205 So. 3d 1233
Ala.2014Background
- Child born in 2006 to B.O.S. and E.S.; grandparents O.S. and J.A.S. financially supported the family and had substantial contact with the child.
- In 2008 the Probate Court of Walker County entered a final decree of adoption awarding custody to the grandparents; parents had signed consent documents in an attorney’s office.
- In 2010 B.O.S. filed for divorce; grandparents intervened asserting they were the child’s adoptive parents and obtained pendente lite custody from the circuit court.
- E.S. filed a counterclaim/independent action in the circuit court seeking to set aside the 2008 probate adoption decree, alleging fraud on the probate court and arguing the adoption petition was unverified.
- The circuit court accepted jurisdiction, found fraud on the probate court, set aside the adoption decree, and restored custody to E.S.; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
- The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari solely to decide whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear E.S.’s independent action to set aside the probate adoption judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had jurisdiction to hear an independent action to set aside a probate-court adoption decree | E.S.: circuit court may exercise equitable jurisdiction under § 12-11-31 when no plain and adequate remedy exists elsewhere (fraud on the court; Rule 60 analogy) | O.S./J.A.S.: probate courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoptions under the Adoption Code; challenges must be brought in probate court | Held: Circuit court lacked jurisdiction; probate court is the proper and exclusive forum for adoption proceedings and collateral attacks per §§ 26-10A-3 and 26-10A-25(d) |
| Whether probate adoption decree could be collaterally attacked in circuit court as fraud on the court | E.S.: fraud on the probate court permits circuit-court equitable relief; also argued decree was void on its face (unverified petition) | O.S./J.A.S.: statutory scheme provides probate remedy for fraud; collateral attack after one year limited; circuit court cannot substitute its general equity jurisdiction | Held: Fraud challenges to adoption judgments belong in probate court; statutory remedy is a plain and adequate remedy that precludes circuit-court equitable jurisdiction |
| Whether earlier Court of Civil Appeals precedent (B.W.C. II and Holcomb) should be overruled | E.S./CCA: permitted circuit-court review in divorce context and treated the independent action as a Rule 60(b)-style claim | O.S./J.A.S.: rely on B.W.C. II and Holcomb to support exclusive probate jurisdiction | Held: Supreme Court rejects the Court of Civil Appeals overruling of B.W.C. II and Holcomb; those cases remain good law supporting probate jurisdiction |
| Whether a judgment void on its face may be attacked in circuit court | E.S.: circuit court can set aside facially void probate judgments | O.S./J.A.S.: statutory scheme governs; probate court is the proper forum | Held: Court notes E.S. relied on circuit court’s equitable jurisdiction for that argument; because the probate court has the plain and adequate statutory remedy, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear even a facial-voidness challenge in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte B.W.C., 590 So.2d 279 (Ala. 1991) (clarifies timing and procedural aspects for actions to set aside adoptions)
- B.W.C. v. A.N.M., 590 So.2d 282 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) (post-remand Court of Civil Appeals’ analysis regarding proper forum for setting aside adoption)
- Holcomb v. Bomar, 392 So.2d 1204 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981) (probate court is the proper place to challenge an adoption)
- Laney v. Dean, 100 So.2d 688 (Ala. 1958) (equity has authority to annul decrees obtained by fraud)
- Wanninger v. Lange, 108 So.2d 331 (Ala. 1959) (judgments rendered without authority impart no validity)