Title: Hoff v. The Estate of Susan Bibb Kidd

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: May 27, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2021-2022 
 
_________________________ 
 
1210096 
_________________________ 
 
Susan Hoff 
  
v. 
 
The Estate of Susan Bibb Kidd, deceased 
 
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court 
(CV-20-191) 
_________________________ 
 
1210098 
_________________________ 
 
Eliot Hoff 
  
v. 
 
The Estate of Susan Bibb Kidd, deceased 
 
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court 
(CV-20-162) 
1210096 and 1210098 
2 
 
 
STEWART, Justice. 
 
 
Susan Hoff and Eliot Hoff separately appeal from orders entered by 
the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the circuit court") in two different, but 
related, actions. Because the circuit-court actions each arise from an 
attempt to remove the administration of the estate of Susan Bibb Kidd, 
deceased ("the estate"), from the Jefferson Probate Court ("the probate 
court") to the circuit court, this Court has consolidated the appeals for 
the purpose of issuing a single opinion.  
Facts and Procedural History 
Susan Hoff ("Susan") and Eliot Hoff ("Eliot") are mother and son 
and the purported beneficiaries under a will executed by Susan Bibb Kidd 
("Kidd"), the mother of Susan.1 The record indicates that the probate 
 
1Eliot and Susan are proceeding without counsel in these appeals 
and have previously been before our appellate courts in related 
proceedings: Ex parte Hoff (No. 1200684, Aug. 5, 2021) (Ala. 2021) 
(petition denied); Hoff v. Estate of Kidd (No. 1200255, Feb. 26, 2021) (Ala. 
2021) (appeal brought by Susan dismissed for having been taken from a 
nonfinal judgment and for failing to comply with Rule 2(a), Ala. R. App. 
P.); Ex parte Hoff (No. 1190218, Jan. 24, 2020) (Ala. 2020) (petition 
dismissed for failure to prosecute); Ex parte Hoff (No. 1140592, May 7, 
2015) (Ala. 2015) (petition denied); Hoff v. Goyer, 107 So. 3d 1085 (Ala. 
2012) (holding that Eliot had improperly attempted to remove a 
conservatorship proceeding involving Kidd pursuant to § 12-11-41, Ala. 
Code 1975, which applies to the estates of deceased persons, rather than 
1210096 and 1210098 
3 
 
proceedings related to the estate commenced in the probate court in 2011 
and that those proceedings have remained pending. 
On September 22, 2020, Eliot filed in the circuit court a "Verified 
Petition for Removal Pursuant to Ala. Code § 12-11-41," in which he 
asserted, among other things, that he was an heir of Kidd and that the 
estate could be better administered in the circuit court.2 Although Eliot's 
signature appears on his removal petition, the signature is not notarized 
or signed under oath. Instead, Eliot submitted with his removal petition 
the following signed, but unsworn, "Declaration":  
"I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State 
of Alabama that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I 
am physically located outside the geographic boundaries of 
the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
Islands, and any territory or insular possession subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States. 
 
"Executed on the 18th day of September, 2020 at Nassau, The 
Bahamas." 
 
 
pursuant to the appropriate statute, § 26-2-3, Ala. Code 1975); and Hoff 
v. Goyer, 160 So. 3d 768 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). 
 
2The circuit-court proceeding initiated by Eliot's petition was 
assigned case no. CV-20-162. 
1210096 and 1210098 
4 
 
Eliot attached to his removal petition a copy of Kidd's will and the case-
action summary for the probate-court proceedings.3 On October 28, 2020, 
Eliot filed a motion in which he asked the circuit court to issue a ruling 
or to set a hearing on his removal petition. The circuit court scheduled a 
hearing for March 3, 2021; however, Eliot filed a motion to continue, and 
the hearing was reset for July 7, 2021. That hearing was rescheduled at 
least two additional times because of the circuit court's scheduling 
conflicts. On October 19, 2021, after a hearing, the circuit court entered 
an order "denying" Eliot's removal petition, stating: "Upon consideration 
of the pleadings and arguments of the Pro Se Petitioner, the Court finds 
that this case can be better administered in the Probate Court."  
 
