, J u d g e . Eric Court's orders DeWayne T a y l o r appeals from the Mobile d e n i a l of h i s motion t o s e t aside p r e v i o u s l y of the probate court. We a f f i r m . Probate entered 2100781 Jimmy P a t r i c k Newman d i e d i n t e s t a t e on M a r c h 1 1 , 2005, a s the result o f an a u t o m o b i l e accident. J e r r y Wayne Newman, Jimmy's court f o rl e t t e r s estate"). issued court granted Jerry's i n the restricting the estate estate letters of J e r r y from s e t t l i n g without had f i l e d killed. administration petition the approval of the was p u b l i s h e d 6 1 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. provision c o u r t ; the action against the other i n w h i c h Jimmy h a d issuance i n the Mobile newspaper f o r t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e court on b e h a l f o f of the probate a wrongful-death Notice a any l i t i g a t i o n and appointing The p r o b a t e administration party i n v o l v e d i n the automobile accident been estate ("the of administration f o r the estate J e r r y a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r on M a r c h 23, 2005. included 17, 2005, p e t i t i o n e d the probate o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r Jimmy's The p r o b a t e letters brother, On M a r c h of letters Press of Register weeks, a s r e q u i r e d b y § 4 3 - 2 - J e r r y f i l e d an i n v e n t o r y o f t h e e s t a t e w i t h t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t on A p r i l 4, 2 0 0 5 ; t h e i n v e n t o r y d i d n o t include the wrongful-death a c t i o n , which had not y e t reached a conclusion. On May 15, 2005, J e r r y moved t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o a p p r o v e the settlement of the wrongful-death 2 action; Jerry attached 2100781 to h i s motion a l i s t i n g law," which was Jimmy's d a u g h t e r , a l o n g w i t h Jimmy's t h r e e b r o t h e r s a n d f o u r sisters. The p r o b a t e which court i t heard testified estate listed o f Jimmy's " n e x t o f k i n a n d h e i r s a t Wendy Marie Newman, conducted a hearing testimony from on J e r r y ' s m o t i o n , a t Jerry and t h a t he h a d r e t a i n e d an a t t o r n e y i n the wrongful-death attorney's negotiations, who Wendy. t o represent the a c t i o n and t h a t , the estate Jerry through had reached a proposed settlement with the l i a b l e party f o r the p o l i c y l i m i t s insurance the $1,000,000. probate questioned expenses court of i t s J e r r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d e s i r e d f o r t o approve the estate's relating that the settlement. counsel regarding to the settlement of the The court h i s fees and wrongful-death a c t i o n , w h i c h amounted t o $405,448.88, l e a v i n g $594,551.12 t o be distributed to the estate. Wendy testified that she d e s i r e d f o r t h e probate c o u r t t o approve t h e s e t t l e m e n t of t h e wrongful-death action. Wendy a l s o t e s t i f i e d knowledge o f any o t h e r heirs. questioned Wendy r e g a r d i n g The p r o b a t e t h a t she h a d no court the existence of other further heirs: "THE COURT: [Wendy], l e t me j u s t c o n f i r m on t h e r e c o r d here. Your f a t h e r d i d n o t d i e w i t h a s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e , d i d he? 3 2100781 "[WENDY]: N o t t h a t I'm aware o f . "THE COURT: Okay, and you were h i s o n l y child? "[WENDY]: T h a t I know o f , y e s . " At the conclusion the settlement of the hearing, the probate court approved of the wrongful-death a c t i o n . On May 4, 2006, J e r r y p e t i t i o n e d t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t final settlement administrator that of the estate of the e s t a t e . more t h a n 6 months and t o d i s c h a r g e In h i s p e t i t i o n , had passed since for a J e r r y as t h e Jerry asserted the probate court issued letters o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h a t i t h a d b e e n more t h a n 5 months the p u b l i c a t i o n of notice letters passed since of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , since creditors. actual Jerry and notice further that had more been asserted of the issuance than 30 given that to no days claims of had a l l known had been f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e and t h a t a l l t h e a s s e t s o f t h e e s t a t e had