Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Barbara Tanzer, an elderly woman, and her husband moved through several states, ultimately leasing an apartment in Alabama to allow her husband to receive medical treatment. Shortly after their arrival, the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) petitioned for protective services, alleging Barbara was unable to care for herself and at risk of exploitation. DHR cited Barbara’s physical and cognitive limitations and alleged suspicious financial activity by a third party using a power of attorney. Barbara was evaluated twice by medical professionals, who found she did not suffer from significant cognitive impairment and retained capacity for medical decision-making, though she required physical assistance. Barbara asserted that her presence in Alabama was temporary and that she remained domiciled elsewhere.After DHR’s petition, the Jefferson Probate Court issued emergency protective orders, froze Barbara’s assets, and ultimately appointed a permanent conservator for her estate. Throughout the proceedings, Barbara maintained that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, as she did not reside in Alabama, had no family or assets there, and was only temporarily present for her husband’s medical care. She sold her Georgia property, purchased a condominium in Massachusetts, and notified the probate court of her permanent move out of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction under the Alabama Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act. The Court found that Alabama was neither Barbara’s home state nor a significant-connection state at the time the petition was filed, and none of the statutory bases for jurisdiction applied. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the probate court’s order appointing a conservator and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tanzer v. Alabama Department of Human Resources" on Justia Law

Two grandchildren of Edward and Betty Stewart brought suit against their uncle following the administration of two family trusts. The trusts, governed by Illinois law, were originally structured to provide for Edward and Betty’s children, including the grandchildren’s mother. After their mother’s death in 2017, Betty amended the trusts to designate her son Bruce as sole beneficiary. The grandchildren made repeated requests for information about the trusts, which were denied on the grounds that they were not beneficiaries. After Betty’s death in 2023, and confirmation that they had been excluded, the grandchildren sued Bruce, alleging undue influence, lack of capacity, breach of trust, and tortious interference with inheritance.The case was first heard by the Mobile Circuit Court. Bruce moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims were time-barred and that certain claims were not recognized under Alabama law. The plaintiffs responded that Illinois law governed and that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to Bruce’s concealment of their removal as beneficiaries. After considering arguments from both parties, the circuit court granted summary judgment for Bruce, finding all claims time-barred, prompting the appeal.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama found that the plaintiffs’ attorney had filed appellate briefs rife with invalid, inaccurate, and non-existent legal citations, many generated by artificial intelligence. The Court determined these briefs were grossly deficient and failed to comply with the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. As a result, the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed the appeal, denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file supplemental briefs, imposed sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. The main holding is that an appeal supported by fabricated or grossly deficient legal authorities does not meet minimum procedural standards and will be dismissed. View "Ibach v. Stewart" on Justia Law

A woman sought to challenge the probate of a will and asserted claims seeking recognition as an heir, either as a biological child or by equitable adoption, following the death of a decedent who resided in Tallapoosa County. After letters of administration had initially been issued to her by the Montgomery Probate Court, subsequent proceedings transferred jurisdiction to the Tallapoosa Probate Court, which admitted a document as the decedent’s will and appointed other individuals as personal representatives. The woman then filed a pro se complaint in the Tallapoosa Circuit Court, contesting the will and requesting various relief, including a DNA test to establish her relationship to the decedent.The Tallapoosa Circuit Court held a hearing, denied her request to compel DNA testing of the proponents, allowed her to submit her own certified DNA evidence, and later dismissed the action on the ground that she had failed to provide proof of relationship as required. She appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama due to jurisdictional reasons.The Supreme Court of Alabama determined that, due to statutory changes enacted by Act No. 2022-427, original jurisdiction for will contests relating to wills filed for probate on or after January 1, 2023, lies with the probate court, not the circuit court, except in cases where a proceeding has been properly removed to the circuit court. Finding that no removal had occurred, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the will contest. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court made no determination as to the woman’s ability to bring a will contest in the probate court. View "Glenn v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

