Threasa Banks and Vivian Wiggs v. Estate of Viva Woodall

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/10/2013 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, 2012-2013 2120190 Threasa Banks and V i v i a n Wiggs v. E s t a t e o f V i v a Woodall Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-128) THOMAS, J u d g e . V i v a W o o d a l l d i e d on J u l y 2, 2008. son, I n A u g u s t 2008, h e r Bobby W o o d a l l , who was named i n h e r w i l l as t h e e x e c u t o r of h e r e s t a t e ("the e x e c u t o r " ) , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n the DeKalb Probate Court ("the probate court"), seeking t o probate her 2120190 will. V i v a ' s d a u g h t e r s , T h r e a s a Banks and V i v i a n Wiggs daughters"), were December 2010, of the f i n a l named as beneficiaries i n the ("the will. In the executor f i l e d a p e t i t i o n seeking approval s e t t l e m e n t of the e s t a t e . The p r o b a t e c o u r t s e t a h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r J a n u a r y 11, 2011. For a reason n o t a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e r e c o r d , t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , on December 20, 2010, reset the hearing f o r January 20, daughters d i d not appear t o c o n t e s t the f i n a l the probate c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment s e t t l e m e n t on J a n u a r y 20, On M a r c h 24, 2011, 2011. The s e t t l e m e n t , and c o n f i r m i n g the final 2011. c o u n s e l f o r t h e d a u g h t e r s went t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t and, f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , l e a r n e d t h a t t h e m a t t e r h a d b e e n r e s e t f o r J a n u a r y 20, 2011, been e n t e r e d t h a t same d a t e . The 1 and t h a t a j u d g m e n t daughters, on A p r i l 2011, f i l e d what t h e y s t y l e d as a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , vacate the judgment, pursuant to Rule 59, A l a . R. had 15, amend, o r Civ. P., We n o t e t h a t , h a d t h e d a u g h t e r s a c t e d s w i f t l y , t h e y c o u l d have f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r an a p p e a l u n d e r R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. See P a t t e r s o n v. P a t t e r s o n , 765 So. 2d 8, 10 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1999) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t R u l e 7 7 ( d ) , w h i c h p e r m i t s a p a r t y t o s e e k an e x t e n s i o n o f up t o 30 d a y s t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l "upon a s h o w i n g o f e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t b a s e d on a f a i l u r e o f a p a r t y t o l e a r n o f t h e e n t r y o f the j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r , " a p p l i e s i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ) . 1 2 2120190 alleging that had reset been been entered they had not r e c e i v e d that t o J a n u a r y 20, 2011, o r t h a t In t h e i r motion, t h e y knew o f t h e J a n u a r y the hearing a judgment and, e s s e n t i a l l y , a l l e g i n g t h a t d e n i e d due p r o c e s s . that notice had they had been the daughters 11, 2011, averred setting, that the c o u r t h o u s e h a d been c l o s e d on t h a t d a t e b e c a u s e o f snow, and that t h e i r counsel h a d c h e c k e d w i t h t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t and was t o l d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g w o u l d be r e s c h e d u l e d be notified. receiving been The motion any n o t i c e reset, averred after not t h e J a n u a r y 11, 2011, h e a r i n g had traveled to the learned that the hearing f o r the daughters that, c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on M a r c h 24, 2011, and t h e n h a d court counsel that further and t h a t t h e y w o u l d had been r e s c h e d u l e d a judgment had been e n t e r e d . had f o r J a n u a r y 20 and t h a t The p r o b a t e c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e d a u g h t e r s ' m o t i o n , and, a f t e r a p e r i o d o f 132 d a y s h a d elapsed, the daughters judgment c o n f i r m i n g on A u g u s t 25, 2 0 1 1 . filed the f i n a l a notice settlement of appeal of to the c i r c u i t the court 2 T h e d a u g h t e r s a p p a r e n t l y r e l i e d on R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., and p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e i r m o t i o n h a d b e e n d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on J u l y 14. They f i l e d t h e i r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l 42 d a y s l a t e r . 