b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o Wendy, who, J e r r y a l l e g e d , was t h e o n l y h e i r o f Jimmy. Wendy, i n w h i c h settlement assets Jerry attached she s t a t e d of the estate of the e s t a t e . t o h i s p e t i t i o n an a f f i d a v i t o f that she c o n s e n t e d t o t h e and t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d The probate 4 court granted final a l l the Jerry's 2100781 petition on May 8, 2006, c l o s i n g t h e e s t a t e and d i s c h a r g i n g J e r r y as t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e . On F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , T a y l o r the probate court's administrator the Taylor's motion was indicated A l a . R. C i v . P. an h e i r Taylor settlement o f Jimmy further a motion t o s e t aside discharging of the estate approving 60(b), order filed Jerry as and t o s e t a s i d e of the that i t s order wrongful-death i t was Taylor claimed because Jimmy brought the action; under Rule i n h i s m o t i o n t h a t he was Taylor's father. 1 claimed: " J e r r y Wayne Newman a n d Wendy M a r i e Newman w i t h h e l d o r s u p p r e s s e d f r o m E r i c DeWayne T a y l o r t h e f a c t t h a t L e t t e r s o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n were i s s u e d on [Jimmy's] E s t a t e , t h a t a c l a i m f o r [Jimmy's] w r o n g f u l d e a t h was p u r s u e d , t h a t t h e r e was a m o t i o n a n d h e a r i n g on a p r o p o s e d $1,000,000.00 s e t t l e m e n t , t h a t s e t t l e m e n t f u n d s were r e c e i v e d , t h a t t h i s C o u r t a p p r o v e d s a i d s e t t l e m e n t , t h a t a l l t h e n e t f u n d s were d i s t r i b u t e d o n l y t o Wendy M a r i e Newman, a n d t h a t J e r r y Wayne Newman f i l e d a p e t i t i o n on F i n a l S e t t l e m e n t which was g r a n t e d b y t h i s C o u r t . " T a y l o r a l l e g e d t h a t J e r r y a n d Wendy h a d f a l s e l y r e p r e s e n t e d t o the probate court t h a t Wendy was Jimmy's o n l y h e i r a n d t h a t J e r r y a n d Wendy knew o r s h o u l d have known t h a t T a y l o r was a l s o Taylor attached t o h i s motion a January judgment o f t h e M o b i l e J u v e n i l e C o u r t d e t e r m i n i n g was T a y l o r ' s f a t h e r . 1 5 27, 2 0 1 1 , t h a t Jimmy 2100781 Jimmy's heir. settlement Taylor alleged of the estate was that based the probate on t h e a l l e g e d l y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f J e r r y a n d Wendy. Taylor requested probate dismissing court set aside administrator of the i t s order estate and court's i t s order false that the Jerry as t h e approving the wrongful-death settlement, r e q u i r e Wendy t o r e t u r n h a l f o f t h e wrongful-death settlement p r o c e e d s t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , and d i s t r i b u t e those proceeds t o Taylor. award a g a i n s t of Maryland 2 Taylor also requested J e r r y , Wendy, a n d F i d e l i t y f o r an u n s t a t e d court held fees. a hearing on T a y l o r ' s March 30, 2011, a t w h i c h i t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y Taylor, testified and Mary that Newman, Company amount o f c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, p u n i t i v e damages, a n d a t t o r n e y The p r o b a t e and D e p o s i t an who motion on f r o m J e r r y , Wendy, i s Taylor's mother. Mary she became p r e g n a n t b y Jimmy when she was 16 y e a r s o l d a n d t h a t Jimmy h a d moved away n o t k n o w i n g t h a t she was p r e g n a n t . was According approximately t o Mary, Jimmy r e t u r n e d when Taylor 10 months o l d ; Jimmy a n d M a r y m a r r i e d A u g u s t 1984, when T a y l o r was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 year o l d . in Mary Fidelity and D e p o s i t Company o f M a r y l a n d s e r v e d as J e r r y ' s s u r e t y w h i l e he was t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e . 