After both parents contracted COVID-19 in 2020, they asked their daughter to move from Tennessee to Alabama to care for them. In exchange for her agreement to relocate and provide care, the parents promised to convey an interest in their Orange Beach condominium to the daughter. The parents, acting in their individual capacities, executed a deed purporting to transfer an interest in the property to themselves and their daughter as joint tenants. The daughter was not aware that the condominium was, in fact, owned by a revocable trust for which the parents served as trustees.The parents later sought to annul the deed in the Baldwin Circuit Court, arguing that the deed was ineffective because the property was owned by the trust and they had not executed the deed as trustees. They also contended that the conveyance was voidable under Alabama law because a material part of the consideration was the daughter’s promise to support them. The daughter sought reformation of the deed to reflect the parents' trustee status and counterclaimed for fraud and breach of warranty. The Baldwin Circuit Court annulled the deed and dismissed the daughter’s counterclaims.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that the controlling statute, § 8-9-12, Ala. Code 1975, permitted annulment of a real property conveyance when a material part of the consideration was an agreement to provide support, regardless of whether the grantor acted as an individual or trustee. The Court further held that annulment of the deed extinguished any warranties arising from the conveyance and rendered the fraud counterclaim untenable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment, upholding annulment of the deed and dismissal of the counterclaims. View "Schumpert v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Fifteen local United Methodist Church congregations in Alabama initiated civil actions against the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., seeking to quiet title to the church properties they occupied and used for worship. The Conference and its board of trustees joined the cases and filed counterclaims, asserting that the properties were either owned by the Conference’s board or held by the local churches in trust for the Conference or its board. Both sides relied primarily on secular documents, such as deeds and corporate records, though the Conference also referenced trust provisions in the Book of Discipline.Trial courts in various counties reviewed the motions by the local churches to dismiss the Conference’s counterclaims, arguing that the courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine, which prohibits courts from resolving matters of church doctrine or internal governance. The trial courts granted the motions to dismiss the counterclaims but allowed the local churches’ quiet-title claims to proceed. The Conference and its board then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for writs of mandamus, seeking to overturn the dismissals.The Supreme Court of Alabama determined that the trial courts erred in dismissing the counterclaims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court held that the property disputes could be resolved under neutral principles of law without requiring the courts to decide ecclesiastical matters. Because both parties relied on the same secular materials, and the counterclaims did not require adjudication of religious doctrine, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine did not bar jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued writs of mandamus, directing the trial courts to vacate their orders dismissing the Conference’s counterclaims. View "Mt. Zion of Autauga County, Inc. v. Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves the family of a deceased inmate who alleged that certain medical professionals and a health services foundation, after performing an autopsy at the request of correctional authorities, removed and retained the decedent’s organs without family consent. The family contended they were not informed or asked for permission regarding the autopsy or retention of organs, and only learned the organs were missing when preparing the funeral. They claimed to have relied on statements from hospital staff that such practices were standard, and only discovered in December 2023, through media reports, that retention of organs without next-of-kin consent was allegedly unlawful.The Montgomery Circuit Court reviewed and denied the defendants’ consolidated motion to dismiss, finding that statutory limitations could be tolled due to alleged fraudulent concealment. The court determined that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could justify equitable tolling under Alabama law, and that the family’s claims were not time-barred because they filed suit within two years of learning the alleged conduct was illegal.On review, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered a petition for writ of mandamus by the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation and Dr. Stephanie Reilly. The Court held that mandamus relief was appropriate because, from the face of the complaint, the claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The Court reasoned the causes of action accrued by November 6, 2021, when the family learned the organs were missing, and rejected arguments for tolling or for treating the alleged conduct as a continuous tort. The Court distinguished between statutes of limitations governing different claims, and found that all claims against the petitioners except the AUAGA claim were time-barred. It therefore granted the petition and directed dismissal of all claims against the petitioners except for the AUAGA claim. View "Ex parte University of Alabama Health Services Foundation" on Justia Law

After Minnie Pearl Harvey’s death, her son petitioned to probate her will and was granted letters testamentary by the Pike Probate Court. Harvey’s sister, Inez Lee, contested the will and requested a protective order. The probate court responded by revoking the son’s letters testamentary and appointing K. Nickie Bateman, an attorney, as administrator ad litem for the estate. Bateman performed various administrative duties and later submitted an invoice for her services. Lee objected to the invoice, arguing the fees were unreasonable. The parties reached a stipulation to dismiss the will contest, agreeing that Bateman’s fees would be paid from estate funds, and the probate court entered an order consistent with this agreement.The Pike Probate Court held a hearing on Lee’s objection to Bateman’s fees and ultimately found the requested amount reasonable, ordering the estate to pay Bateman’s full invoice. Lee appealed to the Pike Circuit Court, which reviewed the reasonableness of Bateman’s fees. The circuit court determined that Bateman’s hourly rate should be reduced and recalculated her compensation at a lower rate, awarding her less than the amount approved by the probate court. The circuit court left all other aspects of the probate court’s judgment undisturbed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and held that the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, erred by substituting its judgment for that of the probate court regarding the reasonableness of Bateman’s compensation. Because the record did not include a transcript or statement of the evidence from the probate court hearing, the circuit court was required to presume the probate court’s findings were correct. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bateman v. Lee" on Justia Law

