Ex parte Judy D. Byrom. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Jerry T. Byrom, Jr., as administrator of the estate of Jerry Thomas Byrom v. Judy D. Byrom)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/09/2010 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 , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1061806 Ex p a r t e Judy D. Byrom PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : J e r r y T. Byrom, J r . , a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e e s t a t e o f J e r r y Thomas Byrom v. Judy D. Byrom) [Madison C i r c u i t C o u r t , CV-02-650 C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2050820) MURDOCK, Justice. 1061806 Judy of D. Byrom c e r t i o r a r i to in a plurality March 30, granted In trust a the set were of opposite and the Byrom, Civ. executed k n o w n as and the they App. a of the trust. the Property Trust their a a l l of respective Exhibit interest in "B" in trust conveyed the October Holdings certain real Pridmore served Jerry earnings, according stated on as were to the Judy and avails their "B" J u d y and Jerry The trust to the each agreement continued: "4. I N T E R E S T S . The i n t e r e s t s of shall consist solely of the r e s p e c t i n g the T r u s t P r o p e r t y : and interests Exhibit that trust. 2 We agreement "beneficiaries," names" the 2007). trust. As to held writ 2050820, Desoto S t a r R i c h a r d G. Desoto "entitled agreement. a decision [Ms. ("Jerry") married Jerry Desoto t r u s t . of v. for Appeals' a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t J u d y and trust 50% Thomas B y r o m Judy trustee trust Civil Court affirm. trust"), "beneficiaries" proceeds now this (Ala. Desoto initial Jerry 3d trust ("the The So. of Byrom revocable property into the Court in Jerry 1999, the opinion w r i t ; we J u d y and creating review 2007] the 1982. ("Judy") p e t i t i o n e d the Beneficiaries following rights 1061806 "a. The r i g h t t o d i r e c t t h e T r u s t e e t o c o n v e y or otherwise deal with the t i t l e to a Trust P r o p e r t y as h e r e i n a f t e r s e t o u t . "b. The r i g h t Property. t o manage and c o n t r o l t h e T r u s t "c. The r i g h t t o r e c e i v e t h e p r o c e e d s and avails from the r e n t a l , sale, mortgage, or other d i s p o s i t i o n of the Trust Property. "The f o r e g o i n g r i g h t s s h a l l b e d e e m e d t o be p e r s o n a l property and may be assigned and otherwise t r a n s f e r r e d as s u c h . No B e n e f i c i a r y s h a l l h a v e a n y legal or e q u i t a b l e r i g h t , title or i n t e r e s t , as r e a l t y , i n o r t o any r e a l e s t a t e h e l d i n t r u s t under t h i s Agreement, nor the r i g h t t o r e q u i r e p a r t i t i o n of t h a t r e a l e s t a t e , b u t s h a l l have o n l y t h e r i g h t s , as p e r s o n a l t y , s e t o u t a b o v e , a n d t h e d e a t h o f a B e n e f i c i a r y s h a l l n o t t e r m i n a t e t h i s T r u s t o r i n any manner a f f e c t t h e powers o f t h e T r u s t e e . " (Emphasis added.) Also, the trust agreement c o n d i t i o n s of t h i s Agreement be binding assigns and ... upon shall (Emphasis successors B. C o u c h . terms and administrators, in interest heirs, of the He was s u r v i v e d b y J u d y , a n d b y t h r e e c h i l d r e n : J e r r y T. B y r o m , Julee "[t]he added.) J e r r y d i e d i n June 2001. his that i n u r e t o t h e b e n e f i t o f and the executors, a l l other Beneficiaries." states Jerry's w i l l was 3 J r . , L i s a B. R a t c l i f f , admitted to probate and i n the 1061806 Madison Probate Court. Jerry's 1 beneficiaries under Jerry's In A p r i l 2002, the administration removed to the Madison After Jerry's judgments against Paul Frederick, filed a things, trust In a Circuit declaration May trial 2005, court Frederick concerning was court seeking, of Jerry's estate the estate. obtained of Jerry's interest a report court"). i n September Jerry's filed are creditors representative that became t h e p r o p e r t y ("the t r i a l Thereafter, i n the t r i a l Judy estate of Jerry's certain h i s estate. and 2 Court death, as p e r s o n a l complaint will. children estate, among other i n the Desoto upon h i s death. of insolvency The 2003, report i n the described T h e p e r s o n who was n o m i n a t e d i n J e r r y ' s w i l l t o s e r v e a s e x e c u t o r d i d n o t s e e k a p p o i n t m e n t a s s u c h . P a u l F r e d e r i c k was a p p o i n t e d b y t h e c o u r t a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r cum t e s t a m e n t o a n n e x o ( a d m i n i s t r a t o r w i t h t h e w i l l a n n e x e d ) . F r e d e r i c k was a c t u a l l y t h e s e c o n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r cum t e s t a m e n t o a n n e x o ; t h e f i r s t r e s i g n e d b e c a u s e t h e " [ e ] s t a t e a p p e a r [ e d ] ... t o b e u n u s u a l l y c