2 6 2100781 testified himself t h a t Jimmy referred to Taylor as h i s s o n and h e l d o u t t o t h e community as T a y l o r ' s father. Mary also t e s t i f i e d t h a t J e r r y knew t h a t Jimmy and Mary h a d m a r r i e d and that she had a c h i l d . Mary f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d that she h a d t o l d J e r r y t h a t T a y l o r was Jimmy's s o n ; h o w e v e r , Mary s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t know w h e t h e r Jimmy h a d r e p r e s e n t e d o r o t h e r members o f Jimmy's According f a m i l y t h a t T a y l o r was h i s s o n . t o Mary, she a l s o h a d t o l d o t h e r members o f Jimmy's f a m i l y t h a t T a y l o r was Jimmy's s o n . in to Jerry April 1987. Mary testified Mary and Jimmy that she e n c o u n t e r s w i t h Jimmy a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e . had divorced infrequent According t o Mary, Jimmy a p p r o a c h e d h e r and T a y l o r a t a gas s t a t i o n when was 15 father. years o l d and introduced Mary d i d n o t r e c a l l himself to Taylor any c o n v e r s a t i o n s Taylor as h i s she h a d h a d w i t h J e r r y f r o m t h e t i m e t h a t she and Jimmy d i v o r c e d i n 1987 until a f t e r Jimmy's d e a t h i n 2005. According t o Mary, Wendy, who i s o l d e r t h a n T a y l o r , knew o f T a y l o r ' s existence because, e x e r c i s e d weekend v i s i t a t i o n Mary stated, Jimmy w i t h Wendy d u r i n g t h e t i m e also had that Jimmy and Mary were m a r r i e d . Mary s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r she and Jimmy once had divorced she had 7 encountered Wendy at a 2100781 s u p e r m a r k e t where Wendy was then working time, whether she According had asked Wendy she and t h a t , at remembered Taylor. t o Mary, Wendy a s k e d w h e t h e r T a y l o r was M a r y ' s s o n , t o w h i c h Mary r e s p o n d e d t h a t T a y l o r was Wendy's b r o t h e r . also that stated brothers that she and s i s t e r s had had conversations with i n w h i c h Mary h a d r e p r e s e n t e d Mary Jimmy's that Taylor was Jimmy's s o n . Mary testified that she heard 2005, s h o r t l y a f t e r Jimmy's f u n e r a l . unaware at that time wrongful-death action. of the settlement 2010, when she Jimmy's s i s t e r s . few months l a t e r know t h a t Taylor a c t u a l l y been Taylor the h e a r i n g him of the a b o u t Jimmy's Mary s t a t e d t h a t she was probate According proceedings t o Mary, she f i r s t i n the wrongful-death was informed of Mary t e s t i f i e d death i n the action settlement or the learned i n January by one of t h a t she t e l e p h o n e d J e r r y a a n d t h a t J e r r y s t a t e d t o Mary t h a t he d i d n o t was Jimmy's son o r t h a t Jimmy and Mary h a d married. testified t h a t he was 26 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f on h i s m o t i o n . According o f Jimmy's d e a t h i n 2005. t o T a y l o r , Mary i n f o r m e d Taylor testified n o t h a d a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Jimmy. 8 Taylor t h a t he h a d stated that, 2100781 l i k e M a r y , he a l s o r e c a l l e d t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n gas station; identity Taylor they Taylor until Jimmy testified underwent father. 2010, told that he d i d n o t know him t h a t Jimmy t e s t i n g t o determine to Taylor, action he d i d n o t f i n d or the wrongful-death the w r o n g f u l - d e a t h s e t t l e m e n t and Mary r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l the j u v e n i l e court 2010, when Taylor's out about t h e settlement until A f t e r f i n d i n g out about i n 2010, T a y l o r and i n i t i a t e d to legally Jimmy's h i s father. i f Jimmy was when he was i n f o r m e d b y M a r y . Taylor. was t h a t he h a d n o t met J e r r y u n t i l According probate-court stated w i t h Jimmy a t t h e s t a t e d t h a t he a paternity action i n e s t a b l i s h Jimmy's p a t e r n i t y o f T a y l o r s t a t e d t h a t the p a t e r n i t y t e s t had proven t h a t Jimmy was h i s f a t h e r . Jerry testified According to Jerry, that he he did knew that relationship and not Jimmy Mary in a together; h o w e v e r , he s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t know t h a t been m a r r i e d . him that only child testified that the two had J e r r y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Jimmy n e v e r Jimmy h a d a s o n ; a c c o r d i n g he knew that t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l 9 well. a n d Mary h a d b e e n involved had that know lived they told t o J e r r y , Wendy was t h e Jimmy had fathered. any c o n v e r s a t i o n s Jerry w i t h Mary 2100781 i n w h i c h she t o l d him t h a t T a y l o r was t e l e p h o n e d him i n 2010. sisters was had told w h e t h e r he Jerry J e r r y