Jeanette C. Oliver and Geraldine C. Stephens v. Nancy E. Shealey, as personalrepresentative of the estate of Annie Ruth Ford Wilson, deceased.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/14/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 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, 2010-2011 1091707 J e a n e t t e C. O l i v e r and G e r a l d i n e C. S t e p h e n s v. Nancy E. S h e a l e y , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f A n n i e Ruth F o r d W i l s o n , d e c e a s e d Appeal LYONS, Ruth judgment Court Court Justice. Jeanette Annie from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t poosa (CV-10-25) C. O l i v e r Ford Wilson and G e r a l d i n e ("the dismissing their f r o m an o r d e r C. S t e p h e n s , n i e c e s " ) , appeal appeal nieces of from to the Tallapoosa of the Tallapoosa Probate Court a final Circuit directing 1091707 the sale of certain real incurred by Wilson's property estate. We f o r t h e payment dismiss the of debts appeal with instructions. On October representative 28, of 2009, Wilson's Nancy E. estate Shealey, as ( h e r e i n a f t e r "the estate"), filed a petition i n the Tallapoosa Probate the of property sale certain real i n c u r r e d by t h e W i l s o n Todd Colvin property The were court. hearing Shealey's and probate appealed was 4, The was no p r o o f 2010, the probate of and alleged p a r t i e s to the proceedings the Wilson nieces debts to be estate's they objected court's objection orally child 2 opposed on of the Colvin's a d o p t e d by him. of the a l l o w i n g the sale. order and, a t t o t h e Todd C o l v i n e s t a t e she had been an o r d e r ownership to the sale not a b i o l o g i c a l the i n the of the p e t i t i o n , court, n o t an h e i r that over court entered f o r t h e payment City the subject b e c a u s e s h e was there February as the probate petition. grounds that Wilson property Alexander t h a t was by Court f o r e s t a t e was t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e p e t i t i o n . named held Wilson C e r t a i n p r o p e r t y known as t h e They c h a l l e n g e d of the p r o p e r t y the in of the Wilson nieces probate estate estate. personal nieces, The to the Tallapoosa On the nieces Circuit 1091707 Court. S h e a l e y moved t o d i s m i s s jurisdiction. order filed requesting, a the appeal motion to f o r want i n the a l t e r n a t i v e denied On erred (2) to that appeal, motion, the appropriate appeal sale o f an o r d e r of r e a l court appellate argue entered property more p r o p e r l y circuit court, circuit circuit court. circuit the c i r c u i t have t r a n s f e r r e d the Shealey i n the probate taken court argues court to this Court us t o a f f i r m and appeal that an ordering the debts rather should than the court. An a p p e a l and she asks appeal, The f o r p a y m e n t o f an e s t a t e ' s have been court appealed. (1) t h a t court. an The f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n ; should appellate entered to d i s m i s s a l of t h e i r i n d i s m i s s i n g the appeal that the c i r c u i t i n the and t h e n i e c e s the nieces court of j u r i s d i c t i o n . reconsider a t r a n s f e r to the appropriate court a l l e g i n g l a c k of On J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e c i r c u i t dismissing nieces the appeal, from a probate court t h r o u g h 1 2 - 2 2 - 2 7 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . the judgment of the i s g o v e r n e d by §§ S e c t i o n 12-22-20 12-22-20 provides: "An a p p e a l l i e s t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o r S u p r e m e C o u r t from any f i n a l d e c r e e o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , o r from any f i n a l j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r d e c r e e o f t h e probate judge " 3 1091707 A circuit court's appellate jurisdiction over an order of a probate c o u r t i s c o n f i n e d to seven c i r c u m s t a n c e s enumerated i n § 12-22-21. 1 1 Section R u s s e l l v. R u s s e l l , 12-22-21 758 So. 2d 533, 536-37 ( A l a . states: "Appeal from the o r d e r , judgment or decree of the probate court may be taken by the party a g g r i e v e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o r Supreme C o u r t i n the cases hereinafter specified. Appeals to the S u p r e m e C o u r t s h a l l be g o v e r n e d b y t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e Procedure, including the time for t a k i n g an a p p e a l . A p p e a l t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n such cases s h a l l be w i t h i n the time hereinafter specified: " ( 1 ) F r o m t h e d e c r e e , j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r on a c o n t e s t as t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f a w i l l , t o be t a