Adams v. Cleveland
211 So. 3d 780
Ala.2016Background
- Decedent Clifford Wayne Cleveland died owning heavily encumbered assets; will named coexecutors Louis Colley and Raymond Adams; primary beneficiaries were Cleveland’s children (Chip and Celeste Minor).
- Colley resigned; Chip was appointed coexecutor by the trial court over Adams’s objection; trial court initially prohibited executors/beneficiaries from hiring outside attorneys/CPAs.
- Prolonged pretrial disputes: Adams sought production of estate and corporate records (including C & M Baling Systems, a NC company Adams coowned with decedent), sought to hire professionals, asked for sanctions, and moved for the trial judge’s recusal.
- This Court in Ex parte Adams (Adams I) found Adams likely had statutory right to sole administration but declined immediate mandamus because the trial court had not finally ruled on several contested orders.
- After Adams I, the trial court partly disposed of pending motions, ordered inspection of some records, denied recusal, and later entered a preliminary injunction (short form) enjoining sale of the estate’s 25% interest in River Plantation, LLC (RPL) pending determination of the estate’s solvency. Adams appealed the injunction and petitioned for mandamus on several matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production of estate/corporate records & right to hire professionals (mandamus) | Adams: clear right to access estate assets/records and to retain attorneys/CPAs to administer estate | Chip & Minor: trial court granted Adams access/inspection and the hiring issue is moot because Adams already retained professionals; some disputes resolved by court order | Mandamus denied as moot for production and hiring claims because trial court subsequently provided access and/or matters were moot |
| Sanctions against Chip & Minor (reimbursement of fees/costs) | Adams: Chip and Minor acted improperly in obtaining Chip’s appointment and should reimburse estate for attorneys’ fees; mandamus needed to preserve reimbursement before distribution | Chip & Minor: sanctions claim is meritless; regular appellate remedies exist | Denied: mandamus inappropriate because Adams has adequate remedy by appeal and did not show mandamus is warranted |
| Recusal of trial judge | Adams: judge’s pattern of delaying rulings and favorable treatment of Chip creates appearance of bias requiring recusal | Chip & Minor: recusal burden high; court’s June 2015 order disposed of many complaints and comments stem from judicial rulings, not extrajudicial sources | Denied: objective standard not met; judge’s remarks and delays, while troubling, did not show extrajudicial bias or a deep-seated antagonism making fair judgment impossible |
| Appeal of preliminary injunction enjoining sale of RPL interest | Adams: injunction violated executor’s powers under will and statutory duties; order fails Rule 65(d) (no reasons, not sufficiently specific) | Chip & Minor: injunction justified pending solvency determination; brief language is adequate to explain reasons | Reversed and remanded: injunction order facially deficient under Rule 65(d)(2) because it did not state reasons for issuance; reversal required regardless of underlying merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Adams, 168 So.3d 40 (Ala. 2014) (prior mandamus proceedings addressing coexecutor dispute)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial rulings generally insufficient basis for recusal absent extrajudicial source or deep-seated bias)
- Ex parte Novartis Pharm. Corp., 991 So.2d 1263 (Ala. 2008) (mandamus may be rendered moot by subsequent events)
- Ex parte Cotton, 638 So.2d 870 (Ala. 1994) (burden on party seeking recusal; objective standard)
- Stephens v. Colley, 160 So.3d 278 (Ala. 2014) (Rule 65(d)(2) requires reasons and specificity in injunction orders)
- Marathon Constr. & Demolition, LLC v. King Metal Recycling & Processing Corp., 129 So.3d 272 (Ala. 2013) (failure to comply with Rule 65 is dispositive)