a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t none o f h i s J e r r y t h a t he Jimmy's c h i l d . Jimmy's c h i l d u n t i l Mary should have known t h a t When p r e s s e d by T a y l o r ' s knew t h a t Jimmy had any counsel c h i l d r e n other Taylor regarding t h a n Wendy, responded: "No, o r may have more. I d o n ' t know. Nobody has e v e r t o l d me t h i s young man i s my b r o t h e r ' s s o n . I accept that fact. I d i d n o t know he e x i s t e d . His name was n o t Newman. His mother never a s s o c i a t e d w i t h u s , e v e n t h o u g h she s a i d she d i d way b a c k when, I assume she had s e e n my b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s a l l a l o n g i n t h e s t o r e , you know. I d o n ' t know t h a t I n e v e r met h e r . B u t , no, I d i d n o t know he had any o t h e r c h i l d r e n o t h e r t h a n Wendy o r anymore f o r t h a t matter." Jerry testified former that he relationships additional d i d not to children; i n v e s t i g a t e a l l of determine Jerry stated whether that Jimmy had any Wendy t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was born i n A p r i l Jimmy was her f a t h e r . spending time with involvement with know w h e t h e r had Wendy was c h i l d o f Jimmy's o f w h i c h he Jimmy's the only and that knowledge. 1978 Wendy t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t Mary and that t h e Newmans. Jimmy was f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she at she had not time m a r r i e d d i d not r e c a l l s e e i n g 10 recall had Wendy s t a t e d t h a t she one any t o Mary. much did not Wendy Mary b e f o r e and 2100781 t h a t she h a d n e v e r met T a y l o r ; a c c o r d i n g t o Wendy, she d i d n o t recall the conversation testified. Wendy i n t h e s u p e r m a r k e t o f w h i c h Mary h a d testified that she had n o t had a close r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Jimmy a n d t h a t Jimmy h a d n e v e r t o l d h e r t h a t he h a d a n y o t h e r c h i l d r e n . Wendy a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t n e i t h e r h e r m o t h e r n o r Jimmy's s i s t e r s h a d m e n t i o n e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any other c h i l d r e n . On A p r i l denying Taylor's Supreme C o u r t . this 5, 2 0 1 1 , t h e p r o b a t e motion. Taylor Our supreme c o u r t court entered appealed a judgment t o t h e Alabama t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. "It i s w e l l established that the decision to g r a n t o r t o deny r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o a R u l e 60 (b) motion i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y with the t r i a l court. In r e v i e w i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on s u c h a m o t i o n , we c a n n o t d i s t u r b t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n u n l e s s the t r i a l c o u r t abused t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i n denying the motion." DaLee v . C r o s b y Lumber Co., 561 So. 2d 1086, 1089 ( A l a . 1990) (citations omitted). However, " ' [ t ] h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w on a p p e a l from the d e n i a l [or g r a n t i n g ] o f r e l i e f under Rule 60(b)(4) i s not whether t h e r e has b e e n an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . When t h e g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f r e l i e f t u r n s on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t , as u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , d i s c r e t i o n h a s no p l a c e . I f t h e j u d g m e n t i s v a l i d , i t must s t a n d ; i f i t i s 11 2100781 v o i d , i t must be s e t a s i d e . A j u d g m e n t i s v o i d o n l y i f the c o u r t r e n d e r i n g i t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the s u b j e c t matter or of t h e p a r t i e s , o r i f i t a c t e d i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due p r o c e s s . S a t t e r f i e l d v. W i n s t o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 553 So. 2d 61 (Ala. 1989).'" Orix F i n . Servs., 2008)(quoting C o r p . , 590 I n c . v. M u r p h y , 9 So. 3d 1241, I n s u r a n c e Mgmt. & A d m i n . , I n c . v. So. 2d 209, 212 (Ala. 1244 (Ala. Palomar 1991)). T a y l o r b r o u g h t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t by a motion under Rule m o t i o n as f a l l