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.