Meanwhile, on November 13, 2020, while Eliot's removal petition 
was pending in the circuit court, Susan filed in the circuit court a verified 
petition for removal that was sworn to under oath and notarized.4 On 
November 16, 2020, the circuit court entered an order granting Susan's 
 
3On October 9, 2020, Eliot electronically filed an another "Verified 
Petition for Removal" that contained the same "Declaration"; that filing 
appears to be identical to Eliot's first removal petition except that it was 
dated October 9, 2020. 
 
4The circuit-court proceeding initiated by Susan's petition was 
assigned case no. CV-2020-191. 
1210096 and 1210098 
5 
 
removal petition. Later that same day, however, the circuit court entered 
an order in which it vacated its previous order granting Susan's removal 
petition, directed Susan to serve notice of her removal petition to all 
interested parties, and indicated that it would set the matter for a 
hearing. On November 30, 2020, Susan filed a motion seeking to have the 
circuit court reconsider its order vacating the order of removal, asserting 
that she had a right to removal and that notice was not required. The 
circuit court scheduled a hearing, and, in response, Susan filed a motion 
asking the circuit court to comply with § 12-11-41, Ala. Code 1975, which 
addresses the removal of the administration of a decedent's estate from 
a probate court to a circuit court. On December 21, 2020, Susan filed a 
notice of appeal, challenging the order vacating the order of removal, to 
the Court of Civil Appeals, which transferred the appeal to this Court 
based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court dismissed her 
appeal on February 26, 2021, after Susan failed to respond to an order 
from this Court to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as 
having been taken from a nonfinal order and because of Susan's failure 
to comply with Rule 2(a), Ala. R. App. P. Hoff v. Estate of Kidd (No. 
1200255, Feb. 26, 2021) (Ala. 2021). 
1210096 and 1210098 
6 
 
 
On June 7, 2021, Susan filed a motion in the circuit court seeking 
an order removing the administration of the estate. The following day, 
the circuit court entered an order allowing Susan 30 days in which to 
comply with the circuit court's November 16, 2020, order requiring Susan 
to provide notice to interested parties. On September 1, 2021, the circuit 
court entered an order permitting Susan 14 days to comply with the 
November 16, 2020, order. Both orders warned Susan that 
noncompliance could result in dismissal of her removal petition. On 
October 18, 2021, the circuit court entered an order dismissing Susan's 
removal petition without prejudice, "[f]or failure to comply with th[e] 
Court's Orders of November 16, 2020, June 8, 2021 and September 1, 
2021."  
On October 21, 2021, Susan and Eliot each filed a notice of appeal 
to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals; that court transferred the appeals 
to this Court based on a lack of appellate jurisdiction. 
 
Discussion 
I. Eliot's Appeal (Appeal No. 1210098) 
1210096 and 1210098 
7 
 
Eliot appeals from the circuit court's order "denying" his removal 
petition. A request to remove the administration of a decedent's estate 
from the probate court to the circuit court is governed by § 12-11-41, Ala. 
Code 1975, which provides: 
"The administration of any estate may be removed from 
the probate court to the circuit court at any time before a final 
settlement thereof, by any heir, devisee, legatee, distributee, 
executor, administrator or administrator with the will 
annexed of any such estate, without assigning any special 
equity; and an order of removal must be made by the court, 
upon the filing of a sworn petition by any such heir, devisee, 
legatee, distributee, executor, administrator or administrator 
with the will annexed of any such estate, reciting that the 
petitioner is such heir, devisee, legatee, distributee, executor, 
administrator or administrator with the will annexed and 
that, in the opinion of the petitioner, such estate can be better 
administered in the circuit court than in the probate court." 
 
