164 So. 3d 542
Ala.2014Background
- Decedent Alice Earle F. Harper died March 1, 2013, domiciled in Monroe County; she owned property in Escambia County as well.
- Two wills were submitted for probate: a 1995 will (filed by daughter Alice in Monroe County on Nov. 12, 2013) and a 2007 will (filed by son William in Escambia County on Jan. 8, 2014).
- Alice challenged the 2007 will (mental capacity, reciprocal spousal will, etc.) and sought probate of the 1995 will; William sought probate of the 2007 will and argued it revoked prior wills and allowed probate in a county designated by the personal representative.
- Monroe Probate Court set a hearing, recused its judge, and a special judge was later appointed by the Alabama Supreme Court; Escambia Probate Court admitted the 2007 will on Feb. 19, 2014, and issued letters testamentary to William.
- Alice appealed the Escambia admission and the Monroe dismissal under § 12-22-21 after Monroe granted William’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Alabama Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and addressed venue among competing probate filings and the effect of § 43-8-21 when multiple probate proceedings are initiated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alice) | Defendant's Argument (William) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which probate court has venue when multiple courts are proper under § 43-8-162? | Monroe is proper because decedent was domiciled there and Alice filed there first. | Escambia is proper because the 2007 will designated a county where decedent owned property and William filed there. | Venue belongs to Monroe; the court where the proceeding was first commenced has exclusive right under § 43-8-21. Escambia’s probate of the 2007 will reversed. |
| Does filing a petition to probate constitute "commencing" a probate proceeding under § 43-8-21? | Yes — filing a petition commences the probate proceeding for venue purposes. | Relied on authority that administration does not begin on mere filing; argued Escambia acted first. | Filing a petition to probate is "commencing" a probate proceeding for venue under § 43-8-21; the DuBose line of cases distinguishing initiation of "administration" was explained as not controlling venue between probate courts. |
| Was the Monroe court correct to dismiss Alice’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because Escambia already admitted the later will? | Monroe filed first; it retained exclusive right to proceed and should decide validity. | The 2007 will (and letters issued) gave Escambia control; Monroe lacked authority. | Monroe erred in dismissing; it has exclusive right to proceed and must decide the merits of the 1995 will. |
| Did Escambia properly admit the 2007 will and appoint William while Monroe’s proceeding was pending? | Admission in Escambia was premature because Monroe’s earlier-filed petition gives that court exclusive jurisdiction to proceed. | Admission was valid because Escambia had a statutory venue (designated county and property) and acted before Monroe. | Escambia’s admission and letters are reversed and must be set aside; Escambia must hold its petition in abeyance per § 43-8-21(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 507 So.2d 466 (Ala. 1987) (probate court's jurisdiction is statutory and limited to matters the statute submits to it)
- Ambrose v. Vandeford, 167 So.2d 149 (Ala. 1964) (equates "inhabitant" with "domiciliary" for venue analysis)
- DuBose v. Weaver, 68 So.3d 814 (Ala. 2011) (distinguishes commencement of probate filing from commencement of "administration" that would enable removal to circuit court)
- Ex parte Smith, 619 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1993) (administration of an estate begins only when the probate court acts on a petition and issues letters)