i n g 60(b). On Ins. appeal, he filing characterizes his u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , and the p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n u n d e r R u l e 60(b)(3). "Rules of 59, Procedure 59.1, apply and 60 of i n probate the court Alabama proceedings 12-13-12, A l a . Code 1975." M c G a l l a g h e r v. 934 So. 13-12 2d 391, provides 399 n. 2 Rules ( A l a . C i v . App. Civil pursuant Estate 2005). of to § DeGeer, Section t h a t t h e " p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s code i n 3 12¬ reference We note t h a t T a y l o r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the challenged p r o b a t e - c o u r t o r d e r s a r e e i t h e r v o i d o r were p r o c u r e d by f r a u d f a l l s q u a r e l y under Rule 60(b)(4) or Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c a n n o t a l s o be b r o u g h t u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) . See R.E. G r i l l s , I n c . v. D a v i s o n , 641 So. 2d 225, 229 ( A l a . 1994)("Clause ( 6 ) , however, i s m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e of the s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s o f c l a u s e s (1) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) , and a p a r t y may n o t o b t a i n r e l i e f u n d e r c l a u s e (6) i f i t w o u l d have b e e n a v a i l a b l e u n d e r c l a u s e s (1) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) . " ) . 3 12 2100781 to ... p l e a d i n g circuit apply court and p r a c t i c e , judgments ... and o f e n f o r c i n g to the probate court only and o r d e r s orders and " i n t h e absence i n the judgments" of express provision to the contrary." T a y l o r b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r claims, a c l a i m under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , which a l l o w s a c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o have a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r s e t aside on t h e b a s i s brought w i t h i n three judgment o r o r d e r . 4 of fraud i f that independent action i s years of the date of the e n t r y of the R u l e 60(b) a l s o a l l o w s f o r t h e t o l l i n g of t h e t i m e i n w h i c h t o f i l e an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n b a s e d on f r a u d A p a r t y may b r i n g a R u l e 60 ( b ) ( 3 ) m o t i o n i n an e x i s t i n g a c t i o n , s e e k i n g t o s e t a s i d e a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r on t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d , i f t h a t m o t i o n i s f i l e d w i t h i n f o u r months o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment o r o r d e r . Taylor f i l e d h i s motion w e l l o u t s i d e t h a t four-month time l i m i t a t i o n . However, T a y l o r ' s m o t i o n c a n be c o n s i d e r e d as i n i t i a t i n g an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n , s u b j e c t t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s d i s c u s s e d above. See W a r r e n v . R i g g i n s , 484 So. 2d 412, 414 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) may be t r e a t e d as i n i t i a t i n g an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n when t h a t m o t i o n was f i l e d a f t e r t h e f o u r - m o n t h t i m e l i m i t a t i o n i n R u l e 60(b) (3) ). See a l s o C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n o f R u l e 60 ("There i s little procedural d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two methods o f a t t a c k , a n d s i n c e n o m e n c l a t u r e i s u n i m p o r t a n t , c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y t r e a t e d a p r o c e e d i n g i n f o r m an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n as i f i t were a m o t i o n , a n d v i c e v e r s a , where one b u t n o t t h e o t h e r was t e c h n i c a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e , a n d any p r o c e d u r a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n them was i m m a t e r i a l i n t h e c a s e . " ) . 