Initially, we note that there is no statutory provision authorizing a 
circuit court to "deny" a removal petition filed pursuant to § 12-11-41. A 
party seeking the removal of the administration of an estate must file in 
the circuit court a sworn petition demonstrating that (1) the party is an 
"heir, 
devisee, 
legatee, 
distributee, 
executor, 
administrator 
or 
administrator with the will annexed" and that (2) "in the opinion of the 
petitioner, such estate can be better administered in the circuit court 
than in the probate court." § 12-11-41. "Once a party seeking to remove 
1210096 and 1210098 
8 
 
the administration of an estate from the probate court to the circuit court 
has satisfied the pleading requirements of § 12-11-41, the circuit court 
must enter an order removing the administration of an estate from the 
probate court to the circuit court." Daniel v. Moye, 224 So. 3d 115, 128 
(Ala. 2016). The circuit court has no discretionary authority concerning 
the application of § 12-11-41 when a petitioner has complied with the 
statutory requirements.  
After the circuit court enters an order of removal in accordance with 
its statutory duty, the administration of an estate may thereafter be 
remanded to the probate court under circumstances provided in § 12-11-
41.1, Ala. Code 1975. See Ex parte McLendon, 824 So. 2d 700, 704 (Ala. 
2001) (explaining that a circuit court may retransfer the administration 
of an estate "upon a motion by the opponent of the transfer, and a finding 
by the circuit court that the party effecting removal lacked standing 
under the statute").  
Although the order Eliot appeals from is framed by the circuit court 
as "denying" Eliot's removal petition, under the circumstances that order 
was, essentially, equivalent to an order remanding the administration of 
the estate to the probate court. See Ex parte Kelly, 243 Ala. 184, 187, 8 
1210096 and 1210098 
9 
 
So. 2d 855, 857 (1942) ("The effect of the decree appealed from -- 
remanding the administration of the estate to the probate court -- put 
this branch of the case out of the circuit court, and was such final decree 
as will support the appeal."). 
Eliot, relying on Ex parte Terry, 957 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 2006), and Ex 
parte McLendon, 824 So. 2d 700 (Ala. 2001), argues that the circuit court 
was required to enter an order of removal when he made a prima facie 
showing that he was entitled to the removal of the administration of the 
estate under § 12-11-41. The estate argues that Eliot did not comply with 
the statutory requirements of § 12-11-41 because, it says, Eliot did not 
file a sworn petition and, thus, that the circuit court did not acquire 
subject-matter jurisdiction over the petition. Eliot contends in his reply 
brief that, under the Alabama Uniform Unsworn Foreign Declarations 
Act ("the unsworn-declarations act"), § 12-21-80 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, 
his removal petition, which was accompanied by a signed but unsworn 
declaration, constitutes a "sworn petition" in compliance with the 
requirements of § 12-11-41. The estate argues that the unsworn-
declarations act does not apply to "sworn petitions." 
1210096 and 1210098 
10 
 
Under § 12-21-83(a), Ala. Code 1975, an unsworn declaration will 
have the same effect as a sworn declaration if the unsworn declaration 
(1) is made "by a declarant who at the time of making the declaration is 
physically located outside the boundaries of the United States," § 12-21-
82, (2) is signed "under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of 
Alabama that the foregoing is true and correct," (3) states that the 
declarant is "physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the 
United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and any 
territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States," and (4) provides the date, time, and physical location of the 
execution. § 12-21-85, Ala. Code 1975. A "sworn declaration" is defined 
as "a declaration in a signed record given under oath" and "includes a 
sworn statement, verification, certificate, and affidavit." § 12-21-81(6), 
Ala. Code 1975. Section 12-21-83(b) provides a list of contexts in which 
the unsworn-declarations act is inapplicable, none of which are 
applicable here.  
Moreover, the Comment to § 12-21-83 explains that an unsworn 
declaration satisfying the requirements of the unsworn-declarations act 
may be used "in a state proceeding or transaction whenever other state 
1210096 and 1210098 
11 
 