2 3 2120190 The appeal executor on alleged filed September a motion 17, 2012. t h a t t h e a p p e a l had d a u g h t e r s ' postjudgment days a f t e r therefore not tolled the had time been f i l e d 20, 2011, f o r the daughters' the been u n t i m e l y f i l e d January executor because the more t h a n j u d g m e n t and daughters 30 had to f i l e an A f t e r h e a r i n g o r a l argument on appeal from the judgment. motion, In h i s motion, motion e n t r y of the to d i s m i s s the the the c i r c u i t c o u r t granted the motion to d i s m i s s . The daughters appealed the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s order d i s m i s s i n g t h e i r appeal t o the Alabama Supreme C o u r t , which transferred a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § We the 12-2-7(6). affirm. The executor's Rule motion to 12(b)(1), dismiss pursuant to Ala. R. dismissal of the d a u g h t e r s ' appeal from was a Civ. motion P., filed seeking the probate a court's j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e a l had b e e n u n t i m e l y f i l e d and t h a t the circuit court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. So. 453 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 451, See C l a n t o n v. 2007) (explaining c i r c u i t c o u r t s e r v i n g as an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t l a c k s over the subject matter DeAngelo, that a jurisdiction when a p a r t y ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l 4 984 is 2120190 untimely f i l e d ) ; S i n g l e t o n v. Graham, 716 (Ala. C i v . App. 1998) 1305, 1305-06 whether t h u s , we circuit circuit r e v i e w de that jurisdiction 2011, a motion. alter, days See 3 had that a the 225-26 So. So. court 2d question subject-matter issue of law; o f t h e a p p e a l by 2d 455 lacks the ( A l a . 2003) subject-matter p r e s e n t s a q u e s t i o n of law, which an appellate novo). was by the executor, the daughters' A p r i l filed Rule too 59(e) late to (providing qualify entry d a u g h t e r s ' m o t i o n was of the as t h a t motions amend, o r v a c a t e a j u d g m e n t must be of 437 The acquired novo t h e d i s m i s s a l claim contended motion court Townson, (same). Ex p a r t e T e r r y , 957 c o u r t r e v i e w s de As 1983) 2d 224, o v e r t h e d a u g h t e r s ' a p p e a l i s an court. (stating D a v i s v. ( A l a . C i v . App. the jurisdiction (same); So. judgment). a Rule filed within Furthermore, a new 30 the § 12-13- 1 1 ( a ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t , " [ o ] n m o t i o n f i l e d w i t h i n 30 [by a p r o b a t e c o u r t ] , 59 seeking to u n t i m e l y u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, from e n t r y o f judgment 15, trial days may We n o t e t h a t " R u l e s 59, 59.1, and 60 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a p p l y i n p r o b a t e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s p u r s u a n t t o § 12-13-12, A l a . Code 1975." M c G a l l a g h e r v. E s t a t e o f DeGeer, 934 So. 2d 391, 399 n.2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . 3 5 2120190 be g r a n t e d " f o r s p e c i f i e d g r o u n d s . I n s o f a r as t h e d a u g h t e r s ' motion was Rule 59 filing d i d not the time intended to serve be a to t o l l B u r t o n v. B u r t o n , 710 So. 2d 1257, 1258 see a l s o R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. App. P. motion, f o r an 59 notice "shall of suspend appeal"). appeal. ( A l a . C i v . App. See 1997); ( p r o v i d i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t the f i l i n g of a postjudgment Rule i t s untimely motion pursuant the running of the time f o r f i l i n g Pursuant t o A l a . Code 1975, § judgment. filed within 42 days o f the date See a l s o R u l e 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. an a p p e a l , i n most c i r c u m s t a n c e s , be the entry of daughters' the notice judgment had 2011, of t o be 2011, a p p e a l was 20, judgment). In appeal filed by order the 3, to of the be 42 d a y s o f timely, January 2011. final (requiring that filed within from March P. a 12-22- 2 1 ( 5 ) , a n o t i c e of a p p e a l from a judgment c o n f i r m i n g a s e t t l e m e n t must be to The 20, the 2011, August 25, f i l e d 217 d a y s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e J a n u a r y judgment. Thus, as the circuit court correctly c o n c l u d e d , t h e d a u g h t e r s ' n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y f i l e d . The daughters c o n t e n d on a p p e a l t h a t t h e i r m o t i o n , which a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y had been d e n i e d n o t i c e of the J a n u a r y 2011, h e a r i n g on t h e f i n a l - s e t t l e m e n t p e t i t i o n , c o u l d a l s o 6 20, be 2120190 construed