Tamera Erskine, as personal representative of the Estate of Joann Bashinsky, deceased v. J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., and Gregory H. Hawley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: March 31, 2023 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023 _________________________ 1200401 _________________________ Tamera Erskine, as personal representative of the Estate of Joann Bashinsky, deceased v. J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., and Gregory H. Hawley _________________________ 1210153 _________________________ John P. McKleroy, Jr., and Patty Townsend 1200401 and 1210153 v. Landon E. Ash and Tamera Erskine, as personal representative of the Estate of Joann Bashinsky, deceased Appeals from Jefferson Probate Court (19BHM02213) On Applications For Rehearing PER CURIAM. 1200401 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED. NO OPINION. Parker, C.J., and Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., and Thompson, Special Justice,* concur. Bolin, Special Justice,* dissents, with opinion. Shaw, Wise, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., recuse themselves. 1210153 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED. NO OPINION. Parker, C.J., and Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., and Bolin and Thompson, Special Justices,* concur. Shaw, Wise, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., recuse themselves. *Retired Associate Justice Mike Bolin and Judge William Thompson of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals were appointed to serve as Special Justices to consider these applications for rehearing. 2 1200401 and 1210153 BOLIN, Special Justice (dissenting in appeal no. 1200401). I dissent to overruling the application for rehearing in appeal no. 1200401. Based on the reasoning set forth in my dissent to the main opinion on original submission, I would grant rehearing; I would dismiss the appeal in part, insofar as it challenges the trial court's December 11, 2020, order, because the appeal from that order was untimely; and I would affirm the trial court's January 22, 2021, order on the merits. 3
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.
