Title: Meadows v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF ASHFORD

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

568 So. 2d 303 (1990)
Mary Pauline MEADOWS, individually and as administratrix of the Estate of Robert E. Meadows, deceased
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ASHFORD, ALABAMA.
89-787.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 31, 1990.
C.H. Espy, Jr., Dothan, for appellant.
James D. Farmer of Farmer & Farmer, Dothan, for appellee.
STEAGALL, Justice.
Mary Pauline Meadows appeals from a final judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Houston County in an estate administration proceeding.
Robert E. Meadows died intestate on March 2, 1977. He was survived by his spouse, Mary Pauline Meadows, and four children. Mrs. Meadows was appointed administratrix of the estate by the Probate Court of Houston County on May 2, 1977. During the following years, Mrs. Meadows handled collection of estate revenues and payment of estate expenses.
In December 1984, First National Bank of Ashford, Alabama, obtained a $60,861.57 judgment against Robert B. Meadows, one of the heirs of Robert E. Meadows. At that time, the estate remained undivided.
On November 17, 1986, pursuant to a petition for removal filed by First National Bank, the administration of the estate was removed from the Probate Court of Houston County to the Circuit Court of Houston County. On the same day, First National Bank filed a complaint against Mrs. Meadows, individually and as the administratrix of the estate of Robert E. Meadows, demanding an accounting by Mrs. Meadows of all income and expenditures relating to the estate from March 2, 1977; a judgment against Mrs. Meadows, individually and as administratrix of the estate, for any sums that the court should find Mrs. Meadows used for her own benefit to the detriment of the estate; and a lien against the interest of Robert B. Meadows in the estate, pursuant to First National Bank's judgment against Robert B. Meadows.
After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court, on August 21, 1989, entered an order making the following findings of fact:
On October 2, 1989, the trial court entered a final order setting forth the annual credits to the estate as income, together with the fees and expenses due the administratrix, arriving at a final balance held in the estate and holding that the judgment lien attached to the undivided ¼ interest of Robert B. Meadows. On October 31, 1989, Mrs. Meadows filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was denied.
In Humphries v. Whiteley, 565 So. 2d 96 (Ala. 1990), this Court stated:
565 So. 2d  at 101-02.
Mrs. Meadows's basic argument is that the trial court incorrectly resolved the accounting question. She also argues that under the law as it existed in 1977, Robert B. Meadows was entitled to only a 1/5 interest in the estate. However, upon review of the record before us, we find that the trial court's findings are supported by credible evidence. An examination of the facts surrounding the estate administration and the law applicable thereto shows that the conclusion of the trial court is not plainly and palpably wrong.
The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.