252 So. 3d 637
Ala.2017Background
- Decedent Alice Earle Harper (d. 2013) had two competing wills: a 1995 will (filed first in Monroe Probate Court by daughter Alice Taylor) and a 2007 will (filed by son William in Escambia Probate Court). The 2007 will purportedly revoked earlier wills.
- This Court in Taylor I reversed the Escambia Probate Court's admission of the 2007 will and held Monroe Probate Court — where the first proceeding was filed — had the exclusive right to proceed under Ala. Code § 43-8-21.
- After remand, William filed a contest to the 1995 will in Monroe, asserting the 2007 will revoked it; Alice sought transfer of that contest to Monroe Circuit Court and later filed both a petition to probate the 2007 will and a contest of the 2007 will in Monroe.
- Monroe Probate Court dismissed Alice’s petition to probate the 2007 will, her contest of that will, and her request to transfer the contest to circuit court, on grounds including improper venue, untimeliness, waiver, and that Alice had filed only a copy of the 2007 will (original remained in Escambia).
- Alice sought relief from the Supreme Court by mandamus; the Court treated the dismissal of the probate petition and contest as an appeal and treated the transfer issue as a mandamus question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Monroe Probate Court could proceed with the 2007 will matters despite original 2007 will being filed earlier in Escambia | Taylor: Monroe is proper forum because Monroe’s proceeding was first-commenced for this decedent under § 43-8-21 and all proceedings concerning the estate should be heard there | William: Venue for the 2007 will and related contest is Escambia because original 2007 will was filed there and Alice’s efforts are untimely/waived | Court: Reversed dismissal — § 43-8-21(b) requires Monroe (first-commenced) to continue to hear proceedings concerning the estate, including later-filed contests or probate petitions involving the same estate |
| Whether dismissal of Alice’s petition to probate the 2007 will and her contest was proper | Taylor: Dismissal improper; she may offer a copy and pursue contest/probate in Monroe; original can be produced later if needed | William: Alice offered only a copy; she waived rights by participating initially in Escambia; untimely because Escambia proceeding pending since Jan 2014 | Court: Dismissal reversed and remanded — copy is sufficient at this stage and dismissal was error; merits remain to be determined |
| Whether Alice was entitled to transfer her will contest to circuit court under § 43-8-198 | Taylor: She made the prima facie showing of interest required by § 43-8-198, so transfer was mandatory | William: Transfer improper because contest/transfer were untimely or procedurally defective (separate filings) | Court: Mandamus granted — probate court must transfer the contest to circuit court upon reinstatement because Alice met § 43-8-198 requirements |
| Effect of a later will’s revocation clause when that later will itself is contested | William: Because formal execution appears proper, the 2007 will (if formally valid) can revoke the 1995 will and resolve venue/administration issues | Taylor: A revocation clause depends on the later will’s validity; permitting an untested later will to automatically revoke an earlier will risks intestacy if the later will is later invalidated | Court: Validity of the later will cannot be compartmentalized — revocation depends on the later will’s validity; courts should avoid an approach that allows an untested subsequent will to operate to intestacy if it may later be invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Estate of Harper, 164 So.3d 542 (Ala. 2014) (first-commenced-proceeding rule under § 43-8-21; reversed Escambia probate court)
- Ex parte McLendon, 824 So.2d 700 (Ala. 2001) (probate court must transfer contest to circuit court upon prima facie showing under § 43-8-198)
- Cagle v. Reeves, 353 So.2d 787 (Ala. 1977) (consolidation of multiple will contests is appropriate to avoid duplicative proceedings)
- Hooper v. Huey, 300 So.2d 100 (Ala. 1974) (party may consolidate contests under procedural rules where common questions of law or fact exist)
- Grisby v. Andrews, 686 So.2d 303 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (revocation clause in subsequent will is ineffective if that subsequent will was product of undue influence)