Cottingham v. McKee

12 Citing cases

  1. Beasley v. M. Wells

    55 So. 3d 1179 (Ala. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Wells argues that the phrase "all of said objects of property" includes both the objects of personal use described in the first sentence in Item III(a) and "cash on hand or on deposit, stocks, bonds, notes, evidences of debts, other choses in action, intangibles and all other property held for investment," described in the second sentence in Item III(a). In Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169 (Ala. 2001), this Court summarized the principles of law applicable when a court is construing a will: "The Alabama Legislature has established that `[t]he intention of a testator as expressed in his will controls the legal effect of his dispositions.' § 43-8-222, Ala. Code 1975. `In Alabama the law is well settled that "the intention of the testator is always the polestar in the construction of wills, and that the cardinal rule is to give that intention effect if it is not prohibited by law.

  2. McRae v. Booth

    938 So. 2d 432 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    In McRae v. Booth. 938 So. 2d 432, 433 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006), the Court of Civil Appeals was presented with an argument regarding § 34-13-11.

    The daughter's appeal from the July 15, 2005, judgment was transferred to this court by the Alabama Supreme Court pursuant to §§ 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975. The Alabama Supreme Court, in Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169 (Ala. 2001), noted that "Alabama courts have not addressed the question of who has the right of possession of a dead body for the purpose of preservation and burial" and that "Alabama does not have a statute addressing the custody of the remains of deceased persons." 821 So.2d at 171.

  3. Bethel v. Franklin

    381 So. 3d 1121 (Ala. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, in McRae, the Court of Civil Appeals correctly stated that " ‘Alabama does not have a statute addressing the custody of the remains of deceased persons.’ " McRae, 938 So. 2d at 433 (quoting Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So. 2d 169, 171 (Ala. 2001) (emphasis added)) Following the 2011 amendment to the statute, that is no longer the case.

  4. Shirley v. Dawkins

    No. 1200706 (Ala. Jun. 24, 2022)

    ' "Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169, 171-72 (Ala. 2001).

  5. Norwood v. Barclay

    298 So. 3d 1051 (Ala. 2019)   Cited 1 times
    In Norwood v. Barclay, 298 So.3d 1051 (Ala. 2019), this Court addressed the issue whether the antilapse statute applied in that case.

    Born v. Clark, 662 So. 2d 669, 671 (Ala. 1995)."Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So. 2d 169, 171–72 (Ala. 2001).The antilapse statute, which is a rule of construction, provides, in part:

  6. Cleveland v. Adams (Ex parte Adams)

    168 So. 3d 40 (Ala. 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that an executor named in a will is not “subject to the nonresident restriction set forth in § 43–2–22”

    ’ ”Beasley v. Wells, 55 So.3d 1179, 1184–85 (Ala.2010) (quoting Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169, 171–72 (Ala.2001) ). Neither side argues that Cleveland's will is ambiguous, and none of the provisions of that will indicates that Cleveland's reason for nominating Colley as coexecutor was to ensure that a local attorney would assist with the management of his estate.

  7. Pirtle v. Tucker

    960 So. 2d 620 (Ala. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that evidence showing that the testator was dependent upon the favored beneficiary for transportation and meals, that the favored beneficiary helped the testator pay his bills, and that the favored beneficiary accompanied the testator into doctors' examination rooms and cared for him following hospitalization was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether favored beneficiary had a dominant and controlling influence over testator

    Moreover, the rules stated in Thurlow, Kershaw, and deGraaf relate to the construction and interpretation of a will, not its validity. See Thurlow and deGraaf, supra; Parker v. Bozian, 859 So.2d 427, 434-35 (Ala. 2003); Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169, 171-72 (Ala. 2001). Because Pirtle and Prchal challenge the validity of the will, their reliance on such a rule is misplaced. Furthermore, we cannot find any case invalidating a will solely in the face of evidence indicating that a testator's intent conflicts with the provisions of a will.

  8. Jones v. Kennedy

    890 So. 2d 975 (Ala. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Furthermore, Rule 56, Ala.R.Civ.P., must be read in conjunction with the "substantial evidence rule," § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975. "In order to defeat a defendant's properly supported motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must present substantial evidence, i.e., `evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.'" Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169, 171 (Ala. 2001) (quoting West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)). Our review is further subject to the caveat that this Court must review the record in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and must resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant.

  9. Parker v. Bozian

    859 So. 2d 427 (Ala. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    We begin our analysis of this appeal by stating some elementary principles of law applicable to the construction of wills. In Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So.2d 169, 171-72 (Ala. 2001), this Court summarized the law as follows: "The Alabama Legislature has established that '[t]he intention of a testator as expressed in his will controls the legal effect of his dispositions.' § 43-8-222, Ala. Code 1975. `In Alabama the law is well settled that "the intention of the testator is always the polestar in the construction of wills, and that the cardinal rule is to give that intention effect if it is not prohibited by law.

  10. Pomeroy v. Mac Strickland

    No. 2170524 (Ala. Civ. App. Jul. 27, 2018)

    NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.; Ala. Code 1975, § 35-6-20; Newson v. Protective Indus. Ins. Co. of Alabama, 890 So. 2d 81, 84 (Ala. 2003); Donoghue v. American Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 838 So. 2d 1032, 1035 (Ala. 2002); Cottingham v. McKee, 821 So. 2d 169, 171-72 (Ala. 2001); Lavender v. Ball, 267 Ala. 104, 107, 100 So. 2d 331, 333 (1958); Compton v. Cook, 259 Ala. 256, 259, 66 So. 2d 176, 178 (1953); Hunter v. Lynn, 256 Ala. 501, 507, 55 So. 2d 849, 853 (1951); Bond v. Estate of Pylant, 63 So. 3d 638, 647 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010); and Wilson v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Georgia, 716 So. 2d 722, 727 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998). Thompson, P.J., and Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.