4 13 2100781 pursuant to § 6-2-3, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . Code, i n § 43-8-5, A l a . Code 1975, However, t h e 5 Probate 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 t o 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 c h a p t e r , any 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 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 f r a u d , whether innocent or not. Any p r o c e e d i n g 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 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 has 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 a f f e c t s the succession of his estate." The Commentary t o § 43-8-5 n o t e s t h a t " [ t ] h i s i s an o v e r r i d i n g provision that provides l i m i t a t i o n s provided Alabama." the exception Section of 6-2-3 to the procedures i n t h i s act or otherwise Thus, t h e e x p r e s s provisions 5 an Rule and i n t h e Code o f p r o v i s i o n i n § 43-8-5 d i s p l a c e s 60(b)(3), which would otherwise provides: " I n a c t i o n s s e e k i n g r e l i e f on t h e g r o u n d o f f r a u d where t h e s t a t u t e has c r e a t e d a b a r , t h e c l a i m must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g a c c r u e d u n t i l t h e discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f r a u d , a f t e r w h i c h he must have two years w i t h i n which to prosecute h i s a c t i o n . " 14 be 2100781 applicable pursuant limitations for t o § 12-13-12, w i t h the filing of an regard t o the time independent action c h a l l e n g i n g a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t b a s e d on an a l l e g a t i o n o f f r a u d . A l t h o u g h J e r r y a n d Wendy r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f t h e s t a t u t e of limitations on a p p e a l , a l b e i t w i t h regard to the t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n § 6-2-3 r a t h e r t h a n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d i n § 43-8-5, they d i d not raise the issue l i m i t a t i o n s a t any t i m e i n t h e p r o b a t e of the statute of court. "The s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d as an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n A [ l a ] . R. C i v . P. 8 ( c ) ; and t h e r u l e r e q u i r e s t h a t i t be s p e c i a l l y p l e a d e d . Once an a n s w e r i s f i l e d , i f an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i s n o t p l e a d e d , i t i s waived. Robinson v. M o r r i s , 352 So. 2d 1355, 1357 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . The d e f e n s e may be r e v i v e d i f t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y o f f e r s no o b j e c t i o n ( B e c h t e l v. Crown P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , 451 So. 2d 793, 796 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ) ; o r i f t h e p a r t y who s h o u l d h a v e p l e a d e d i t i s a l l o w e d t o amend h i s p l e a d i n g ( P i e r s o l v. ITT D r i l l D i v i s i o n , I n c . , 445 So. 2d 559, 561 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ) ; o r i f t h e d e f e n s e a p p e a r s on t h e f a c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t ( c f . , Sims v . L e w i s , 374 So. 2d 298, 302 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; a n d W i l l i a m s v. M c M i l l a n , 352 So. 2d 1347, 1349 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ) . " W a l l a c e v . A l a b a m a A s s ' n o f C l a s s i f i e d S c h . Emps., 463 So. 2d 135, 136-37 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . the they B e c a u s e J e r r y a n d Wendy n e v e r raised issue of the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s i n the probate court, have waived the issue; therefore, 15 we cannot consider 2100781 whether Taylor's provided i n § 43-8-5. On a p p e a l , two a c t i o n was b a r r e d Taylor presents by t h e time limitations arguments p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e t y p e s o f f r a u d d e f i n e d i n § 6-5-101, A l a . Code 1975, provides: willfully "Misrepresentations of or recklessly on b y t h e o p p o s i t e acted t o deceive, party, innocently and a c t e d legal fraud." a material without fact made knowledge, and o r i f made b y m i s t a k e a n d on b y t h e o p p o s i t e party, constitute I n C h r i s t i a n v. M u r r a y , 915 So. 2d 23, 28 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e s p e c i e s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o be c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r § 43-8-5 "must be t h a t relief which of fraud i n an a c t i o n b r o u g h t k i n d of f r a u d t h a t would f o r ' f r a u d on a c o u r t . ' " The C h r i s t i a n court allow noted: " ' T h i s C o u r t h a s 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 is a fraud p e r p e t r a t e d b y 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 more.' W a t e r s v . J o l l y , 582 So. 2d 1048, 1055 ( A l a . 