k e n within 42 days after the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the contest; " ( 2 ) F r o m t h e d e c r e e , j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r on an a p p l i c a t i o n c l a i m i n g the r i g h t to execute a w i l l or a d m i n i s t e r an e s t a t e , t o be t a k e n w i t h i n 42 days a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g and d e c i s i o n o f s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n , unless the application was denied because the a p p l i c a n t was d e e m e d u n f i t t o s e r v e b y r e a s o n o f a c o n v i c t i o n o f an i n f a m o u s c r i m e o r by r e a s o n of i m p r o v i d e n c e , i n t e m p e r a n c e or want of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , i n w h i c h c a s e t h e a p p e a l m u s t be t a k e n w i t h i n s e v e n days from the d e n i a l of the a p p l i c a t i o n ; "(3) Upon any d e c r e e , j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r r e m o v i n g an e x e c u t o r o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r , i n which case the a p p e a l m u s t be t a k e n w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s a f t e r such decree, judgment or o r d e r ; "(4) By a legatee or person entitled to distribution, on the d e c i s i o n of the court, in p r o c e e d i n g s i n s t i t u t e d to compel the payment of a 4 1091707 1999). However, nieces' appeal property i n the p o s s e s s i o n o f the Wilson the c i r c u i t order Boykin, appealed probate Court 900 to of of the those probate circumstances court's deal order to estate. with sell So. the the probate dealt 2d with 410 circuit court that court in this a similar ( A l a . 2004). court situation In S c o t t , an been appealed l e g a c y or d i s t r i b u t i v e share, days a f t e r such d e c i s i o n ; order a t any real over the Scott v. case. from s h o u l d have in the a p p e l l a n t entered by to Court. this time w i t h i n 42 "(5) A f t e r a f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t , upon any o r d e r , j u d g m e n t o r d e c r e e , made on s u c h s e t t l e m e n t , or respecting any item or matter t h e r e o f , or any previous s e t t l e m e n t or item, or matter t h e r e o f , w i t h i n 42 d a y s t h e r e a f t e r ; " ( 6 ) U p o n a n y i s s u e a s t o t h e i n s o l v e n c y o f an e s t a t e a n d u p o n a n y i s s u e a s t o an a l l o w a n c e o f a n y c l a i m a g a i n s t i n s o l v e n t e s t a t e s , i n which cases the appeal m u s t be taken w i t h i n 42 days after the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s u c h i s s u e ; and "(7) On an application for a division or p a r t i t i o n of r e a l or p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , i n which c a s e t h e a p p e a l m u s t be t a k e n w i t h i n 42 d a y s , and t h e d e c r e e , j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r may be s t a y e d u p o n t h e e x e c u t i o n , w i t h i n 14 d a y s , o f a s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d , payable t o t h e a p p e l l e e , i n an a m o u n t a n d upon c o n d i t i o n t o be p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e p r o b a t e judge, such s t a y of e x e c u t i o n to c o n t i n u e u n t i l the appeal is decided." 5 the Therefore, c o u r t d i d not have a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n e n t e r e d by This none the 1091707 The circuit appellee. court entered The a p p e l l a n t then appellee, who was court the circuit this and Court, Court the had a summary j u d g m e n t the arguing appeal, but prevailing neither over d i d so w i t h o u t correction by notice of appeal, correcting that Court" pursuant to Rule similar situation in the circuit the the circuit App. presented in to probate nor to this dismissed right court read of the of the "Supreme P. Russell. As Scott: "In [ R u s s e l l ] , the a p p e l l e e i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r want of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c i r c u i t c o u r t a g r e e d w i t h t h e m o v a n t as t o i t s l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , but i n s t e a d of d i s m i s s i n g the appeal i t c o r r e c t e d the n o t i c e o f a p p e a l so as t o e f f e c t a t r a n s f e r o f t h e a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t . This Court approved of t h a t r e s o l u t i o n of the matter, s t a t i n g : " ' A c c o r d i n g l y , when t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s not the p r o p e r a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , i t does not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o r r e c t i n g the n o t i c e of appeal i n accordance w i t h Rule 3 ( c ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., a n d t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e appeal to the proper appellate court. Thus, Mrs. Russell's appeal i s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , and P e a c o c k ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s the appeal i s denied.'" 