Jewel Campbell v. Ethel C. Taylor, 159 So. 3d 4

A.V. Campbell, Sr. died in 1977, leaving an estate to be administered; probate proceedings lingered until 2005 when removal to the Baldwin Circuit Court was sought under Ala.Code 1975, § 12-11-41.
In 2006 the circuit court issued a judgment distributing property per the will, including allocations to Ethel C. Taylor, Paula Buettner, Gladys A. Campbell, and others, which Jewel Campbell and others challenged on appeal.
Jewel Campbell appealed the 2006 judgment; this Court affirmed the circuit court without an opinion in 2007.
On June 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Rule 60(b) (4) complaint in the Baldwin Circuit Court seeking to set aside the 2006 judgment as void, asserting lack of notice and naming of all heirs as necessary parties.
The trial court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants; the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the prior appeal as nonfinal, and the matter continued in the trial court.
The trial court again granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motions; the appellate court ultimately affirmed, and the cross-appeal asserting voidness was dismissed as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2006 judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of jurisdiction	Heirs were necessary parties; lack of notice/joinder voids judgment	Circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction; lack of joinder does not render void; notice not required for removal	Not void; subject-matter jurisdiction existed and lack of joinder did not render void
Whether lack of personal jurisdiction over certain heirs renders the judgment void	Some heirs were not properly subject to the circuit court due to imperfect service	Personal-jurisdiction issues were waived or not shown; removal continued proceedings; notices and waivers occurred	Personal-jurisdiction issues not shown; waiver arguments prevail; judgment remains valid
Whether the cross-appeal is moot after affirmance	If the 2006 judgment were void, cross-appeal would be meaningful	Affirmance of the 2006 judgment renders the cross-appeal moot	Cross-appeal dismissed as moot

Allsopp v. Bolding, 86 So.3d 952 (Ala. 2011) (Rule 60(b)(4) relief requires a void judgment)
Ex parte Wilson Lumber Co., 410 So.2d 407 (Ala. 1982) (lack of personal jurisdiction can render a judgment void)
Ex parte Pate, 673 So.2d 427 (Ala. 1995) (due process concerns when personal jurisdiction is lacking)
Horizons 2000, Inc. v. Smith, 620 So.2d 606 (Ala. 1993) (notice and due process considerations in void judgments)
Jacobs v. Murphy, 245 Ala. 260, 16 So.2d 859 (Ala. 1944) (heirs at law are necessary parties in estate actions; not all must be joined for equity)
Irwin v. Irwin, 227 Ala. 140, 148 So. 846 (Ala. 1933) (proper parties are necessary to full relief in equity)
Irwin v. J.S. Reeves & Co., 222 Ala. 647, 133 So. 692 (Ala. 1931) (indispensable parties and full relief concept in equity)
Cook v. Castleberry, 173 So. 1 (Ala. 1937) (administrator as a necessary party in estate administration)
Adams v. Boyles, 610 So.2d 1156 (Ala. 1992) (nonjoinder decisions do not automatically dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Clayton v. Ex parte, 514 So.2d 1013 (Ala. 1987) (removal of estate administration does not require notice for all parties)