Opinion
1210262
09-30-2022
EX PARTE ESTATE OF Terry W. SUTHERLAND (In re: The Matter of the Estate of Elizabeth Sutherland) and (In re: Estate of Terry W. Sutherland v. Angela Long and Gary L. Sutherland)
William H. Weems, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner. J‘effery A. Mobley of Lowe Mobley Lowe & LeDuke, Haleyville; and Matthew LeDuke of Lowe, Mobley, Lowe & LeDuke, Hamilton, for respondents.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Winston Circuit Court, CV-16-11 and CV-21-16); Talmage Lee Carter, Judge
William H. Weems, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner.
J‘effery A. Mobley of Lowe Mobley Lowe & LeDuke, Haleyville; and Matthew LeDuke of Lowe, Mobley, Lowe & LeDuke, Hamilton, for respondents.
SELLERS, Justice.
PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION.
Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Mitchell, J., concurs specially, with opinion, which Parker, C.J., joins.
MITCHELL, Justice (concurring specially).
The will contest underlying this petition has been going on for almost five years See Weems v. Long, 337 So. 3d 286, 287 (Ala. 2021). Part of the delay in reaching a resolution is attributable to the Winston Probate Court purporting to exercise jurisdiction over the case for two years after, the case should have been transferred to the Winston Circuit Court. Id. at 289.
Now the will contest is properly before the circuit court, and the contesting parties have asserted additional claims seeking to vacate several deeds executed by Elizabeth Sutherland before she died. This petition for the writ of mandamus argues that those claims should be dismissed on statute-of-limitations or "lack of standing" grounds. I agree with the majority that the petitioner has failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief it seeks and that its petition must be denied.
I write separately to note this Court’s opinion in Jean v. Jean, 32 So. 3d 1274, 1276 (Ala. 2009), which addresses the limits of a circuit court’s jurisdiction in will contests transferred from the probate court and explains that those limits must be strictly followed. As was seen in Weems, a judgment entered by a court without jurisdiction is void and subject to vacatur on appeal. Id. at 289. I encourage the parties to carefully consider Jean and the limits of the circuit court’s jurisdiction here -- so hopefully we can avoid a repeat of the scenario in Weems where much time and effort was, needlessly expended on an issue that was beyond the jurisdiction of the court purporting to rule on it.
Parker, C.J., concurs.