6 the The appeal court This Court notice 3 ( c ) , A l a . R. Court. i n both p r e j u d i c e to the seek was this dismiss the appeal. to stated to the appellant A to party c o u r t , moved that jurisdiction appealed i n f a v o r of we 1091707 900 S o . 2 d a t 412 Scott 3(c), (quoting and R u s s e l l A l a . R. A p p . P., R u s s e l l , 758 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 8 ) . are d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s states, i n pertinent case. Rule part: "If the notice of appeal names t h e wrong a p p e l l a t e court to which the appeal i s taken, such d e s i g n a t i o n s h a l l be t r e a t e d as a c l e r i c a l m i s t a k e and c o r r e c t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . The n e c e s s a r y clerical s t e p s s h a l l be t a k e n t o d o c k e t t h e a p p e a l a n d t o file the record and b r i e f s i n the appropriate appellate court." (Emphasis added.) Russell appeal Although speaks of d i s c r e t i o n vested i s taken, the language parte Prudential (Ala. 1 9 9 8 ) ("The w o r d imperative permissive intent it some o f t h e l a n g u a g e i n S c o t t a n d and i n the court of Rule I n s . Co. o f A m e r i c a , 'shall' 3(c) i s mandatory. i s c l e a r and unambiguous and i s mandatory."). The word otherwise, i s mandatory. This can b u t i f no s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e Inc., exists, error. t o have d i s c r e t i o n See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e Bad Toys 958 S o . 2 d 8 5 2 , 856 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h stated: Court be i s s u c h a c a s e b e c a u s e no i n t e n t o f t h e correcting a clerical Court "shall" i n a s i t u a t i o n where i t w o u l d f r u s t r a t e l e g i s l a t i v e to hold Holdings, Ex 721 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 3 8 r u l e w o u l d be d i s s e r v e d b y a l l o w i n g a c o u r t in to which the "[The has plaintiff] nonetheless notes that this a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the word ' " s h a l l " may 7 this 1091707 a l s o be c o n s t r u e d as b e i n g permissive where t h e intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e w o u l d be d e f e a t e d by making the language mandatory.' Ex p a r t e Brasher, 555 S o . 2 d 1 9 2 , 1 94 ( A l a . 1 98 9 ) . However, t h e p r i n c i p l e e s p o u s e d i n E x p a r t e B r a s h e r was a p p l i e d in i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , not a contract. In the present case, nothing i n the purchase agreement i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e word ' s h a l l ' mean a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n w h a t i t o r d i n a r i l y means. ' [ S h a l l ] i n o r d i n a r y u s a g e means " m u s t " a n d is inconsistent with a concept of discretion.' B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1 3 7 5 ( 6 t h e d . 1 9 9 1 ) . " To the extent decision If the and R u s s e l l i n Bad Toys H o l d i n g s , the n o t i c e of appeal court treat Scott to which that as circuit court transfer the case, correct the notice App. court overruled. properly denied the c i r c u i t of appeal "shall" and "shall" Therefore, the nieces' court erred pursuant court, taken mistake accordingly. dismiss the nieces' appeal, although request when i t f a i l e d to Rule to to 3 ( c ) , A l a . R. a n d we d i r e c t to c o r r e c t the n o t i c e of appeal Court. appeal the clerical our P. We this are hereby has been w r o n g l y a correct the n o t i c e of appeal the they with names t h e w r o n g a p p e l l a t e the appeal designation are inconsistent The c i r c u i t to the probate probate court court shall to reflect 8 an a p p e a l to then r e t u r n the n o t i c e of f o r preparation clerk f o r transmission the c i r c u i t to this of the appeal Court. by Rule 3(c) 1091707 requires that the necessary c l e r i c a l the appeal and to file the appropriate appellate court." in the probate court because appeal i s taken. court, Rule to be I f no s t e p s be t a k e n " t o d o c k e t record In t h i s and briefs case, those steps i t i s the c o u r t from record i s available 1 0 ( d ) , A l a . R. A p p . followed i n preparing a P., in statement occur which i n the designates the the the probate procedure of the evidence or proceedings. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , and Stuart, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 9 Bolin, P a r k e r , Murdock,

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.