o m p l e x a n d r e q u i r i n g k n o w l e d g e ... o f t r u s t a n d t a x m a t t e r s which i s beyond the e x p e r t i s e o f [thef i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r ] . " 1 J e r r y h a d what a p p e a r s t o be a complex e s t a t e plan involving certain testamentary trusts, several inter vivos trusts ( i n c l u d i n g the Desoto trust), and other planning devices or e n t i t i e s . The r e c o r d reflects a variety of d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n J e r r y ' s c h i l d r e n a n d J u d y , among o t h e r s . We have r e c i t e d o n l y those f a c t s n e c e s s a r y t o r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e before us. 2 4 1061806 approximately including $2,373,735 in part substantially the value of 2005, a f t e r trial less entered as and personal representative"). Judy interest his the declaring court personal interest death. conducting presented the the estate, In Jerry's resigned appointed the as ore tenus, trust the personal ("the representative's i n the Desoto t r u s t She a argued proceeding the t r i a l representative's Desoto July estate J e r r y T. estate and though Byrom, personal that claim at Jerry's which court entered claims. The that passed to death. evidence was a j u d g m e n t on judgment his beneficial i n the D e s o t o t r u s t p a s s e d t o her upon J e r r y ' s After personal to above, Frederick's petition, Frederick trial described debts," 3 opposed at on r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Jerry's beneficial estate the unpaid a l l e g e d l y unknown. order Thereafter, representative, was a hearing an claims belonging assets conducting insolvent. "potential creditors' in assets certain court Jr., the in stated the that agreement "d[id] not provide for what happens to the b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t o f t h e d e c e a s e d u p o n ... death. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t must l o o k t o Alabama law t o One o f t h e c r e d i t o r s o f J e r r y ' s e s t a t e n o m i n a t e d Byrom, J r . , t o s e r v e as t h e s u c c e s s o r t o F r e d e r i c k . 3 T. 5 Jerry 1061806 decide this issue. Accordingly, pursuant to the ' r e s i d u e o f t h e r e s i d u e r u l e ' o f A l a b a m a Code (1975) S e c t i o n 4 3 - 8 - 2 2 5 ( b ) , as w e l l as t h e i n t e n t o f J e r r y and Judy as S e t t l o r s o f [ t h e D e s o t o t r u s t ] , J e r r y ' s i n t e r e s t i n [ t h e Desoto t r u s t ] p a s s e d t o Judy upon the death of J e r r y . " The Civil personal Appeals. He representative argued, in part, wrongly a p p l i e d A l a . Code 1975, trust. In "reverse[d] that a plurality the t r i a l appealed § decision, court's that to the t r i a l 43-8-225(b), the Court 4 Court court to the of C i v i l of had Desoto Appeals j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d e c l a r e d J e r r y ' s b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n [ t h e Desoto t o Judy upon J e r r y ' s d e a t h . " the Byrom, So. t r u s t ] passed 3d a t . Judy I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s argument c o n c e r n i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n of § 43-8-225(b), the personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a l s o challenged t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e l i a n c e on e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t " ' t h e i n t e n t o f J e r r y and J u d y as S e t t l o r s o f [ t h e ] Desoto [ t r u s t ] , [was t h a t ] J e r r y ' s i n t e r e s t i n [ t h e ] Desoto [ t r u s t ] p a s s e d t o Judy upon t h e d e a t h of J e r r y . ' " Byrom, S o . 3d a t ___ . The p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e D e s o t o t r u s t a g r e e m e n t r e f l e c t e d no s u c h i n t e n t a n d t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t was n o t a m b i g u o u s so a s t o a l l o w t h e a d m i s s i o n o f e x t r i n s i c evidence to prove such i n t e n t . Judge B r y a n , who a u t h o r e d t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i n B y r o m , a n d J u d g e Thomas a g r e e d with the personal representative's argument; the remaining judges concurred i n the r e s u l t . I d . at . 4 J u d y d i d n o t a r g u e i n h e r p e t i t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t she s h o u l d h a v e p r e v a i l e d i n t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s b a s e d on the a l l e g e d e v i d e n c e o f h e r and J e r r y ' s i n t e n t . T h u s , we do not address t h a t i s s u e . The o n l y i s s u e we a d d r e s s c o n c e r n s the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of § 43-8-225(b). 