Case Title: Debra S. Jean v. Derek P. Jean and the estate of George T. Jean

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1080989

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 09/18/2009
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)
229-0649), 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
 SPECIAL TERM, 2009
_________________________
1080989
_________________________
Debra S. Jean
v.
Derek P. Jean and the estate of George T. Jean 
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-07-716)
LYONS, Justice.
Debra S. Jean appeals from a summary judgment entered in
favor of Derek P. Jean and the estate of George T. Jean on
Debra's claims alleging breach of contract and negligence.  We
dismiss the appeal.
Procedural History
George T. Jean was father to three adult children: Debra,
Derek, and Sheryl.  In December 2006, George revised his will
1080989
The pleadings filed in the probate court are not included
1
in the record on appeal. 
Because this contest was filed before probate of the
2
will, no letters testamentary had been issued to the executor
named in the will.  Nor does the record reflect the
appointment of an administrator ad litem to represent the
estate in the amended contest asserting Debra's claims adverse
to the estate.  See Ala. Code 1975, § 43-2-250 ("When, in any
proceeding in any court, the estate of a deceased person must
be represented, and there is no executor or administrator of
such estate, or he is interested adversely thereto, it shall
be the duty of the court to appoint an administrator ad litem
of such estate for the particular proceeding, without bond,
whenever the facts rendering such appointment necessary shall
2
and executed separate deeds conveying certain real property to
Derek.  George died in January 2007; his will was filed with
the Montgomery Probate Court on March 9, 2007.  In April 2007,
Debra filed a contest of the will pursuant to § 43-8-190, Ala.
Code 1975.   She asserted that George lacked capacity to make
1
the will and that the will was the product of undue influence
or fraud.  The contest was transferred to the Montgomery
Circuit Court pursuant to § 43-8-198, Ala. Code 1975.
In December 2007, Debra amended her contest to request a
judgment declaring that the December 2006 inter vivos
conveyances from George to Derek were void.  Debra asserted
that George lacked capacity to make the conveyances and that
they were the product of undue influence or fraud.  On March
19, 2008, Debra amended her contest again to assert claims of
breach of contract and negligence against "the estate"  and
2
1080989
appear in the record of such case or shall be made known to
the court by the affidavit of any person interested
therein.").
The 
record 
does 
not 
reflect 
the 
naming 
of 
an
3
administrator ad colligendum to pursue claims on behalf of the
estate before the issuance of letters testamentary.  See Ala.
Code 1975, § 43-2-47(a) ("The judge of probate may, in any
contest respecting the validity of a will, or for the purpose
of collecting the goods of a deceased, or in any other case in
which it is necessary, appoint a special administrator,
3
Derek.  Debra alleged that, during his lifetime, George had
hired Derek to renovate part of her house in exchange for the
transfer of certain real property, "monies, and other
chattel."  Debra alleged that she was a third-party
beneficiary of the contract between George and Derek and that
Derek had breached the contract by failing to complete the
work, thus leaving her house in an incomplete and unsafe
condition.  Debra also alleged that Derek and George owed a
duty "to perform ... in a workmanlike manner once they
undertook such an endeavor," that they failed to do so, and
that, as a result, she suffered actual damage and emotional
distress.
Derek and the estate answered and subsequently moved for
a summary judgment on the breach-of-contract and negligence
claims.  Debra responded to the motion.  Ultimately, Debra
stated additional claims against Derek and against her sister,
Sheryl; Derek and the estate  filed counterclaims seeking to
3
1080989
authorizing the collection and preservation by him of the
goods of the deceased until letters testamentary or of
administration have been duly issued.").
 
