Case Title: University of Alabama Hospital and University of Alabama Health Services Foundation v. Megan Huseman, as personal representative of the Estate of Thomas J. Huseman, deceased (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: CV-22-336).

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC-2023-0581, SC-2023-0755, SC-2023-0879, SC-2024-0236

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: May 17, 2024 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2023-0581 
_________________________ 
 
University of Alabama Hospital and University of Alabama 
Health Services Foundation  
 
v.  
 
Megan Huseman, as personal representative of the Estate of 
Thomas J. Huseman, deceased 
 
 
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court 
(CV-22-336) 
 
WISE, Justice. 
 
 
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. 
 
 
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P. 
 
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. 
SC-2023-0581 
2 
 
Sellers, J., dissents, with opinion.  
Mendheim, J., dissents.  
Cook, J., recuses himself. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SC-2023-0581 
3 
 
SELLERS, Justice (dissenting). 
I respectfully dissent. This appeal concerns two verified statements 
of claim filed in the Shelby Probate Court ("the probate court") against 
the estate of Thomas J. Huseman, deceased ("the estate"). On June 13, 
2022, the University of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham ("the hospital") 
filed a verified statement of claim against the estate in the amount of 
$244,763.65, referencing a specific account number relating to the 
decedent. On that same day, the University of Alabama Health Services 
Foundation ("the foundation") filed a verified statement of claim against 
the estate in the amount of $42,677.85, referencing another specific 
account number relating to the decedent. Megan Huseman, the personal 
representative of the estate, filed a document entitled "Dispute of 
Claims," arguing that they should be rejected because, she said, they 
were "devoid of any explanation for the goods or services allegedly 
provided, the dates of such sales/services, any agreement by the decedent 
to pay the amounts stated, or quite literally ANY information upon which 
the [personal representative] can determine their nature and validity." 
(Capitalization in original.) The administration of the estate was 
thereafter removed from the probate court to the Shelby Circuit Court. 
SC-2023-0581 
4 
 
The hospital and the foundation filed a response to the "Dispute of 
Claims," arguing that the claims were clearly filed by medical providers, 
that each claim was verified and for a definite amount, and that each 
claim included the decedent's account number. Following a hearing, the 
circuit court entered an order denying the claims without stating its 
rationale; this Court affirms that order, without an opinion.  I believe 
that the record before us adequately establishes that the claims were 
sufficiently stated.  I am also concerned that the circuit court's order 
summarily denying the claims without providing a legal or factual basis 
for doing so violates the claimants' due-process rights.  
 Section 43-2-352, Ala. Code 1975, the statute of nonclaims, has 
very limited requirements; it states, in relevant part: 
"Every such claim or statement thereof so presented must be 
verified by the oath of the claimant or some person having 
knowledge or the correctness thereof, and that the amount 
claimed is justly due, or to become due, after allowing all 
proper credits. Any defect or insufficiency in the affidavit may 
be supplied by amendment at any time. All claims not 
presented within six months from the granting of letters 
testamentary … shall be forever barred."  
 
"The purpose of the statute of non-claims is to give notice to the 
personal representative of the nature, character and amount of the claim 
and to distinguish it from other claims so that it may be investigated and 
SC-2023-0581 
5 
 
the question of liability determined." First Nat'l Bank of Birmingham v. 
Chichester, 352 So. 2d 1371, 1373-74 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977). A verified 
statement of claim need not conform to technical rules of pleading and 
need not be in any particular form. See Merchants Nat'l Bank of Mobile 
v. Cotnam, 250 Ala. 316, 34 So. 2d 122 (1948) (noting that a verified claim 
or verified statement thereof is not required to be as specific as formal 
pleadings). It is clear that the verified statements of claim filed by the 
hospital and the foundation evidence medical debts. The statements 
include the name, address, and telephone number of the hospital and the 
foundation, respectively. Each statement also includes the decedent's 
account number affiliated with the debt. Finally, there were no similar 
claims against the estate pending. In fact, the only other claim filed 
against the estate was from a credit-card company. Notably, the death 
certificate filed by the personal representative in the probate court listed 
the decedent's immediate cause of death as "Acute Myeloblastic 
Leukemia," which appears to confirm that the decedent was a patient of 
both the hospital and the foundation. As the hospital and the foundation 
point out, the personal representative is the daughter of the decedent and 
was living with him at the time of his death. To claim that she had no 
SC-2023-0581 
6 
 
knowledge regarding the basis of the two medical claims is, thus, 
questionable. Although the personal representative may dispute the 
amounts of the claims, she cannot dispute that medical services were 
provided to the decedent for which compensation would be due. This case 
is more akin to a debtor-creditor case, in which the total amount of the 
debt may be disputed, but the existence of the debt cannot be. Because 
the verified statements of claim contain all the facts necessary to make a 
prima facie showing that the estate is lawfully indebted to both the 
hospital and the foundation, I would reverse the trial court's order 
denying their claims.