6 1061806 filed an a p p l i c a t i o n Appeals denied. certiorari presented her Judy then filed this with Court on a material 39(a)(1)(C), that at Jerry's Ala. to the Desoto Jerry's beneficial death We Code trust interest the Court of a petition the ground § and t h a t , under § i n the Desoto and n o t t o J e r r y ' s trust See Rule to consider was 43-8-225(b), passed to her Review c o u r t ' s judgment and t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Court of § 43-8-225(b). Trade, case estate. C i v i l A p p e a l s t u r n e d on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Because o f l a w , we presumption of the 43-8-225(b), of question that impression. 1975, Civil for a writ granted the writ Standard of The t r i a l which question of f i r s t A l a . R. A p p . P. argument applicable f o r rehearing, and a p p l i c a t i o n t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us p r e s e n t s a pure review of correctness. the matter de novo, without S i m c a l a , I n c . v. A m e r i c a n I n c . , 8 2 1 S o . 2 d 1 9 7 , 200 any Coal ( A l a . 2001). Analysis Section statute 43-8-225(b), contained addressing in A l a . Code the the construction 1975, i s an article of w i l l s . 7 of the "antilapse" Probate Code See A l a . Code 1975, 1061806 Title 43, A r t i c l e 225(b) 8 ( " C o n s t r u c t i o n of W i l l s " ) . Section 43-8- states: "Except as p r o v i d e d in section 43-8-224 i f t h e r e s i d u e i s d e v i s e d t o two o r more p e r s o n s and the s h a r e o f one o f t h e r e s i d u a r y d e v i s e e s f a i l s f o r any reason, h i s share passes to the other r e s i d u a r y devisee, or to other residuary devisees in p r o p o r t i o n to t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n the r e s i d u e . " The Court of C i v i l t r u s t was So. 3d In Court a will, at Baldwin v. Code 1975, which Code, § t h a t because § 4 3 - 8 - 2 2 5 ( b ) was Branch, apply it, § 888 So. the inapplicable. 2d 482 i s s u e whether another 43-8-224, which i s also should described concluded Desoto Byrom, . c o n s i d e r e d the Ala. and not Appeals a this antilapse statute, i s referenced in § 43-8-225 included within to ( A l a . 2004), revocable 43-8-224 " o p e r a t e s , Article trust. i n the 8 of 5 case the As this Probate Court of a w i l l , to S e c t i o n 43-8-224 p r o v i d e s i n p a r t t h a t " [ i ] f a d e v i s e e who i s a g r a n d p a r e n t o r a l i n e a l d e s c e n d a n t o f a g r a n d p a r e n t of t h e t e s t a t o r i s dead a t t h e t i m e o f e x e c u t i o n o f t h e w i l l , fails to s u r v i v e the testator, or i s t r e a t e d as i f he predeceased the t e s t a t o r , the i s s u e of the deceased devisee who s u r v i v e t h e t e s t a t o r by f i v e days t a k e i n p l a c e of t h e deceased devisee " L i k e § 43-8-224, § 43-8-225 i s i n t e n d e d t o p r e v e n t t h e f a i l u r e o f a d e v i s e i n a manner t h a t would r e s u l t i n i n t e s t a c y . See C o m m e n t a r y t o § 4 3 - 8 - 2 2 5 ( n o t i n g t h a t b e f o r e t h e e n a c t m e n t o f § 43-8-224 t h e s h a r e o f a d e c e a s e d r e s i d u a r y d e v i s e e "went t o t h e t e s t a t o r ' s n e x t o f kin a c c o r d i n g to the s t a t u t e of d i s t r i b u t i o n " ) . 5 8 1061806 prevent a lapse when a d e v i s e e d i e s b e f o r e So. 2d a t 484. This to trusts. provision trust," that, explained to prevent that a t h a t § 43-8-224 We that further some o t h e r antilapse reaches i t does the of a g i f t plain not apply "jurisdictions on i s no made t r u s t s as w e l l . " 888 of that courts 2d a t revocable § 888 we have applicable So. apply statutory in a to t r u s t s . " i n which 888 not t r u s t s , " language the argument i t s face d i d not similar "mentions only w i l l s , rejected statute, t h a t § 43-8-224 "there lapse "[t]herefore[,] indicates 484. We Court held the t e s t a t o r . " 43-8-224 So. should found only and to 2d a t follow that an wills, 485. "This Court has previously expressed a r e l u c t a n c e t o r e w r i t e t h e A l a b a m a P r o b a t e Code t o accommodate the use of a r e v o c a b l e t r u s t as a substitute for a will. I n R u s s e l l v . R u s s e l l , 758 S o . 2 d 5 3 3 , 538 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e f u s e d t o r e a d i n t o t h e A l a b a m a P r o b a t e Code t h e 'augmented e s t a t e c o n c e p t ' r e j e c t e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1982 when i t r e e n a c t e d t h e P r o b a t e C o d e . To h o l d that Alabama's a n t i l a p s e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s to t r u s t s , t h i s C o u r t w o u l d have t o i n v a d e t h e L e g i s l a t u r e ' s power t o amend s t a t u t e s . We a r e n o t w i l l i n g t o do s o ; therefore, Branch['s] ... a r g u m e n t t h a t Alabama's antilapse statute applies to trusts f a i l s . " Baldwin, The present 888 So. 2d a t 485. reasoning case. By of Baldwin applies i t s terms, § 9 with 43-8-225 equal force i n the i s applicable to 1061806 wills, not trusts, legislative act and is