1991) ( c i t i n g Brown v . K i n g s b e r r y M o r t g a g e Co., 349 So. 2d 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 So. 2d 918 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ) . Black's Law D i c t i o n a r y 686 ( 8 t h e d . 2004) d e f i n e s ' f r a u d on t h e c o u r t ' 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 o r i s i n t e n d e d t o undermine t h e 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 So. 2d 753 ( A l a . 2005) . The c a s e s i n w h i c h f r a u d on t h e c o u r t h a s b e e n f o u n d , f o r t h e most p a r t , have b e e n 16 that 2100781 c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e r e was ' t h e most e g r e g i o u s c o n d u c t i n v o l v i n g a corruption of the j u d i c i a l 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 o r t h e employment o f c o u n s e l t o i m p r o p e r l y i n f l u e n c e t h e 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 . 2d § 2870 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . " 915 So. 2d a t 28. the probate Jerry court Therefore, we w i l l abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n a n d Wendy h a d n o t c o m m i t t e d therefore, erred i n denying Taylor's The p r o b a t e consider court heard fraud only i n determining that on t h e c o u r t and, motion. conflicting evidence w h e t h e r J e r r y knew t h a t T a y l o r was Jimmy's c h i l d . c o n f l i c t i n g evidence, credibility witness's regarding Faced w i t h the probate c o u r t had t o determine the of the witnesses testimony. whether a n d what w e i g h t to give each This court i s not allowed t o reweigh the evidence or t o determine the c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses. "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h a t ' t h e law i s s e t t l e d t h a t w e i g h i n g e v i d e n c e i s n o t t h e u s u a l f u n c t i o n o f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e where ... t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses i s i n v o l v e d . ' K n i g h t v. B e v e r l y H e a l t h C a r e Bay Manor H e a l t h C a r e C t r . , 82 0 So. 2d 92, 102 ( A l a . 2001) ( c i t a t i o n omitted) . Accordingly, appellate courts in this state g e n e r a l l y do n o t r e v i e w e v i d e n c e i n o r d e r t o make f a c t u a l c o n c l u s i o n s ; i n s t e a d , they review judgments i n order t o determine whether the t r i a l court committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . " 17 2100781 J.C. v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human Res., 2007). 986 So. 2d 1172, 1184 ( A l a . J e r r y a n d Wendy t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d no k n o w l e d g e t h a t T a y l o r was Jimmy's c h i l d . I t was w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t t o a s s i g n g r e a t e r w e i g h t and c r e d i b i l i t y to their testimony than t o the testimony o f Mary a n d T a y l o r . Because t h e probate c o u r t had s u f f i c i e n t evidence before i t t o support Jerry a determination committed fraud proceedings, its that on t h e c o u r t with respect n o r Wendy h a d t o the probate we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t a b u s e d d i s c r e t i o n when i t d e n i e d Taylor neither next argues Taylor's that motion. the probate court erred in d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he s a y s , t h e o r d e r s o f t h e p r o b a t e court are void. the probate court's orders are v o i d because, Taylor says, J e r r y ' s f a i l u r e to give 6 Taylor argues that Taylor n o t i c e of the probate proceedings court of personal jurisdiction deprived the probate over him. M o t i o n s under R u l e 60(b)(4) a l l e g i n g t h a t a judgment o r order i s void are not subject to the reasonable-time r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) a n d c a n be b r o u g h t a t any t i m e . See Ex p a r t e F u l l C i r c l e D i s t r i b . , L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638, 643 (Ala. 2003). 