in as a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. their brief on a p p e a l C i v . P., motion. Although t h e d a u g h t e r s r e l y on R u l e 60(b)(1) and ( 2 ) , our r e v i e w o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e i r m o t i o n support the conclusion a t h a t t h e m o t i o n c o u l d be 60(b)(4) motion judgment void seeking because i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h due 625, 627-28 to the declare probate process. ( A l a . C i v . App. as January 20, the court See 2010) construed acted Rule 2011, in a manner L e t t v. Weaver, 79 So. 3d ( c o n s t r u i n g an a r g u m e n t i n a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e c o n t e s t a n t s i n a w i l l contest that did [final- "they settlement] not hearing receive notice i n essence, [was], proper an p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t [was] Smith (construing process if an v. Clark, argument a r g u m e n t and matter or of inconsistent the with So. 468 So. 2d about a lack 138, of 940 141 or process'"). i f (Ala. as 1988) 1985)) a due- judgment i s v o i d o n l y i t A the process"); (Ala. notice i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n parties, due argument t h a t 2d 938, s t a t i n g t h a t "'[a] the court r e n d e r i n g the v o i d f o r l a c k o f due see a l s o C a s s i o p p i v. Damico, 536 (quoting of acted Rule of the subject in manner a 60(b)(4) motion, u n l i k e a p o s t j u d g m e n t 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 59, i s n o t required to be filed within 30 7 days of the entry of the 2120190 judgment t o which time; thus, consequence the i t i s directed timing of the and may be daughters' brought motion at any i s of i f i t i s c o n s t r u e d as a R u l e 60(b) (4) m o t i o n . parte F u l l Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So. 2d 638, no Ex 641 ( A l a . 2003) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) m o t i o n was n o t s u b j e c t to t h e r e a s o n a b l e - t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 60(b) and c o u l d be b r o u g h t a t any t i m e ) ; see a l s o H o o i e v. B a r k s d a l e , 93 So. 942, 944 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ("A motion brought under 3d Rule 60(b)(4) i s not s u b j e c t t o the reasonable-time requirement of R u l e 60(b) and may However, 60(b)(4) be b r o u g h t a t any construing motion the daughters' does n o t p r e v e n t t h e c o u r t from b e i n g u n t i m e l y . time."). motion as appeal to the a Rule circuit A R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , u n l i k e a R u l e 59 m o t i o n , i s n o t s u b j e c t t o b e i n g d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w pursuant to Rule 59.1, Auth. of Birmingham 1996). motion, C i v . P. Conway v. D i s t . , 676 So. 2d 344, 345 Thus, b e c a u s e daughters' A l a . R. the probate insofar as ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t never i t seeks Housing relief a c t e d on the under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , t h a t m o t i o n r e m a i n s p e n d i n g i n t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t and 8 2120190 c o u l d n o t c u r r e n t l y be t h e b a s i s f o r an a p p e a l t o t h e court. 4 Conway, 676 So. 2d a t circuit 345. The c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e d a u g h t e r s ' appeal was untimely filed. judgment o f the c i r c u i t The A c c o r d i n g l y , we affirm the court. a p p e l l e e ' s r e q u e s t f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e on a p p e a l i s denied. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. We n o t e t h a t i n L e t t , 79 So. 3d a t 627, t h i s c o u r t determined t h a t , although the c o n t e s t a n t s i n a w i l l c o n t e s t h a d f i l e d an u n t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n and t h e r e f o r e d i d not timely appeal the probate court's final-settlement j u d g m e n t , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r m o t i o n was a l s o a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) motion p r o v i d e d a b a s i s f o r the appeal to the c i r c u i t c o u r t b e c a u s e t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n i s a s e p a r a t e l y a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t . The p i v o t a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h i s c a s e and L e t t i s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t i n L e t t d e n i e d t h e c o n t e s t a n t s ' motion, w h i l e the probate c o u r t i n the p r e s e n t c a s e d i d n o t t a k e any a c t i o n on t h e d a u g h t e r s ' m o t i o n . 4 9

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.