Timothy Brian Johnson and Phillip Barnes, nephews of the deceased Samuel D. Johnson, appealed a judgment from the Lamar Circuit Court. The court declared that Alabama's antilapse statute, § 43-8-224, Ala. Code 1975, did not apply to Johnson's will, making Judith Mayers the sole beneficiary. Johnson's will, executed in October 1990, left his entire estate to his father, Coy D. Johnson. If Coy predeceased him, the estate would be divided equally among his siblings, Roger D. Johnson, Denny R. Johnson, Judith A. Mayers, and Janice M. Barnes. If none of these individuals survived him, the estate would pass to his nearest living heirs. At Johnson's death in July 2022, Mayers was the only surviving named beneficiary.The Lamar Probate Court admitted the will to probate and issued letters of administration to Mayers. The administration was then moved to the Lamar Circuit Court. Mayers petitioned the circuit court to declare that the antilapse statute did not apply, asserting she was the sole beneficiary. The circuit court agreed, finding the will unambiguous and ruling that the antilapse statute did not apply, making Mayers the sole beneficiary.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the antilapse statute, which prevents a devise from lapsing if a beneficiary predeceases the testator, did not apply because the will included survivorship language and an alternative devise provision. The will clearly indicated that only the named beneficiaries who survived the testator would inherit, and if none survived, the estate would pass to the nearest living heirs. Since Mayers was the only surviving named beneficiary, she was entitled to the entire estate. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Johnson v. Mayers" on Justia Law

Joy Goodwin Adams sued Tiffany Rudd Atkinson, Katherine M. Rudd, Goodwin Capital Partners, Ltd., and KATISAM, Inc., seeking reimbursement for attorneys' fees she paid to a third party. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed her suit with prejudice, leading Joy to appeal. The central issue was whether the terms "hold harmless" and "indemnify" are synonymous when used independently in a contract. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that they are synonymous.The case involves three trusts and two agreements. Joy's parents created two trusts in 1986 and 1987 for Joy and her daughters, Tiffany and Kate. Joy created a third trust in 1989. Joy executed a 2011 release-and-indemnification agreement with BB&T, a co-trustee, and a 2013 settlement agreement with the defendants after Tiffany and Kate sued her for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The 2013 agreement included a "hold harmless" provision requiring the defendants to protect Joy against claims for attorneys' fees by corporate trustees successfully defending against suits initiated by Tiffany and Kate.In prior litigation, Tiffany and Kate sued BB&T for negligence, and BB&T filed a third-party claim against Joy for attorneys' fees. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of BB&T on the negligence claim and denied Joy's motion on the indemnification claim. Joy settled BB&T's claim for $614,791.62 and then demanded reimbursement from the defendants, who refused.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo and concluded that "hold harmless" and "indemnify" are synonymous, meaning the defendants agreed to reimburse Joy for the attorneys' fees she paid to BB&T. The court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Adams v. Atkinson" on Justia Law

Nancy Walker executed a will in 2011, leaving personal property to her stepchildren and sister, Beatrice Land, and specific real property to Beatrice. In 2020, Nancy executed a new will and a deed, leaving the same property to her stepgranddaughter, Magen Grimes, and Magen's husband, Joseph Culpepper. Nancy died three weeks later. Beatrice contested the validity of the 2020 will and deed, claiming Nancy lacked testamentary capacity and was under undue influence.The Russell Circuit Court held a jury trial, which found the 2020 will and deed invalid. The court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict and denied post-judgment motions from the proponents of the 2020 will and deed. Beatrice's request for costs incurred in challenging the will was also denied.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It affirmed the circuit court's judgment invalidating the 2020 will, finding sufficient evidence that Nancy lacked testamentary capacity. However, it reversed the judgment invalidating the 2020 deed, citing jurisdictional limitations. The court also reversed the denial of Beatrice's request for costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the amount of costs and attorney fees, and who should pay them. View "Boykin v. Land" on Justia Law