law authorizes the use of a sworn declaration" or "if other state law[] 
permits the use of either sworn testimony or an affidavit." The Comment 
further explains that "[t]he use of unsworn declarations is not limited to 
litigation" and that they may be used in "civil, criminal and regulatory 
proceedings and settings." Accordingly, we determine that the unsworn-
declarations act is applicable to pleadings and petitions that are required 
to be sworn.  See, e.g., Bessenyei v. Vermillion, Inc. (C.A. No. 7572-VCN, 
Nov. 16, 2012) (Del. Ch. 2012) (memorandum opinion) (not published in 
Atlantic Reporter) (noting that Delaware's version of the Uniform 
Unsworn Foreign Declarations Act "provides an alternate avenue for 
plaintiffs physically located outside the boundaries of the United States 
to verify their complaints and pleadings under" Delaware's Chancery 
Court Rules), aff'd, 67 A.3d 1022 (Del. 2013); United States v. 8 Gilcrease 
Lane, Quincy, Florida 32351, 587 F. Supp. 2d 133, 138-39 (D.D.C. 2008) 
(holding that statement made in substantial compliance with similarly 
worded federal unsigned-declarations act, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, constituted 
proper "verification" as required to institute federal forfeiture action). 
Eliot's unsworn declaration stated that it was signed under penalty 
of perjury under the law of the State of Alabama and that he was 
1210096 and 1210098 
12 
 
physically located outside the United States, and it included the date on 
which and location where it was executed. Eliot's unsworn declaration 
substantially complies with the form provided in § 12-21-85, and, as a 
result, Eliot's unsworn declaration has the same effect as a sworn 
declaration. Therefore, Eliot's removal petition, accompanied by his 
declaration, constitutes a "sworn petition" as required by § 12-11-41.   
Because Eliot filed a sworn removal petition that included a 
statement regarding his standing to bring the removal petition as an heir 
of Kidd and a statement that, in his opinion, the estate would be better 
administered in the circuit court, Eliot's removal petition satisfied the 
requirements of § 12-11-41. Accordingly, the circuit court was required to 
enter an order of removal. See Daniel v. Moye, 224 So. 3d at 131 (holding 
that, because the pleading requirements of § 12-11-41 were satisfied, the 
circuit court erred in failing to enter an order removing the 
administration of an estate from the probate court to the circuit court); 
see also Ex parte Clayton, 514 So. 2d 1013, 1018 (Ala. 1987) ("Upon the 
timely filing of a sworn petition averring" that in the opinion of the 
petitioner the estate would be better administered in the circuit court, 
"the court, as a matter of law, must grant removal."). Therefore, the 
1210096 and 1210098 
13 
 
circuit court's October 19, 2021, order "denying" Eliot's removal petition 
is reversed, the cause is remanded, and the circuit court is instructed to 
enter an order removing the administration of the estate from the 
probate court to the circuit court.  
II. Susan's Appeal (Appeal No. 1210096) 
Turning to Susan's appeal, Susan argues, among other things, that 
the circuit court erred in imposing a "notice" requirement for her removal 
petition and that the October 18, 2021, order purporting to dismiss her 
petition, therefore, violated her right to due process. However, we do not 
reach Susan's arguments because our decision directing the circuit court 
to grant Eliot's removal petition effectively awards Susan the relief she 
seeks, i.e., the removal of the administration of the estate. See Ex parte 
Clayton, 514 So. 2d at 1017 ("When the administration of the estate is 
removed, all aspects of the administration must be removed."). 
Accordingly, the issues raised by Susan on appeal have been rendered 
moot and her appeal is, therefore, due to be dismissed.  See Case v. 
Alabama State Bar, 939 So. 2d 881, 884 (Ala. 2006) ("An action that 
originally was based upon a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained 
1210096 and 1210098 
14 
 
on appeal if the questions raised in it have become moot by subsequent 
acts or events."). 
Conclusion 
We reverse the circuit court's order "denying" Eliot's removal 
petition and remand the cause with instructions for the circuit court to 
enter an order removing the administration of the estate from the 
probate court. We dismiss Susan's appeal as moot. 
1210096 --  APPEAL DISMISSED. 
1210098 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 
 
Parker C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Sellers, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. 
 
Bolin and Wise, JJ., concur in the result.