6 18 2100781 Section 43-2-61, A l a . Code 1975, p r e s c r i b e s the type n o t i c e t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f an e s t a t e must g i v e t o who have c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e d e c e d e n t . be of those That s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s : " N o t i c e , as p r e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 43-2-60, must given: "(1) By f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l a d d r e s s e d t o t h e i r l a s t known a d d r e s s , o r by other mechanism r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o p r o v i d e a c t u a l n o t i c e , t o a l l p e r s o n s , f i r m s , and corporations having claims against the decedent, who are known or who are r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e by t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t h i n s i x months f r o m t h e g r a n t o f l e t t e r s ; and "(2) By p u b l i s h i n g a n o t i c e once a week f o r t h r e e successive weeks i n a newspaper of g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n p u b l i s h e d i n t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e l e t t e r s were g r a n t e d o r , i f none i s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e c o u n t y , i n t h e one p u b l i s h e d n e a r e s t t o t h e courthouse thereof or i n an adjoining county." Taylor argues that J e r r y was required to notify Taylor J e r r y ' s r e c e i p t of l e t t e r s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r the e s t a t e of by f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l , as r e q u i r e d by § 4 3 - 2 - 6 0 ( 1 ) , b e c a u s e , T a y l o r says, h i s i d e n t i t y as an h e i r was The question whether Taylor a s c e r t a i n a b l e t o J e r r y o r Wendy as 19 reasonably was ascertainable. known an h e i r or reasonably i s a question of 2100781 fact. The p r o b a t e c o u r t h e a r d o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e concerning w h e t h e r J e r r y o r Wendy knew t h a t Jimmy was T a y l o r ' s father. "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d facts are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t a n d i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v . S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l court t o s u s t a i n i t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v . R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v . Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ore tenus r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness a t r i a l judge's conclusions of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o t h e f a c t s . ' Waltman v . R o w e l l , 913 So.2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v . E a s t Gadsden G o l f Club, Inc., court 985 So. 2d 924, 929 heard testimony ( A l a . 2007). f r o m J e r r y t h a t Jimmy h a d n e v e r m e n t i o n e d t o J e r r y t h a t he h a d any c h i l d r e n o t h e r testified The p r o b a t e t h a t he h a d h a d l i t t l e t h a n Wendy. contact Jerry also w i t h Mary a n d t h a t none o f h i s s i s t e r s h a d e v e r m e n t i o n e d t o h i m t h a t T a y l o r was Jimmy's child. The p r o b a t e court also heard testimony from Wendy t h a t s h e h a d no k n o w l e d g e o f T a y l o r ' s e x i s t e n c e o r t h a t he was Jimmy's child. Wendy 20 and Jerry's testimony was 2100781 sufficient to support t h a t T a y l o r was a determination n o t known o r r e a s o n a b l y as Jimmy's h e i r . B e c a u s e T a y l o r was a s c e r t a i n a b l e as an h e i r , of Jerry's appointment J e r r y had the probate court ascertainable to Jerry not known o r reasonably no d u t y t o n o t i f y by f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l ; n o t i f i c a t i o n by p u b l i c a t i o n , as a l l o w e d in did not err when administrator sufficient. i t denied we find no the A c c o r d i n g l y , the probate Taylor's motion a l l e g e d t h a t the probate c o u r t ' s e a r l i e r Because of Taylor estate § 4 3 - 2 - 6 1 ( 2 ) , was as by court i n s o f a r as he o r d e r s were v o i d . reversible error, we affirm p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g T a y l o r ' s R u l e 60(b) the motion. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 21 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,

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.