that directs thus inapplicable, i t s application Judy does not argue t h a t B a l d w i n Instead, part she notes was to absent trusts. erroneously t h a t § 19-3B-112, A l a . Code 1975, of the Alabama Uniform T r u s t Code, a decided. which is states: " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e r u l e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n u n d e r T i t l e 4 3 , C h a p t e r 8, Article 8, and the miscellaneous p r o v i s i o n s of Article 9 that apply in this state to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of and d i s p o s i t i o n o f p r o p e r t y by w i l l a l s o a p p l y as a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e terms o f a t r u s t and t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of the trust property." Judy's the present Code, § case Ala. trial Ala. is was adopted until effective January the 2 0 0 6 , A c t No. January the Governor, 1, or application incorrect. 1975, court entered Acts to the Code 19-3B-112, effective by argument as § The 1, Alabama 19-3B-101 i n March 2007, judgment et 2006 19-3B-112 Uniform but did not months ("This Trust become after case. act s h a l l i t s p a s s a g e and becoming law."). Although makes applicable proceedings concerning among trusts 10 other commenced things, before See approval T r u s t Code c o n t a i n s a r e t r o a c t i v i t y p r o v i s i o n to, the become the Uniform i t in including issue in this 2006-216, § 6 2007, f o l l o w i n g § seq., several at i t s otherwise of that "judicial January 1, 1061806 2007," under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 3B-1204(a)(3), neither e f f e c t when t h e trial provisions entered basis to were not the 19-3B-1204 court entered e f f e c t i v e law we Court's enactment trust. decision conclusion § whatever effective 2007. Unless power to to reason, date of our the trial not were of in those trial court have p r o v i d e d court 19- Thus, time the could the the was in "to that s t a t u t e a p p l i e s to t r u s t s , For that 19-3B-112 power 19-3B-112 i t s judgment. i n Baldwin. in Baldwin Legislature's § § § the 43-8-225(b) 6 must presume of the A l a . Code 1975, nor at therefore a p p l i c a t i o n by Desoto Also, this § i t s j u d g m e n t and f o r an see For hold a l l that response that aware statutes." to this Alabama's 888 l e g i s l a t u r e chose Uniform unwillingness amend s t a t u t e s " h a s Trust "to subsided Code invade since So. to Court's antilapse 2d at postpone until the of appears, i t s t h i s C o u r t would have to i n v a d e amend the l e g i s l a t u r e was January the 485. the 1, Legislature's Baldwin, which i t The p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e notes t h a t Judy d i d not argue that § 19-3B-112 was applicable until she filed her application for rehearing i n the C o u r t of C i v i l Appeals. T h u s , i t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t was presented w i t h the i s s u e whether t h a t s e c t i o n , a l o n g w i t h § 19-3B-1204, might form a b a s i s f o r a p p l y i n g § 43-8-225 to the Desoto trust. 6 11 1061806 has not, regard. we must r e s p e c t the the provides court the provisions are Thus, of the legislature in the above-referenced Code had not t a k e n e f f e c t as e n t e r e d i t s judgment, the answer such as Court inapplicability correct. this §§ issue 43-8-224 only of of the to Civil § statutory and 43-8-225, wills, might 43-8-225(b) to of the r a t i o n a l e of whether Appeals' provisions decision the Baldwin antilapse which apply date by their to trusts. as to the trust is Desoto 8 Based of to applicable the Court of the fact that Uniform Trust trial terms choice 7 In l i g h t of the on Civil the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the Appeals. J u d y ' s s o l e argument concerns the a p p l i c a t i o n of § 43-82 2 5 ( b ) ; she d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t u n d e r common-law p r i n c i p l e s the r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n applicable to w i l l s should also apply to t r u s t s . T h u s , we do n o t a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e . 7 E v e n i f § 19-3B-112 had b e e n i n e f f e c t as o f t h e d a t e t h e t r i a l court entered i t s judgment, that s e c t i o n specifically s t a t e s t h a t the r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i c a b l e to w i l l s o n l y " a p p l y as a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t e r m s o f a t r u s t and t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e t r u s t p r o p e r t y . " G i v e n the absence of a r e s i d u a r y c l a u s e i n the Desoto t r u s t i t s e l f , the application of § 43-8-225(b) arguably would not be "appropriate." 8 12 1061806 AFFIRMED. Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , Stuart, 13 and B o l i n , J J . , concur.

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.