4
recover money George had loaned Debra.  No party objected to
the amended claims and counterclaims as being beyond the
limited jurisdiction of a court hearing a will contest. 
On April 15, 2009, the trial court entered a summary
judgment in favor of Derek and the estate as to the breach-of-
contract and negligence claims described above.  The trial
court concluded that the breach-of-contract claim was barred
by the Statute of Frauds and that the negligence claim was
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  The trial
court reserved ruling on several other claims but certified
its April 15, 2009, order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P.  Debra appealed.
Analysis
This Court has stated: "[A] circuit court's lack of
jurisdiction over a will contest can be raised at any time."
Kaller v. Rigdon, 480 So. 2d 536, 539 (Ala. 1985). "The
jurisdiction of both the probate court and the circuit court
over will contests is statutory and limited. ... The only
1080989
5
jurisdiction a court can take over such cases is that granted
by statute." Kaller, 480 So. 2d at 539. Furthermore,
"[b]ecause 
will 
contest 
jurisdiction 
is 
statutorily 
conferred,
the procedural requirements of the applicable statute must be
complied with exactly."  Kaller, 480 So. 2d at 538.  See also
Newman v. Savas, 878 So. 2d 1147, 1149 (Ala. 2003). 
Debra initiated this proceeding as a will contest in the
Montgomery Probate Court, seeking to prevent the issuance of
letters testamentary to the executor named in the will; the
contest was transferred to the Montgomery Circuit Court
pursuant to § 43-8-198, Ala. Code 1975.  That section
provides, in pertinent part: "The issues must be made up in
the circuit court as if the trial were to be had in the
probate court."  In describing the issues permissible in the
probate court in an action regarding the contest of a will,
§ 43-8-190, Ala. Code 1975, provides that the person bringing
the contest may do so 
"by filing in the court where it is offered for
probate allegations in writing that the will was not
duly executed, or of the unsoundness of mind of the
testator, or of any other valid objections thereto;
and thereupon an issue must be made up, under the
direction of the court ...."
Regarding § 43-1-78, Ala. Code 1975, the predecessor to
§ 43-8-198, this Court in Bardin v. Jones, 371 So. 2d 23, 25
(Ala. 1979), considered whether "a Rule 15, [Ala. R. Civ. P.,]
1080989
6
amendment or similar addition to the pleadings is permissible
in the circuit court."  In explaining that such pleadings were
permissible in limited circumstances, this Court explained:
"'The jurisdiction and authority of
the circuit court is limited to the trial
of the issues presented by the contest
after which the case must be certified back
to the probate court.'
"[Thigpen v. Walker, 251 Ala. 426, 429, 37 So. 2d
923, 926 (1948).]
"From the above-cited authorities it is clear
that the probate court prior to transfer could allow
additional 
issues 
to 
be 
presented 
to 
it 
in
accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, so
long as those issues could properly be raised in a
will contest. ... In short we now hold that the
circuit court following transfer of a will contest
to it under § 43-1-78 [now § 43-8-198] can consider
any issues presented in an appropriate pleading
under the Rules of Civil Procedure, provided those
issues can properly be raised in a will contest."
371 So. 2d at 26 (emphasis added).
Debra's claim for a judgment declaring the inter vivos
deeds from George to Derek void and her claims  against Derek
and the estate seeking  damages for breach of contract and
negligence are not claims that could be asserted in a contest
of George's will, where the issues are limited to the
unsoundness of his mind in making the will or any other valid
objection to the will.  See § 43-8-190.  Based on the limited
jurisdiction of the probate court in actions involving the
contest of a will, see § 43-8-190, and the corresponding
1080989
7
restriction in § 43-8-198 that the "issues must be made up in
the circuit court as if the trial were to be had in the
probate court," we sua sponte conclude that the trial court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider those claims.
Any action taken by a trial court without subject-matter
jurisdiction is void.  State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow
Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1029 (Ala. 1999).  Accordingly, the
summary judgment for Derek and the estate on the breach-of-
contract and negligence claims was void.  Because "a void
order or judgment will not support an appeal," Gallagher
Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Phillips, 991 So. 2d 697, 701 (Ala.
2008), we dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Cobb, C.J., and Stuart, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.